• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Development and Validation of a Writing Dispositions Scale for Elementary and Middle School Students

Posted on: Thursday, 22 May 2008, 03:00 CDT

By Piazza, Carolyn L Siebert, Carl F

ABSTRACT. The authors report the development and validation of the Writing Dispositions Scale (WDS), a self-report instrument for measuring affective stances toward writing. The authors collected survey data from 854 elementary and middle school students and randomly split the data to facilitate both an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The findings of the EFA demonstrated that an 11-item WDS has desirable internal and content reliability and discriminant validity. The CFA supported the item selection of the EFA and demonstrated excellent factorial validity and reliability. The analyses confirmed that writing dispositions are related to 3 affective stances: confidence, persistence, and passion toward writing. Keywords: CFA, EFA, elementary- and middle-school students, scale development, writing affect, writing dispositions

For more than three decades, researchers of written composition have considered many facets of individuals' writing processes and products. Although frequently considered in composition studies, students' affective orientations toward writing have received little attention from researchers. Although researchers have widely acknowledged that writing has an affective component (Blackburn & Stern, 2000; Brand, 1987; Brand & Graves, 1994; Daly & Wilson, 1983; Faigley, Cherry, Jolliffe, & Skinner, 1985; Hayes, 2000; Maimon, 2002; McCarthy, Meier, & Rinderer, 1985; McCleod, 1987; Rose, 1985), only recently has a resurgence of interest in motivational constructs such as engagement (Guthrie & Wigfield, 1997), interest (Hidi, Renniger, & Krapp, 2004; Krapp, 2002, 2003; Nolen, 2007), and attitudes (Kear, Coffman, McKenna, & Ambrosio, 2000; Knudson, 1992, 1993) paved the way for theoretical advances and empirical inquiry into the complex affective nature of writing. As part of this renewed attention, the concept of disposition has entered the educational literature as a means to gloss students' stances and practices toward critical thinking (Perkins, Jay, & Tishman, 1993; Tishman & Andrade, 2004) and assess teachers' attributes and attitudes of caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social justice (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2002).

In this study, we consider dispositions a broad construct within the affective domain in which writers bring to their writing such resources as self-discipline, perseverance in the face of difficulties, tolerance of ambiguity, autonomy, willingness to take risks, motivation, self-efficacy, and interest. "The term disposition has historically been used by psychologists to refer to intrapersonal characteristics including temperament and character traits that may influence how an individual interacts with others or with the environment" (Ziegler, Bain, Bell, McCallum, & Brian, 2006, p. 60).

Although researchers have frequently represented affective constructs as enduring mental traits that account for an individual's prior cognitive orientation toward learning, a growing number of researchers have viewed affect as interacting with social processes as well (Hayes, 2000, 2006; Prior, 2006). This new conceptual relation suggests that dispositions influence and are influenced by (a) cognitive factors such as abilities (Durst, 1987), content or writing knowledge (M. Torrance & Galbraith, 2006), and strategic processes (Flower & Hayes, 1980) and (b) social factors including meaningful and relevant tasks, achievement goals (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986), and various learning conditions or environments (Nystrand & Duffy, 2003; Stevens & Slavin, 1995). The interplay of dispositions in these cognitive and social factors results in affective reactions or manifestations?either positive or negative?that characterize the writer's stance, or way of behaving, feeling, valuing, or acting, toward writing. With this cognitive- affective-social synthesis, we hypothesized about and framed dispositions in the present study.

Writing and Affect

In the past, research on writing and in the affective domain has been limited, with appropriate and proper dispositions for writers appearing mainly as maxims or advice. For example, accounts by and about professional writers reveal a great deal about the dispositions that these individuals value and enact, such as a willingness to take compositional risks in negotiating conflicting voices or thoughts (Hemingway, 1958), thinking out of the box (Bertoff, 1983; Piercy, 2001; Sontag, 2001; E. P. Torrance, 1963), and showing tenacity and commitment to the work (Goldberg, 1986, 1990; Howard, 2001; Shields, 2001). Writers often indicate that they genuinely enjoy and care about their craft (Fox, 1988; Heard, 1995; Howard; Turow, 2001).

In educational circles, individuals and organizations have frequently articulated dispositions as learning outcomes. The 1996 Standards for the English Language Arts copublished by The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the International Reading Association (IRA) expected students to become "knowledgeable, reflective, creative, and critical members of a variety of literacy communities" (NCTE & IRA, 1996, Standard 11, p. 3). Florida's education standards (Florida Department of Education, 2003) describe dispositions as positive learning environments in which students are accountable for behaviors of inquiry, acceptance, engagement, cooperation, and self-motivation.

Writing process researchers in the 1970s and 1980s often hinted at dispositions by labeling affective approaches of writers clustered at either extreme of a continuum, such as reflexive or reactive (Graves, 1975), reactive (i.e., closed) or transactive (i.e., flexible; Ryan, 1985), extensive (i.e., impersonal and objective manner) or reflective (i.e., personal manner; Emig, 1971; Perl, 1979), and deep processors or surface processors (Biggs, 1988; de Beaugrande, 1984; Flower & Hayes, 1981). During the decade that followed, affective issues of writing anxiety or apprehension (Bandura, 1977; Daly & Miller, 1975; Faigley, Daly, & Witte, 1981; Spielberger, 1983) and writer's block (Rose, 1985) raised questions about certain behaviors that impede productive writing.

Recent researchers have begun to address the affect of writing on various fronts, from theoretical models (Hayes, 2006) and structural relations (Graham, Berninger, & Fan, 2007) to intervention studies (Hidi, Berndorff, & Ainley, 2002) and longitudinal work (Nolen, 2007). Researchers have identified theoretical constructs as having both (a) affective and cognitive dimensions and (b) process and outcome variables in prominent studies of writing interest (Hidi, 2006; Hidi et al., 2002; Hidi et al., 2004) and motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Guthrie & Wigfield, 1997; Hidi & Boscolo, 2006; Meyer & Turner, 2002).

Past and recent investigators of affect frequently rely on surveys, questionnaires, or scales to elicit writers' perceptions and general attitudes about writing (Bottomley, Henk, & Melnick, 1997/1998; Daly & Miller, 1975; Greenwald, Persky, Campbell, & Mazzeo, 1999; Kear et al., 2000; Knudson, 1992, 1993; Lavelle, 1993). Particularly well-known are the scales measuring self- efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Pajares, 2003), the belief that a writer can carry out particular actions to reach a goal. Although self- efficacy has been used to predict writing performance (Pajares; Pajares & Valiante, 1997; Schunk, 2003; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989), most often the construct is defined and empirically linked to outcome measures that are cognitively driven rather than socially produced "mediators of cognition" (Hidi, 2006, p. 70). When writing surveys are included as a part of naturalistic process research, data are often peripheral to the study question and used for anecdotal purposes or triangulation (cf. DeBenedictis, 2007; Grothe, 2007) rather than for answering direct and explicit questions about writing affect.

Thus, although advances are being made in the affective domain of writing, the current wave of enthusiasm regarding this research has been tempered by at least three vexing concerns. One difficulty is finding precise, clear, and widely accepted ways to define affective constructs in a body of literature that expresses affect as any number of constructs, including interests, attitudes, values, emotions, self-regulation, goals, tasks, and others.

A second challenge has to do with rethinking definitions that theoretically polarize affect (psychological traits vs. contextualized affective states). Because affect may be linked to both social and cognitive factors, conceptualization may need to embrace the interdependent continuum of behaviors, feelings, and beliefs closely tied to this paradigm. Third, few educational tools currently exist for distinguishing components or measuring interrelations of affective phenomena, and those that are available have been limited theoretically or lack sufficient power and sensitivity to capture and document the dynamic nature of affect as both a temporary, situation-specific state and a potentially enduring trait. Quantifying these constructs would enable a more consistent set of principles for predicting writing competence and explaining events under certain conditions. Despite the work remaining to be done, writing educators have long recognized intuitively that students' affective states can influence academic success in school and shape judgments about abilities, personality traits, cooperative behavior, and expressed attitudes (Gilmore, 1987; Heath, 1983; Morine-Dershimer, 1981). Recently, a Response to Intervention (RtI) Model (2006-2008) referenced in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2001) addressed interventions for social- affective behavior and academic behavior of general and exceptional students, targeting a systematic method for evaluating student needs (Response to Intervention, 2006-2008).

Study Goal

"Children are expected to learn about 'something' and at the same time to learn certain rules of proper and appropriate behavior" (Mishler, 1972, p. 280). The affective, motivational, or attitudinal domain accounts for more variance in school learning than a combination of factors related to peer groups, direct instruction, and school culture (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993). To account for motivating the unmotivated and engaging all writers, educational researchers must work explicitly to extend the field's knowledge base about the affective aspects of writing. Our goal was to develop and validate an instrument that could identify the critical affective stances that compose the dispositional side of writing. The Writing Dispositions Scale (WDS) is intended to be useful for providing explicit, descriptive subcategories of disposition that can serve researchers interested in investigating a well-rounded view of what is involved in learning to write.

Method

Participants

Participants were 884 fourth- through sixth-grade students at six schools in the panhandle of Florida. Both genders were equally represented (53.5% girls, 46.5% boys), and the majority of students were White (66.9% White, 17.6% Black, 11.3% other). Demographic information regarding gender and race across grade levels is provided in Table 1.

Regarding school sites, one of the six was a K-12 university school, one was a public middle school, and the other four were elementary public schools in the county. The one middle school drew students from several elementary schools in the region. We selected schools on the basis of overall grades in the Florida A Plus plan (Florida Department of Education, 2006-2007), in which "A" represented excellence and "F" represented failure. At the time of this study, only one school received a "C" grade. Thus, participating schools included three schools awarded As, two schools awarded Bs, and one school awarded a C. Demographic information regarding gender and race across schools is provided in Table 2.

Measurement Development

The qualitative literature on writing guided our hypothesis that at least three affective stances?confidence, persistence, and passion?may account for a writer's disposition. For the first step in the development of the WDS we created the content to be reflected in the items representing the three stances.

Confidence. Confidence reflects faith or belief in an individual's ability to write and a certainty about his or her effectiveness as a writer. It is closely aligned with self-efficacy in that researchers have found that children's beliefs about what they can accomplish are good predictors of their efficacy expectations and writing outcomes (Bandura, 1986; Pajares, 2003; Pajares, Miller, & Johnson, 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997; Schunk, 2003; Shell et al., 1989). Similarly, a reciprocal relation exists in that strong achievement outcomes seem to have a positive affect on a writer's feelings about writing or willingness to engage in certain activities (Dweck, 1986; Finn & Cox, 1992). Individuals' belief that they can learn to write rather than that writing is a gift or talent seems to influence attitudes and motivation.

However, confidence as defined here also has a social component in that it may vary as a result of instructional conditions, tasks, or social interactive contexts. Qualitative and pedagogical researchers point to the role of instruction in helping students acquire confident writing behaviors. Process advocates have long claimed an indisputable link between positive writing habits (e.g., pride and ownership of work) and teaching practices such as giving students a choice of topics, extended opportunities to write, and occasions to interact and participate with the instructor and peers through collaborative learning and discourse communities (Dahl & Farnan, 1998; Ede & Lunsford, 1985; Murray, 1979; Perl, 1994).

Persistence. Persistence reflects the writer's willingness to spend time writing and expend effort continuously. Matters concerning persistence include specifying time, duration, and frequency. Researchers have shown that good writers spend time planning either before or during writing and are more likely to believe that thinking about writing takes time (Flower & Hayes, 1980; Graves, 1983). Good writers persevere by solving problems rather than giving up (Flower & Hayes; Perl, 1994) and revise and complete multiple drafts rather than view the first draft as the finished product (Harris, 1995; Lavelle, 1993). For good writers, products are not unalterable but part of a process in which they revisit work (Calkins, 1980; Fitzgerald, 1987; Graves, 1983; Newkirk, 1991). Good writers self-monitor work and voluntarily rework papers as a result of audience misunderstanding (DiPardo & Freedman, 1988; Gere, 1987; Harris, 1995; Higgins, Flower, & Petraglia, 1992; Maynor, 1982; Monahan, 1982; Stallard, 1974).

Passion. Passion has been reflected in the literature as a writer's intense drive or desire to write, a strong commitment to writing, and a repeated enjoyment of writing over time. Children with a passion for writing voluntarily write when they do not have to or select writing when given other options. It seems plausible that passionate writers have a sense that writing has value for them and know what this value is (Langer & Applebee, 1987). They choose to write not just for the teacher or for a grade but for a variety of purposes (Florio & Clark, 1982; Sperling & Freedman, 2001) and for themselves and peers (Blackburn & Stern, 2000; Dyson, 1995). Students' passion for writing seems related to their self- perception as a writer or their perceived usefulness of writing (Hattie, 1992; Skaalvik, 1997). A desire to write may also be related to social factors in writing (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). For example, a student may not be able to turn the joy of writing at home into joy in writing at school, because the setting of writing influences one's pleasure in writing to varying degrees (Blackburn & Stern, 2000; Heath, 1983). Even gender may affect a student's passion for writing because "male writers were more apt than females to find ways to please themselves in school writing" (Cleary, 1996, p. 50).

Instrumentation

Given the theoretical and empirical research on confidence, persistence, and passion, we wrote approximately 40 items to reflect both the content and the function of each dispositional stance. The content of the item followed literature-based definitions and existing research, whereas the function represented the constellation of behaviors (i.e., what writers do), beliefs (i.e., what writers perceive), and feelings (i.e., what writers experience). These functions underscore theoretical notions that thoughts and feelings are seldom separate and that experiences are seldom purely cognitive without affect (Brand, 1987; McCleod, 1987). In Krathwohl, Bloom, and Mesia's (1964) seminal work in the affective domain, they stated that "it is unlikely that a writer would think without feeling or act without thinking" (p. 8). Keeping in mind both content and function, our confidence items were aimed at whether students believed they had the skills and abilities needed to write. We designed the confidence items to capture reliance on self, willingness to try new things, certainty about the self and abilities, and feelings that teachers and peers would judge the writing favorably. We wrote confidence items in three formats: 7 statements as behaviors (e.g., "I write good papers"), 8 as feelings (e.g., "I am afraid to try something challenging in writing"), and 16 as beliefs (e.g., "I am successful with every writing assignment the teacher requires"). We targeted persistence items at measuring participants' understanding of revision as rethinking and reseeing work. Item wording included time, effort, and focus on meaning making, regardless of whether participants were spending time in problem-solving work, engaging in revision strategies, rereading work, or writing more than one draft. Persistence items included 18 behavioral items, 9 feelings items, and 4 belief items. The passion items signaled a love of writing and a voluntary act to initiate writing beyond required assignments and without teachers' prodding. In this section, we intended the items to capture strong feelings or emotions attached to writing. We also associated such feelings with a conviction to master writing or an unflagging pursuit of writing. The passion items included 7 behavioral items, 19 feelings items, and 5 belief items.

We submitted the WDS items to five experts in written composition for an initial pass. They rated the fit between the items' content and the operational definitions of the three stances (i.e., confidence, persistence, passion) on a 5-point Likert scale. Then they verified each item's function as a belief, behavior, or feeling. This procedure established not only interrater agreement but also face and content validity. Additionally, we asked the experts to check whether the wording for each scale item was suitable for the age group. We also used readability indexes to gauge desired language level. We discarded or rewrote items that did not fit the defined stance. We eliminated weak or redundant items to produce a final list of 93 items (31 items per stance). All of the items were oriented to the individual as "I" or "me" in statements such as, "I love writing" or "It is easy for me to write clearly about my ideas." We wrote some items positively (e.g., "I love writing") and others negatively (e.g., "I hate writing") to cross- validate responses and check for signs of respondent fatigue. We later recoded negative items in the opposite direction for analysis; higher scores indicated stronger agreement with positive responses. The experts agreed that a 5-point, Likert-type scale was suitable for the age of participants because elementary and middle-grade students are acquainted with self-report instruments of this kind. Participants indicated degrees of magnitude or intensity to questions with descriptors ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The classroom teacher administered the scale to the students with standardized instructions and samples on how to complete the survey. Although there was some discussion among the experts regarding the length of the survey, in the end they decided that this seemingly large set of items had to be balanced against the desire to capture each dispositional stance in a factor analysis and increase reliability. According to the teachers, it took most students about 20 min to complete the WDS. (See Appendixes A-C for the complete set of WDS items and Appendix D for the final questions extracted from the model.)

Data Analysis

We used SPSS version 14.0 to analyze descriptive information and perform the exploratory analysis. Cases with missing data accounted for only 2% of the data set and showed no signs of violating assumptions of randomness. Therefore, because the rate was below suggested guidelines of < 5% (Nosal & Nosal, 2003), we did not use an imputation strategy but did use case-wise deletion where necessary. Next, we split the sample by generating a uniform random number for each case, sorting the cases by the random number, selecting the first half for membership in Sample A, and assigning the second half of the cases to Sample B. We used Sample A to conduct an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and to test the psychometric properties of the WDS and the three subscales (i.e., latent constructs). With the findings from the EFA, we used Sample B to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with LISREL version 8.7 (J?reskog & S?rbom, 1996). The CFA provided the opportunity to confirm the factorial validity of the identified scale and identify a model with optimal fit.

Results

Exploratory Analysis

Because of the large number of variables used, the first step in the exploratory analysis was to remove as much redundant information and as many noninformative variables as possible. We accomplished this by identifying bivariate variable relations with high correlation values, reviewing the theoretical foundation of how each item was worded, and removing as many variables as possible. With the remaining variables, we used a principal component analysis to further refine variable selection, resulting in a model presenting three factors or constructs (eigenvalue loading > 1.0 and the elbow bend in the scree plot) that explained 72.2% of the variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was excellent at .899, and the test of the observed matrix equal to an identity matrix was rejected (Bartlett's .2 = 2,402.857, df = 55, p < .001). Next, we used principal axis factor analyses to evaluate loadings of the remaining variables on the three factors. We examined both orthogonal and oblique rotations, which clearly indicated that the best solution was a Promax rotation; the results are presented in Table 3.

The scales (i.e., WDS; three affective stances or subscales: confidence [C], persistence [P], and passion [PA]) presented good internal consistency for the reliability analysis that yielded Cronbach's alpha levels of .893 for the entire WDS and .806, .749, and .914 for the three subscales, respectively. The consistency was comparable with other research that examined three-item scales (Peterson, 1994). A discriminant validity examination in which we looked for problematic scale predictability of other student characteristics showed that only one of the items in the resulting WDS scale (C14: "My written work is among the best in the class") was related to gender, that boys presented a lower WDS mean than did girls (33.8 vs. 36.7, respectively), and that only one item was correlated with race-ethnicity (PA2: "Writing is my favorite subject in school").

Confirmatory Analysis

We examined the predicted model resulting from the EFA in a CFA using Sample B and LISREL version 8.7 (J?reskog & S?rbom, 1996). Again, the data showed no signs of problematic outliers or violations of multivariate normality assumptions, and we used case- wise deletion because no missing data patterns were identified. The maximum likelihood method was used to estimate data fit to the model, and the latent constructs were allowed to correlate because of the findings of the fit with a Promax rotation in the EFA. The resulting model fit indexes did not support the idea of model fit, but the analysis output suggested changes that would instigate improved fit. Three such changes were to establish three pairs of error variance correlations?"Writing is fun for me" (PA12) to "I am not a good writer" (C19R), PA12 to "Writing is easy for me" (C28), and "I take time to solve problems in my writing (P27) to "I take time to try different possibilities in my writing" (P18). Theoretical review of the implications of correlating these error terms did not suggest that the changes would be problematic. Therefore, we added the correlated error terms to the model and conducted the CFA again.

The final model presented in Figure 1 includes 11 observed variables and three latent constructs. This model resulted in good fit indexes: root mean square error of approximation = .034 and root mean square residual = .041, below the .05 criteria; normed fit index = .99, nonnormed fit index = .99, comparative fit index = 1.00, relative fit index = .98, and goodness of fit index = .98, all above the .95 criteria; and expected cross-validation index = .26 and Akaike information criterion = 115.66, both below their saturated values of .30 and 132.00, respectively.

Discussion

The primary aim of our study was instrument development. Affective variables in written composition have been underrepresented in the literature, and researchers can develop better measures and tools for addressing generally how writers engage in tasks and specifically what dispositions they bring to the act of writing. The WDS offers practical insights into whether students feel certain about their writing ability and committed to a task or whether they view writing as a goal that is desired or valued (cf. Facione, Sanchez, Facione, & Gainen, 1995; Taube, 1997).

At the time of this publication, we are conducting a study to test the potential of the WDS for comparing interscale relations and constructs such as interest, temperament, attitude, self-efficacy, and engagement, because at the conceptual level there seems to be considerable overlap. We plan to pursue a line of research and inquiry on dispositions to examine to what extent dispositions can predict the writing quality of elementary and middle school students. We are also curious about whether WDS is sensitive to other academic levels (e.g., primary grades, high school, college) and instructional contexts of writing. Although the WDS examines one lens through which researchers can examine affect, there is much to learn about how dispositions, affect, and sociocognitive processes work together as a family of perspectives for writing. Such advances can have important implications for educators of writing whose common goal is for students to acquire certain strategies and skills: not only those necessary for learning to write but also those needed for developing the positive dispositions that accompany doing something that they care about and enjoy.

REFERENCES

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bertoff, A. (1983). The intelligent eye and the thinking hand. In J. Hays, P. A. Roth, J. R. Ramsey, & R. D. Foulke (Eds.), The writer's mind: Writing as a mode of thinking (pp. 191-196). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Biggs, J. B. (1988, April). Students' approaches to essay- writing and the quality of the written product. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Blackburn, M., & Stern, D. (2000). Analyzing the role of the vernacular in student writing: A social literacies approach. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 16, 53-69.

Bottomley, D. M., Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1997/1998). Assessing children's views about themselves as writers using the Writer Self-Perception Scale. Reading Teacher, 51, 286-296.

Brand, A. (1987). The why of cognition: Emotion and the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 38, 436-443.

Brand, A., & Graves, R. (Eds.). (1994). Presence of mind: Writing and the domain beyond the cognitive. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Calkins, L. M. (1980). Children's rewriting strategies. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 331-341.

Cleary, L. M. (1996). "I think I know what my teachers want now": Gender and writing motivation. English Journal, 85, 50-57.

Dahl, K. L., & Farnan, N. (1998). Children's writing: Perspectives from research. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.

Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 272-289. Daly, J. A., & Wilson, D. A. (1983). Writing apprehension, self-esteem, and personality. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 327-341.

de Beaugrande, R. (1984). Text production: Toward a science of composition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

DeBenedictis, D. C. (2007). Writing better; writing worse: Uncovering fourth-grade students' knowledge of writing strategies (Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68, 249.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-688.

DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58, 119-149.

Durst, R. K. (1987). Cognitive and linguistic demands of analytic writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 347-376.

Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

Dyson, A. H. (1995). Writing children: Reinventing the development of childhood literacy. Written Communication, 12, 4-46.

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1985). Let them write together. English Quarterly, 18, 19-27.

Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Facione, P. A., Sanchez, C. A., Facione, N. C., & Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. Journal of General Education, 44, 1-25.

Faigley, L., Cherry, R. D., Jolliffe, D. A., & Skinner, A. M. (1985). Assessing writers' knowledge and processes of composing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Faigley, L., Daly, J. A., & Witte, S. P. (1981). The effects of writing apprehension on writing performance and competence. The Journal of Educational Research, 75, 16-21.

Finn, J. D., & Cox, D. (1992). Participation and withdrawal among fourthgrade pupils. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 141- 162.

Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481-506.

Florida Department of Education. (2003). Sunshine state standards. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://etc.usf.edu/ flstandards/la/ index/html

Florida Department of Education. (2006-2007). Grading Florida public schools. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from, http:// schoolgrades.fldoe.org

Florio, S., & Clark, C. (1982). The functions of writing in an elementary classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 115- 130.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 1, 21-32.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.

Fox, M. (1988). Notes from the battlefield: Towards a theory of why people write. Language Arts, 65, 112-125.

Gere, A. R. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory and implications. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Gilmore, P. (1987). Sulking, stepping, and tracking: The effects of attitude assessment on access to literacy. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Literacy and schooling (pp. 98-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Goldberg, N. (1986). Writing down the bones. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Goldberg, N. (1990). Wild mind: Living the writer's life. New York: Bantam.

Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first-and thirdgrade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 516-536.

Graves, D. H. (1975). An examination of the writing processes of sevenyear- old children. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 227- 241.

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Greenwald, E. A., Persky, H. R., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 writing report card. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Grothe, S. A. (2007). Effects of the writer's workshop on elementary students with special needs. Unpublished master's thesis, Southwest Minnesota State University, Marshall.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (Eds.). (1997). Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Harris, M. (1995). Why writers need writing tutors. College English, 57, 27-42.

Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 6-44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hayes, J. R. (2006). New directions in writing theory. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 28-40). New York: Guilford.

Heard, G. (1995). Writing toward home. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hemingway, E. (1958). In G. Plimpton (Ed.), Writers at work: The Paris review interviews (Series 2, pp. 215-239). New York: Viking Press.

Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1, 69-82.

Hidi, S., Berndorff, D., & Ainley, M. (2002). Children's argument writing, interest and self 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: Guilford Press.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111-127.

Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (2004). Interest, a motivational variable that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Steinberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 89-115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Higgins, L., Flower, L., & Petraglia, J. (1992). Planning text together: The role of critical reflections in student collaboration. Written Communication, 9, 48-84.

Howard, M. (2001). The enduring commitment of a faithful storyteller. In J. Darton (Ed.), Writers (on writing): Collected essays from the New York Times (pp. 99-103). New York: Henry Holt.

J?reskog, K., & S?rbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8.7: User's reference guide [Computer software manual]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

Kear, D. J., Coffman, G. A., McKenna, M. C., & Ambrosio, A. L. (2000). Measuring attitude toward writing: A new tool for teachers. Reading Teacher, 54, 10-23.

Knudson, R. E. (1992). Development and application of a writing attitude survey for grades 1-3. 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.

Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamics aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383-409.

Krapp, A. (2003). Interest and human development: An educational- psychological perspective. In L. Smith, C. Rogers, & P. Tomlinson (Eds.), British Journal of Educational Psychology Monographs: Series 2. Development and motivation?Joint perspectives (pp. 57-84).

Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Mesia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II?Affective domain. New York: David McKay.

Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Lavelle, E. (1993). Development and validation of an inventory to assess processes in college composition. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 489-499.

Maimon, L. (2002). The relationship between self-efficacy and the functions of writing. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33, 32-45.

Maynor, L. C. (1982). An investigation of the revising practices of college freshman writers (Doctoral dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2543A.

McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing: A different view of self-evaluation. College Composition and Communication, 36, 465-471.

McCleod, S. (1987). Some thoughts about feelings: The affective domain and the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 38, 426-435.

Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 107- 114.

Mishler, E. G. (1972). Implications of teacher strategies for language and cognition: Observations in first-grade classrooms. In C. Cazden, V. P. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 267-298). New York: Teachers College Press.

Monahan, B. D. (1982). Revision strategies of basic and competent writers as they write for different audiences. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED229756)

Morine-Dershimer, G. (1981). The literate pupil. Syracuse, NY: J. Richard Street Lecture Series, Syracuse University.

Murray, D. M. (1979). The listening eye: Reflections on the writing conference. College English, 41, 13-18.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2002). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://www. ncate.org/200/unit_stnds_2002.pdf

National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: Authors.

Newkirk, T. (1991). The middle class and the problem of pleasure. In N. Atwell (Ed.), Workshop 3 by and for teachers: The politics of process (pp. 63-72). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. No Child Left Behind Act. (2001, Jan. 8) Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http:// www.ed.gov/nclb

Nolen, S. B. (2007). Young children's motivation to read and write: Development in social contexts. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 219-270.

Nosal, M., & Nosal, E. (2003, June). Three-parameter weibull generator for replacing missing observations. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Conference on Statistics and Related Fields, Honolulu, HI.

Nystrand, M., & Duffy, J. (2003). Towards a rhetoric of everyday life: New directions in research on writing, text, and discourse. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.

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. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353-360.

Perkins, D., Jay, E., & Tishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 1- 21.

Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in Teaching of English, 13, 317-336.

Perl, S. (Ed.). (1994). Landmark essays on writing process. Davis, CA: Heragoras Press.

Peterson, R. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 381-391.

Piercy, M. (2001). Life of prose and poetry: An inspiring combination. In J. Darton (Ed.), Writers (on writing): Collected essays from the New York Times (pp. 178-184). New York: Henry Holt.

Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54-68). New York: Guilford.

Response to Intervention (RtI) Model. (2006-2008). Technical assistance paper. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http:// www.fldoe.org/ese/pdf/ y2006-8.pdf

Rose, M. (Ed.). (1985). When a writer can't write: Studies in writer's block and other composing process problems. New York: Guilford.

Ryan, S. M. (1985). An examination of reading and writing strategies of selected fifth-grade students. In J. Niles & R. Lalik (Eds.), Thirty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference: Issues in literacy?A research perspective (pp. 386-390). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 159-172.

Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 91-100.

Shields, C. (2001). Opting for invention over the injury of invasion. In J. Darton (Ed.), Writers (on writing): Collected essays from the New York Times (pp. 211-216). New York: Henry Holt.

Skaalvik, E. (1997). Issues in research on self-concept. In P. R. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 51-97). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Sontag, S. (2001). Directions: Write, read, rewrite. Repeat steps two and three as needed. In J. Darton (Ed.), Writers (on writing): Collected essays from the New York Times (pp. 223-229). New York: Henry Holt.

Sperling, M., & Freedman, S. W. (2001). Research on writing. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 370-388). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists' Press.

Stallard, C. K. (1974). An analysis of the behavior of good student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 8, 206-218.

Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students' achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 321- 351.

Taube, K. T. (1997). Critical thinking ability and disposition as factors of performance on a written critical thinking test. Journal of General Education, 46, 129-164.

Tishman, S., & Andrade, A. (2004). Thinking dispositions: A review of current theories, practices, and issues. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/ Dispositions.htm

Torrance, E. P. (1963). Creativity. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 28-40). New York: Guilford.

Turow, S. (2001). An odyssey that started with Ulysses. In J. Darton (Ed.), Writers (on writing): Collected essays from the New York Times (pp. 230-235). New York: Henry Holt.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning. Review of Educational Research, 63, 249-294.

Ziegler, M. F., Bain, S. K., Bell, S. M., McCallum, R. S., & Brian, D. J. G. (2006). Predicting women's persistence in adult literacy classes with dispositional variables. Reading Psychology, 27, 59-85.

CAROLYN L. PIAZZA

CARL F. SIEBERT

Florida State University, Tallahassee

Address correspondence to Carolyn L. Piazza, Florida State University, College of Education, 215R Stone Building, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4330, USA. (E-mail: cpiazza@fsu.edu)

Copyright (c) 2008 Heldref Publications

CAROLYN L. PIAZZA (cpiazza@fsu.edu) is an associate professor in the reading and language arts program in the School of Teacher Education at The Florida State University. Her interests include written composition and spoken and written discourse in elementary classrooms. CARL F. SIEBERT (cseibert@fsu.edu) is a PhD student seeking dual degrees in biostatistics and statistical measurement. His interests are in scale development, SEM analysis, and modeling with latent variables that reflect social and educational constructs.

APPENDIX A

Writing Dispositions Scale Items for Confidence

1. I write good papers.

2. I am afraid to try something challenging in writing.

3. I have a lot of trouble writing.

4. I have the skills I need to write well.

5. I can easily accomplish challenging writing goals.

6. I am never worried about having my writing evaluated.

7. I am successful with every writing assignment the teacher requires.

8. I can always find what needs to be changed to make my writing better.

9. I am sure I can learn any new writing strategy.

10. I don't write as well as my other classmates.

11. I seldom have good suggestions to offer others about their writing.

12. It is easy for me to express my ideas clearly in writing.

13. Writing makes me nervous.

14. My written work is among the best in the class.

15. I write well only with extra encouragement.

16. I can do many different kinds of writing.

17. I am good at proofreading my writing.

18. I can always count on good grades in writing.

19. I am not a good writer.

20. I can write on my own without the teacher's help.

21. I write ideas that interest others.

22. I can experiment with new ideas.

23. I like it when others give me advice that helps me write better.

24. I am seldom proud of my writing.

25. I am good at only some kinds of writing.

26. I'm not sure what to do when I have a problem with my writing.

27. I can write about any topic assigned.

28. Writing is easy for me.

29. I enjoy sharing my written ideas with others.

30. I have lots of ideas to write about.

31. I am never certain about whether my writing is good or not.

APPENDIX B

Writing Dispositions Scale Items for Persistence

1. I will continue practicing writing until I get good at it.

2. I see no reason to rewrite a paper.

3. I usually write more than one draft of a paper.

4. I frequently re-read my writing to examine my thoughts.

5. I am determined to complete difficult papers.

6. When I get stuck on my writing, I don't give up.

7. I am only willing to complete easy papers.

8. I take extra time to review my writing before I turn it in.

9. I put a lot of effort into my writing.

10. I sometimes continue on my writing for several days to make it better.

11. I try to figure out the problem if ideas are not working in my paper.

12. In school, I have trouble concentrating on writing for very long.

13. Writing is hard for me because I have to plan and revise.

14. I usually spend more time on my writing than the teacher requires.

15. I give up when I run into a problem with my writing.

16. I don't mind starting over when I'm not pleased with my writing.

17. I wait until the last minute to complete a writing assignment.

18. I take time to try different possibilities in my writing.

19. Even if I were doing poorly in writing class, I would refuse to give up.

20. I am willing to start over if someone doesn't understand my work.

21. I will continue to work on a piece beyond the usual writing time.

22. I am willing to spend time on long papers.

23. I often request extra time in class to improve my writing.

24. I write quickly so I can do other things.

25. I never stop trying to become a better writer.

26. I often choose to continue my writing at home so I can make my paper better.

27. I take time to solve problems in my writing.

28. I usually have too much time for writing.

29. I give myself plenty of time to write a good paper.

30. I often work quickly so I can be among the first to turn in my writing.

31. My first draft is usually the final product.

APPENDIX C

Writing Dispositions Scale Items for Passion

1. I love writing.

2. Writing is my favorite subject in school.

3. I get upset when it's time for writing class.

4. I like to read my writing to the class.

5. I think about my writing during other parts of the school day.

6. Writing makes me feel good.

7. I hate writing.

8. I write every chance I get.

9. I avoid writing.

10. I write more often than other kids in my class. 11. When I am writing, I'd rather be doing something else.

12. Writing is fun for me.

13. The only reason I write is to get a good grade.

14. Writing is boring.

15. I like different kinds of writing.

16. If I have choices during free time, I usually select writing.

17. I think of myself as an author.

18. I would write even if the teacher didn't assign writing.

19. Writing is important to me.

20. I put a lot of myself in my writing.

21. I wish I had more time to devote to writing.

22. It is important for me to like what I've written.

23. Writing is a waste of my time.

24. I would consider writing as a career.

25. I always look forward to writing class.

26. I write because it is something you are forced to do in school.

27. My writing gives me great satisfaction.

28. I like putting thoughts down on paper.

29. I do only what I have to do when given a writing assignment.

30. I would like to write more in school.

31. I am not interested in knowing more about writing.

Copyright Heldref Publications May/Jun 2008

(c) 2008 Journal of Educational Research, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.

Source: Journal of Educational Research, The

More News in this Category