Do writing motivational beliefs predict middle school students' writing performance?

Abstract

Individual differences in motivational beliefs, such as writing efficacy and attitudes toward writing in different contexts (academic, recreational, print or digital), are hypothesised to account for variability in writing performance. This study tested this proposition with 185 middle school students (58% were male), examining if writing self‐efficacy and attitudes toward writing made a statistically significant and unique contribution to predicting performance on a norm‐referenced writing measure, after variance related to gender, free/reduced lunch status, student's first language, disability status, reading self‐efficacy and attitudes toward reading were first controlled. Collectively, writing attitudes and self‐efficacy accounted for statistically significant and unique variance in writing scores after the other variables were controlled, providing support for the theoretical proposition that writing motivational beliefs are important ingredients in middle school students' writing.

Engagement and literacy: reading between the lines

“…What was most striking to me in my review of these thought‐provoking articles was the wholly positive view of literacy engagement and of engaged readers and writers being conveyed. Whether the authors were describing engagement at the level of student (Graham, Daley, Aitken, Harris, & Robinson, ), classroom (Rosenzweig, ), schools (Kennedy, ) or the nation (Ho & Lau, ), such a consistently positive portrayal is nothing short of ideal. Specifically, engaged readers and writers were described as strategic, motivated, socially active and knowledgeable (Graham et al, ; Ng & Graham, this issue).…”

“…Whether the authors were describing engagement at the level of student (Graham, Daley, Aitken, Harris, & Robinson, ), classroom (Rosenzweig, ), schools (Kennedy, ) or the nation (Ho & Lau, ), such a consistently positive portrayal is nothing short of ideal. Specifically, engaged readers and writers were described as strategic, motivated, socially active and knowledgeable (Graham et al, ; Ng & Graham, this issue). They are also cast as self‐efficacious, better readers and writers, persistent, effortful and self‐regulatory (Rosenzweig et al, ).…”

“…If the picture these articles paint of engaged readers and writers is truly uplifting, then a far less encouraging portrayal emerges for those who do not merit that label. Those who are considered ‘disadvantaged’, either due to identified literacy or learning problems (Graham et al, ) or as a consequence of the socioeconomic conditions in which they reside (Kennedy, ), or simply due to their cultural‐ethnic backgrounds, which are ill‐matched to the instructional contexts in which they are situated (Ng, ), are to some degree the antithesis of the engaged reader or writer. That is, these academically or economically in‐need students have been characterised as relatively non‐strategic and unmotivated, as well as less self‐efficacious self‐regulatory, and effortful in their performance.…”

“…While there is no claim that these attributes can be erased by enhancing students' engagement, it is the underlying assumption of this Special Issue that these disadvantaging conditions can be offset, at least in part, with greater focus on the enabling factors the authors have identified. For example, increased attention to these students' motivations for reading and writing, more attention to their interests within the literacy curriculum (Graham et al, ), a personally meaningful reason for them to read and write (Bräten et al, ), an instructional program that recognises their sociocultural backgrounds and opportunities for frequent interactions with peers that involve reading and writing (Ng, ), can help to counter the unwanted consequences associated with academic or economic disadvantages.…”

“…What I am questioning here is whether the singular term, literacy engagement, fits all iterations that can emerge over students' academic maturation, or if there are developmental distinctions and varied instructional responses that need to be made in the conceptualisation and operationalisation of literacy engagement. As Graham et al () suggested, there may be something akin to a developmental model that exists for literacy engagement, as he and colleagues (Graham, Gillespie, & McKeown, ) have described for writing competence. If that is so, then one size (or definition) may not fit all the iterations of literacy engagement that manifest at any time or over time.…”