students’ voices: the relationship between attitudes and...

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTITUDES AND WRITING OUTCOMES

Students’ Voices: The Relationship between Attitudes and Writing Outcomes

for Fourth and Fifth Graders

Andrea Winokur Kotula a

Terrence Tivnan b

Cynthia Mata Aguilar a

a Education Development Center, Inc.

b Harvard University Graduate School of Education


Suggested citation:

Kotula, A. W., Tivnan, T., & Aguilar, C. M. (2014). Students’ Voices: The Relationship Between

Attitudes and Writing Outcomes for Fourth and Fifth Graders. Waltham, MA:

Education Development Center, Inc.

Copyright © 2014 by Education Development Center, Inc.

Education Development Center, Inc. is a global nonprofit organization that creates learning

opportunities for people around the world, empowering them to pursue healthier, more

productive lives. For more information, visit edc.org.


Abstract

As part of a four-year research project to study a writing curriculum for fourth- and fifth-grade

students, the authors measured students’ writing ability and their attitudes about writing to

determine the relationship between the two variables. A principal component analysis of the 18-

item attitude survey indicated three composites with eigenvalues above 1.0, and these showed

reasonable levels of internal consistency reliability: (1) the Perceived Value of Writing; (2) Self-

Rating as a Writer; and (3) Writing Behaviors. A small but consistent relationship was found

between each component and writing outcomes, with a slightly stronger relationship at the end of

the year, especially for the Self-Rating as a Writer component. This adds to the convergence of

evidence about the relationship between attitudes about writing and writing ability despite the

different ways in which researchers define or measure attitudes. Moreover, this study confirms

this relationship with students who came from primarily high-poverty homes and were on

average poor writers. About half of the students were Hispanic, with 32% either receiving

Limited English Proficiency services at the time of the study or up to two years prior to it.

Because the authors collected writing and attitude data at both the beginning and end of the year,

they were able to determine that student attitudes about writing did not get stronger on average

after a year of writing instruction, even though the correlations between writing ability and

attitudes tended to be a little higher at the end of the year. Girls had significantly more positive

attitudes than boys on all three components in both fall and spring of both grades. They were also

better writers.


Students’ Voices: The Relationship between Attitudes and Writing Outcomes for

Fourth and Fifth Graders

1. Introduction

To compete in a global economy, students must possess the skills to think critically and

creatively, solve problems, collaborate, and especially, communicate (Partnership for 21st

Century Skills, 2011). A report from the College Board, the National Writing Project, and Phi

Delta Kappa International states, “Writing has never been more important than in this digital age.

It is almost inconceivable to achieve academic success without good writing skills” (College

Board Advocacy and Policy Center, 2010, p. 2). Moreover, writing is an essential

communication skill in the business sector as well as in the world of education, with many

arguing that poor writing has repercussions in the workplace (cf. Levy & Murnane, 2004;

Murnane & Levy, 1996; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2005).

However, today’s students find writing very challenging. Across all grades, only about

one-quarter of the students in our nation’s schools are proficient in writing. On the most recent

national assessment of student writing in 2011 (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES],

2012), only 27% of students at both grades 8 and 12 performed at or above the proficient level

(“solid academic performance”) in writing. Fourth-grade student writing was most recently

assessed in 2002, when only 28% of these students obtained scores at or above the proficient

level. Moreover, the writing proficiency of students among certain racial and ethnic groups

suffers even more. For example, 34% of White eighth-grade students demonstrated proficiency

in writing compared to 14% of Hispanic and 11% of Black students, and 35% of White twelfth-

grade students demonstrated proficiency as compared to 11% of Hispanic and 9% of Black

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTITUDES AND WRITING OUTCOMES 2

students (NCES, 2012). Similarly, 34% of White fourth-grade students demonstrated proficiency

as compared to only 17% of Hispanic and 14% of Black students (Persky, Daane, & Jin, 2003).

1.1. Motivation and student learning

In response to this national student writing proficiency crisis, we engaged in a four-year

research project funded by the US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, to

study a writing curriculum for fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in six school districts. As part

of that study, we examined the contextual factors (district, school, classroom, or student) that

might influence students’ writing outcomes, and one of the student-level variables we studied

was students’ attitudes about writing. A large literature exists on student attitudes, one

component of motivation.

Research indicates a relationship between motivation and student learning across many

domains (Alexander, Graham, & Harris, 1998; Brophy, 2010; Murphy & Alexander, 2000;

Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2014; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992; Zimmerman, 2011). Moreover,

there is evidence that links motivation with writing ability in particular; that is, students with

higher scores on measures of motivation tend to be better writers (Albin, Benton, & Khramtsova,

1996; Graham, Berninger, & Fan, 2007; Graham, Schwartz, & MacArthur, 1993; Hidi,

Berndorff, & Ainley, 2002; Knudson, 1995; Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1999,

2001; Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, 1995; Troia, Harbaugh, Shankland, Wolbers, & Lawrence,

2013). Studies have also demonstrated that student attitudes about their writing ability affect how

often and how well they write (Clark, 2012; Daly & Shamo, 1978; Faigley, Daly, & Witte, 1981;

Nelson, 2007).


1.2. Student attitudes about writing

An attitude is often defined as “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating

a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Eagly & Chaiken, 2007, p. 598). The

attitude construct has traditionally been assumed to comprise three parts: cognition, affect, and

behavior. “In this view, the attitude is an unobservable psychological construct which can

manifest itself in relevant beliefs, feelings, and behavioral components” (Fazio & Olson, 2003, p.

139). More recently, attitudes have been thought of as evaluative judgments (Fazio & Olson,

2003; Schwarz, 2007), which are not necessarily permanent traits. However, no firm evidence

exists to determine if people have attitudes per se or if they create them as needed, and this may

depend on the nature of the attitudes, their accessibility in one’s memory, and the context in

which they are measured. Many facets of student attitudes have been studied, including interest,

goal orientation, task value, and perceived causes of failure (Troia et al., 2013). Of these, self-

efficacy —how capable one feels about his or her writing—has been studied the most. In his

review of the literature, Pajares (2003) found a consistent relationship between student self-

efficacy beliefs and writing performance, with effect sizes of .19 to .40 even when previous

writing performance was held constant.

Writing self-concept is another attitude sometimes discussed in the literature, although

less frequently than self-efficacy. An example of a statement that focuses on self-concept might

be “Writing makes me feel inadequate,” while an example of a question that focuses on self-

efficacy might be “How sure are you that you can correctly spell all words in a one-page story or

composition?” (Pajares, 2003, p. 147).

Self-efficacy is associated with other attitude variables, such as how much one values

writing, although in some studies that hold self-efficacy beliefs constant, the perceived value of


writing variable does not make an independent contribution. It may be that one’s self-efficacy

beliefs influence the value placed on writing (Pajares, 2003; Pajares, Miller, & Johnson, 1999).

In our study, we wanted to measure students’ writing ability, determine their self-efficacy as

writers, and assess how much they valued writing.

1.3. Measuring student attitudes about writing

Many researchers have developed measures to assess student attitudes about writing. In

the last two decades alone, such surveys were developed, for example, by Knudson (1991, 1992,

1993a, 1993b, 1995); Pajares et al. (1999); Kear, Coffman, McKenna, and Ambrosio (2000); and

Graham, Berninger, and Fan (2007). The features of these surveys will be explained in more

detail in Section 1.5.

When planning our attitude survey, we regarded attitudes about writing as falling along a

continuum from positive to negative in the same way that other researchers have (Graham et al.,

2007; Kear et al., 2000; Knudson, 1995). We considered attitudes as comprising different

components or beliefs: a sense of how capable one is as a writer (self-efficacy), one’s self-

concept as a writer, and how much one values writing. Our survey and its results add to the

existing research base by including a large number of Hispanic students and students from low-

income families. We also collected data about attitudes and writing outcomes at both the

beginning and end of the year and followed fourth grade students into fifth grade.

1.4. Results of previous surveys

Previous surveys have varied by grades and populations of students and the items

included in the survey. The findings from these studies tend to converge, although there were

some differences in how attitudes were defined, the way they were measured, and the

demographics of the students. Knudson studied the relationship between attitudes and writing


across several studies in grades 1–3, 4–8, and 9–12 (1991, 1992, 1993a, 1993b). She found that

girls had more positive attitudes about writing than boys, attitudes became less positive as

students got older, and ethnicity did not appear to have any effect on the results. In 1995,

Knudson undertook a new study with 430 students in grades 1–6 who were administered a

survey and a writing prompt. These students responded to 19 items along a 5-point scale that

ranged from almost always to almost never. The author identified three factors for the grade 4–6

survey: (1) “Positive Attitude Toward Writing,” (2) “Letter/Note Writing,” and (3) “Positive

View of Self as Writer” (p. 92). Some of the 19 items focused on self-efficacy, some on self-

concept, and some on how the writer felt when writing. Knudson found a positive relationship

between students’ attitudes and writing even after controlling for grade.

Pajares et al. (1999) conducted a study with 363 third to fifth graders that compared the

relationship between writing ability and both self-concept and self-efficacy by using separate

surveys. They also included a survey to measure students’ perceived usefulness of writing. In

addition, the authors asked students to compare their writing ability to other girls and boys in

their school.

Pajares et al.’s (1999) skills-based self-efficacy scale comprised nine items rated on a 0–

100 scale (from no chance to completely certain); the self-concept scale included six items rated

along a 6-point scale (definitely false to definitely true); and the perceived usefulness of writing

scale was made up of nine items that were rated along a 6-point scale (extremely unimportant to

extremely important). A multiple regression analysis indicated that self-efficacy predicted

writing performance. Perceived usefulness did not significantly predict writing performance. The

authors found that girls were better writers than boys and had higher self-concept—but not

higher writing self-efficacy.


Kear et al. (2000) developed a 28-item attitude survey to be used across grades 1–12. All

items begin with the stem, “How would you feel,” and most items are specific to writing tasks,

subjects, and genres, so they are aimed at assessing students’ feelings of self-efficacy. Each item

was rated along a 4-point scale using cartoon-like Garfield™ characters to represent being very

happy to very upset.

More recently, Graham et al. (2007) focused their survey on measuring children’s

attitudes about writing for different purposes and in different locations. Participants were 128

first-grade and 113 third-grade children. The questionnaire was made up of only seven items,

each of which began with the stem “How do you feel” and utilized the same Garfield™ pictures

along a 4-point scale from very happy to very unhappy. A factor analysis yielded a single factor

that accounted for 52% of the variance. The authors found that writing attitude predicted writing

achievement and that there was a statistically significant direct path from attitude to

achievement—which was measured before the survey was administered. However, they did not

find a significant difference in writing attitude between the grade-1 and grade-3 students. Girls

had more positive attitudes than boys, but their writing scores were not significantly higher.

1.5. Comparison of previous surveys

While all these surveys measure student attitudes toward writing, there are important

differences in the approaches that were used and in some of the findings from these studies. The

items on Knudson’s (1995) surveys assess self-efficacy, self-concept, and feelings. Pajares et al.

(1999) measured self-efficacy and self-concept with separate surveys. Graham et al.’s (2007)

survey utilized a narrower interpretation of attitudes—how students felt when they were writing

for different purposes and in different places. The authors state that “it was most closely, but not

perfectly, aligned with a mood” (p. 518), and the purposes for writing were general, e.g., “for


fun,” “during free time.” They found that the seven items appeared to load onto one main factor.

Graham et al. tested three models to examine the relationship between writing attitude and

writing ability—a direct path from attitude to writing performance, from writing performance to

attitude, and a bi-directional path between performance and attitude. The direct path from

attitude to performance best described the data. Kear et al. (2000) created a longer survey that

also focused on how students felt when they were writing, but the purposes were more specific

than Graham et al.’s and addressed writing tasks such as “writing a letter to the author of a book

you read,” or writing about something you did in science.” However, the authors did not include

data linking the survey to student writing ability.

1.6. The development of our survey

We looked closely at other researchers’ surveys and decided that we wanted to measure

students’ self-efficacy and the value they placed on writing rather than specific writing tasks or

locations. Although we did not ask students how they felt about writing per se, their attitudes

about it can be inferred from their responses to many of the items in the Value of Writing

component. Because it was important that our survey be easily administered to groups of

students in 10 minutes or less, length was considered. We also wanted to extend the work of

other researchers by comparing results at different data collection points. We believe that

attitudes are potentially dynamic and could change over time; although other researchers have

generally used a more “snapshot” approach and collected writing and attitude data at one time,

we studied students’ attitudes and writing outcomes at the beginning as well as at the end of each

school year. Most of the fifth graders in our study also participated in fourth grade.


2. Method

2.1.Participants

The data collection for the study took place over two years. In Year 1, we studied the

students in fourth-grade classrooms. In Year 2, we studied a second cohort of fourth-grade

classrooms and followed the first cohort of students into their fifth-grade classrooms. We

collected surveys from all student participants at the beginning and end of each school year.

Students came from 367 classrooms (270 fourth-grade classrooms and 97 fifth-grade classrooms)

in 56 schools in six school districts in Massachusetts. In Years 1 and 2 of the implementation

(2010-2012), we collected 8, 234 surveys from students in fourth grade and 2,806 surveys from

students in fifth grade (Year 2 only).

Teacher experience varied from beginning to veteran teachers with over 20 years of

experience within and across schools and districts, and participating teachers taught between one

and five writing classes in their schools. Districts ranged in size from 13,373 students to 4,496

students. All are Title I districts.

2.1.1. Student demographics

There was a high percentage of low-income students in the study (those eligible for free

or reduced lunch), 76%. Thirty-two percent of the students received Limited English Proficiency

(LEP) services during the study or up to two years prior to the study, and 17% were enrolled in

special education during either or both years of the implementation. Twenty-five percent of the

students were White, 52% Hispanic, and 6% Black.

2.1.2. Writing curricula in study schools

Schools employed a variety of writing curricula. The teachers in about one-half of the

participating schools were involved in trying out a new writing curriculum, which includes daily,


scripted writing lessons that highlight targeted skills. The lessons are taught systematically

within a planned hierarchy, scope, and sequence. The curriculum addresses three broad goals:

establishing foundational writing habits, mastering essential skills, and learning the process

approach to writing. By design, this curriculum does not attempt to teach all writing skills; it

deliberately targets specific skills to be covered in depth, within the context of a genre, with

mastery as the goal. The new program provides professional development for teachers and

administrators before the school year begins, and additional workshops and coaching are

provided throughout the year.

Teachers in other schools used a range of writing curricula. These curricula included

Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study for Teaching Writing (e.g., Calkins, 2006) or other variations of the

writers’ workshop; the 6+1 Traits of Writing (Culham, 2003); the Collins Writing Program (e.g.,

Collins, 2007, 2009); First Steps Literacy (e.g., Annandale et al., 2005; Education Department of

Western Australia, 1997); and Picturing Writing (e.g., Olshanksy, 2006, 2007). Other resources

included Ralph Fletcher’s lessons (e.g., Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001, 2007) and Strategies for

Writers (Crawford & Sipe, 2008); professional textbooks and works by noted authors in the field

of writing; and teacher-created prompts and rubrics based on guidelines from the Massachusetts

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Professional development and

coaching/mentoring varied.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Student writing survey

Students responded to a paper and pencil survey comprising 18 items with stems and four

choices (see Appendix). Each item choice ranged from weakest to strongest. For example, “I

write: not as well as my friends, about the same as my friends, a little better than my friends, a


lot better than my friends.”

We wanted our survey to focus on self-efficacy, self-concept, and the perceived value of

writing without emphasizing feelings or specific writing tasks or locations. We also wanted it to

be brief enough to be administered in a short time. After examining various surveys, including

those already discussed, we decided that the best fit to our needs was the Motivation to Read

Profile (Gambrell, Palmer, Coding, & Mazzoni, 1996). By changing the format from reading to

writing and rewording a few items, the content and phrasing focused on the kinds of attitudes we

wanted to measure. We also added one item from Graham et al.’s (2007) Writing Attitude

Survey that was a condensed version of their seven items. Our research team wrote three

additional items. Students completed the surveys in class, which took about 10 minutes. Teachers

were permitted to assist with reading as needed, although our pilot work and feedback from the

teachers indicated that this was rarely necessary.

2.2.1.1. Principal component analysis

A principal component analysis of the 18 survey items indicated three composite

variables with eigenvalues above 1.0: (1) the Perceived Value (or usefulness) of Writing; (2)

Self-Rating as a Writer; and (3) Writing Behaviors. Self-Rating as a Writer and Writing

Behaviors both measure a form of self-efficacy, with Self-Rating as a Writer leaning more

toward students’ self-concepts. The correlations among the three components were very

consistent, ranging from .39 to .49 across time of year, Year 1 or 2, and grade. The median

correlation is .44. In other words, the trend is for students with higher (more positive) ratings on

the Perceived Value of Writing component to also have higher ratings on the Self-Rating as a

Writer and Writing Behaviors components.


The Perceived Value of Writing component accounted for about 29% of the variance at

each administration of the survey; the Self-Rating as a Writer component accounted for about

10–12% of the variance; and the Writing Behaviors component accounted for about 7% of the

variance. The three factors together accounted for about 46 to 48% of the variance (see Table 1).

Table 1

Variance Accounted for by Components Principal Components Analysis of Student Writing Survey Items. Proportions of Variance Accounted for by First

Three Components (all Eigenvalues > 1.0).

Year 1 Fall Year 1 Spring Year 2 Fall Year 2 Spring

Component 1

(Value of Writing)

.2907 .2947 .2915 .2904

Component 2 (Self-

Rating as a Writer)

.0987 .1208 .1065 .1208

Component 3

(Writing Behaviors)

.0662 .0687 .0706 .0690

Cumulative

Proportion

.4556 .4843 .4686 .4802

The internal consistency for each of the three composite variables (Cronbach’s alpha) is

shown in Table 2. The reliability of the Perceived Value of Writing component ranges from .79

to .81, and the reliability of the Self-Rating as a Writer component ranges from .79 to .81. The

reliability of the Writing Behaviors component is not as strong, ranging from .55 to .64, and thus

should be interpreted with even greater caution.

Table 2

Internal Consistency of Composite Variables

Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) for Composite Variables at Each Time Point

Value of Writing Self-Rating as a Writer Writing Behaviors

Year 1fall .79 .79 .55

Year 1 spring .81 .81 .64

Year 2 fall .79 .81 .58

Year 2 spring .80 .81 .61

Means and standard deviations for each item are presented in Table 3 on page 12. Two

items were omitted in the final version. Item 8 was originally included with the Writing

Behaviors component, but it did not load strongly onto it. Moreover, removing it greatly

increased the internal consistency of that component. Item 18 was a multi-part item, so it was not


consistent with the other items in the survey. The final survey includes nine items in the

Perceived Value of Writing component, four in the Self-Rating as a Writer component, and three

items in the Writing Behaviors component.

Table 3

Item Information for Principal Component Analysis

Item Information for Principal Component 1: The Value of Writing

Item number Description Mean SD

2 Writing is something I like to do 1.94 .74

4 My best friends think writing is fun 2.46 .89

6 People who write a lot are interesting 3.26 .82

9 Knowing how to write well is important 1.58 .81

11 I think writing is a good way to spend

time

2.23 .97

13 When I grow up I will spend time writing 2.05 .79

14 When I am in a group talking about

writing, I talk about my ideas

2.53 .95

16 I like to share my writing 2.38 .87

17 When people share their writing, I feel

happy

3.43 .70

Item Information for Principal Component 2: Self-Rating as a Writer

1 My friends think I am a good writer 3.08 .80

3 I write better than my friends 2.77 .85

7 I am a poor/very good writer 2.05 .83

15 My teacher thinks I am a poor/very good

writer

3.07 .78

Item Information for Principal Component 3: Writing Behaviors

5 When I am writing, I understand what to

do

3.47 .59

10 When my teacher asks me a question

about what I write, I can never think of an

answer

1.85 .80

12 Writing is easy/hard for me 3.27 .78

Omitted items

8 I worry about what other kids think about

my writing

1.90 .95

18 Check the different places and times for

your writing. You may check more than

one box.

Multi-part item


2.2.2. State test (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System [MCAS])

The MCAS is administered to Massachusetts students in March. The tests include a

variety of response formats, including open-ended questions for students. A writing prompt is

part of the English Language Arts test in grades 4, 7, and 10. In grade 4, the prompt genre has

been narrative. The test is untimed, and students may take as long as they need to complete it.

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education uses two scoring

rubrics—one for Topic/Idea Development (along a 6-point scale) and one for Standard English

Conventions (along a 4-point scale). Two people rate each writing sample, and the two ratings

are added together for a possible maximum score of 12 or 8 points, respectively.

2.2.3. Released MCAS prompts

2.2.3.1 Fourth and fifth grade pretests

As part of our work in studying the writing curriculum in the schools, we wanted to

obtain assessments of students’ writing at the beginning of each school year. The study’s writing

pretest was an MCAS writing prompt from a previous year. (The prompts used in prior years

become available to the public and are referred to as “released prompts.”) We used the same

fourth grade pretest in both years; a different released prompt was used for the fifth-grade pretest

in Year 3.

In collecting the pretest writing samples, we tried to replicate the conditions used in the

official MCAS assessments, although instead of allowing unlimited time for the writing

assessments we decided (after some pilot work and in consultation with teachers) to put a time

limit of one-hour for completing the responses to the pretests. Teachers followed written

instructions to help students provide identifying information and respond to the prompt.

Students were informed when 20 minutes remained, then 10 minutes. Although teachers were


not allowed to help students write, they were permitted to help read the instructions as needed.

Students also had the option of using dictionaries, as on the state test. Those with Individual

Education Plans were permitted the same accommodations they would have on any test.

2.2.3.2. Fifth grade posttest

The MCAS writing prompt is not administered to fifth graders, so teachers gave another

released prompt as a posttest. They followed the same procedures when administering the fifth-

grade posttest as they did when administering the fourth- and fifth-grade pretests.

2.2.3.3. Holistic scoring

We recruited readers each year to score the released prompts. Most of the readers were

master’s or doctoral students or retired teachers and principals. Others had worked in related

fields and understood fourth- and fifth-grade student work. The training, followed by the scoring,

was undertaken after the end of the school year after the writing samples had all been collected.

We followed a rigorous protocol to ensure that our readers could rate the writing samples

reliably and accurately, using the two MCAS scoring rubrics. Project staff scanned all writing

samples, redacting identifying information. The readers then read and scored these redacted

versions so they could be kept uninformed about any school or classroom information or the time

of year (fall or spring) of the writing samples. Team leaders periodically checked the scores of

each reader against their own scores, generally three times per day. If there was more than a one-

point difference between the scores of the reader and the team leader, the reader received

additional training. After the completion of the training sessions for the scorers, all of the student

writing samples were rated by two people, and the scores were added together as they are on the

MCAS. These rating pairs were chosen randomly for each writing sample, and readers did not

know who their scoring partner was. When a reading pair provided ratings for either rubric with


more than a one-point difference, a member of the research team arbitrated so that the ratings

were no more than one point apart.

2.3. Procedure

Project staff delivered boxes of teacher and principal packets to district liaisons or to

individual schools in August and again in late May. A cover letter for the teachers provided an

overview of the data-collection procedures, with the required dates for returning documents to

school offices. Student writing surveys and writing pretests (or fifth grade posttests) were

included in the packets.

Teachers could administer the surveys and tests anytime within a two-week period in

September or a one-week period in June.

3. Data Analysis

We began with a general description of the students’ writing scores and their responses to

the three writing attitude components at the beginning and at the end of the school year for each

cohort of students. Our next step was to examine the relationships between students’ attitudes

and their scores on the writing-prompt assessments. For this step we studied the correlation

coefficients, looking at the overall results for each cohort and then separately at the coefficients

for several subgroups of students (girls and boys, for example). We then focused in more detail

on the students’ attitude scores through a series of multi-level regression models in which we

could incorporate information about the potential clustering of students within classrooms and

schools. We used a three-level model, investigating the differences in students’ attitudes across

school districts, grade levels, and a set of student-level characteristics: gender, special education

status, LEP status at the time of the study, eligibility for free/reduced lunch, and ethnicity. We

conducted these regression analyses separately for the students’ attitudes at the beginning of the


school year and at the end of the school year. We then repeated these analyses by looking for

changes in students’ attitudes over time. This series of steps helped us to investigate our main

questions: 1. What are the attitudes about writing among fourth- and fifth-grade students? 2.

How are their attitudes related to their scores on assessments of their writing performance? 3.

What differences are there in the writing attitudes of students with different characteristics? 4.

How do students’ attitudes about writing change over the course of the school year?

4. Results

4.1 Mean scores for all students: Writing assessments and attitudes about writing

4.1.1. Writing test scores

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) for the student writing scores and

the three attitude components in the fall and spring are presented in Table 4 on page 17. In both

Year 1 and Year 2, the fourth-grade Topic/Idea Development writing scores averaged just under

5 points in the fall, and they rose to an average of about 6.5 points in the spring. According to the

MCAS scoring guide, scores of 5 or 6 indicate limited to rudimentary topic development, with

basic supporting details and simplistic language, so although the average scores did increase, the

levels of writing achievement were still relatively low. The scores on the use of Standard

English Conventions show a similar pattern of overall increase, from a mean of about 4.5 on the

fall pretest to a mean of about 6.25 in the spring. These scores indicate that students were able in

the spring to produce essays with relatively few errors in grammar usage and mechanics, and

students were doing relatively better on the Standard English Conventions scale compared to

their weaker performances on the Topic/Idea Development scale.


Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations for Writing Scores and Attitude Composite Scores

Year 1 Grade 4 Year 2 Grade 4 Year 2 Grade 5

n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD

Writing scores

Pretest Topic/Idea Development

(highest possible score = 12)

2176 4.96 1.51 2145 4.90 1.62 1396 5.24 1.88

Pretest Standard English

Conventions (highest possible

score = 8)

2176

4.65

1.32

2145

4.53

1.33

1396

4.86

1.57

Posttest Topic/Idea

Development

2209

6.50

1.58

2164

6.75

1.51

1479

5.78

1.74

Posttest Standard English

Conventions

2210

6.21

1.39

2164

6.30

1.26

1479

5.43

1.25

Attitude composite scores

Value of writing (fall) 2260 2.91 0.51 2163 2.90 0.52 1460 2.80 0.48

Self-rating as a writer (fall)

2260

2.83

0.64

2164

2.81

0.66

1460

2.75

0.60

Writing behaviors (fall)

2260

2.30

0.53

2163

2.30

0.54

1460

3.27

0.51

Value of writing (spring)

1918

2.83

0.52

1861

2.83

0.51

1346

2.71

0.50

Self-rating as a writer (spring)

1918

2.81

0.62

1861

2.76

0.62

1345

2.72

0.61

Writing behaviors (spring)

1918

2.35

0.53

1861

3.30

0.53

1343

3.28

0.54


For the grade-5 students, the gains in the writing scores were even more modest than

those of the grade-4 students. On both the Topic/Idea Development and Standard English

Conventions scores there were small increases from the fall to the spring. The average score on

Topic/Idea Development moved from 5.2 to 5.8, which is still considered at a “rudimentary”

level of topic development. The Standard English Conventions scores moved from 4.9 to 5.4, so

on average they were still producing errors in grammar and usage that would interfere with the

effective communication of their ideas.

4.1.2. Students’ attitudes about writing

The mean scores on the three writing attitude composites are presented in Table 4 on

page 17. These scores were scaled using a range of 1 (low scores or poor attitude) to 4 (high

scores or positive attitude). We have no “norms” or other comparative information for these

scores, so it is difficult to interpret the means in the table, but it does appear that students were

above the mid-point (2.5 is the midpoint) on their ratings of the Value of Writing (means of

about 2.85) and on their ratings of themselves as writers (means of about 2.8). It is interesting to

note that students’ ratings on these two dimensions always dropped slightly from fall to spring;

there are slightly lower mean scores for both grade-4 and grade-5 students. When examining the

ratings of their Writing Behaviors, however, we see a slightly different pattern. Here, the overall

ratings were slightly more positive, with the mean for students during the second year of the

project exceeding 3.0 on the 4-point scale. So the students tended to rate their behaviors

(understanding what to do when writing, being able to respond to teacher questions) as more

positive than their ratings of their own skills or success as writers. These ratings of their

behaviors showed modest increases over the course of the school year, while their ratings of their

own skills showed small decreases. From this look at the mean scores, it appears overall that


students demonstrated small improvements in their writing skills as judged by independent

reviews of their responses to writing prompts. On their own assessments of their writing

attitudes, however, the patterns were a bit different. Students reported very small increases

(positive changes) in their writing behaviors but little or no differences (actually some very slight

decreases) in their self-ratings of themselves as writers. We examine these relationships at the

individual-student level in our next set of analyses.

4.2. Relationship between attitudes and writing: Beginning and end of year

We examined the relationships between each of the three components of students’ writing

attitudes and their writing ability both at the beginning and end of the year (see Table 5 on page

20). For fourth graders, small but consistent correlations were found between each of the attitude

components and the assessments of student writing (the median coefficient is about .2). The

correlations were slightly stronger when student attitudes were measured at the end of the year,

particularly with the Self-Rating as a Writer component (coefficients of about .25). To a lesser

extent, this pattern is similar for the fifth-grade students.

We carried out analyses of these patterns for each grade level and also by comparing the

coefficients for boys to those of girls, and the patterns were generally very consistent, with no

statistically significant differences between the grade levels or the genders. We also found no

important differences in the correlation coefficients across classrooms using different types of

writing curricula.


Table 5

Correlations of Student Writing Survey Results with Writing Achievement Scores Year 1 Grade 4 Beginning-of-School-Year Attitudes

(n = 2146) End-of-School-Year Attitudes

(n = 1831)

Writing Test Value of Writing

Self-Rating as a Writer

Writing Behaviors

Value of Writing

Self-Rating as a Writer

Writing Behaviors

Pretest Topic Development

.13 .18 .25 .10 .27 .26

Pretest Standard Conventions

.10 .17 .23 .08 .29 .28

MCAS Prompt Topic Development

.17 .20 .22 .13 .26 .24

MCAS Prompt Standard Conventions

.15 .20 .22 .13 .28 .24

Year 2

Grade 4

Beginning-of-School-Year Attitudes (n = 2115)

End-of-School-Year Attitudes (n = 1844)


.15 .17 .22 .16 .25 .25


.11 .17 .20 .12 .25 .21

MCAS Prompt Topic Development

.11 .15 .20 .13 .24 .24

MCAS Prompt Standard Conventions

.11 .19 .22 .13 .26 .27

Year 2

Grade 5

Beginning-of-School-Year Attitudes (n = 1366)

End-of-School-Year Attitudes (n = 1291)


.07 .17 .21 .09 .21 .20


.01 .13 .18 .04 .18 .15

End-of-Year Prompt Topic Development

.07 .17 .19 .12 .22 .22

End-of-Year Prompt Standard Conventions

.01 .18 .17 .08 .20 .21

Note. Actual sample sizes for some pairs of variables differed slightly due to occasional missing data. All fourth

grade coefficients are statistically significant at p < .001. Grade 5 coefficients greater than .04 are statistically

significant at p < .05; coefficients greater than .09 are statistically significant at p < .001.


The interesting finding from these analyses is that there appear to be small-but-consistent

relationships between students’ attitudes toward writing and their scores on writing assessments.

Most coefficients were in the .20 range, so there is not evidence that students’ attitudes are

strongly related to their writing abilities, but there does appear to be a small and statistically

significant relationship between student attitudes and writing performance, which is consistent

with previous studies of the relationship between student attitudes and writing performance. In

particular, students’ responses to questions about the value of writing (e.g., “knowing how to

write well is important,” “writing is something I like to do”) showed the lowest correlation with

actual writing scores. Many students stated that writing is valuable or important, even though

their own writing skills were relatively low. The coefficients for students’ ratings of their own

writing (e.g., “my friends think I am a good writer,” “my teacher thinks I am a good writer”)

were also not strong, but they were consistently stronger than the coefficients for the writing-

behavior attitudes.

Comparing the scores from the beginning of school year to the end, students’ scores on

the writing assessments did increase modestly, but we did not see corresponding changes in

students’ overall attitudes about themselves as writers. In the next step, we carried out some

further analyses of the attitude scores to look for differences in writing attitudes among

subgroups of students.

4.3. Differences in writing attitudes among student subgroups

We carried out a series of regression analyses to investigate potential differences in

students’ attitudes about writing. These were multi-level models to take into account the

clustering of students within classrooms and classrooms within schools. We included some

school-level characteristics to account for the different school districts and also an indicator for


whether the school was taking part in the new writing curriculum we were studying or was part

of the group of schools continuing to use their usual curricula (hereafter referred to as “usual

curricula.” Most of our attention in these analyses, however, was on the student-level

characteristics. (The differences between schools and between classrooms turned out to be very

modest, so most of the variation in attitudes about writing appeared at the student level.) We

looked for differences in students’ attitudes at the beginning of the school year and then again at

the end of the school year, as we were interested in how students may vary in the fall and how

things might look a bit different in the spring. We also focused directly on individual changes in

attitudes over time (described in Section 4.4).

Table 6 on pages 23 and 24 presents results for the grade-4 and grade-5 cohorts. One

important finding for grade 4 is the relatively small variance estimates for the school and

classroom-within-school levels in these analyses. These are the conditional estimates, and so

they indicate that most of the variance is accounted for by student-level factors. Students differed

in their attitudes about writing, but there were relatively small differences in attitudes among

schools and even among classrooms; within most classrooms there is considerable variation

among students in their attitudes about writing. The coefficients presented in the table represent

differences in the mean attitude scores across the corresponding subgroups of students. (The

scores are on a 4-point scale.) The results for the grade-4 cohorts were relatively consistent.

Girls consistently demonstrated more positive attitudes than boys, with statistically significant

differences at both the beginning and end of the school year. (The difference averaged about .20

scale points, which is not huge, but in effect-size terms these correspond to approximately .30 to

.40 standard deviations.) The differences between the attitudes of the girls and the boys are the

most consistent and the largest in magnitude of the differences for the fourth-grade students.


Table 6

Regression Results (Mean Scores of Subgroups)

Year 1 Grade 4 Beginning-of-School-Year Attitudes

(n = 1962)

End-of-School-Year Attitudes

(n = 1658)

Variable Value of

Writing

Self-Rating

as a Writer

Writing

Behaviors

Value of

Writing

Self-Rating

as a Writer

Writing

Behaviors

Intercept 2.80 2.78 3.34 2.81 2.88 3.47

Girls .25*** .29*** .15*** .18*** .22*** .06*

White -.03 -.07 .04 -.02 .00 .01

Hispanic -.07~ -.09~ -.03 -.09* -.05 -.09*

F/R Lunch .00 -.03 -.03 -.02 -.10* .07~

LEP .05 .10* -.09* .07 -.20*** -.15***

SPED -.07* -.17*** -.16*** -.11** -.19*** -.19***

New Curriculum -.07* -.06 .03 -.04 -.09* -.03

District B .10 .02 .04 -.03 .05 -.03

District C .00 -.01 -.13 .11~ -.03 -.10~

District D 0 0 0 0 0 0

District E -.06 -.02 -.03 -.10 .03 -.01

New Curriculum x District ns ns ns ns ns ns

Mean Changes for

Usual Curricula

New Curriculum

2.95

2.88

2.87

2.81

3.32

3.29

2.85

2.81

2.77

2.85

3.36

3.33

Variance Estimates for

Schools (n = 40)

Classrooms (n = 123)

Residual

.00008

.01131**

.2373***

.00261

.01321*

.3676***

0

.00651*

.2583***

0

.0144***

.2341***

0

.0045

.3506***

0

.00395

.2614


(n = 2137)


(n = 1854)

Intercept 2.77 2.76 3.37 2.75 2.85 3.37

Girls .24*** .29*** .13*** .20*** .21*** .11***

White -.07~ -.13* -.05 -.02 -.10~ -.04

Hispanic -.07~ -.09~ -.07~ -.08* -.13** -.12**

F/R Lunch .00 -.05 -.04 .02 -.07~ -.05

LEP .14*** .04 -.05 .03 -.12** -.09*

SPED -.04 -.04 -.19*** -.01 -.06 -.17***

New Curriculum .01 -.05 -.03 .02 .02 .01

District A 0 0 0 0 0 0

District C .11 .03 .02 .08 .01 .07

District D -.01 -.03 -.00 -.06 -.06 .04

District E .03 .04 .03 -.03 -.00 .07

District F .07 .05 -.13* -.02 -.00 -.04


Note. ~ p < .10. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001


Mean Changes for

Usual Curricula

New Curriculum

2.89

2.89

2.85

2.80

3.32

3.29

2.80

2.82

2.76

2.77

3.29

3.30


Schools (n = 40)


Residual

.0024

.0094

.2336***

0

.0029

.4049***

0

.0009

.2710

0

.0202***

.2213***

.0007

.0117*

.3456***

0

.0031

.2656***


(n = 1361)


(n = 1254)

Value of

Writing

Self-Rating

as a Writer

Writing

Behaviors

Value of

Writing

Self-Rating

as a Writer

Writing

Behaviors

Intercept 2.80 2.77 3.29 2.63 2.74 3.32

Girls .19*** .26*** .08** .16*** .19*** .06*

White -.03 .00 .14** .05 .06 .09

Hispanic -.10* -.04 -.02 -.06 -.04 -.04

F/R Lunch -.10* -.16*** -.06 -.07~ -.17** -.09*

LEP .10** -.04 -.12** .12** -.06 -.10*

SPED -.10** -.15*** -.19*** -.07* -.14** -.19***

New Curriculum .03 .06 -.04 .02 .01 .00

District C .15** .08 .01 .19** .14~ .08

District D 0 0 0 0 0 0

District E -.02 .08 -.01 .04 .07 .03


Mean Changes for

Usual Curricula

New Curriculum

2.76

2.79

2.69

2.76

3.28

3.24

2.69

2.70

2.71

2.72

3.26

3.26


Schools (n = 28)

Classrooms (n = 91)

Residual

.0011

.0010

.2164***

.0042~

.00

.3305***

.0041~

.00

.2441***

.0017

.0038

.2285***

.0063~

.00

.3419***

.0021

.00

.2728***


There were smaller differences across the ethnic groups, with Hispanic students showing

slightly less-positive attitudes than other students. More noticeable were the differences for

students receiving special education services and, to a slightly lesser degree, students receiving

LEP services, although the special education differences were more prominent in the Year-1

cohort than in Year 2. These differences were slightly more prominent in the attitudes of the

students at the end of the school year.

We do not see strong or consistent differences between the classrooms that were adopting

the new writing curriculum and those who used their usual curricula. Nor were there major

differences across the school districts, and there were no significant interactions of districts and

writing curriculum, so we did not see any curriculum differences in students’ attitudes either

overall or in particular school districts.

The grade-5 results presented in Table 6 are generally consistent with the grade-4 results.

The overall mean attitude scores for the grade-5 students are actually slightly lower than the

grade-4 students’, and we see only relatively small differences among schools and classrooms.

Most of the variability in students’ attitudes is present within classrooms. Consistent with the

grade-4 results are the differences between the girls and boys, with girls continuing to show

slightly more-positive attitudes toward writing.

There are relatively few and relatively small differences based on ethnicity, but larger

differences based on special education, LEP and eligibility for free/reduced lunch. One

interesting pattern here was that the students receiving LEP services had slightly higher (more

positive) attitudes about their Value of Writing (differences of about .10 in both fall and spring),

yet they had slightly lower scores on the other attitude scales, averaging about .10 lower than

other students on their ratings of their own writing behaviors. The coefficients for the special


education students were consistently negative, reflecting the slightly less positive attitudes of

students receiving special education services in grade 5. As we also saw in the grade-4 results,

there were no consistent differences across classrooms using different writing curricula, and few

important differences among the school districts, although one district did show slightly higher

attitudes on the value of writing.

Perhaps the main results from these analyses are not a major surprise. We found that

students’ attitudes toward writing vary, and we see relatively small differences among schools

and classrooms. Differences among classrooms based on their use of a particular writing

curriculum were hardly noticeable. The notable trend was for girls to indicate more positive

attitudes than boys. Among other subgroups, students receiving special education or LEP

services often demonstrated somewhat different attitudes, and these may well reflect their

perceptions of differences in their skills in writing in school.

4.4. Changes across the year

The earlier tables presented the student-attitude analyses separately for the beginning and

end of the year. Table 7 on page 28 shows results of analyses in which we examined changes in

students’ attitudes from the fall to the spring. Overall there were very modest changes over time,

and in fact there were small trends toward less-positive attitudes. There was significant

variability in students’ attitudes, however, with most of the variance at the student level and

relatively small variability across schools or classrooms. Among the grade-4 cohorts, girls had

more-positive attitudes than boys, but girls actually changed a bit less than the boys. These

differences in the changes in attitudes were small, however, and were not always statistically

significant, although the coefficients were consistently negative. A statistically significant

difference for the grade-4 students was for the students receiving LEP services to show larger


decreases in their attitudes, most noticeably on the Self-Rating as a Writer component. The only

other statistically significant coefficient in the fourth-grade analyses was for a more positive

change for Year 1 classrooms on the Self-Rating as a Writer component that were using the new

writing curriculum. Unfortunately this was not found among the second grade-4 cohort, nor was

the difference consistent across the different writing attitude variables.

There were no important differences in the changes in students’ attitudes for any of the

other characteristics. Ethnicity differences were nearly zero. Even students receiving special

education services, whose attitudes were often less positive than those of other students, did not

demonstrate changes that differed significantly from those of other students.

The analyses of changes in attitudes among the grade-5 students were generally similar.

There were very small overall differences, with attitudes moving slightly in a less-positive

direction. The girls’ attitudes changed slightly less than boys’. The only other significant

coefficient occurred for students receiving special education services, who showed a small

positive change in the attitudes about the value of writing, although they still remained less

positive overall than other students.

The analyses of the changes in students’ attitudes over the school year indicated that there

were only small overall changes. Many students did show some changes, but these differences

were not large and were not associated with either student-level characteristics or the different

schools or school districts. The attitudes may be relatively slow to change for these young

students in grades 4 and 5, who are somewhat new in tackling the challenges of writing

assignments and writing instruction in school.


Table 7

Mean Score Changes in Student Attitudes Beginning to End of Year

Year 1 Grade Year 2 Grade 4 Year 2 Grade 5

Variable Value of

Writing

Self-Rating

as a Writer

Writing

Behaviors

Value of

Writing

Self-Rating

as a Writer

Writing

Behaviors

Value of

Writing

Self-Rating

as a Writer Writing Behaviors

Intercept -.00 .07 .13 -.02 -.10 .08 -.15 -.07 .01

Girls -.06* -.05 -.08** -.03 -.06* .02 -.03 -.07* .02

White .02 .09 -.01 .02 .00 -.04 .04 .06 -.01

Hispanic -.03 .06 -.04 -.02 -.04 -.03 -.00 .02 .01

F/R Lunch -.01 -.05 -.03 -.01 .03 -.04 .02 -.02 -.03

LEP -.01 -.28*** -.08 -.06 -.12* -.05 .03 .03 -.01

SPED -.04 -.01 -.05 .01 .05 .04 .09* -.01 .02

New Curriculum .04 .15** .02 .01 .05 .04 -.01 -.04 .06

District A 0 0 0

District B -.16* -.02 .02

District C .10 -.00 .04 -.07 -.06 -.00 .04 .07 .07

District D 0 0 0 -.05 -.05 .03 0 0 0

District E -.03 .04 .04 -.12 -.05 .00 .06 .02 .06

District F -.09 -.04 .12~

New Curriculum x

District ns ns ns

ns ns ns

ns ns ns

Mean Changes for

Usual Curricula

New Curriculum

-.13

-.08

-.11

.04

.00

.03

-.08

-.07

-.08

-.03

-.02

.02

-.07

-.08

-.02

-.06

-.04

.02

Variance estimates for

Schools (n = 40)


Residual

.00

.0166**

.2626***

.00

.0255***

.4055***

.00

.0075*

.3106***

.00

.0080*

.2676***

.00

.0095*

.3891***

.00

.0004

.3205***

.0072

.0022

.1873***

.0114*

.0041

.3057***

.0029

.0023

.2737***

Note. ~ p < .10. * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001


5. Discussion

Findings from this study support the existence of a small relationship between student

attitudes about writing and writing performance that other studies have found (Graham et al.,

2007; Knudson, 1995; Pajares et al., 1999). This adds to the convergence of evidence about this

relationship despite the different ways in which researchers define or measure attitudes. Other

studies have used 4-, 5-, 6- and 100-point scales, as well as verbal descriptors or Garfield™

pictures; and items that measure self-efficacy or self-concept, focus on student emotions, stress

specific skills, purposes for writing, or to a lesser extent items that measure perceived usefulness.

In all cases attitudes predict writing performance. Therefore, we can study different aspects of

motivation or use different instruments, or both, and still arrive at similar conclusions.

5.1. Students from low-income families

Of interest too is that we were able to confirm the relationship between attitudes and

writing performance with students who came from primarily high-poverty homes. In the most

recent study of student attitudes, Graham et al. (2007) used mothers’ and fathers’ educational

levels to measure socioeconomic status (SES). Ninety-three percent of the mothers and 83% of

the fathers had at least some higher education, indicating a population with higher SES. We used

eligibility for free and reduced lunch as a proxy for SES. In our study, some 76% of the students

were eligible for free or reduced lunch, indicating a population with lower SES. Therefore, our

results offer some additional information about the question posed by Graham et al. about

whether poverty may mediate the relationship between attitudes and writing performance. Our

results indicate that there is indeed a relationship between attitudes and writing ability for

students from families with low incomes.


5.2. Poor writers

The students in the Graham et al. (2007) study were also better writers than those in our

study. Whereas the scores of the Graham et al. students were solidly in the average range on a

standardized test of written expression, the students in our study had low mean scores on the

MCAS and the released prompts, indicating that these students were weaker writers overall. This

addresses another question raised by Graham et al. about whether the relationship between

attitudes and writing outcomes would hold true for poor writers or those with disabilities. Our

results indicate that the relationship does hold true.

5.3. Different student populations

The students in our study also differed from that of those in the Graham et al. (2007)

study demographically. Sixty-five percent of the students in that study were White compared to

25% in our study and 1% were Hispanic compared to 52% in our study. Graham et al. did not

address the percentage of students receiving LEP services, if any; 32% of the students in our

study either received these services at the time of the study or up to two years prior to it. We

were thus able to find similar results as previous researchers with a different population of

students.

5.4. Attitudes from beginning to end of year

Student attitudes about their writing ability did not get stronger on average after a year of

writing instruction. This issue was not addressed in other studies because they measured both

attitudes and writing ability at the same time. Our study had the advantage of being able to assess

these variables at the beginning and end of the year. Interestingly, although student attitudes

were not stronger at the end of the school year, their beliefs were more closely aligned to their

actual writing ability; that is, the correlations between attitudes and writing ability tended to be


higher at the end of the year. Although the differences in the magnitudes of the coefficients were

not large, there was a consistent trend for end-of-year coefficients to be a bit stronger than

beginning-of-year coefficients. Perhaps this is a reflection of the students having experienced a

year of instruction from their writing teachers, and the feedback from and interactions with the

teachers (along with other classroom experiences) provided them with a slightly firmer basis for

making judgments about their own writing attitudes. This finding is worth pursuing in other

studies of individual students and how their attitudes and writing skills and abilities evolve and

develop over time.

Also of interest, although students’ attitudes about the Value of Writing component

appeared to show reasonable levels of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of

.80), that attitude variable demonstrated the lowest correlation with student writing. Students’

self ratings, and their reports of their own writing behaviors, showed consistently stronger

coefficients. It appears that although students may value writing, and they recognize that it is an

important skill that is valued in school, their performance did not correlate highly with it. Even

students who were weaker writers often reported that they recognized the value of writing. This

finding too should be followed up by longitudinal research that tracks students’ attitudes and

writing development over longer periods of time.

5.5 Girls vs. boys

Our results indicate that girls have more positive attitudes than boys, a finding that is

consistent with previous research. Girls had more positive attitudes than boys on all three attitude

components regardless of when the survey was administered. They began the year with more

positive attitudes and maintained them or became only slightly less positive, whereas boys

started and ended each year with less positive attitudes. Girls in both grades were also better


writers than boys, which supports Pajares et al.’s (1999) and Knudson’s (1995) findings but

differs from the Graham et al. (2007) results.

5.6. Changes in attitudes with grade

Past research has been equivocal about attitudes declining as children get older (Pajares,

2003). Knudson (1991, 1992, 1993) confirmed the decline with surveys in grades 1–3, 4–8, and

9–12 as did Pajares and Valiante (1999) with students in grades 6 and 7, but Graham et al. (2007)

did not find this to be true with their first and third graders. Nor did we find it to be true for our

fourth and fifth graders. A direct path from attitude to performance best described Graham et

al.’s data, but the third-grade students did not have more positive attitudes than the first graders,

as the authors expected. Our study also differed from others in that many of our students were

followed over two years.

5.7. Limitations and implications for future research

One limitation of this study is that it focused only on one aspect of motivation—

attitudes—and that our definition of attitudes was different from the way other researchers define

it. While we were pleased to see the convergence of evidence of the relationship between

attitudes and writing outcomes regardless of the definitions offered thus far, it is also possible

that there is another aspect of attitudes, or in fact of motivation, that might not have that

relationship. It is also possible that future research with the same three components we studied

might have different results with older or younger students.

Another limitation is that all of the districts that participated in this study were eligible

for Title 1 funds and comprised primarily students from low-income families. This

complemented the student population in the Graham et al. (2007) study, but it should be noted

that we studied grades 4 and 5, whereas Graham et al. studied grades 1 and 3. Future research


studies might over time include a wider range of grades as well as students from families across

the income spectrum over a series of studies.

It should also be noted that student attitudes about writing are potentially dynamic.

However, they have generally been measured at only one time point. Although we attempted to

address this issue by collecting data at two points each year, additional research at multiple data

points, spanning more grades, could add important information to the field.

6.0. Conclusions and implications

This article focused on student attitudes about writing, and in particular about three

components of those attitudes: students’ Perceived Value of Writing, Self-Rating as a Writer,

and Writing Behaviors. We found a small but consistent relationship between all three

components and writing, and this relationship was a little stronger at the end of the year,

especially for the Self-Rating as a Writer component. Girls had significantly more positive

attitudes than boys on all three components in fall and spring of both grades. However, their

attitudes changed slightly less than boys from the beginning to end of the year on the Perceived

Value of Writing and Writing Behaviors components.

We were able to confirm the relationship that other researchers have found between

attitudes and writing outcomes although the students in our study came primarily from low-

income families, had a high percentage of Hispanic students, and were on average poor writers.

Moreover, we found that the relationship was stronger by the end of the year.

Although various researchers have defined attitudes differently and studied different

components, there appears to be a convergence of the findings. It is also possible that other

aspects could be studied that would produce different results. Moreover, attitudes are only one

facet of motivation, and other facets could also lead to different results.


We suggest that future research studies follow students over time to document the

dynamics involved in the progression of their writing ability as well as their attitudes about

writing and the relationship between the two variables. We believe that our examination over

time was a positive feature of this study, and we hope it will encourage other researchers to study

a variety of populations over multiple data collection points using a range of methodologies. In

that way, a body of research can accumulate to include a wider range of grades with families

across the income spectrum.

Finally, we wonder if it is appropriate to expect writing attitudes to change over time.

Might this not depend on student, teacher, and classroom contexts? Additional research could

detect not only the change in attitudes, if any, but the reasons behind the positive or negative

changes. This would require qualitative as well as quantitative data collection to present a more

complete picture. We would encourage follow-up studies on the role that teachers and schools

might play in influencing student attitudes. While the causal role of attitudes on writing

performance has not yet been clearly determined, surely positive attitudes would lead to a more

harmonious learning environment.

NOTE:

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of

Education, through Grant Number R305A090479 to Education Development Center, Inc. The

opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the US

Department of Education.


References

Albin, M. L., Benton, S. L., & Khramtsova, I. (1996). Individual differences in interest and

narrative writing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 305–324.

Alexander, P. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research:

Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 129–154.

Annandale, K., Bindon, R., Broz, J., Handley, K., Johnston, A., Lockett, L. . . . Rourke, R.

(2005). First steps literacy: Writing map of development and CD-ROM pack (2nd

ed.). Perth,

Australia: Steps Professional Development.

Brophy, J. (2010). Motivating students to learn (3rd

ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Calkins, L. (2006). Units of study for teaching writing, grades 3–5. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Clark, I. L. (2012). Concepts in composition: Theory and practice in the teaching of writing (2nd

ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

College Board Advocacy and Policy Center. (2010). Teachers are the center of education:

Writing, learning and leading in the digital age. New York, NY: College Board.

Collins, J. J. (2007). Improving student writing performance through writing and thinking across

the curriculum. West Newbury, MA: Collins Education Associates.

Collins, J. (2009). Collins writing program: Using best-practice research and time saving

techniques to improve student performance. West Newbury, MA: Collins Education

Associates.

Crawford, L. W., & Sipe, R. B. (2008). Strategies for writers. Columbus, OH: Zaner-Bloser.

Culham, R. (2003). 6+1 traits of writing: The complete guide, grades 3 and up. New York, NY:

Scholastic.


Daly, J. A., & Shamo, W. (1978). Academic decisions as a function of writing apprehension.

Research in the Teaching of English, 12(2), 119–126.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2007). The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social

Cognition, 25(5), 582–602.

Education Department of Western Australia. (1997). Writing developmental continuum (First

Steps). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Faigley, L., Daly, J., & Witte, S. (1981). The role of writing apprehension in writing

performance and competence. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 16–21.

Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M .A. (2003). Attitudes: Foundations, functions, and consequences. In M.

A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social psychology. London, England:

Sage.

Fletcher, F., & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (2007). Craft lessons: Teaching writing K–8 (2nd

ed.). Portland, ME:

Stenhouse.

Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996, April).

Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518–533.

Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing

attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 32, 516–536.

Graham, S., Schwartz, S. S., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the

composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without

learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 237–249.


Hidi, S., Berndorff, D., & Ainley, M. (2002). Children’s argument writing, interest, and self-

efficacy: An intervention study. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 429–446.

Kear, D. J., Coffman, G. A., McKenna, M. C., & Ambrosio, A. L. (2000). Measuring attitude

toward writing: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 54(1), 10–23.

Knudson, R. E. (1991). Development and use of a writing attitude survey in grades 4 to 8.

Psychological Reports, 68, 807–816.

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

3. Psychological Reports, 70, 711–720.

Knudson, R. E. (1993a). Effects of ethnicity in attitudes toward writing. Psychological Reports,

72, 39–45.

Knudson, R. E. (1993b). Development of a writing attitude survey for grades 9 to 12: Effects of

gender, grade, and ethnicity. Psychological Reports, 73, 587–594.

Knudson, R. E. (1995). Writing experiences, attitudes, and achievement of first to sixth graders.

Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 90–97.

Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the

next job market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Murnane, R., & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills: Principles for educating children

to thrive in a changing economy. New York, NY: Free Press.

Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated explanation of motivation terminology.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3–53.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES

2012-470). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2011/2012470.asp.


National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2005). Reading to achieve: A

governor’s guide to adolescent literacy. http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-

practices/center-publications/page-edu-publications/col2-content/main-content-list/reading-

to-achieve-a-governors-g.html.

Nelson, N. (2007). Why write? A consideration of rhetorical purpose. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series

Ed.) and P. Boscolo & S. Hidi (Volume Eds.), Studies in Writing, Volume 19, Writing and

Motivation (pp. 17–30). Oxford, England: Elsevier.

Olshansky, B. (2006). Teaching the art of writing. Educational Leadership, 63. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/ summer06/vol63/num09/Teaching-

the-Art-of-Writing.aspx

Olshanksky, B. (2007). Impact of an art-and-literature-based approach on writing and reading

skills of at-risk learners: Sixteen years of evidence. Arts & Learning Research Journal,

23(1), 1–30.

Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the

literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139–158.

Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and the writing performance of

entering high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 163–175.

Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., & Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-beliefs of

elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 50–61.

Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-beliefs

of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(4), 390–405.


Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement of

middle school students: A function of gender orientation? Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 26, 366–381.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21

st century learning. Washington,

DC: Author. http://www.p21.org/overview/skills-framework.

Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002, (NCES

2003–529). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. L., & Pinrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education (4th

ed.). Boston,

MA: Pearson.

Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition, 25(5), 638–

656.

Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome

expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-

level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 386–398.

Troia, G. A., Harbaugh, A. G., Shankland, R. K., Wolbers, K. A., & Lawrence, A. M. (2013).

Relationships between writing motivation, writing activity, and writing performance: Effects

of grade, sex, and ability. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 17–44.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical

analysis. Developmental Review, 12(3), 265–310.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and

performance. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of

learning and performance (pp. 49–64). New York, NY: Routledge.


Appendix

Student Writing Survey *

Name ______________________________ Date _____________________________

District ____________________________ School ___________________________

Teacher ____________________________ Grade _________ Male Female

Please answer all questions by checking off the box.

1. My friends think I am:

a very good writer

a good writer

an OK writer

a poor writer

2. Writing is something I like to do:

Never

Not very often

Sometimes

Often

3. I write:

not as well as my friends

about the same as my friends

a little better than my friends

a lot better than my friends


4. My best friends think writing is:

really fun

fun

OK to do

no fun at all

5. When I am writing, I understand what to do:

almost always

sometimes

hardly ever

never

6. People who write a lot are:

very interesting

interesting

not very interesting

boring

7. I am:

a poor writer

an OK writer

a good writer

a very good writer


8. I worry about what other kids think about my writing:

every day

almost every day

once in a while

never

9. Knowing how to write well is:

not very important

sort of important

important

very important

10. When my teacher asks me a question about what I write, I:

can never think of an answer

have trouble thinking of an answer

sometimes think of an answer

always think of an answer

11. I think writing is:

a boring way to spend time

an OK way to spend time

an interesting way to spend time

a great way to spend time


12. Writing is:

very easy for me

kind of easy for me

kind of hard for me

very hard for me

13. When I grow up I will spend:

none of my time writing

very little of my time writing

some of my time writing

a lot of my time writing

14. When I am in a group talking about writing, I:

almost never talk about my ideas

sometimes talk about my ideas

almost always talk about my ideas

always talk about my ideas

15. My teacher thinks I am:

a very good writer

a good writer

an OK writer

a poor writer


16. I like to share my writing:

every day

almost every day

once in a while

never

17. When people share their writing, I feel:

very happy

sort of happy

sort of unhappy

unhappy

18. Check the different places and times for your writing. You may check more than one box:

before school

after school

free time at school

writing time in school

school vacations

at home

* Adapted from:

Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to

read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518-533 (Items #1-14).

Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing

achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 516-536 (Item #18).

Items #15–17 were added by the research team.

students’ voices: the relationship between attitudes and...

Documents