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

IF 2.4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Learning Disabilities Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/00222194211053238
Zoi A Traga Philippakos, Chuang Wang, Charles MacArthur
{"title":"Writing Motivation of College Students in Basic Writing and First-Year Composition Classes: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Scales on Goals, Self-Efficacy, Beliefs, and Affect.","authors":"Zoi A Traga Philippakos,&nbsp;Chuang Wang,&nbsp;Charles MacArthur","doi":"10.1177/00222194211053238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of the study was to validate a writing motivation questionnaire that consists of four scales for first-year college writers-students with low writing skills in basic writing classes and students in typical first-year composition (FYC)-to investigate differences between these two groups and to examine the relationship of motivational constructs with writing quality. Participants were 371 college students (142 in basic writing classes and 229 in FYC). Students completed a 49-item motivation questionnaire with scales for goal-orientation, self-efficacy, beliefs, and affect about writing and wrote an argumentative essay. Confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence for the structural construct validity of all scales for both groups. Statistically significant differences between basic writers and FYC students were found on self-efficacy for grammar and strategies and on beliefs about the importance of substance and mechanics. Structural equation modeling found statistically significant positive relationships of essay quality with all three self-efficacy scales and belief about the importance of substance to good writing, as well as negative relationships with avoidance goal orientation and belief in the importance of mechanics. Limitations and implications for motivation and instruction of basic writing students and of adults with learning disabilities are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","volume":"56 1","pages":"72-92"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Learning Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211053238","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

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

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大学生基础写作与一年级作文写作动机:目标、自我效能感、信念与情感量表的验证性因子分析
本研究的目的是验证一份包含四个量表的大学一年级写作动机问卷——基础写作课写作技能较低的学生和典型的一年级写作(FYC)的学生——以调查这两组之间的差异,并检验动机结构与写作质量的关系。参与者为371名大学生,其中基础写作班142名,初级班229名。学生完成了一份包含目标导向、自我效能、信念和写作影响等49项动机问卷,并撰写了一篇议论文。验证性因子分析为两组所有量表的结构构念效度提供了证据。在语法和策略的自我效能以及对内容和机制的重要性的信念上,基础作家和FYC学生之间存在统计学上的显著差异。结构方程模型发现,论文质量与所有三个自我效能量表和物质对好写作的重要性的信念呈正相关,与回避目标取向和对机制重要性的信念呈负相关。本文讨论了基础写作学生和有学习障碍的成人写作动机和教学的局限性和启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: The Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD), a multidisciplinary, international publication, presents work and comments related to learning disabilities. Initial consideration of a manuscript depends upon (a) the relevance and usefulness of the content to the readership; (b) how the manuscript compares to other articles dealing with similar content on pertinent variables (e.g., sample size, research design, review of literature); (c) clarity of writing style; and (d) the author"s adherence to APA guidelines. Articles cover such fields as education, psychology, neurology, medicine, law, and counseling.
期刊最新文献
Derivational Morphology Training in French-Speaking 9- to 14- Year-Old Children and Adolescents With Developmental Dyslexia: Does It Improve Morphological Awareness, Reading, and Spelling Outcome Measures? Graph Out Loud: Pre-Service Teachers' Data Decisions and Interpretations of CBM Progress Graphs. What Environments Support Reading Growth Among Current Compared With Former Reading Intervention Recipients? A Multilevel Analysis of Students and Their Schools. Ongoing Teacher Support for Data-Based Individualization: A Meta-Analysis and Synthesis. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Clarifying the Relationship Between Free Appropriate Public Education and Least Restrictive Environment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1