THE READING AND WRITING SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS OF STUDENTS

WITH DISCREPANT READING AND WRITING

PERFORMANCE

EMILY JENNIFER SHAW

BS, Cornell University, 2001 MSEd, Fordham University, 2003

Mentor Akane Zusho, PhD

Readers John C. Houtz, PhD

Amy Elizabeth Schmidt, PhD

DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

rN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION OF FORDHAM UNIVERSITY

NEW YORK 2007

UMI Number: 3302121

Copyright 2007 by Shaw, Emily Jennifer

All rights reserved.

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI UMI Microform 3302121

Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway

PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

11

Emily Jennifer Shaw, 2007, All Rights Reserved.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this dissertation has been accomplished with the helpful

contributions of many wonderful people. My mentor, Dr. Akane Zusho, and readers,

Drs. John Houtz and Amy Schmidt, deserve special mention. They have all guided

me in different but incredibly wise and supportive ways throughout my graduate

school and professional experience as an educational researcher. I feel extremely

lucky to have gone through the dissertation process with all of them.

I must also express my sincerest thanks to my colleagues at the College Board

for providing support and resources to me in every imaginable and conceivable way

to make this process more manageable. In particular, I'd like to thank Mary-Margaret

Kerns for her unwavering encouragement and understanding during this long and

demanding project. Wayne Camara deserves special mention for allowing me the

opportunity to complete my dissertation while growing professionally at the College

Board. Thanks to Krista Mattern Burrus for her expertise in measurement, statistics,

and making me laugh, as well as Sandra Barbuti for pulling much of the archival data

and making herself available for many questions. Additionally, I must acknowledge

Maureen Ewing, Glenn Milewski, Sheryl Packman, Viji Sathy, Ellen Sawtell, and

Jeff Wyatt very giving colleagues and friends.

Throughout my (long) time at Fordham, I have been fortunate and thankful to

have met many people that have taught me a great deal about educational psychology,

research, and also myself. This includes Dean Hennessy, Dean McGrath, Dean

iv

Bernhardt, Mitch Rabinowitz, Fran Blumberg, Peg Tarnowsky, Jennifer Shore,

Christine Gough, Joe Korevec, Pat Biggins, and Kelli Delaco.

Writing this dissertation has also been made less overwhelming with the

loving support of my friends and family. I couldn't imagine going through this

process with anyone more thoughtful, kind, intelligent, and fun than Tanya Warren. I

am thankful for Susan Verni's encouraging notes and gestures (and allowing my

books to take over the living room!). Josh D'Aleo also played a special role in

making me believe I could accomplish this goal. There are many other friends who I

am grateful for and whom despite my limited availability these past few years, have

still chosen to remain my friends and are proud of me for accomplishing this goal.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my extraordinary family. Though this

group extends far beyond my mother, father, sister, and grandmother - 1 will focus on

them for the sake of space. I look at this moment as an opportunity to let my mother

and father know how proud I am to be their daughter and how much they are loved.

My sister has taught me so much over the past many years and has helped me in more

ways than I could ever explain. I'm so lucky to have Hillary as my sister, friend, and

roommate. My grandmother, Sally, has been a wonderful cheerleader and a treasured

friend throughout this process. I must also thank Jordan from the very bottom of my

heart, who since walking into my life, has made everything easier, sweeter, lovelier,

and more fun - even writing this dissertation.

V

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to my mother and father, Elaine and David Shaw, for

giving me a life of always knowing they are in my corner - wherever I have chosen

or will choose that corner to be.

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

DEDICATION v

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES xiii

CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM 1

Purpose of the Study 2

Research Questions 4

Definition of Terms 5

Significance of the Study 7

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 12

Reading-Writing Relations 12

History of the Reading-Writing Relationship 12

Shared Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities of Reading and Writing 15

Developmental Aspects of the Reading-Writing Relationship 19

Good Readers/Poor Writers and Good Writers/Poor Readers 22

Social Cognitive Theory 26

Self-Efficacy Beliefs 27

Developmental Aspects of Self-Efficacy 30

Vll

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

Group Differences in Self-Efficacy 31

Gender 31

Culture 32

Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy 33

Measuring Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy 36

Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy Interventions 37

Summary 39

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 42

Participants 42

Instruments and Materials 43

PSAT/NMSQTCritical Reading Section 43

PSAT/NMSQTWriting Skills Section 44

Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument 44

Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument 46

SAT Critical Reading Test 47

SAT Writing Test 47

SAT Questionnaire 48

Procedures 48

Data Analysis 50

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS 54

Characteristics of the Participants 55

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Vlll

Page

Research Questions 1 and 2: The Mediational Role of Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy 72

Research Questions 3 and 4: The Contribution of Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs to Same Domain Performance 81

Research Questions 5 and 6: The Contribution of Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs to Opposite Domain Performance 96

Research Question 7: Chi-Square Analyses and t-Tests of Discrepant Group Differences 110

CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION 118

Summary and Review of the Findings 118

Implications for Researchers and Literacy Educators 128

Limitations 131

Recommendations for Future Research 134

Conclusions 136

REFERENCES 138

APPENDIX A. INSTRUMENTS 150

APPENDIX B. CORRESPONDENCE WITH PARTICIPANTS 156

ABSTRACT 160

VITA 163

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Participant Distribution by Gender 56

Participant Distribution by Ethnicity 57

Participant Distribution by First and Best Languages 58

Participant Distribution by Parental Education and Income Level 59

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and Self-Efficacy Measures for the Total Sample 61

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and Self-Efficacy Measures for Strong Readers/Strong Writers 62

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and Self-Efficacy Measures for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 63

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and Self-Efficacy Measures for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 64

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and Self-Efficacy Measures for Weak Readers/Weak Writers 65

Correlations among Continuous Variables for Total Sample 67

Correlations among Continuous Variables for Strong Readers/Strong Writers 68

Correlations among Continuous Variables for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 69

X

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table Page

13. Correlations among Continuous Variables for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 70

14. Correlations among Continuous Variables for Weak Readers/Weak Writers 71

15. Model Testing Indices for Partially and Fully Mediated Models for the Total Sample 77

16. z and p Values for Indirect Paths of Path Models of Reading and Writing 80

17. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for the Total Sample 83

18. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers 84

19. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 85

20. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 86

21. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers 87

22. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for the Total Sample 91

23. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers 92

24. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 93

XI

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table Page

25. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 94

26. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers 95

27. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for the Total Sample 98

28. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers 99

29. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 100

30. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 101

31. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers 102

32. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for the Total Sample 105

33. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers 106

34. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 107

Xll

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Page

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 108

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers 109

Background Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers and Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 112

Academic Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers and Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 115

Xlll

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

General Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy and Performance Model 9

Partially Mediated Model of Reading Performance for the Total Sample 78

Partially Mediated Model of Writing Performance for the Total Sample 79

1

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Despite the similarities that literacy researchers have found between the cognitive

processes and knowledge involved in both the acts of reading and writing (Kucer, 1987,

2005; Langer & Flihan, 2000; Rosenblatt, 1994; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Tierney &

Shanahan, 1991), there are students who appear to be much stronger readers than writers

and much stronger writers than readers (Langer, 1986a, 1986b; Palmer, 1986; Thacker,

1990, 1991; Tierney, 1983). Very few studies, however, have effectively examined the

discrepant reading and writing performance of high school students, despite Stotsky's

(1983) call for such research over two decades ago. In particular, Stotsky noted that such

research would be useful for teachers to understand the qualities of good writing that

seem to be independent of high reading ability. Largely because of the renewed emphasis

on writing instruction and assessment in the United States (The National Commission on

Writing in America's Schools and Colleges, 2003), investigating students with clearly

discrepant reading and writing performance would be valuable. The SAT Reasoning

Test (SAT) and ACT, the two major college admissions tests, now incorporate

measures of writing performance in addition to reading performance, so that the existence

of students who are stronger readers and weaker writers or stronger writers and weaker

readers has become more apparent to the educational community.

2

It is possible that the reading and writing performance discrepancies are caused by

differences in the beliefs that students hold about their reading and writing capabilities, or

their reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs. The relationship between reading and

writing self-efficacy beliefs and reading and writing performance among students with

discrepant reading and writing performance has not been examined. Such research can

lead to the development of self-efficacy interventions that aid performance in the weaker

area by building on the stronger area.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the present study was to determine the role of students' reading

and writing self-efficacy beliefs in performance discrepancies in the reading and writing

domains. Differing self-efficacy beliefs in reading and writing, formed by different

experiences, perceived messages, or interpretations of emotional and physiological states

in the reading and writing domains, can offer a possible and remediable explanation as to

why these students have performed so differently in such cognitively similar domains.

Reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs significantly influence student

performance in reading and writing. According to social cognitive theory advanced by

Bandura (1986, 1997), human achievement depends on interactions between an

individual's behaviors, personal factors, and environmental conditions. Individuals hold

self-efficacy beliefs that enable them to exert control over their thoughts, feelings, and

actions. Bandura (1986, 1993) acknowledged that when self-efficacy is lacking, people

will tend to underachieve, despite knowing what it is they need to do to be successful.

3

Self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific, or linked to a domain, whereas similar

constructs such as self-concept or competence beliefs are more general and based on

social comparisons instead of normative criteria (Klassen, 2002; Zimmerman, 1995).

Reading self-efficacy has been closely linked to reading performance (Paris & Oka,

1986; Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, 1995; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989), as has writing

self-efficacy to writing performance (Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1999;

Schunk & Swartz, 1993; Shell et al., 1995; Shell et al., 1989; Zimmerman & Bandura,

1994). As students get older, their self-efficacy beliefs appear to be even more predictive

of their achievement in reading and writing (Shell et al., 1995).

Researchers have also concluded that self-efficacy is a more consistent predictor

of behavioral outcomes than other self-beliefs (Graham & Weiner, 1996; Pajares, 2003;

Shell et al., 1995; Shell et al., 1989). For example, the writing self-efficacy literature has

shown that writing self-efficacy, perceived value of writing, writing apprehension, self-

efficacy for self-regulation, and previous writing performances are all correlated with the

writing performance of students of all ages. However, multiple regression and path

analyses show that self-efficacy and prior achievement were the only significant

predictors (Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares, Miller, & Johnson, 1999; Pajares &

Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001). As there are numerous studies indicating that self-efficacy

and achievement can be enhanced through instructional methods that incorporate

modeled strategy use, goal setting, constructive feedback, and self-evaluation of progress,

it appears that students can effectively and efficiently improve their reading or writing

4

performance through these practices (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Schunk, 2003;

Walker, 2003).

Bandura (2001) stated that cultural embeddedness shapes the ways that self-

efficacy beliefs are developed and the way they are put to use. Therefore, it is important

to investigate the role of self-efficacy beliefs in the reading and writing domains after

controlling for the effects of certain cultural and sociological variables. This helps to

more precisely determine the amount of variance in reading and writing performance

explained by the most mutable aspects of self-efficacy, beyond what is not immediately

alterable by educators.

Research Questions

This study answered the following questions:

1. Did reading self-efficacy beliefs mediate the role of students' background and

experiences in reading (including prior achievement in reading and culture) on

reading performance?

2. Did writing self-efficacy beliefs mediate the role of students' background and

experiences in writing (including prior achievement in writing and culture) on

writing performance?

3. For the total sample and the four reading and writing performance groups (strong

readers/strong writers, stronger readers/weaker writers, weaker readers/stronger

writers, and weak readers/weak writers), how much of the variance in reading

performance was explained by reading self-efficacy beliefs, after controlling for

5

prior reading achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best language, and

socioeconomic status (SES)?

4. For the total sample and each of the four reading and writing performance groups,

how much of the variance in writing performance was explained by writing self-

efficacy beliefs, after controlling for prior writing achievement, gender,

race/ethnicity, best language, and SES?

5. After controlling for prior reading achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best

language, and SES, did writing self-efficacy predict reading performance?

6. After controlling for prior writing achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best

language, and SES, did reading self-efficacy predict writing performance?

7. Were there significant differences in writing self-efficacy, reading self-efficacy,

prior English achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best language, and

socioeconomic status between the two discrepant groups (stronger readers/weaker

writers and weaker readers/stronger writers)?

Definition of Terms

In this study, culture was operationalized as the students' gender, race/ethnicity,

first and best languages, and parental income level as a measure of SES taken from the

SAT Questionnaire. These variables are proxies for studying the role of culture in this

study and were chosen due to their availability.

Students were considered to exhibit discrepant reading and writing ability when

their standardized Critical Reading and Writing SAT scores were one standard deviation

or more apart from each other.

6

Prior English achievement was defined as an average of the English course grades

students' had taken in high school. This information came from the SAT Questionnaire.

Prior reading achievement was operationalized by students' scores on the Critical

Reading section of the Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test

(PSAT/NMSQT).

Prior writing achievement was operationalized by students' scores on the Writing

Skills section of the PSAT/NMSQT.

Students were considered to be strong readers/strong writers (SR/SW) when they

had a Critical Reading score that was equivalent to their Writing score based on

standardized SAT scores, and both were approximately one standard deviation above the

mean of the SAT Critical Reading and Writing tests for the October or November 2006

administration.

Students were considered to be stronger readers/weaker writers (SR/WW) when

they had a Critical Reading score that was one standard deviation or more greater than

their Writing score, based on standardized SAT scores from either the October or

November 2006 administration.

Students' background and experiences with reading were operationalized as

students' race/ethnicity, gender, best language, parental income level, and

PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading score.

Students' background and experiences with writing were operationalized as

students' race/ethnicity, gender, best language, parental income level, and

PSAT/NMSQT Writing Skills score.

7

Students were considered to be weaker readers/stronger writers (WR/SW) when

they had a Writing score that was one standard deviation or more greater than their

Critical Reading score, based on standardized SAT scores from either the October or

November 2006 administration.

Students were considered to be weak readers/weak writers (WR/WW) when they

had a Critical Reading score that was equivalent to their Writing score based on

standardized SAT scores, and both were approximately one standard deviation below the

mean of the SAT Critical Reading and Writing tests for the October or November 2006

administration.

Significance of the Study

This research holds both theoretical and practical value for the educational

community. It was hypothesized that students with discrepant reading and writing

performance held different reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs that significantly

contribute to this performance discrepancy. Particularly because reading and writing are

believed to rely on very similar cognitive knowledge, skills, and strategies, self-efficacy

interventions in the weaker area may be quite effective for these students. This study

sheds light on a number of issues related to reading and writing self-efficacy, as well as

literacy instruction and assessment.

Theoretically guided by the model in Figure 1, this study sought to more precisely

understand the relationship between reading and writing self-efficacy and performance,

as well as the relationship between reading and writing self-efficacy. This model shows

that students' backgrounds and experiences with reading (including their cultural

8

background and prior achievement in reading) influence their reading self-efficacy

beliefs. Reading self-efficacy beliefs partially mediate the role of the students'

backgrounds and experiences with reading on reading performance. Similarly, student's

backgrounds and experiences with writing (including their cultural background and prior

achievement in writing) influence their writing self-efficacy beliefs. Writing self-efficacy

beliefs partially mediate the influence of the students' backgrounds and experience with

writing on writing performance. The model also shows some overlap between the

influence of students' backgrounds and experiences with reading and writing on reading

and writing self-efficacy beliefs.

Figure 1

General Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy and Performance Model

10

In particular, it is useful for researchers to understand when self-efficacy can be

considered a mediator of other independent variables on performance. Also, recognizing

the conditions under which reading self-efficacy beliefs generalized to writing activities,

and the conditions under which writing self-efficacy beliefs generalized to reading

activities, informs the self-efficacy literature as to the interchangeability of measures of

writing and reading self-efficacy. An additional question examined was whether the

measures proved interchangeable for certain groups of students but not others. Pajares

(1997) stated that understanding the conditions and circumstances under which self-

beliefs generalize to different academic activities can provide information regarding the

interventions and instructional strategies that aid students in building competence and the

corresponding perceptions of competence.

Using samples of predominantly White students in the Midwest, Shell et al.

(1989) and Shell et al. (1995) identified a single underlying dimension linking students'

beliefs in reading and writing to reading and writing achievement. Due to this, reading

and writing self-efficacy beliefs have rarely been considered simultaneously. Given that

thousands of students displayed discrepant reading and writing performance on the SAT

based on data from the October 2005 SAT administration, a renewed exploration of this

issue was warranted. The further investigation of reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs

among a more geographically and ethnically diverse sample aids in our understanding of

when and for whom writing self-efficacy beliefs generalize to reading activities or

achievement, and when and for whom reading self-efficacy beliefs generalize to writing

11

activities. Ultimately this information can lead to the more informed design of reading

and writing interventions for students struggling with reading, writing, or both.

In addition, this study investigated the role of self-efficacy in reading and writing

performance after controlling for the effects of certain cultural and sociological variables

such as gender, race/ethnicity, best language, and socioeconomic status. This facilitated

the more precise determination of the amount of variance explained by the most mutable

aspects of self-efficacy, beyond what is not immediately alterable by educators.

Practically, this study provided the first demographic description of students who

were categorized as stronger readers/weaker writers and weaker readers/stronger writers

based on a standardized test taken by students across the United States. This allows

educators, as well as theorists, to better understand who these students are in order to

more accurately shape interventions to improve their weaker area in the related domain.

Having access to this sample of students provided a rare opportunity to determine

characteristics that may be unique to students with discrepant reading and writing skills.

Furthermore, because the SAT is taken by approximately 1.5 million students each year,

it is useful to help students with discrepant Critical Reading and Writing scores, as well

as other consumers of the test, understand why they have scored so differently in such

cognitively similar domains.

12

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Reading-Writing Relations

History of the Reading-Writing Relationship

In American schools, the separation of reading and writing was clear from as far

back as the colonial times when the first two "R"s were taught as separate subjects to

children in all types of schools (Nelson & Calfee, 1998). This disjointed instruction of

reading and writing was also characterized by two features that persisted for many years:

(a) a greater emphasis was placed on reading than writing in schools, and (b) writing

instruction was delayed until the fundamentals of reading were mastered. Nelson and

Calfee (1998) wrote that the ability to read was so highly valued by the Protestant settlers

of America because it was essential for reading the Bible and other religious passages, as

well as the common law. Writing was secondary because it was thought to depend on the

ability to read and was viewed as more difficult than reading.

In the United States, reading and writing as disciplines were shaped by different

scholars with different backgrounds and training (Clifford, 1989; Langer & Flihan, 2000).

Early on, academic writing was grounded in Aristotelian rhetoric, focusing on an author's

connection with an audience through invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery

(Langer & Flihan, 2000; Nelson & Calfee, 1998). Writing, primarily an upper-class

13

activity, was intended to be formal, grammatically correct, free from spelling errors, and

largely argumentative or expository in style. However, by the end of the nineteenth

century, traditional views of writing were challenged by more practical and functional

views of writing, with students learning to write contracts, receipts, and invoices in

school (Clifford, 1989). During the era of progressive education in the early twentieth

century, educators were encouraged to connect writing topics to students' experiences

and develop the reader-writer interaction. By the 1970s and 1980s, educators and

researchers showed an increased interest in writing, as studies on language and cognition

highlighted the connections between the learner, the text, and the actual writing process

(Langer & Allington, 1992; Langer & Flihan, 2000).

Academic reading in the United States was originally grounded in British notions

of primary instruction and heavily relied on the recitation and repetition of religious

material (Langer & Allington, 1992; Langer & Flihan, 2000). By the late nineteenth

century, however, the foundation and purpose of academic reading was based on the

results of scientific experiments, and later, on psychological research (Langer & Flihan,

2000). Factor analytic studies in the 1940s, for example, revealed that there were two

major components of readingword knowledge and reasoning, which affected the

structure of reading instruction and launched further research on reading (Langer &

Allington, 1992). Until the 1960s, reading instruction continued to be heavily influenced

by associationist and behaviorist psychology, particularly the work of B. F. Skinner, as

the value of specific skill hierarchies for word recognition and comprehension was

emphasized (Langer & Allington, 1992; Langer & Flihan, 2000). However, with the

14

cognitive revolution of the 1970s, reading began to be viewed as an interactive process

between the reader and the text, focusing reading instruction and research on the

construction of meaning that occurs during reading (Langer & Flihan, 2000).

The major link between the history of writing and the history of reading is that the

cognitive revolution of the 1970s and 1980s encouraged the consideration of both the

reader and writer audience. There was also a conceptual shift in the research during this

time, when scholars and practitioners began to focus on the relationship between reading

and writing in order to more effectively develop integrated curricula (Brandt, 1986;

Clifford, 1989; Petersen, 1986; Stotsky, 1983; Tierney & Leys, 1986). Awareness of the

sociocultural nature of reading and writing, or the influences of social identities,

communities, and environments on readers and writers helped to facilitate the

conceptualization of the two processes as interwoven (Nelson, 1998). Though studies had

been conducted on the reading-writing relationship in the first half of the twentieth

century, the research was sparse and largely atheoretical until the 1980s (Fitzgerald &

Shanahan, 2000; Mosenthal, 1983; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Stotsky, 1983).

Since the 1980s, research on the reading-writing relationship has largely fallen

into three major categories (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991).

The first category, which is also the most commonly studied and of greatest relevance to

the present study, has focused on understanding the cognitive processes, linguistic

resources, social resources, and knowledge bases that reading and writing share. The

second category of research has focused on the ways that the reader and writer transact

with each other in an effort to make meaning, also referred to as rhetorical relations.

15

Another category of research has been the study of the procedural connections of reading

and writing, or how the tasks of reading and writing can be used together to accomplish

different learning goals. Based on the body of research on the reading-writing

relationship, a number of scholars have noted that as many similarities as there are

between reading and writing, there are also as many differences (Shanahan, 1984).

Currently, what researchers as well as reading and writing educators are certain about is

the complexity of the reading-writing relationship and the value in better understanding

it. The present study tested a theoretical model of the reading-writing relationship with a

specific focus on the role of reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs in reading and

writing performance. This research will guide future study in this area and can ultimately

lead to more informed reading and writing instruction.

Shared Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities of Reading and Writing

An examination of the shared knowledge, skills, and abilities of reading and

writing can further shed light on what is known about the reading-writing relationship.

One common approach has been to correlate two general measures of reading and writing

ability (Tierney & Shanahan, 1991). In general, a high correlation would denote a great

amount of similarity between the two processes, while a low correlation would indicate a

low amount of relatedness. Most studies, however, have reported moderate correlations,

between .20 and .50, with a few studies citing higher correlations (Fitzgerald &

Shanahan, 2000; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991). While this method has provided important

information on the relatedness of reading and writing, studies that make use of more

16

complex and multivariate methodologies have been more useful in understanding how

reading and writing are related.

Stotsky (1983) conducted an extensive literature review of the correlational and

experimental studies on reading-writing relationships published before 1981 in order to

guide future theoretical and practical work in this realm. Stotsky acknowledged that the

results from the correlational studies she reviewed consistently showed that students who

were better writers also tended to be better readers of their own and others' writing and

also read more than poorer writers. Students who were better readers tended to produce

more syntactically complex and mature material than poorer readers. The experimental

studies reviewed showed that when writing was taught to improve writing skills, while

also measuring the effect on reading, there were usually no significant effects on reading.

However, studies that used writing activities specifically to improve reading

comprehension found significant improvements. When studies examined the impact of

reading experiences on writing improvement, the reading experiences were found to be as

efficacious, if not more so, in improving writing, than lessons in grammar or extra

writing practice. This demonstrated the complex interrelatedness of the reading and

writing domains and posed many questions for future research.

In one approach to studying the overlap between reading and writing, Langer

(1986b) focused on the knowledge sources, reasoning processes, monitoring behaviors,

and specific strategies used when constructing meaning before, during, and after reading

and writing. She studied 67 third-, sixth-, and ninth-grade students as they read and wrote

reports and stories. Special procedures were developed for analyzing how students

17

question, hypothesize, assume, use schemata, meta-analyze, cite evidence and validate

throughout the reasoning process, as well as how students strategically generate ideas,

formulate meaning, evaluate, and revise when reading and writing. The overarching

finding from this study was that reading and writing rely on the same core set of

linguistic and cognitive skills, but that these same skills are differently orchestrated when

reading or writing. Similarly, both readers and writers focus on the meanings developed

when reading and writing. Readers and writers also seemed to exhibit similar behaviors

during reading and writing, and after reading and writing. During reading and writing,

students focused on global units of text, questioning, hypothesizing, generating ideas, and

goal-setting, while after reading and writing, they focused on validating schemata and the

greater refinement of meaning. Students were slightly more concerned with bottom-up

issues such as syntax, mechanics, and lexical choices when writing than when reading.

They also were more concerned with setting goals when writing and were more cognizant

of the strategies they were using to arrive at meaning. When reading, however, students

were more focused on the content and validation of the text worlds they were generating.

The results of this study highlight the difficulty in clearly determining the connections

and distinctions between reading and writing.

In another study of the amount of overlap between many reading or writing

component skills and knowledge-bases, Shanahan (1984, 1987) administered measures of

reading assessing phonics, vocabulary, sentence comprehension, and passage

comprehension, and measures of writing assessing spelling ability, vocabulary diversity,

sentence structure complexity, and grammar structure, to a sample of approximately 500

18

second- and fifth-grade students. Results indicated that neither reading nor writing was

able to explain more than 43% of the variance in the opposite set. While this was a

significant amount of variance explained in each, it was less than many would have

expected at the time of the study. Shanahan concluded that reading and writing were

comprised of both dependent and independent abilities, and that contrary to a popular,

understudied belief, instruction in reading should not replace instruction in writing, nor

vice versa.

Shanahan and Lomax (1986) tested three theoretical models of the reading-

writing relationship by administering equivalent measures of particular components of

reading and writing performance in the second and fifth grades. The first model, an

interactive model, hypothesized that reading can influence writing development and

writing can influence reading development. The second model tested, the reading-to-

writing model, differs from the interactive model only in that all relations between the

reading and writing variables were believed to emanate from reading. The third model,

the writing-to-reading model differed only from the interactive model in that writing was

thought to affect reading, but reading was not believed to affect writing. Path analysis

was used to determine how well the three models fit with the student data. Results

indicated that the interactive model better described the data than the reading-to-writing

and writing-to-reading models at both grade levels. Also, the reading-to-writing model

was a better fit than the writing-to-reading model at both grade levels. An explanation

offered for the superiority of the reading-to-writing model was that these students were

not necessarily given enough of an opportunity to write in school and use their writing

19

knowledge to inform their reading knowledge. The overarching conclusion drawn from

the results of the study was that because a great deal of knowledge is shared between

reading and writing, curriculum design and instruction should better take advantage of

this shared knowledge as opposed to teaching reading for several years before

introducing writing.

Developmental Aspects of the Reading-Writing Relationship

It is widely acknowledged that the relationship between reading and writing

changes over the course of development, just as reading and writing each develop

separately over the course of the lifespan (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). Over the years,

numerous studies have confirmed that the types of knowledge and skills needed for

reading and writing and the ways they are used change with ability level, often

operationalized as grade level (Kucer, 1987; Langer & Flihan, 2000; Shanahan, 1984,

1987; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Tierney & Leys, 1986; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991).

Kucer (2005) noted that if a researcher's primary interest was reading, then he/she would

be more apt to interpret reading developments as contributing to writing, and vice versa.

More appropriately, aspects of reading affect writing development, and aspects of writing

affect reading development differently as the student matures. For example, Graves and

Hanson (1983) found that first-grade students initially approached reading a text with a

sense of distance and complete acceptance of the author's message. However, as the

children learned to question the meaning behind their own writing, they also began to

question the meanings in the texts they read.

20

Fitzgerald and Shanahan (2000) formulated a developmental model of the

reading-writing relationship, spanning from birth to adulthood. The model has six stages,

each comprised of the critical knowledge that reading and writing share at that

developmental time period largely based on Chall's (1996) developmental stages of

reading (as cited in Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). These stages include: stage 1: literacy

roots (birth-age 6), stage 2: initial literacy (grades 1-2, ages 6-7), stage 3: confirmation,

fluency, ungluing from print (grades 2-3, ages 7-8), stage 4: reading and writing for

learning the new: a first step (grades 4-8, ages 9-13), stage 5: multiple viewpoints (high

school, ages 14-18), and stage 6: construction and reconstructiona worldview (college,

age 18 and above).

Of greatest relevance to the present study is the fifth stage, or multiple

viewpoints. The major characteristic of this stage is that it entails understanding different

points of view (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). This is linked to an advanced

understanding of text structures and knowing how to use or interpret them most

appropriately, and how to see from another viewpoint. Also, critical reading, or the

criticism of one's thinking as well as the author's thinking while reading, and revision in

writing or when an author compares his/her beliefs to what their readers may be

expecting and adjusts accordingly, are important examples of the shared reading and

writing knowledge and thinking processes at this stage. One could argue, however, that

understanding different viewpoints is a facet of the reading-writing relationship that

should be mastered at a much earlier stage of development. Given that critical literacy

(Freire, 1970), or the consideration of multiple viewpoints and the social, historical, and

21

political systems affecting literacy, is being promoted in many early childhood

classrooms, it is possible that Fitzgerald and Shanahan's (2000) model needs to be

revisited.

One of the most significant contributions of Fitzgerald and Shanahan's (2000)

developmental stages of reading-writing relations is that it extends beyond the elementary

school years. The majority of literacy research focuses on elementary school children

during the primary time of literacy acquisition. While this research is important and

necessary, it has widely overshadowed any of the less prolific work done with

adolescents.

Jetton and Dole (2004) commented that, as of 2003, there was a very limited body

of research to inform the discussion on appropriate interventions to help struggling

middle and secondary school readers and writers. This is particularly disconcerting given

the notable diversity of literacy skills that adolescents possess in middle and high school.

Stanovich (1986) showed that when students do not acquire the necessary literacy skills

in elementary school, the gap between the lagging students and those who have acquired

the skills increases as they progress through school. Secondary school teachers,

especially those in the content areas that often require reading difficult texts to acquire

knowledge, are not equipped to deal with such diverse literacy skills. Though a few

recent publications have highlighted the needs and issues related to adolescent literacy,

Pressley (2004) expressed the profound need for literacy researchers to turn their focus to

the secondary classrooms. He noted that much is not known about what secondary

22

students can and cannot do in the literacy realm beyond the information garnered by the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Over time and even currently, reading and writing instruction has taken many

different forms. This is not necessarily surprising, given that much of the research on the

reading-writing relationship has not resulted in a solidified understanding of the

relationship and has not arrived at a definitive best practices approach to instruction. This

is especially true of reading and writing instruction in the upper grades. Additionally, two

somewhat recent publications recognized the important roles played by gender, race,

ethnicity, and self-efficacy in adolescent literacies (Alvermann, 2002; Alvermann,

Hinchman, Moore, Phelps, & Waff, 1998). This present study focused on many of these

relevant literacy issues at the adolescent level.

Good Readers/Poor Writers and Good Writers/Poor Readers

The present study also focused on students with discrepant reading and writing

ability. Students with discrepant reading and writing skills, though not nearly in the

majority, have been identified (Honeycutt, 2002; Jordan, 1986; Loban, 1976; Thacker,

1990, 1991; Tierney, 1983) and to a lesser extent studied in previous research

(Honeycutt, 2002; Jordan, 1986; Palmer, 1986; Thacker, 1990,1991). Tierney and Leys

(1986) acknowledged that different hypotheses have been offered to explain why some

students are good readers but poor writers or good writers but poor readers. One

explanation is that the definitions of reading and writing, as operationalized by different

performance measures or assessments, are capturing very different aspects or lesser

aspects of reading or writing. Potentially, reading skills are assessed using multiple

23

choice measures and writing skills are assessed with essays or qualitative measures.

Tierney and Leys pointed out that because reading and writing instruction are sometimes

taught and tested very separately in the schools, it is not entirely surprising that some

students are considered to be good readers and poor writers or vice versa (see also Pike,

Compain, & Mumper, 1994).

One of the earliest studies on good readers/poor writers looked at the differences

between good readers/good writers' and good readers/poor writers' composing processes.

Using think-aloud protocols, Jordan (1986) used a set of descriptive categories to code

reading and writing behaviors. This research showed that good readers/good writers: (a)

were able to abstract content from a reading passage and write about what they read in

their own words, (b) were more aware of the structural features of sentences, and (c)

spent much more time planning prior to writing. Good readers/poor writers struggled

with each of these aspects.

In a different approach to the study of discrepant reading and writing

performance, Palmer (1986) examined the separate literatures on good readers and on

poor writers. This research was intended to aid in the understanding of what cognitive

strategies and reading and writing practices characterize good readers/poor writers. A

major goal of this work was to answer how the positive strategies used by good readers

could be most effectively parlayed to improve writing performance. Palmer found that

good readers tended to plan, translate or interpret, reread, and reflect on or evaluate when

they read. These students appeared to utilize a number of metacognitive strategies. Poor

writers tended to make limited use of planning time, limit the reading of texts during the

24

writing process, limit reading for revision after they have written text, and devote little

time for reflection or evaluation after text production. Given these characteristics, Palmer

recommended that when teaching good readers/poor writers, the following practices

should be applied: (a) begin with low-risk unevaluated writing assignments during the

composing process, (b) use sound prewriting activities such as brainstorming or focused

freewriting to prepare students for writing assignments, (c) prepare writing assignments

that are cumulative and sequential in nature, and (d) encourage students to read their own

work while they are writing. The utility of these practices in improving the writing

performance of good readers/poor writers has not been empirically tested.

Thacker (1990, 1991) studied students' ability to understand and recognize

varying degrees of text organization when reading. Participants included 90 ninth-grade

students divided equally into groups of good readers/good writers, good readers/poor

writers, and poor readers/poor writers. Students were determined to be good readers if

they scored at or above grade level on the district-created Achievement Levels Test in

Reading in the spring of their eighth-grade year, and were considered poor readers if their

scores were at least one year below grade level. Students were determined to be good

writers if they scored above the average on both analytically and holistically scored

writing samples from the district-created Direct Writing Assessment given in February to

all eighth-grade students. Students were determined to be poor writers if they scored

below average on both of these measures. The students in the three groups were asked to

read and evaluate the organizational clarity of ordered and unordered paragraphs at the

sixth- and ninth-grade reading levels. Additionally, students were asked to reconnect sets

25

of scrambled sentences into organized paragraphs. Results indicated that good

readers/good writers and good readers/poor writers were both skilled at distinguishing

between well and poorly organized text. However, good readers/poor writers seemed to

lack an awareness of how cohesive ties can bring meaning to disorganized text and would

likely benefit from greater instructional focus on cohesive relationships and the effective

organization of their own written responses to material.

Honeycutt (2002) examined the strategy applications, perceptions and emotions of

good readers/poor writers when writing narrative text. This was a qualitative study of 11

fifth-grade students with discrepant reading and writing performance based on state

reading and writing examinations. The students were individually interviewed and also

participated in focus group discussions. Additional data were gathered by holding focus

group discussions with teachers, and using teachers' conference and lesson-planning

notes, and samples from students' portfolios. Honeycutt determined that good

readers/poor writers were lacking knowledge of prewriting strategies and schema for

story structure thereby hindering their ability to plan and generate text. These students

also showed minimal use of self-regulation strategies in evaluating and revising their

writing. Of greatest relevance to the present study, Honeycutt found that good

readers/poor writers were inhibited in their writing due to intense negative emotions

surrounding their writing ability and their perception of themselves as poor writers. It is

difficult, however, to draw any broad conclusions based on this research, as the study

only focused on a small number of fifth-grade students in one particular school.

26

Interestingly, only Honeycutt's (2002) study took an affective component into

consideration when studying good readers/poor writers. Also, none of the studies on

students with discrepant reading and writing performance considered weaker

readers/stronger writers. The present study has built on the previous work on students

with discrepant reading and writing performance but also focused on the influence of

reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs on discrepant reading and writing performance.

Also, because this study assessed a large number of students with discrepant reading and

writing performance from across the United States, the results are more generalizable

than in previous studies. Similarly, this study included students who were stronger in

writing than in reading, a group of students that has been neglected in previous studies of

discrepant reading and writing performance.

Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theorists recognize that people act as proactive regulators of their

motivations and actions and adopt an agentic perspective of human development,

adaptation, and change (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2001, 2002; Bandura & Locke, 2003).

Agency is the power to originate actions for particular purposes. There are three primary

sources of agency according to social cognitive theory: direct personal agency, proxy

agency which relies on others to act on one's behalf, and collective agency in which

people act together to shape their future (Bandura, 1986, 2001, 2002). The fundamental

implication is that people are contributors to their life circumstances and not just products

of them.

27

Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Among the most central mechanisms of human agency are self-efficacy beliefs.

Self-efficacy beliefs are people's judgments of their abilities to perform certain actions.

These beliefs can promote a sense of agency whereby people believe they can influence

their own lives (Bandura, 1997, 2001). Self-efficacy beliefs affect cognitive,

motivational, affective, and decisional processes and determine whether individuals will

view themselves as capable or incapable, whether or not they are motivated to persevere

in the face of hardships and barriers, their emotional well-being, as well as the choices

they make at crucial points in time (Bandura, 1997; Bandura & Locke, 2003).

The centrality of self-efficacy beliefs in human agency can be better understood

through Bandura's (1986) interdependent model of triadic reciprocality. Bandura stated

that human functioning is comprised of a series of reciprocal interactions between

environmental, behavioral, and personal variables (such as self-efficacy) that influence

each other bidirectionally. Therefore, people are both the products and the creators of

their social structures. While social structures can impose constraints and supply

resources in differing amounts in differing situations, these social structures cannot

predict what individuals will become or do under particular circumstances (Bandura,

1997). This is because the individual has the ability to influence his/her environment by

operating proactively, and not only reactively, to shape different situations and social

structures. An example of this reciprocal relationship is when a foreign language teacher

chooses to teach a particular lesson entirely in that foreign language (environmental

variable). A student with high self-efficacy for learning and understanding the foreign

28

language (personal variable) will likely increase and sharply focus his/her attention to

what the teacher is saying (behavior) so that he/she will maximize the educational

benefits of the lesson.

Self-efficacy beliefs are largely formed through mastery experiences, vicarious

experiences, verbal messages and social persuasions, and interpretations of physiological

and emotional states (Bandura, 1995). For most students, past performance is the most

reliable guide for gauging self-efficacy (Schunk & Meece, 2006). Successful experiences

will generally raise self-efficacy, while failures will generally lower self-efficacy.

However, an intermittent failure among many successful experiences is not likely to

significantly alter a person's self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy beliefs can also be formed

by watching the performance of people who we believe to be similar to ourselves. For

example, if a student sees a similar peer learn a complicated mathematical concept, then

that student may be more likely to believe that he/she could also learn that concept.

Vicarious experiences are not as powerful as personal experiences in forming self-

efficacy beliefs because personal performance failure will usually take precedence over

vicarious success. Self-efficacy can also be raised or lowered through comments or

feedback from others. Telling a student, "You can do it!" before taking a spelling test

may raise their spelling self-efficacy, but it probably will not raise his/her spelling self-

efficacy if the student has done poorly on most of the previous tests. Finally, self-efficacy

beliefs can also be influenced by physiological reactions such as increased heart rate or

feelings of anxiety that can communicate to the person that they are lacking in skill or

ability to accomplish something.

29

There are a number of distinctions that must be highlighted between self-efficacy

and other constructs related to self beliefs. Self-efficacy is not the same thing as self-

concept, self-esteem, or self-confidence. Recall that self-efficacy is one's judgment of

how capable he/she is to perform a particular task in a particular situation. This differs

from an expectancy construct such as self-concept because self-concept is comprised of

one's collective self-beliefs formed through various experiences with and interpretations

of the environment, largely dependent on reinforcement and evaluation by significant

others (Pajares & Schunk, 2002; Schunk & Pajares, 2003). Self-concept is a broad and

general construct that is inclusive of self-efficacy beliefs in more specific areas. A self-

concept judgment may be stated as "I am a good English student," whereas a self-

efficacy judgment may be stated as, "I am confident that I can write a paragraph with no

grammatical errors." Moreover, studies have found that self-efficacy beliefs are more

closely related to actual engagement and learning, and are also more predictive of

performance than measures of general self-concept (Graham & Weiner, 1996;

Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Miller, 1994; Shell et al., 1995;

Shell etal., 1989).

Confidence, a conversational term that is similar to self-concept, has been

conceptualized by researchers as a general self-belief of capability that doesn't specify

the object of that belief as self-efficacy does (Schunk & Pajares, 2003). Self-esteem

differs from both self-efficacy and self-concept in that self-esteem involves people's

emotional reactions to their actual accomplishments or failures, such as feeling good or

bad about themselves because they can or cannot write a research paper (Linnenbrink &

30

Pintrich, 2003). The highly predictive nature of self-efficacy beliefs over other self-belief

constructs is the primary reason it was selected for analysis in the present study.

While self-efficacy beliefs are highly predictive of performance, they are not

always accurate or truly representative of the student's true capabilities. Not surprisingly,

students lacking confidence in skills they actually possess will be less likely to engage in

tasks requiring those skills, put forth the needed effort, and will be more likely to quit

when the task becomes challenging (Bandura, 1993,1997; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003;

Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Schunk, 2003). While low self-efficacy can be detrimental to

learning, overly high levels of self-efficacy can be just as problematic (Schunk, 2003).

Students with overly high levels of self-efficacy may feel overconfident and not exercise

the appropriate effort needed to be successful at something (Bandura, 1989; Linnenbrink

& Pintrich, 2003; Salomon, 1984; Schunk, 2003). Bandura and Schunk (1981) noted that

students' inaccurate self-efficacy estimates may develop from erroneous task analysis or

lack of self-knowledge, both of which, Klassen (2006) highlighted, are problems

commonly associated with learning disabled students. What seems apparent is that

students benefit from holding accurate and appropriate self-efficacy beliefs, and teachers

also benefit from knowing and understanding their students' self-efficacy beliefs.

Developmental Aspects of Self-Efficacy

The developmental changes that occur during adolescence certainly impact the

self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Though many would argue that it is the raging

hormones of adolescence that are responsible for many of the changes that occur during

this developmental period, there are also significant changes to and developments in the

31

structure of social systems that cannot be underestimated (Eccles et al., 1993). Beginning

in middle school, students no longer have a single teacher directing their learning and

assignments. Adolescents have many teachers, requiring the improved management of

assignments and expectations (Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). Additionally, the workload

increases in middle school and high school, and students are given the responsibility of

knowing when to seek help if they are struggling. Zimmerman and Cleary wrote that

when an adolescent does not effectively regulate this increasingly academically

demanding environment, their grades will suffer as well as their efficacy beliefs

surrounding their ability to succeed in school.

Group Differences in Self-Efficacy

Gender

Most of the research on group differences in self-efficacy beliefs has examined

gender differences in various academic domains and across development. It is not

uncommon to observe gender differences in measures of academic motivation and self-

beliefs (Wigfield, Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996). The results of research on gender differences

in self-efficacy have not always been consistent and generally depend on how the

academic domain in question is perceived by girls and boys (Pajares & Valiante, 1999,

2001; Schunk & Meece, 2006). Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, and Wigfield (2002)

observed that self-competence beliefs in language arts become increasingly differentiated

by gender with age. A number of studies have found modest gender differences in writing

self-efficacy favoring girls as early as in elementary school (Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares

& Valiante, 1997). Although Pajares and Valiante (2001) found gender differences in

32

writing self-efficacy in middle school favoring girls, the difference became

nonsignificant when students' feminine orientation beliefs, or how strongly they

identified with characteristics typically associated with females in the United States, were

controlled for. Other studies have found no gender differences in reading or writing self-

efficacy beliefs (Schunk & Lilly, 1984; Shell et al., 1995).

Culture

Bandura (2006a) stated that a great deal of research has confirmed the cross-

cultural generalizability of self-efficacy theory. Regardless of culture or country of

origin, higher self-efficacy is associated with higher achievement. While students from

various countries have similar levels of efficacy to master different academic subjects,

those from countries with authoritarian educational structures tend to have a lower sense

of efficacy to assume responsibility for their own learning (Bandura, 2002). Oettingen

and Zosuls (2006) noted that adolescents socialized in collectivist, Asian cultures tend to

have weaker self-efficacy beliefs coupled with comparatively higher performance than

adolescents socialized in Western cultures. Various hypotheses have been offered to

explain this, including that many Asian Americans are socialized to feel responsible to

their family and community, and therefore the expectations of others become more

important than their own perception of their academic performance (Eaton & Dembo,

1997). This is also related to the notion of calibration, or the degree to which students can

accurately assess their actual performance.

Many studies have linked calibration accuracy to metacognitive skills and

academic achievement (Bol, Hacker, O'Shea, & Allen, 2005). Cross-cultural studies of

33

calibration have demonstrated that students from collectivist cultures, with a high level of

communalism, almost always rate their efficacy as lower than students from individualist,

independent Western cultures, regardless of their performance level (Klassen, 2004).

However, when a form of calibration is included, in most cases, the efficacy beliefs of the

students from collectivist, non-Western cultures, were more predictive of subsequent

performance and were therefore considered to be more realistic in their predictions

(Eaton & Dembo, 1997; Klassen, 2004; Oettingen, 1995). Research on calibration has

also shown that there is a tendency for higher achieving students to be more accurate but

less confident in their performance predictions, while lower achieving students are less

accurate and overconfident in their predictions (Bol et al., 2005; Klassen, 2004).

Schunk and Meece (2006) reported that studies comparing the self-efficacy beliefs

of White, African American, and Hispanic students have produced inconsistent findings

with no clear patterns, likely due to differences in the specificity of the self-efficacy

beliefs assessed. It should also be highlighted that when studying racial/ethnic differences

in self-efficacy beliefs, other associated variables should be considered such as

socioeconomic status and second-language learners.

Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy

As previously mentioned, self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific, or linked to a

domain, whereas similar constructs such as self-concept or competence beliefs are more

general and based on social comparisons instead of normative criteria (Klassen, 2002;

Zimmerman, 1995). Self-efficacy is usually assessed at the level of specificity warranted

by the criterion task within a particular domain (Schunk & Pajares, 2004). Therefore,

34

simply assessing students' perceived competence to perform well in English class, would

not be a fine-grained enough measure because an English class is comprised of numerous

subskills and areas, including reading and writing. It is not necessarily an accurate

assumption to believe that students will hold the same self-efficacy beliefs for both

reading and writing tasks.

The present study was primarily concerned with reading and writing self-efficacy.

A number of studies have specifically examined writing self-efficacy (Klassen, 2002;

Page-Voth & Graham, 1999; Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares et al.,

1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001; Schunk & Swartz, 1993; Valiante, 2001) or

reading self-efficacy (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003; Nicaise & Gettinger, 1995; Schunk &

Rice, 1993; Wentzel, 1996; Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2004), while fewer

have studied both writing and reading self-efficacy concurrently (Shell et al., 1995; Shell

et al., 1989). Higher reading self-efficacy beliefs have been linked to more skillful

reading performance and more proficient strategy use (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003;

Schunk & Rice, 1993) and higher writing self-efficacy beliefs are correlated with and

usually predictive of more skillful writing performance in students of all ages (Pajares &

Johnson, 1996; Pajares et al , 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001). Effect sizes

between writing self-efficacy and writing achievement in multiple regression and path

analyses that control for prior achievement have ranged from .19 to .40 (Pajares, 2003).

Shell et al. (1989) designed the first study that simultaneously examined reading

and writing self-efficacy and achievement in a sample of 153 primarily White

undergraduates. They administered a reading self-efficacy questionnaire, writing self-

35

efficacy questionnaire, reading outcome expectancy instrument, writing outcome

expectancy instrument, a timed and holistically-scored written essay, and the Degrees of

Reading Power test. Shell et al. hypothesized that: (a) self-beliefs would account for

significant variance in reading and writing achievement, with self-efficacy accounting for

a larger amount than outcome expectancy; (b) self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in

either reading or writing would account for significant variance in the other; and (c) there

would be a significant, underlying relation that links beliefs and performance in both

domains, with self-efficacy contributing more strongly to this relationship than outcome

expectancy. Results from the study indicated that self-efficacy and outcome expectancy

beliefs accounted for a significant amount of variance in reading achievement, with self-

efficacy being the stronger predictor. Only self-efficacy beliefs, however, accounted for a

significant amount of variance in writing achievement. The study also found there was a

single underlying dimension linking beliefs and achievement for reading and writing,

with reading beliefs and achievement serving as the strongest contributors to the

relationship. The results, however, cannot be generalized given the homogenous,

unrepresentative sample.

A later study by Shell et al. (1995) additionally considered grade-level and

achievement-level differences in students' control-related, self-efficacy, and outcome

expectancy beliefs for reading and writing, and their relationship with reading and

writing achievement. They found that there were significant main effects, for grade- and

achievement-level in control-related, self-efficacy, and outcome expectancy beliefs, but

there was no significant interaction between them. The findings suggest that as students

36

mature, their beliefs for reading become more predictive of higher order comprehension

skills, while their beliefs for writing become more predictive of component subskills.

Shell et al. speculated that these results could be indicative of the nature of literacy

instruction in the later grades where there is little direct teaching or assessment of reading

component subskills and feedback on students' writing is often focused on grammar,

spelling, mechanics, or other component subskills. Also, results indicated a single

underlying dimension linking beliefs and reading and writing achievement for all grades

and achievement-levels, demonstrating a reciprocal relationship between beliefs in both

reading and writing.

Measuring Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy

In order to study self-efficacy beliefs, we must be able to effectively measure

these beliefs. There is no general measure of perceived self-efficacy, but numerous

domain-specific self-efficacy scales. Perceived self-efficacy involves a person's

judgment of capability to execute given types of performances, and does not entail a

person's judgment of self-worth or the outcome likely to result from a given type of

performance (Bandura, 2006b). Typically, a self-efficacy scale will ask students to rate

their confidence, on a scale of 0 to 100, to carry out specific tasks such as writing a

research paper on a teacher-assigned topic. How self-efficacy is assessed can produce

varying results in relation to relevant outcomes. Pajares and Miller (1995) demonstrated

the importance of thoughtfully, specifically, and accurately assessing self-efficacy in their

study of two different types of math self-efficacy scales on math problem-solving

performance. As hypothesized, math problem-solving self-efficacy was a better predictor

37

of math problem-solving performance than math course self-efficacy among college

students. Greater prediction from self-efficacy measures to task performance is also aided

by response formats that range from 0 to 100, rather than scales that use fewer steps and

less discrimination (Pajares, Hartley, & Valiante, 2001).

Shell et al. (1989) developed, and later revised (Shell et al., 1995), what are likely

the most commonly used measures of reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs among

adolescents. Each instrument contains a task subscale and a component skills subscale.

Items from the reading task subscale, for example, ask students to rate their confidence,

on a scale of 0 (no chance) to 100 (complete certainty), to be able to read and understand

what the author was saying for 18 different reading tasks. Items from the reading

component skill subscale, for example, ask students to rate their confidence, on a scale of

0 to 100, to be able to perform nine different reading skills. Accurately understanding

students' reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs is crucial in helping educators

comprehend students' underlying academic motivation, choices, and behavior in

particular domains (Pajares & Miller, 1995). Students with unrealistically low self-

efficacy in the presence of strong skills, in particular, should be targeted for self-efficacy

interventions to improve motivation and performance (Bandura, 1997).

Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy Interventions

One of the primary reasons that self-efficacy is so widely researched is due to its

mutable natureor because educators understand that there are useful interventions for

increasing students' self-efficacy that are associated with better performance. Jinks and

his colleagues have asserted that self-efficacy beliefs are antecedent to academic success

38

because they motivate behavior (Jinks & Lorsbach, 2003; Jinks & Morgan, 1999).

Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) explicated this notion by proposing that self-efficacy

influences (a) behavioral engagement through effort, persistence, and instrumental help-

seeking, (b) cognitive engagement through strategy use and metacognition, and (c)

motivational engagement through interest, value, and affectall of which influence

learning and achievement. Therefore, when teachers engage in self-efficacy

enhancement, underachieving students, in particular, should experience academic

improvements because they have improved their use of strategies, their ability to persist,

their interest in the domain, and other related factors.

Researchers have offered numerous recommendations for appropriately

increasing students' self-efficacy. Schunk (2003) emphasized using instructional methods

that incorporate modeled strategies for reading and writing, progress feedback to

students, goal-setting, and self-evaluations of progress. Studies on the effects of goal

setting and progress feedback on self-efficacy and writing achievement have indicated

that setting process goals instead of product goals, coupled with progress feedback, have

the greatest impact on posttest self-efficacy and skill, efficacy for improvement, and

progress in strategy learning (Schunk & Swartz, 1993). Walker (2003) noted related ways

for teachers to implement interventions to promote higher reading and writing self-

efficacy, including (a) giving students more choice in the curriculum, (b) encouraging

strategic thinking, (c) providing self-evaluation opportunities, and (d) changing the types

of assessments used in the classroom. Similarly, Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) made

the following recommendations for teachers to be mindful of when considering students'

39

self-efficacy beliefs: (a) help students to maintain high but accurate self-efficacy beliefs,

(b) academically challenge students in a way that most can be successful after exerting

effort, (c) foster the belief that ability is not a fixed entity but can be changed and

improved upon over time, and (d) promote students' domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs

rather than their general self-esteem.

Pajares (2003) commented that most teachers and parents would agree that there

are many situations in which students' inaccurate self-beliefs, as opposed to having a

weak knowledge base or subpar skills, are responsible for their academically

shortchanging themselves. It is situations such as these, where students would greatly

benefit from having teachers identify, challenge, and alter these inaccurate judgments and

reposition students for academic success.

Summary

Although there are many known similarities between the cognitive processes and

knowledge involved in the acts of reading and writing (Kucer, 1985, 1987, 2005; Langer

& Flihan, 2000; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991; Rosenblatt,

1994), there are students who can be considered much stronger readers than writers and

much stronger writers than readers (Langer, 1986; Palmer, 1986; Thacker, 1991). Very

few studies, however, have effectively examined the discrepant reading and writing

performance of high school students. Now that the two major college admission tests in

the United States, the SAT and ACT, include writing sections, investigating this type of

discrepant performance would be quite valuable. Such research can offer insight into the

40

relationship between reading and writing and could focus instructional efforts for

improving students' reading and writing performance.

One explanation for students' discrepant reading and writing performance may be

related to differing reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs. Individuals hold self-

efficacy beliefs that enable them to exert control over their thoughts, feelings, and

actions. These self-efficacy beliefs, or the beliefs people hold about their capabilities, are

largely formed through mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal messages and

social persuasions, and interpretations of physiological and emotional states (Bandura,

1995). Self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific, or linked to particular domains such as

reading or writing. Reading self-efficacy has been closely linked to reading performance

(Paris & Oka, 1986; Shell et al., 1995; Shell et al., 1989), as has writing self-efficacy to

writing performance (Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Schunk &

Swartz, 1993; Shell et al, 1995; Shell et al., 1989; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994).

Bandura (1986, 1993) stated that when self-efficacy is lacking, people will tend to

underachieve, despite knowing what it is they need to do to be successful. It is possible

that students exhibiting discrepant reading and writing performance may possess the

knowledge, skills, and strategies needed to succeed in both domains, but are not able

successfully leverage them for both, due to differing self-efficacy beliefs in reading and

writing. Encouragingly, there are numerous studies indicating that self-efficacy and

achievement can be enhanced through instructional methods that incorporate modeled

strategy use, goal setting, constructive feedback, and self-evaluation of progress,

indicating that students can improve their reading or writing performance through these

practices (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Schunk, 2003; Walker, 2003).

42

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants in this study were drawn from the 18- and 19-year-olds who took the

October 2006 and/or November 2006 standard administrations of the SAT in the United

States. Students in this age range were chosen for the sample because students younger

than 18 would have needed to obtain parental permission before participating in the

study, significantly jeopardizing the response rate. Students who are older than 19 who

take the SAT are more likely to be nontraditional students, so they were excluded from

the sample. As this research examined the influence of reading and writing self-efficacy

on reading and writing performance among four groups of students (strong readers/strong

writers, stronger readers/weaker writers, weaker readers/stronger writers, and weak

readers/weak writers), the groups were determined by computing standardized scores on

the Critical Reading and Writing SAT tests. A standardized score is expressed in standard

deviation units and provides a measure of a student's relative standing in a group (Vogt,

1999). The standardized score is comparable across all tests and provides a uniform

measure for ease of use and interpretation. All of the students deemed to fit in either the

stronger readers/weaker writers (n = 4,678), weaker readers/stronger writers (n = 4,120)

categories were included in the sample. As expected, the consistently strong and

43

consistently weak groups each included over 10,000 students, so that smaller,

representative samples of the strong readers/strong writers (N = 4,657) and weak

readers/weak writers (n = 4,727) groups were included in the total sample of students (N

= 18,182). The mean age of the sample receiving the measures was 18.04 (SD = .19). The

racial composition of the students receiving the measures was 0.6% (n = 117) American

Indian or Alaska Native, 10.9% (n = 1,979) Asian, Asian-American, or Pacific Islander,

11.9% (n = 2,167) Black or African American, 11.3% (n = 2,066) Hispanic, 62.0% (n

= 11,266) White, and 3.2% (n =587) Other. The overall gender composition of those

receiving the measures was 51.8% (n = 9,238) female and 49.2% (n = 8,944) male. The

mean SAT Critical Reading score for this sample was 518.13 (SD = 155.13), the mean

SAT Writing score was 509.12 (SD = 149.60), and the mean SAT Math score was 527.36

(SZ>= 131.05).

Instruments and Materials

Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT)

Critical Reading Section

The PSAT/NMSQT is 2-hour and 10-minute test. It has two 25-minute Critical

Reading sections (48 questions), two 25-minute Math sections (38 questions), and one

30-minute Writing Skills section (39 questions). The PSAT/NMSQT measures skills that

are important for successful academic performance in college, including knowledge and

skills developed through years of study in a wide range of courses as well as through

experiences outside th