View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

brought to you by

CORE

provided by The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Archived version from NCDOCKS Institutional Repository http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/

Motivation Research in Writing:
Theoretical and Empirical Considerations
Authors
Gary A. Troia, Rebecca K. Shankland, Kimberly A. Wolbers

Abstract
This article reviews research on motivation in the academic domain of writing situatedwithin a social cognitive perspective. First we summarize major findings related to 4
theorized components of human motivation—self-efficacy beliefs or perceived
competence, mastery and performance goal orientations, task interest and value, andattributions for success and failure. For each component we also offer general instructional
recommendations gleaned from the literature. Next we discuss how these components
play a role in writing motivation, with particular emphasis on self-efficacy for writing
skills versus writing tasks. Then we present findings from studies that have examined the
motivational characteristics of individuals who struggle with writing, including those withdisabilities, and interventions designed to enhance motivation to write. Finally, we offer
suggestions for future research in writing motivation.

Gary A. Troia, Rebecca K. Shankland, Kimberly A. Wolbers (2012) "Motivation Research in Writing:
Theoretical and Empirical Considerations" Reading & Writing Quarterly 28:1 pp 5-28 Version ofrecord available @ (DOI: 10.1080/10573569.2012.632729)

Motivation Research in Writing: Theoreticaland Empirical ConsiderationsGARY A. TROIAREBECCA K. SHANKLAND
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

KIMBERLY A. WOLBERS
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

This article reviews research on motivation in the academic domainof writing situated within a social cognitive perspective. First we
summarize major findings related to 4 theorized components ofhuman motivation—self-efficacy beliefs or perceived competence,
mastery and performance goal orientations, task interest and value,
and attributions for success and failure. For each component wealso offer general instructional recommendations gleaned fromthe literature. Next we discuss how these components play a rolein writing motivation, with particular emphasis on self-efficacy
for writing skills versus writing tasks. Then we present findings fromstudies that have examined the motivational characteristics ofindividuals who struggle with writing, including those withdisabilities, and interventions designed to enhance motivation towrite. Finally, we offer suggestions for future research in writing
motivation.
Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some
painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one was not
driven on by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand.
—George Orwell (Brownell Orwell & Angus, 1968, p. 7)

This research was supported in part by funding from the Literacy Achievement ResearchCenter at Michigan State University.
Rebecca K. Shankland is now at Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina.
Address correspondence to Gary A. Troia, Department of Counseling, Educational
Psychology, & Special Education, Michigan State University, 343 Erickson Hall, East Lansing,MI 48824, USA. E-mail: gtroia@msu.edu

The demon about which George Orwell (the nom de plume of satirist Eric Arthur
Blair) spoke was his source of motivation, albeit an ethereal one, while he wrote
his masterpieces Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) and Animal Farm (1945). All
good writers, even those who are not so famous, motivate themselves to expend
effort in the service of reaching their goals for writing, an often inherently
difficult task that requires the coordination of numerous cognitive, linguistic,
and physical abilities. How authors motivate themselves differs widely, but
motivation is certainly one necessary ingredient for attaining success (McLeod,
1987; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). In this article we first discuss the varied
components of the construct of motivation (and associated instructional
recommendations) and follow this with a summary of the body of empiricalresearch rooted in social cognitive theory on these components as they relate
to writing. Then we describe (a) how writing motivation differs for
struggling writers and (b) quantitative research that has examined ways toenhance motivation, particularly in those children and youth who do notpossess optimal motivation. Finally, we suggest new directions for researchin writing motivation.

GENERAL MOTIVATION CONSTRUCTS
Motivation, or drive, is a domain-specific and contextually situated dynamic
characteristic of learners (e.g., Bong, 2001). That is, one’s motivation to write
may be substantially greater or weaker than one’s motivation to speak orread, for instance, and the magnitude and perhaps direction of this differenceis likely to change across varied performance contexts. It is well documented
that positive motivation is associated with strategic behavior (Kuhl, 1985;
Kurtz & Borkowski, 1984), task persistence (Zimmerman & Ringle, 1981),
and academic achievement (Kuhl, 1985; Kurtz & Borkowski, 1984; Paris &Winograd, 1990). Thus, students who are motivated deploy learning andcoping strategies (e.g., distributed periodic review of material,summarization of key concepts and ideas, self-encouragement, seeking
assistance) to maximize their educational potential, work throughchallenges and adversity without giving up, and perform better in school.
Four broad components of achievement motivation have been identified
by researchers: self-efficacy beliefs, goal orientations, personal and situational
interest, and attributions for outcomes. We briefly discuss these four
theorized components here. Figure 1 displays the relationships between
these components.

Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Self-efficacy, an individual’s assessment of his or her competence to perform afuture task, is perhaps the most well established and well researched aspect ofhuman motivation. Generally speaking, measures of self-efficacy are
positively related to the amount of effort expended to perform a task,
persistence

FIGURE 1 Interrelationships between motivational components and associated constructs.

with a difficult task, the recruitment of strategies to accomplish a task, andactual task performance, regardless of one’s age, gender, or ethnicity(Bandura, 1986, 1997; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Harter, 1996; Kuhl, 1985,
1987; Kurtz & Borkowski, 1984; Pajares, 1996, 1997; Pintrich, 1999; Pintrich &DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Schunk, 1991; Schunk & Zimmerman,
1994; Zimmerman & Ringle, 1981). In a meta-analysis of 36 studies in which theassociation of self-efficacy beliefs with academic outcomes was explored,
Multon, Brown, and Lent (1991) found a mean effect size of .38 for self-efficacy,
ranging from .52 for basic skills assessments, .36 for grades, and .13 forstandardized achievement tests. This study demonstrates the importanceof self- efficacy for school success, especially when success is measured byclassroom assessment tasks and teacher judgments of performance.
Self-efficacy beliefs comprise both outcome expectations, which are
beliefs that particular actions will lead to desired outcomes, and efficacy
expectations, which are beliefs that one is capable of performing those actions
to achieve goals (Bandura, 1997; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Schunk, 1989a,
1989b). For instance, one might believe that an action will yield a particular
result—revising a report several times for clarity and detail will produce amore polished and informative paper—but not necessarily that one cansuccessfully perform the requisite action. According to Schunk (1989b,
2001), an individual appraises multiple sources of information to derive
self-efficacy beliefs, including (a) perceived task difficulty, value, andperformance expectations; (b) prior successes and failures with tasks
similar or identical to the task about to be performed; (c) estimates ofrequired effort and opportunities for assistance; (d) persuasion from othercredible individuals; (e) vicarious

experiences (e.g., observing a model who is perceived to be similar to theindividual successfully perform the task); and (f) associated physiologicalstates (e.g., elevated heart rate accompanying anxiety).
It is important not to confuse self-efficacy with the motivational
constructs of self-esteem and self-concept. Unlike self-efficacy, which isbased on one’s predictions of task performance, self-esteem refers to thecomplex of emotional reactions tied to previous accomplishments acrossvaried tasks. Likewise, self-concept is based on general beliefs about
competence within adomain rather than task-specific beliefs—one may have a positive selfconcept in the domain of writing (e.g., ‘‘I’m a good writer’’) but varied
self-efficacy beliefs related to specific writing tasks (e.g., ‘‘I’m not sure I could
write a good poem’’ vs. ‘‘I’m confident I can write an enjoyableautobiography’’) or writing skills (e.g., ‘‘I’m certain I could spell all thewords I’d use in my paper’’ vs. ‘‘‘‘I’m not at all confident I will successfullypunctuate my paper’’). Research findings demonstrate that when bothself-efficacy and self-concept are measured, only self-efficacy accounts for
significant unique variance in task performance (e.g., Pajares & Miller,
1994); thus, self-efficacy is more closely related to outcomes (see also Pajares,Miller, & Johnson, 1999). Gender differences in self-efficacy beliefs
favoring females have been found in several studies (Eccles et al., 1989;
Hidi, Berndorff, & Ainley, 2002; Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares & Valiante,
1997, 2001; Wigfield, Eccles, MacIver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991), butthese differences may diminish and even reverse direction by the time
students reach high school (Pajares & Johnson, 1996). This change may be
due to relative differences rather than absolutedifferences—adolescent females may be more modest in their estimationsof task competence and=or adolescent males may overestimate their competence (Noddings, 1996; Wigfield, Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996). Generally
speaking, when prior achievement is controlled, gender differences in selfefficacy are not significant (e.g., Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1999).
Regardless of the relative differences between males’ and females’
measured self-efficacy and how these differences change over time, they
seem to be related more to gender stereotyping than gender itself. In thedomain of writing, for instance, writing is viewed by both male and female
students as a ‘‘feminine’’ activity (Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Valiante, 2001;
Valiante, 2001). When gender stereotyping has been controlled, the effects
of gender differences on writing self-efficacy among middle school students
have been voided (Pajares & Valiante, 2006).
Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between prior accomplishments
and future task performance best when it is optimistic yet accurately calibrated
to previous achievements (Bandura, 1997). Generally speaking, young children tend to hold inaccurate self-efficacy beliefs that become more alignedwith actual achievement over time (Paris & Oka, 1986; Stipek, 1993). Poorly
calibrated self-efficacy (e.g., gross overconfidence) might lead to weakerstrategy use and task engagement (Bandura, 1989; Linnenbrink & Pintrich,2003; Salomon, 1984), though empirical work remains to be done to explore
this assumption.
Nevertheless, low self-efficacy tends to result in a number of maladaptive
behaviors, including avoidance of instrumental help seeking (because theindividual believes that requesting help will reveal his or her incompetence)and learned helplessness (Ryan & Pintrich, 1997, 1998), as well as negative
emotional states such as anxiety and depression (Harter, 1992; Meece,
Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Though low self-efficacy
is difficult to alter (Bandura, 1986), there are several general instructional
recommendations for enhancing this form of self-belief (Deci & Ryan, 1985;
Ellis, 1986; Schunk, 1989a, 1989b; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2002; Zimmerman& Rocha, 1984, 1987):● Ensure that students have opportunities to perform challenging tasks onwhich they can be successful through sufficient scaffolding.
● Model coping tactics while faced with difficulty in completing a task aswell as successful task completion.
● Give truthful, realistic, and specific feedback regarding task performance.
● Foster the belief that competence is alterable through the expenditure ofeffort.
● Reinforce effort attributions when students are first mastering a task, but
recognize that the continued need for significant effort may signal low
levels of ability and may negatively affect self-efficacy.

Goal Orientation
Self-efficacy beliefs affect one’s goals for engaging (or not engaging) in atask. Pervin (1983) noted that goals have manifestations in the realms of
cognition (goals are mental representations of desired outcomes, often
embedded in a serially and hierarchically organized framework of proximaland distal subgoals), behavior (meeting one’s goals and subgoals requires
the development and execution of plans to achieve the desired outcomes),
and affect (one may associate goals with positive or negative feelings, leading
to approach or avoidance, respectively). In the area of academic achievement,
goal theory specifies two general kinds of goals, mastery and performancegoals (Ames, 1984, 1992; Elliott & Church, 1997; Middleton & Midgley,1997), which are also called, respectively, learning and performance goals(Dweck & Leggett, 1988) and task-involved and ego-involved goals (Nicholls,
1984). Mastery goals are associated with a focus on attaining knowledge andskill, improving competence, and achieving a sense of competence, whereas
performance goals are associated with a focus on demonstrating relative
ability, receiving public recognition, and surpassing others (Ames, 1984,1992). More recently, performance goals have been separated into approach
performance and avoidance performance goals, reflecting the fact that one

may desire to display competence (approach) or to avoid displaying
incompetence (avoidance).
Mastery goals are associated with many positive learning attributes, suchas higher self-efficacy, greater self-regulation, and better achievement (Ames,
1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Midgley & Urdan, 1995;
Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Schunk & Zimmerman,
1994). However, performance goals, specifically approach performancegoals, are not necessarily maladaptive (Pajares, Britner, & Valiante, 2000;
Pintrich, 2000a, 2000b), though it is unclear under what circumstances andfor which students this may be the case (Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton,
2001). In other words, a certain degree of competitiveness may operate as a
powerful motivator. In order for students to adopt mastery goals, teachers
can do the following (see Ames, 1984, 1992; Anderman & Anderman, 1999;
Bandura, 1986, 1997; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Ellis, 1986; Garner, 1990; Meece,
1991; Nicholls, 1979, 1984; Pervin, 1983; Schunk, 1989a, 1989b, 1990; Skinner& Belmont, 1993; Wentzel & Wigfield, 1998):● Foster a sense of belonging, cooperation, and social responsibility.
● Provide for student autonomy.
● Give private rather than public evaluations of student performance.
● Help students focus on personal improvement and mastery.
● Help students devise specific, proximal, and challenging goals forthemselves.
● Show students how to prioritize and modify their goals so that they canremain encouraged and juggle competing goals (i.e., take volitional
control to fulfill intentions).

Interest and ValueIn conjunction with self-efficacy beliefs, task interest and value (which are
related) influence the selection of goals and represent another corecomponent of human motivation (Eccles, 1987; Hidi et al., 2002; Pervin,
1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 2001). Personal interest in a task or domain
tends to be stable because it arises from individual preferences, whereas
situational interest arises from specific task characteristics (Hidi, 1990;
Hidi & Baird, 1986; Hidi & Harackiewitcz, 2000); thus, an individual may
have little interest in writing stories, but an assignment that specifies writing afirst-person narrative of a personal hero may spark his or her interest.
Interest reflects, in part, the personal significance or value attached to atask (Schiefele, 1999; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).
According to Eccles (1987), value can be broken down into attainment
value (i.e., the relevance of the task), intrinsic value (i.e., the extent to which
the task presents a challenge, invites curiosity, and permits a sense of control
and mastery), utility value (i.e., the importance of the task), and cost (i.e., howmuch anxiety, effort, and loss are associated with the task). One must keep inmind that interest and value, though related, can operate independently(Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Wigfield et al., 1996). That is to say, anindividual might be interested in a task but assign relatively little value to itor, conversely, view a task as highly valuable but have little interest in it.
Likewise, research suggests that values and self-efficacy beliefs initially may
operate rather independently of each other and then gradually become
related through operant conditioning and efforts to maintain positive selfbeliefs (Eccles et al., 1998; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield et al., 1997). As an
example, task value may be diminished if an individual’s self-efficacy beliefs
for the task are low in order to preserve one’s self-concept and self-esteem(Eccles et al., 1993; Harter, Whitesell, & Junkin, 1998; Pervin, 1983). The
particular causal pathways between self-efficacy, interest, and value arepresently unclear: Perceived competence may lead to increased value
and interest (Eccles et al., 1998; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Wigfield,
1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992; Wigfield et al., 1997) or vice versa.
Interest and value may lead to greater student engagement and better
learning outcomes (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). To achieve these results,
teachers must attend to the relevance, importance, and difficulty of
instructional activities and carefully match these to their students’ actualand perceived levels of competence. There are several instructional
recommendations related to increasing students’ personal and situational
interests (see Bandura& Schunk, 1981; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ellis, 1986; Lepper & Hodell, 1989;
Malone, 1980):● Permitting choice whenever possible.
● Using innovative and engaging instructional practices and tasks.
● Connecting what is learned to students’ personal lives and explaining thevalue of what is learned.
● Using naturally occurring external rewards only when necessary.

Attributions for Outcomes
The final core motivation construct is attributions, or the perceived causes ofsuccess and failure (Weiner, 1979, 1985, 1986). Causal attributions are
influenced by the perceived amount of personal control over the cause, its
locus, and its stability (Schunk, 1994; Weiner, 1985). When individuals
attribute success to factors under their personal control, such as effort, andfailure to either insufficient effort or unreasonable task demands(Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr, 1988; Weiner, 1985, 1986), they are more
likely to exhibit an adaptive motivational pattern. That is, these persons will
be motivated to perform well because they anticipate that their effort
expenditure will facilitate their performance. Conversely, when success is
attributed to luck, task ease, or teacher assistance and failure is attributed
to limited ability, all of which are factors

not under personal control, a helpless motivational pattern is likely to emerge(Leggett & Dweck, 1987; Schunk, 1984). Persons exhibiting a helplessmotivational pattern are less likely to be motivated to perform wellbecause they
believe their efforts have little impact on performance outcomes—they arehelpless to effect change.
Adaptive attributions are related to, though conceptually distinct from,self-efficacy beliefs and have an impact on persistence, choice, goals,
strategic behavior, and achievement (Kalechstein & Nowicki, 1997;
Weiner, 1986). Of course, effort may or may not lead to success with atask; misapplied but substantial effort can result in failure, and a simple
task or innate talent may necessitate little or no effort (Carr, Borkowski, &Maxwell, 1991; Licht, 1983). It is important to note that when an individual
perceives himself or herself as possessing adequate ability, feedback
attributing success to ability is preferred over feedback attributing
success to effort. Apparently, if effort alone is emphasized when ability
attributions exist, it implies that ability is poor (Covington, 1992; Schunk,1994). This may explain why both effort and ability attributions areassociated with high achievement (Schunk, 1984; Schunk & Cox, 1986;
Schunk & Gunn, 1986). In addition, attributions become more rooted inability than effort over time (Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, 1995; Stipek, 1993),
as children’s perspectives regarding the nature of ability and intelligence
shift from incremental or malleable to more fixed and trait oriented(Nicholls & Miller, 1984). Many of the previously noted instructional
recommendations hold true for promoting adaptive causal ascriptions.

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS RELATED TO WRITING MOTIVATIONIn the late 1970s and early 1980s, much of the research that examined
motivation to write was conducted with college students enrolled incomposition courses and focused on apprehension of writing (Daly &Miller, 1975). In these early studies, researchers found that measures ofwriting apprehension were related to choice of academic tasks and majors,
self-esteem, and writing performance (Daly, 1978; Daly & Wilson, 1983;
Faigley, Daly, & Witte, 1981). As the social cognitive theory of learning
emerged, empirical work shifted to reflect newly theorized components ofacademic motivation. Research at that point helped establish the primacyof self-efficacy in the domain of writing. Though writing anxiety, locus ofcontrol, and grade goals in college composition courses were correlatedwith self-efficacy beliefs, they did not contribute significant additional
independent variance to outcomes beyond that contributed by students’
self-efficacy beliefs (McCarthy, Meier, & Rinderer, 1985; Meier, McCarthy,& Schmeck, 1984; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989). More recent studies
have replicated and extended these findings with school-age children
and youth; although writing apprehension does indeed correlate withwriting performance, when self-efficacy is controlled, thisrelationship is diminished or eliminated—self-efficacy beliefs mediate therelationship between apprehension and writing performance (Pajares et al.,
1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001). In addition, when initial writing
competence (which also accounts for prior influences of motivation), grade,and gender are controlled, self-efficacy still makes a significant independent
contribution to variance in writing outcomes (Graham & Harris, 1989a; Pajares
et al., 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994).
Measures of self-efficacy for writing can focus on writing skills (e.g.,grammar, spelling, planning, editing, incorporating an interesting setting intoa story, including convincing arguments in a persuasive paper), writing tasks(e.g., writing a term paper, composing a friendly letter, creating anadvertisement), or graded writing performance (Shell et al., 1989). This
separation of foci for self-efficacy is defensible given that writing skills,
especially lower level transcription skills such as spelling andhandwriting, exert a powerful influence on how well students accomplish
composing tasks when these skills are underdeveloped (e.g., Berninger,
1999; Graham & Harris, 2000). In other words, self-efficacy beliefs may bedifferentiated according to the particular
aspect of writing in which an individual is judging his or her competence—skill, task, or successful performance.
One line of research has obtained empirical support for the distinction
between skill and task efficacy. Karaglani (2003) found that self-efficacy forwriting skills made significant independent contributions to variance in third
graders’ holistic story quality, whereas teacher ratings of writing
performance, general academic achievement, and writing self-concept
and attitudes did not. Using path analysis, Pajares and Johnson (1996)
reported that self-efficacy for writing skills and writing achievement
measured by a statewide test had a direct effect on ninth graders’ holistic
essay quality in response to a timed prompt. Finally, in a study with
undergraduate preservice teachers, Pajares and Johnson (1994) found that
self-efficacy for writing skills and initial writing performance measured at
the beginning of the semester predicted significant unique variance inholistic essay quality in response to a timed prompt given at the end of thesemester, but self-efficacy for writing tasks did not. These findings highlightthe importance of matching items on self-efficacy measures with outcome
measures. Specifically, measures of self-efficacy for writing skills
encompass features associated with virtually any composing task (e.g.,spelling, punctuation, details), whereas measures of self-efficacy forwriting tasks address a variety of tasks beyond the criterion writing task
used to assess writing performance. Thus, skill efficacy has been foundto have a stronger relationship with writing performance than task efficacy
because skills apply to any given task, and typically only one writing task isused as a criterion measure in studies of self-efficacy for writing. Given theuse of a single criterion writing task, the likelihood that diverse task selfefficacy items on an instrument will be related to performance on the task
is reduced.

What is interesting is that self-efficacy for writing tasks improves overtime, but self-efficacy for writing skills remains relatively stable and perhaps
even drops (Pajares & Johnson, 1994; Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Shell et al.,1995). This difference may be an artifact of a protracted course of development for the vast array of writing skills necessary to perform a more limited
set of academic writing tasks, or it may be associated with how writing isfrequently taught—students spend more time writing for varied purposes(tasks) than practicing specific writing skills within a process writing
instructional framework (Applebee & Langer, 2006; Pritchard & Honneycutt,2006). As students’ progress in their education, they may feel less efficaciouswith respect to writing skills because middle and high school teachers (a)expect them to have mastered basic writing skills, (b) feel that instruction
in basic writing skills is not consistent with content area learning goals, and(c) may not tolerate classroom writing performance marred by poorly
developed skills and consequently may provide feedback to that effect(Troia & Maddox, 2004).
Some researchers have explored another form of writing self-efficacy—
self-efficacy for self-regulation in writing, or students’ confidence in theirability to use writing strategies. This form of self-efficacy is significantly
correlated with writing performance (Harris & Graham, 1992; Schunk &Zimmerman, 1994; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997), strategy use, andadaptive attributions (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994; Zimmerman & Schunk,1989). However, when writing self-efficacy and self-efficacy for selfregulation are regressed onto writing performance, only writing selfefficacy yields a significant predictive relationship (Pajares & Johnson, 1996;
Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001).
Interest appears to have a facilitative effect on writing performance(Albin, Benton, & Khramtsova, 1996; Benton, Corkill, Sharp, Downey, &Khramtsova, 1995). Hidi and her colleagues (Hidi & Anderson, 1992; Hidi &McLaren, 1991) suggested that interest is a necessary though insufficient
ingredient for writing success: Even if students write about topics they findfascinating, they are less likely to produce high-quality papers if they lacksufficient topic knowledge to generate meaningful content. The role of interest in writing performance should not be overlooked, but it is unclear just how
relevant it is given the broad array of other motivational components.
Knudson (1991, 1992, 1993, 1995) has found that attitudes account forunique variance in writing performance, that more positive attitudes toward
writing are exhibited by better writers, and that attitudes toward writing
tend to decline across grades. Though not a core theoretical component ofmotivation—they represent an affective stance toward an activity rather than
the will to engage in it—attitudes are clearly related to motivation. However,
the measures developed by Knudson did not exhibit strong construct validity(cf. Graham, Berninger, & Fan, 2007; Knudson, 1991, 1992, 1993). Using
structural equation modeling, Graham et al. (2007) found that a model thatspecified a direct path from writing attitudes (a measure devised by the
researchers

with good construct validity) to writing achievement (a composite of holistic
essay quality, sophistication of essay vocabulary, length of correct word
sequence for the essay, and score on a standardized test of written expression)
fit the observed data better than models that specified a direct path fromwriting achievement to writing attitudes or a reciprocal pathway. Although
they did not find a decline in writing attitudes as did Knudson (1991, 1992),
they only included first and third graders in their study. It is possible thatwriting attitudes change over a longer period of time as students gain morewriting experience; a decline in writing attitudes might be an anticipatedcorollary of a decline in self-efficacy for writing skills.

DIFFERENCES IN WRITING MOTIVATION AND
INTERVENTIONS FOR POOR WRITERS
Many poor writers, including those with learning disabilities (LD), exhibit
pervasive motivational problems (Zimmerman, 1989), a lack of will andeffort to tackle the demands of written composition. First, though students
with LD perform poorly on writing tasks in comparison with their peers,
they hold rather positive self-efficacy beliefs related to writing (Graham,
Schwartz, & MacArthur, 1993; Klassen, 2002a, 2000b). Their tendency tooverestimate their competence (i.e., display mis-calibrated self-efficacy
beliefs) may be due to poor task analysis and limited self-awareness(Bandura, 1997; Butler, 1999; Pajares, 1996). That is, students with writing
problems may lack metacognitive knowledge about their own learning
capabilities and personal strategic resources and the exact demands
imposed by specific writing tasks (e.g., Lin, Monroe, & Troia, 2007;
Saddler & Graham, 2007). Such a lack of knowledge likely results in reduced
metacognitive action, such as self-regulation of one’s thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors during the writing process. Second, students who havewritten language difficulties tend to attribute their successes and failures
to factors that are not under their volitional control rather than to effort or thelack thereof (Borkowski, Estrada, Milstead, & Hale, 1989; Ellis, Lenz, &Sabornie, 1987; Licht, 1983; Pearl, 1982). This maladaptive attribution
pattern ultimately leads these children and youth to devalue writing and to
avoid activities that demand a lot of writing because they believe they are
powerless to influence their dismal writing performance.
A number of investigations have been carried out in which writing
interventions have been developed for students with and without writing
problems and the effects of these interventions on writing outcomes andstudents’ motivational beliefs have been evaluated. In one line of research,
the types of writing goals students pursue have been manipulated to determine which kinds are most effective for improving writing performanceand increasing self-efficacy. Schunk and Swartz (1993a, 1993b) gave typicallydeveloping fourth- and fifth-grade students one of three goals for writing

paragraphs using different genres: (a) a general goal to work productively, (b)a product goal to write paragraphs, and (c) a writing process goal of learning
to use the paragraph writing strategy taught. Half of the students in theprocess goal condition also received progress feedback for their goal. Thosestudents who were in the process goal condition wrote better paragraphsand displayed increased self-efficacy following strategy instruction thanthose in the other two goal conditions. Moreover, when progress feedback
accompanied the process goal, the greatest advantages were realized in mostcases (also see Graham & MacArthur, 1988; Graham, MacArthur, Schwartz, &Page-Voth, 1992). Graham, MacArthur, and Schwartz (1995) gave fifth- andsixth-grade poor writers either a general revising goal for their papers (makeit better) or a specific revising goal (add more information). Students who
were asked to include more information wrote papers of higher quality. However, these researchers did not evaluate motivation in this study.
In a later study, Page-Voth and Graham (1999) did evaluate the selfefficacy beliefs of seventh- and eighth-grade students with LD who wererandomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions: goals, goals plus
strategy instruction, and control. Students in the goals condition were asked
to write three persuasive papers, each with a specific goal (include more supporting reasons, include more rebutted counterarguments, or both). Students
in the goals plus strategy instruction condition performed the same tasks but
were also provided with a writing strategy to help them attain their goals.
Participants who worked toward specific goals wrote better papers thanthose who were simply asked to write persuasive essays. However, there
were no differences between the groups in their self-efficacy beliefs either
before or after the intervention. Taken together, these studies suggest that(a) specific goals related to the writing process positively affect the writing
performance of students with and without writing difficulties more than
general goals or the absence of goals; and (b) goal setting does notnecessarily have a salutary effect on the perceived competence of poor
writers, though it does seem to benefit the self-efficacy of typical andaccomplished writers.
Another line of research has examined the influence on writing
motivation of strategy instruction that explicitly or implicitly incorporates
self-control procedures such as goal setting, self-talk, self-monitoring, andself-assessment. Most, though not all, studies have found that such instruction
benefits the writing performance and self-efficacy beliefs of students with LD
and other struggling writers (cf. Garcı́a & de Caso, 2004; Garcı́a-Sanchez &Fidalgo-Redondo, 2006; Graham & Harris, 1989a, 1989b; Graham, Harris, &Mason, 2005; Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992).
Gersten and Baker (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of 13 intervention
studies with students with LD to determine the impact cognitive strategy
instruction for composing had on these students. They reported an aggregate
effect size of .81, which represents a large effect favoring the selectedinterventions, for varied measures of writing performance. However,
weakereffects were evident for students’ writing knowledge, self-efficacy beliefs,
and attitudes about writing (effect sizes ranged from .40 to .64, or small tomoderate, for associated measures). Thus, strategy instruction does appear
to have a notable effect on writing motivation, though not as powerful as
its effect on actual writing performance. Because these interventions usuallyconsist of multiple ‘‘active ingredients’’ that might affect motivation (e.g.,positive and specific feedback, carefully scaffolded instruction with extensivemodeling and multiple guided practice opportunities, high expectations,reinforcement for strategy use, visual displays of progress, self-monitoring
and reflection), it is not possible to determine which ones are causally related
to changes in poor writers’ beliefs or attitudes. Considering that goal setting
alone does not appear to have a substantial influence on struggling writers’
perceived competency (Page-Voth & Graham, 1999), other aspects of selfregulation and strategy instruction either apart from or in combination withgoal setting are likely necessary.
Finally, Miller and Meece (1997, 1999a, 1999b) have explored howelementary students’ writing motivation is affected by teachers’ use ofchallenging writing tasks, defined by the authors as tasks that require thecomposition of texts with multiple paragraphs over several days incollaboration with peers. Miller and Meece (1997, 1999a, 1999b) trained
third-grade teachers to use challenging writing tasks in their classrooms
over the course of a year and examined changes in the writing goals andinterests of low-, average-, and high-achieving students. Regardless ofachievement level, students (a) expressed a preference for challenging
writing assignments and (b) reported a decrease in their pursuit of
performance goals during the year (true of students in classrooms inwhich teachers frequently used challenging writing tasks; i.e., highimplementation classes). However, when students were followed into
Grades 4 and 5 (Miller & Meece, 1999a), the positive change in performancegoal orientation attained in third grade was reversed and students’ selfreported pursuit of mastery goals declined. The researchers suggested
that these changes were associated with an increased focus on writing skills
beyond third grade to help students prepare for high-stakes assessments.

SOME FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCHIN WRITING MOTIVATION
Though writing motivation has been the topic of research studies for nearly
three decades, much remains to be explored in this area (for a morecomprehensive review that extends beyond social cognitive theory, seeHidi & Boscolo, 2006). We would argue that perhaps one of the mostproductive avenues of research involves supplementing correlational
research methods with qualitative methods aimed at identifying the forcesat work in classroom writing instruction that mitigate or augment
various aspects of student

motivation. Classroom observations can complement and situate self-reportdata, as can student interviews and focus groups. Moreover, this combinationof research methods can help investigators untangle some of the causal
connections among related theoretical components of motivation andbetween these and writing outcomes. Indeed, the findings reported by anumber of authors highlight the importance of doing motivation
research in the field and looking closely at the teaching and learning
context and its impact on motivation (e.g., Abbott, 2000; Cleary, 1990;
Dyson, 1993; Kim & Lorsbach, 2005; Miller & Meece, 1997, 1999a, 1999b).
Likewise, more experimental studies, especially ones in which discrete
tactics that are hypothesized to impact motivation are manipulated, are sorely
needed and should include multiple measures of motivation that represent
discrete constructs (e.g., self-efficacy for writing skills vs. self-efficacy forwriting tasks, outcome expectations vs. efficacy expectations). One factor
that seems to exert an influence on students’ self-efficacy beliefs—genderstereotyping—would lend itself well to experimental study. Are there meansby which writing tasks can be rendered gender neutral, or are there ways inwhich male youths can be led to engage more readily in writing tasks despite
viewing them as ‘‘feminine’’ activities?
We also think that the field would do well to examine the writing
behaviors of students outside of school and to determine how participation in
non- academic forms of writing, many of which are digital and multimedia innature (e.g., e-mail and text messaging, online chat room discussions, blog
entries), relates to writing motivation. It is quite possible that students view
these forms of writing as more authentic, interesting, and valuable andconsequently possess differentiated self-efficacy beliefs, goals,
attributions, and attitudes related to them. If so, finding ways to connect
writing outside of school with written expression in school would be
beneficial, insomuch as aligning motivation between the two spheres mayhelp to ameliorate the problems experienced by struggling writers.
Research along these lines in the domain of reading has shown thatmany adolescents, including those considered poor readers, report finding
reading texts online to be more engaging than reading traditional printed
texts (e.g., O’Brien, Beach, & Scharber, 2007) and that students do notnecessarily perceive their leisure literacy practices and selves in the sameways as their school literacy practices and selves (Pitcher et al., 2007),
perhaps because the latter privilege traditional text formats, activities, andtransactions over the media-rich formats, activities, and transactions inwhich many students immerse themselves out of school (Alvermann & Moore,1991). However, it is not at all clear how these differences in engagement andperceptions may or may not be related to enhancement of reading motivation
components in or out of school.
Finally, the concepts of task interest and value deserve greater
elaboration in future work, because presently experts do not fully
understand how these relate to other aspects of motivation (e.g., selfefficacy beliefs).

Writing is a form of communication, and thus it serves a purpose (e.g., tofinish the teacher’s persuasive essay assignment, to remind oneself topurchase items at the grocery store, to get a piece published in an online
zine, to practice responding to high-stakes writing prompts, to write a long
overdue e-mail to a friend). If the purpose for writing is valued, then it ismore likely to spark situational interest, but the value of many scholastic
writing tasks—their relevance, importance, and benefits—may not be obvious to students and consequently may require explanation. However, valued
writing tasks will not always be associated with strong interest (Eccles et al.,
1998; Wigfield et al., 1996), and even if value and interest are aligned, otherfactors may mitigate motivation and performance (e.g., Hidi & Anderson,
1992; Hidi & McLaren, 1991). This means that researchers should pay
attention to how their study participants perceive writing purposes, values,
and interests and determine how these variables impact and are impacted
by other components of writing motivation across time.

REFERENCES
Abbott, J. A. (2000). ‘‘Blinking out’’ and ‘‘having the touch’’: Two fifth-grade boys talkabout flow experiences in writing. Written Communication, 17, 53–92.
Albin, M. L., Benton, S. L., & Khramtsova, I. (1996). Individual differences in interest
and narrative writing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 305–324.
Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L.
Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research(Vol. 2, pp. 951–983). New York, NY: Longman.
Ames, C. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitiveand individualistic goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,
478–487.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students’achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(1),21–37.
Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2006). The state of writing instruction: What existing datatell us. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning and Achievement.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived selfefficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 29–35.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Holt.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, andintrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 41, 586–598.
Benton, S. L., Corkill, A. J., Sharp, J., Downey, R., & Khramtsova, I. (1995). Knowledge,
interest, and narrative writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 66–79.

Berninger, V. W. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working
memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112.
Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation
among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23–34.
Borkowski, J. G., Estrada, M. T., Milstead, M., & Hale, C. A. (1989). General problemsolving skills: Relations between metacognition and strategic processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(1), 57–70.
Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional retraining
on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning disabled students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46–53.
Brownell Orwell, S., & Angus, I. (Eds.). (1968). The collected essays, journalism andletters of George Orwell: Vol. 1. An age like this 1920–1940. New York, NY:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Butler, R. (1999). Information seeking and achievement motivation in middle childhood and adolescence: The role of conceptions of ability. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 146–163.
Carr, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Maxwell, S. E. (1991). Motivational components ofunderachievement. Developmental Psychology, 27, 108–118.
Cleary, L. M. (1990). The fragile inclination to write: Praise and criticism in the classroom. English Journal, 79, 22–28.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivationand school reform. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Daly, J. A. (1978). Writing apprehension and writing competency. Journal of
Educational Research, 72(1), 10–14.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument tomeasure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 242–249.
Daly, J. A., & Wilson, D. A. (1983). Writing apprehension, self-esteem, and personality. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 327–341.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Selfdetermination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–
134.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation andpersonality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Dyson, A. H. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write in an urban primaryschool. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135–172.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C., Miller, C., Reuman, D., & Yee, D. (1989). Selfconcepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and changes at earlyadolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 283–310.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., MacIver, D., Feldlaufer, H. (1993).
Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students’ motivation. The
Elementary School Journal, 93, 553–574.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon& N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, 5th ed., pp. 1017–
1096). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Elliott, E. S., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidanceachievement motivation. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 72,
218–232.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5–12.
Ellis, E. S. (1986). The role of motivation and pedagogy on the generalization of
cognitive strategy training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(2), 6–20.
Ellis, E. S., Lenz, B. K., & Sabornie, E. J. (1987). Generalization and adaptation oflearning strategies to natural environments: I. Critical agents. Remedial & Special
Education, 8(1), 6–20.
Faigley, L., Daly, J. A., & Witte, S. (1981). The role of writing apprehension in writing
performance and competence. Journal of Educational Research, 75(1), 16–21.
Garcı́a, J.-N., & de Caso, A. M. (2004). Effects of a motivational intervention forimproving the writing of children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 27, 141–159.
Garcı́a-Sanchez, J.-N., & Fidalgo-Redondo, R. (2006). Effects of two types ofself-regulatory instruction programs on students with learning disabilities inwriting products, processes, and self-efficacy. Learning Disability Quarterly,29, 181–211.
Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward atheory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517–529.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning
disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 251–272.
Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between
writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 516–536.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989a). Components analysis of cognitive strategy
instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ compositions and selfefficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353–361.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989b). Improving learning disabled students’ skills atcomposing essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children,56, 201–214.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills
in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated
strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.
Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. A. (1988). Improving learning disabled students’ skills
at revising essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional strategy
training. Journal of Special Education, 22, 133–152.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwartz, S. S. (1995). Effects of goal setting andprocedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology,
87, 230–240.

Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Page-Voth, V. (1992). Improving thecompositions of students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving
product and process goal setting. Exceptional Children, 58, 322–334.
Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). Knowledge of writing and thecomposing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students withand without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237–249.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1992). Self-regulated strategy development: A part of thewriting process. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting
academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 277–309). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Harter, S. (1992). The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational orientation within the classroom: Processes and patterns of change. In
A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A socialdevelopmental perspective (pp. 77–114). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Harter, S. (1996). Teacher and classmate influences on scholastic motivation, selfesteem, and level of voice in adolescents. In J. Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.),
Social motivation: Understanding children’s school adjustment (pp. 11–42).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Junkin, L. J. (1998). Similarities and differences indomain-specific and global self-evaluations of learning-disabled, behaviorally
disordered, and normally achieving adolescents. American Educational
Research Journal, 35, 653–680.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Reviewof Educational Research, 60, 549–571.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading andexpository writing. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role ofinterest in learning and development (pp. 215–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness—A neglected variable in discourse
processing. Cognitive Science, 10, 179–194.
Hidi, S., Berndorff, D., & Ainley, M. (2002). Children’s argument writing, interest, andself-efficacy: An intervention study. Learning and Instruction, 12, 429–446.
Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2006). Motivation and writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham& J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 144–157). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewitcz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A
critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179.
Hidi, S., & McLaren, J. A. (1991). Motivational factors and writing: The role of topic
interestingness. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 6, 187–197.
Kalechstein, A. D., & Nowicki, S. (1997). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between control expectancies and academic achievement: An 11-year
follow-up to Findley and Cooper. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 123, 27–56.
Karaglani, A. H. (2003). Examining the relationship between writing self-efficacy,
writing performance and general achievement for third graders. Dissertation
Abstracts International: Section A. The Humanities and Social Sciences, 63, 3107.

Kim, J., & Lorsbach, A. W. (2005). Writing self-efficacy in young children: Issues forthe early grades environment. Learning Environments Research, 8, 157–175.
Klassen, R. (2002a). A question of calibration: A review of the self-efficacy beliefs ofstudents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 88–102.
Klassen, R. (2002b). Writing in early adolescence: A review of the role of self-efficacy
beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 173–203.
Knudson, R. E. (1991). Development and use of a writing attitude survey in grades 4
to 8. Psychological Reports, 68, 807–816.
Knudson, R. E. (1992). Development and application of a writing attitude survey forgrades 1 to 3. Psychological Reports, 70, 711–720.
Knudson, R. E. (1993). Development of a writing attitude survey for grades 9 to 12:
Effects of gender, grade, and ethnicity. Psychological Reports, 73, 587–594.
Knudson, R. E. (1995). Writing experiences, attitudes, and achievement of first to
sixth graders. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 90–97.
Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognition-behavior consistency: Selfregulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann(Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 101–128). New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag.
Kuhl, J. (1987). Feeling versus being helpless: Metacognitive mediation of failureinduced performance deficits. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 217–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kurtz, B. E., & Borkowski, R. G. (1984). Children’s metacognition: Exploring
relations among knowledge, process, and motivational variables. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 335–354.
Leggett, E. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1987, April). Children’s effort=ability reasoning:
Individual differences and motivational consequences. Paper presented at
the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,
Baltimore, MD.
Lepper, M. R., & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In C. Ames
& R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions(Vol. 3, pp. 73–107). New York, NY: Academic.
Licht, B. G. (1983). Cognitive-motivational factors that contribute to the achievementof learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 483–490.
Lin, S. C., Monroe, B. W., & Troia, G. A. (2007). Development of writing knowledge in
grades 2–8: A comparison of typically developing writers and their struggling peers.
Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 23, 207–230.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student
engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19, 119–137.
Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsically motivating computer games. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciencesand Engineering, 41(5), 1955.
McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing: A different
view of self-evaluation. College Composition and Communication, 36, 465–471.
McLeod, S. H. (1987). Some thoughts about feelings: The affective domain and thewriting process. College Composition and Communication, 38, 426–435.

Meece, J. (1991). The classroom context and students’ motivational goals. In M. L.
Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement(Vol. 7, pp. 261–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its
influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performancein mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60–70.
Meier, S. T., McCarthy, P. R., & Schmeck, R. R. (1984). Validity of self-efficacy as apredictor of writing performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 107–120.
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability:
An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,
710–718.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good
for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93, 77–86.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use of
self-handicapping strategies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 389–411.
Miller, S. D., & Meece, J. L. (1997). Enhancing elementary students’ motivation toread and write: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Educational
Research, 90, 286–299.
Miller, S. D., & Meece, J. L. (1999a). Changes in elementary school children’sachievement goals for reading and writing: Results of a longitudinal and anintervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 207–229.
Miller, S. D., & Meece, J. L. (1999b). Third graders’ motivational preferences for reading and writing tasks. Elementary School Journal, 100, 19–35.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs
to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 30–38.
Nicholls, J. G. (1979). Development of perception of own attainment and causal attributions for success and failure in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,
71, 94–99.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective
experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.
Nicholls, J. G., & Miller, A. T. (1984). Reasoning about the ability of self and others: A
developmental study. Child Development, 55, 1990–1999.
Noddings, N. (1996, April). Current directions in self-research: Self-concept, selfefficacy, and possible selves. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
O’Brien, D., Beach, R., & Scharber, C. (2007). ‘‘Struggling’’ middle schoolers: Engagement and literate competence in a reading writing intervention class. Reading
Psychology, 28, 51–73.
Orwell, G. (1945). Animal farm. London, England: Secker & Warburg.
Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen eighty-four. London, England: Secker & Warburg.
Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on thewriting performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning
problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 230–240.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 543–578.

Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 1–49).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A
review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Difficulties, 19, 139–158.
Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals
and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 406–422.
Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1994). Confidence and competence in writing: The
role of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and apprehension. Research in the
Teaching of English, 28, 313–329.
Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and the writing performanceof entering high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 163–175.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematics problem-solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,
193–203.
Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., & Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing
self-beliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
91, 50–61.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’
writing. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353–360.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing
self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
24, 390–405.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement of middle school students: A function of gender orientation? Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 26, 366–381.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing
development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbookof writing research (pp. 158–170). New York, NY: Guilford.
Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (1986). Children’s reading strategies, metacognition andmotivation. Developmental Review, 6, 25–26.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking andcognitive instruction (pp. 15–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pearl, R. (1982). LD children’s attributions for success and failure: A replication witha labeled LD sample. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 173–176.
Pervin, L. A. (1983). The stasis and flow of behavior: Toward a theory of goals. In
M. M. Page (Ed.), Personality: Current theory and research (pp. 1–53). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Taking control of research on volitional control: Challenges
for future theory and research. Learning and Individual Differences, 11,335–354.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal
orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92, 544–555.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In
M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation(pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learningcomponents of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pitcher, S. M., Albright, L. K., DeLaney, C. J., Walker, N. T., Seunarinesingh, K.,
Mogge, S., .. . Dunston, P. J. (2007). Assessing adolescents’ motivation to read.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50, 378–396.
Pritchard, R. J., & Honneycutt, J. (2006). Process writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham& J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 275–290). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). ‘‘Should I ask for help?’’ The role of motivation
and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 329–341.
Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Achievement and social motivational influenceson help seeking in the classroom. In S. A. Karabenick (Ed.), Strategic help seeking:
Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 117–139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2007). The relationship between writing knowledge andwriting performance among more and less skilled writers. Reading & Writing
Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 23, 231–247.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is ‘‘easy’’ and print is ‘‘tough’’: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647–658.
Sawyer, R. J., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy instruction,and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition
skills and self-efficacy of students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 340–352.
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3,
257–279.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational
Psychologist, 19, 48–58.
Schunk, D. H. (1989a). Self-efficacy and cognitive achievement: Implications forstudents with learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(1), 14–22.
Schunk, D. H. (1989b). Self-efficacy and cognitive skill learning. In C. Ames & R.
Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions(Vol. 3, pp. 13–44). New York, NY: Academic.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychologist, 25, 71–86.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–231.
Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learningand performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 75–99). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J.
Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 121–151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H., & Cox, P. D. (1986). Strategy training and attributional feedback withlearning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 201–209.
Schunk, D. H., & Gunn, T. P. (1986). Self-efficacy and skill development: Influence oftask strategies and attributions. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 238–244.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993a). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on
self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
18, 337–354.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993b). Writing strategy instruction with gifted students: Effects of goals and feedback on self-efficacy and skills. Roeper Review,
15, 225–230.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning andperformance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome
expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level
and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,
386–398.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 91–100.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal
effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.
Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Troia, G. A., & Maddox, M. E. (2004). Writing instruction in middle schools: Special
and general education teachers share their views and voice their concerns.
Exceptionality, 12, 19–37.
Valiante, G. E. (2001). Writing self-efficacy and gender orientation: A developmental
perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities andSocial Sciences, 62(3), 915.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journalof Educational Psychology, 71, 3–25.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
Weiner, B. (1986). Attribution, emotion, and action. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social
behavior (pp. 281–312). New York, NY: Guilford.
Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (1998). Academic and social motivational influenceson students’ academic performance. Educational Psychology Review, 10,
155–175.
Wigfield, A. (1994). The role of children’s achievement values in the self-regulationof their learning outcomes. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Selfregulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications(pp. 101–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A
theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.). (2001). Development of achievement motivation.
San Diego, CA: Academic.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., MacIver, D., Reuman, D., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions at
early adolescence: Changes in children’s domain-specific self-perceptions andgeneral self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental
Psychology, 27, 552–565.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Development between the ages of 11
and 25. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 148–185). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J. A., FreedmanDoan, C., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children’s competence beliefs
and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A 3-year study.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on
writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31,
845–862.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory
skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94,
660–668.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Ringle, J. (1981). Effects of model persistence and statementsof confidence on children’s self-efficacy and problem solving. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 73, 485–493.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Caveats and recommendations about selfregulation of writing: A social cognitive rejoinder. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 22, 115–122.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Rocha, J. (1984). Influence of a model’s verbal descriptions of
toy interactions on kindergarten children’s associative learning. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 5, 281–291.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Rocha, J. (1987). Mode and type of toy elaboration training on
kindergartners’ retention and transfer learning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8(1), 67–78.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: SpringerVerlag.