Writing Motivation of College Students in Basic Writing and First-Year Composition Classes: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Scales on Goals, Self-Efficacy, Beliefs, and Affect

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to validate a writing motivation questionnaire that consists of four scales for first-year college writers including students with low writing skills in basic writing classes and students in typical first-year composition (FYC), to investigate differences between these two groups and to examine the relationship of motivational constructs with writing quality. Participants were 371 college students (142 in basic writing classes and 229 in FYC). Students completed a 49-item motivation questionnaire with scales for goal-orientation, self-efficacy, beliefs, and affect about writing and wrote an argumentative essay. Confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence for the structural construct validity of all scales for both groups. Statistically significant differences between basic writers and FYC students were found on self-efficacy for grammar and strategies and on beliefs about the importance of substance and mechanics. Structural equation modeling found statistically significant positive relationships of essay quality with all three self-efficacy scales and belief about the importance of substance to good writing, as well as negative relationships with avoidance goal orientation and belief in the importance of mechanics. Limitations and implications for motivation and instruction of basic writing students and of adults with learning disabilities are discussed.

Strategy instruction with self-regulation in college developmental writing courses: Results from a randomized experiment.

“…At pretest and posttest, students completed a motivation questionnaire tapping self-efficacy, goal orientation, beliefs, and affect (MacArthur, Philippakos, & Graham et al, 2016; Traga Philippakos et al, in press). The self-efficacy scale included 22 items in three factors: writing tasks and processes (e.g., I can start an essay with an interesting introduction), self-regulation (e.g., I can plan time to get my writing done by the deadline), and grammar (e.g., I can write a paper using correct grammar).…”

“…Prior research demonstrated adequate construct validity and internal consistency with Cronbach alphas for factors ranging from .66 to .93. Only “beliefs about grammar” was below .70 (Traga Philippakos et al, in press). Internal consistencies for data in the current study ranged from .73–.96 except for “beliefs about grammar” at α = .64.…”

“…Performance-avoidance goals refer to efforts to avoid unfavorable judgments, efforts which can limit engagement in learning as students seek to hide their weaknesses. Research in writing has found positive correlations of writing quality with mastery goals and negative correlations with performance-avoidance (Kauffman et al, 2010; MacArthur et al, 2015; Traga Philippakos et al, in press).…”

The challenges of writing from sources in college developmental courses: Self-regulated strategy instruction.

“…In writing, research has generally found that self-efficacy predicts writing performance even after controlling for prior performance (Bruning & Kauffman, 2016; Pajares & Valiante, 2006). Some studies have found separate factors for self-efficacy for content/organization and conventions (Bruning & Kauffman, 2016), and two studies have found those two factors plus self-efficacy for self-regulation (Bruning et al, 2013; Traga Philippakos et al, 2023).…”

“…Research results regarding performance-approach goals have been mixed, which may depend on whether the measure emphasizes the appearance of competence or outperforming peers (Senko et al, 2011; Senko & Dawson, 2017); the present study is framed within the original trichotomous framework. Research in writing has found positive correlations of writing quality with mastery goals and negative correlations with performance-avoidance goals (Kauffman et al, 2010; MacArthur et al, 2016; Traga Philippakos et al, 2023). Performance-avoidance goals can lead students to limit engagement with tasks to hide weaknesses.…”