Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STARTING ASSIGNMENT
Complete the questionnaire “Why are you writing in your
daily professional academic work”?
Calculate afterwards your average score for both
subscales:
MOT_AUT
MOT_CON
Reflect on what these scores mean for your academic
writing motiation
LEVEL OF LITERACY SKILLS
7
Encounter
difficulties with
reading
comprehension
(Mullis et al., 2012,
OECD, 2014)
Alarming
results on
students’ poor
writing
performance
(National Center for
Education Statistics,
2012)
LEARNING TO WRITE
Effective writing skills are
necessary to participate and
engage in today’s society
Writing education is found
accountable to provide high-
quality writing instruction so
students can develop these skills
8
WRITING = CHALLENGING
13
Cognitive challenges
Writers have to manage:
Writing environment
Writing topic
Intentions
Processes, knowledge,
skills
Motivational challenges
Educational writing experiences:
Not of interest to students
Difficult
Threathening
(Graham et al., 2013) (Hidi & Boscolo, 2006; Bruining & Horn, 2000)
MOTIVATION FOR WRITING
16
Writing (and also reading )
motivation appears to decline
from the end of primary school
on
(Cleary, 1991; Smith et al., 2012; Wigfield,
2004)
“Writing motivation is inherently connected to students’
writing, as writers must be motivated to devote time and
effort in planning, revising, and finalizing texts until they
communicate effectively”
(Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997).
RECENTLY INCREASING ATTENTION FOR MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS AND CHALLENGES OF WRITING
THEORIES ON WRITING
Two strands of research on writing (Boscolo, 2008)
1.(Socio-)cognitive research: emphasizes the
complexity of writing as a basically solitary enterprise
2.Socio-cultural research: underlines the social and
cultural dimensions of writing
21
(SOCIO-)COGNITIVE RESEARCH
22
Hayes & Flower (1980)
Cognitive recourses
writers bring to the task
of writing
(SOCIO-)COGNITIVE RESEARCH
23
Hayes (2012)
Cognitive and
motivational recourses
writers bring to the task
of writing
SOCIO-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
Writing is inherently a social activity, situated within a specific context
(e.g., writing community)
Writing is a socialized acitvity that almost alway involves multiple
people (i.e., author and collaborators, author and readers, …)
“Writing cannot be fully understood without considering how the
communities in which it takes place and those involved in creating it
evolve, including how community and individuals reciprocally influence
each other”
(Barton, 1991, Hull & Schultz, 2001; Graham, 2018)
24
COMBINING BOTH STRANDS
A writer(s) Within Community Model of Writing
(Graham, 2018)
“A model that embraces both perspectives (cognitive and
socio-cultural) is likely to results in a fuller and richer
understanding of writing”
25
A WRITER(S) WITHIN COMMUNITY MODEL OF WRITING
Writing community =
“A group of people who share a
set of goals and assumptions
and use writing to achieve their
purposes”
26
A WRITER(S) WITHIN COMMUNITY MODEL OF WRITING
“If the writing community is the social context in which
writing takes place, then individual writers and their
collaborators are the keys that turn the engine and
fuels the process behind meaning making in writing.” (Graham, 2018)
27
A WRITER(S) WITHIN COMMUNITY MODEL OF WRITING
A schematic diagram of the
relationship between the
different cognitive
components involved in
writing. This schematic
structure is presented for a
single writer, even though
multiple members of a
community may be involved
as writers and collaborators
in carrying out a writing
project.
28
CAN YOU THINK OF POTENTIAL MOTIVATIONALVARIABLES
- Based on your own research?
- Based on what you read?
- Based on what you
saw/heared the past days?
A VARIETY OF MOTIVATIONAL VARIABLES
Motives for engaging in writing - writing motivation
Self-efficacy beliefs for writing
Interest
Perceived task value
Writing attitude
Goal orientation (mastery vs. performance goals)
Writing apprehension
Implicit theories of writing
Attributions for writing success and failure
…
(e.g. Troia et al., 2013)
32
Rooted resp. in the self-determination
theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000b) and in
self-efficacy theory (SET; Bandura, 1977;
Bandura, 1997, Bandura, 2006)
compatible theoretical frameworks,
sharing assumption that humans are
agents of their behavior
(Sweet, Fortier, Strachan, & Blanchard,
2012)
SELF-EFFICACY FOR WRITING WITHIN SET
For example …
Bruning, Dempsey, Kauffman, McKim, and Zumbrunn (2013):
SE for ideation (i.e., self-beliefs about the ability to generate
ideas)
SE for conventions (i.e., self-beliefs about adhering to language
rules)
SE for regulation (i.e., self-beliefs about regulating writing
behavior)
Self-efficacy for Writing Scale (SEWS)
FOCUS TODAY: WRITING MOTIVATION
Motivation < movere = “setting in motion”
Which factors set writers “in motion”? (Vansteenkiste,
Lens, & Deci, 2006)
Drive, reason, motive of behavior?
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as theoretical frame of
reference (Deci & Ryan, 2000)
34
• Promising, contemporary, innovative!
• Rationale: students/writers do not only vary in the
amount of their motivation but also in the quality (i.e.,
the kind of motives underlying one’s behaviour)
(Ryan & Deci, 2000)
THE SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY (SDT)
External
pressure
Controlled motivation Autonomous motivation
Internal pressure Inner sense of
satisfactionValue the activity
(Ryan & Deci, 2000)
... to obtain a
reward
... otherwise I feel
ashamed
... because I value
reading... because I enjoy
reading
SDT
External
pressure
Controlled motivation Autonomous motivation
Internal pressure Inner sense of
satisfactionValue the activity
Most optimal type of motivation
(Ryan & Deci, 2000)
SDT
Encouraging students’ autonomous motivation:
• Nurturing students’ psychological needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness
• Autonomy-supportive, structured, and involved teaching
behavior
• Need supportive teaching style vs. need-frustrating teaching
style
(Jang et al., 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000;
Sierens et al., 2009)
SDT
POTENTIAL MEASUREMENT APPROACHES
Questionnaires
Interviews
Observations
Combination of … might be the way to go?
Considering other actors (teachers, parents, …)
Especially for some specific target or age groups
42
WE WENT FOR … A QUESTIONNAIRE
43
De Smedt, F., Merchie, E., Barendse, M.,
Rosseel, Y., De Naeghel, J., & Van Keer, H.
(2017). Cognitive and Motivational Challenges in
Writing: Studying the Relation With Writing
Performance Across Students' Gender and
Achievement Level. Reading Research
Quarterly, 53, 249-272
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.193
AIM OF THAT STUDY
How cognitive and motivational challenges mediate and correlate with students’
writing performance
How these relationships vary for boys and girls an for writers of different
achievement levels
44
METHOD
799 fifth and sixth graders completed:
45
Student questionnaires Self-efficacy for writing (SEWS) (Bruning et al., 2013)
Writing motivation (SRQ-Writing Motivation)
Writing strategies (Kieft et al., 2006-2008)
Writing tests Informational writing test
Narrative writing test
Preparatory analyses:
EFA/CFA/Multiple group
measurement invariance
Overall text quality: holistic
scoring procedure based on
benchmarking (Bouwer et al., 2016)
METHOD - PARTICIPANTS
N = 2343 students from 127 classes from 26 different primary and
secondary schools in Flanders (Belgium)
47
Middle primary grades Upper primary grades Lower secondary
grades
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
N = 440 N = 445 N = 452 N = 391 N = 283 N = 332
METHOD: MEASURES
‒ Background information (cf., gender, home language, date of
birth, performance level)
‒ SRQ-Reading Motivation (De Naeghel et al., 2012)
‒ SRQ-Writing motivation (De Smedt et al., 2017)
48
Two contexts:
Academic context
Recreational context
Two types of motivation:
Autonomous motivation
Controlled motivation
17 items
5-point Likert-scale
METHOD: DATA-ANALYSIS
1. Can measures for reading and writing motivation be developed that are
invariant across gender, grades, and performance level?
2. How reliable are these measures?
3. What are trends concerning reading and writing motivation in the
academic and recreational context throughout primary and secondary
education
49
CFA + Measurement invariance
(Lavaan package in R)
Measures for internal consistency
(Bentler’s ρ)
(Lavaan package in R)
Descriptive statistics
(SPSS)
SRQ-WRITING MOTIVATION
Provides measures that are invariant across gender,
general achievement, and grades
Is a reliable instruments to measure writing motivation
within the innovative SDT-framework
50
RESULTS
Trends – Academic writing motivation
51
0
1
2
3
4
Middleelementary
Upperelementary
Low secondary
Autonomous motivation
Controlled motivation
RESULTS
Trends – Recreational writing motivation
52
012345
Middleelementary
Upperelementary
Lowsecondary
Autonomous motivation
Controlled motivation
CONCLUSION
Results confirm a decrease in students’ reading and
writing motivation as they progress from elementary to
secondary grades
53
However, to investigate
how students’ reading
and writing motivation is
developing over time, we
need longitudinal instead
of cross-sectional
research!
FURTHER READINGBruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 105(1), 25–38. doi:10.1037/a0029692
Bruning, R., & Kauffman, D. (2016). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 160–173). New York: The Guilford Press.
Graham, S. (2018). A writer(s) within community model of writing. In C. Bazerman, V. W. Berninger, D. Brandt, S. Graham, J. Langer, S. Murphy, P.
Matsuda, D. Rowe, & M. Schleppegr (Eds.), The lifespan development of writing (pp. 272-325). Urbana, IL: National Council of English.
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.
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: The Guilford Press.
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2014). Implicit theories of writing and their impact on students’ response to a SRSD intervention. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 571-590. doi:10.1111/bjep.12042
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2017). Relating beliefs in writing skill malleability to writing performance: The mediating role of achievement goals and
self-efficacy. Journal of Writing Research, 9, 97-125. doi:10.17239/jowr-2017.09.02.01
Pajares, F. (2007). Empirical properties of a scale to assess writing self-efficacy in school contexts. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 39, 238-249.
Pajares, F., & Cheong, Y. F. (2003). Achievement goal orientations in writing: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Educational
Research, 39, 437-455. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.008
Pajares, F., Valiante, G., & Cheong, Y. F. (2007). Writing self-efficacy and its relation to gender, writing motivation and writing competence: A
developmental perspective. In S. Hidi & P. Boscolo (Eds.), Writing and motivation (pp. 141- 159). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
…
TEACHERS AND THEIR MOTIVATION, BELIEFS, EMOTIONS, …
Teacher beliefs about writing and writing instruction
(Pajares, 1992)
Teacher attitudes towards writing instruction (Brindle,
2013)
Teacher self-efficacy judgments (Graham et al., 2001)
Affect actual teaching behavior!
POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS
Writing Orientation Scale (Graham et al., 2002) (3 factors:
correct writing, explicit instruction, and natural learning)
Teachers’ attitude towards writing and writing instruction:
Brindle’s (2013) questionnaire
Teacher Efficacy Scale for Writing (TES-W) (Graham et al.,
2001)
Classroom Practices Survey (Cutler & Graham, 2008) (e.g.,
teaching writing strategies, collaborative writing, integrating
ICT).
Hilde Van Keer
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL STUDIES
http://www.onderwijskunde.ugent.be/user.php?u=hvankeer
http://www.onderwijskunde.ugent.be/user_articles.php?u=hvankeer
http://www.taallereninnoveren.ugent.be/