The Relationship between L2 Learners' Motivation ...

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 476 – 489

Akdeniz Language Studies Conference 2012

The relationship between L success in L2 writing Mahmood Hashemiana*, Ali Heidarib a b

Department of English Language, Faculty of Letters & Humanities, Shahrekord University, Iran Department of English Language, Faculty of Letters & Humanities, Shahrekord University, Iran

Abstract This study was an attempt to investigate the relationship between motivation/attitude and L2 writing. Participants were randomly selected from a total population of 30 M.A. students of TEFL. Data were collected through using ion Test Battery Questionnaire and a Writing Proficiency Test (Arnold, 1991; Tompkins, 2004) to assess the English writing proficiency level, respectively. Although running Pearson-product correlation indicated no relationship between the participants with instrumental type of motivation and success in L2 academic writing, there was a relationship between the participants with integrative type of motivation and the writing skill. Moreover, there was no relationship between negative attitude and success in L2 writing, but there was a relationship between positive attitude and the writing skill. Pedagogical implications are presented throughout the paper. © 2012 Authors.by Published Elsevier Ltd. and/or peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012 2012The Published ElsevierbyLtd. Selection Selection and peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012 Keywords: Attitude; Motivation; Success; Writing; L2 learner

1. Introduction Writing is generally regarded as a difficult skill and a complex task (Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005). It is a difficult skill for native and nonnative speakers alike because writers should balance multiple issues, such as content, organization, purpose, audience, vocabulary, punctuation, spelling, and mechanics. Moreover, it encourages thinking and learning, motivates communication, and makes thought available for reflection. Scarcella and Oxford (1992) state, writing in second language (L2) helps L2

* Mahmood Hashemian. Tel.: +98 381 4422517; fax: +98 381 4424411. E-mail address: [email protected] [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of ALSC 2012 doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.085

Mahmood Hashemian and Ali Heidari / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013) 476 – 489

learners to improve their grammatical, strategic, sociolinguistic, and discourse competences in foreign language. There are a myriad of factors that affect Students L2 writing. The first one is time to write. L2 Students need time to write. Graves (2003) believes that providing students with time to write is crucial. Graves (p. xiii). The second one is duration of work. In addition to needing time to write, students need time to reflect on what they have written and to revise their writing. Duration of work or the period of time a writer keeps a piece of writing open to change can affect the quality of student writing. Spandel (2005) tells us that serious writing, the kind we hope our students write, takes thinking over time, not just a class long period of time, turn it over and over in your mind, and decide for yourself what questions to ask pace of classroom dialogue, and listening to our students so we can encourage them to be reflective. The next factor is writing with a purpose and for an audience. L2 Students need a purpose to write. have an authentic purpose for their writing whether to document an important event in their lives, get classmates to laugh, or communicate a message that matters they pay attention differently to of purpose and audience on writing. Routman turn improves their interest in writing, the topics they choose to write about, the energy with which they 200). L2 Teachers can help their L2 students find a write, and their willin purpose and an audience for their writing by modelling their own purposes for writing and giving students, strategies for sharing writing with an audience. The fourth one is sharing writing. L2 Students need opportunities to share their writing with others. to hear the responses of others to their writing, to discover with a peer, with a parent, or with a teacher. Sometimes students share with other classrooms and occasionally a whole school. Choosing writing topics is the last factor that affects L2 writing. It is important to provide L2 students with opportunities to write about topics they choose (Atwell, 1998; Calkins, 1994; Calkins & Harwayne, 1987; Dahl & Farnan, 1998; Dyson & Freedman, 1991; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2001; Graves, 1994, 2003; Hansen, 1987; Newkirk, 2007; Ray, 2001; Routman, 2000; Simmons, 1997; Spandel, 2005). Fletcher and Portalupi (2001) address the importance of choice in the following: students can decide what will be learned. This is true for learners of any age. We learn best when we have a reason that propels us to want to learn. ... Our students know best which topics and purposes for writing matter most to each of them. Letting them choose their receptive. (pp. 9-10) The biggest problem with the traditional approach to writing instruction is that it views student writing as product rather than process, and it ignores the recursive nature of that process. There has been a consensus among researchers that the writing process consists of several stages of development, and these stages are not organized in a linear fashion. On the contrary, these stages are recursive and cyclical the view that writi

477

478


-16). The writing process approach has emerged as the most significant development in L2 writing in the investigate the writing process as applied to L2 composition. Kras 41), seems to have been borne out by the results of recent research in L2 composing processes (Krapels, 1990). Throughout the writing process, writers also must evaluate and revise what has been written, as well as monitor the process and their progress (Graham & Harris, 2002; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999). Knowledge about the process of writing and different writing genres is a critical component of writing development (Graham, 2006; McCutchen, 2000, 2006). Features of this knowledge base include an understanding of the characteristics of different writing genres, procedural and strategic knowledge of how to complete writing tasks, and general knowledge of writing mechanics (Olinghouse & Graham, 2009). beliefs, and perception of learning and teaching, especially within the field of L2 learning (e.g., Gardner, accounting for success or failure in any complex task, particularly, and L2 learning. It also determines Gardner (1985, p. 50), there are four elements of motivations: a) a goal, b) effortful behavior to reach the goal, c) desire to attain the goal, and d) positive attitudes toward the goal. Regarding the persistent correlation between motivation and success in L2 learning, D rnyei (1998) asserts that: Motivation provides the primary impetus to initiate learning foreign language and later the driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process. Without sufficient motivation, even individuals with the most remarkable abilities cannot accomplish longterm goals, and neither are appropriate curricula and good teaching enough to ensure students achievements. On the other hand, high motivation can make up for considerable aptitude and learning condition (p. 117). D rnyei (2001) argues that it is important to remember that motivation is not fixed, and L2 teachers motivation and came up with suggestions for teachers. First of all, L2 teachers should provide accurate feedback to help L2 students develop their skills. Next, L2 teachers should provide L2 students with challenging tasks. Third, L2 teachers should communicate high expectations to L2 students. Lastly, L2 teachers should provide learning opportunities that will aide motivation. In a task as difficult as writing, motivational issue have tremendous impact upon process and product (Bruning & Horn, 2000). In the academic context, the concept of student motivation is used to explain the degree to which students invest attention and effort to various pursuits (Brophly, 1998). Motivation activity level (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990); it directs an individual toward specific goals (Blumenfeld, 1992); it promotes initiation of certain activities and persistence in those activities (McClelland, 1985); and it affects the learning strategies and cognitive processes an individual employs (Perry, VandeKamp, Mercer, & Nodby, 2002). Having genuine reasons for writing has motivational consequences (Bruning & Horn, 2000). Ames (1992) investigated classroom structures and found authentic tasks to be an important of a motivated, mastery-oriented structure. When writing is used as a tool for intellectual and/or social development, students are more motivated (Cleary, 1991; Potter, MaCormick, & Busching, 2001).


English. Thus, it could be interpreted that one way t negative attitudes toward writing in English is to gradually eliminate their negative thinking. A focus of the contemporary education community has become the improvement of writing. It is not surprising that researchers themselves have called for more studies regarding the relationship between attitudes and writing behavior (Kear, Coffman, McKenna, & Ambrosio, 2000). Behaviours that help students develop their writing skills, articulated idea, and promote their ability to write are integral to improved writing and improved education. realize that being able to write well benefit them by giving meaning to experiences and issues that concerned them (Bruning & Horn, 2000, Gau, Hermanson, Logar, & Smerek, 2003). Conversely, negative experiences generate poor attitudes and a lack of motivation. Researchers find that a connection between the writing process and attitudes toward writing exists (Bruning & Horn, 2000; Graham & Smerek, 2003). A non-threatening, anxiety-free, nurturing yet challenging class environment is recommended (Brindley & Schneider, 2002). As writers determine and balance their beliefs and attitudes potentially influence the progress and success of a writing task (Bruning & Horn, 2000; Graham, Berninger, & Fan, 2007; Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, 1995). Writing attitudes encompass affective dispositions involving how the act of writing makes the author feel, ranging from happy to unhappy (Graham, Berninger, & Fan, 2007). Traditionally, attitudes are conceptualized along a continuum of extremes from positive to negative (Graham, Berninger, & Fan, 2007; Kear, Coffman, MaKenna, & Ambrosio, 2000; Knudson, 1991). In line with this conceptualization, -type scales (Graham, Berninger, & Fan, 2007; Kear, Coffman, MaKenna, & Ambrosio, 2000; Knudson, 1991). Although writing attitudes have received relatively little attention in the literature (Graham, Berninger, & Fan, 2007), research suggest that students who display a positive attitude toward writing are more likely to write more often and expend more effort on writing tasks than their peers who hold negative attitudes toward the same tasks (e.g., McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995). The main purpose of the study was to find a relationship between the role of motivation and attitude of L2 learners and their success in L2 writing. The present study was an attempt to answer the following research questions: 1. Is there any relationship between instrumental type of motivation and success in L2 academic writing? 2. Is there any relationship between integrative type of motivation and success in L2 academic writing? 3. Is there any relationship between positive attitude and success in L2 academic writing? 4. Is there any relationship between negative attitude and success in L2 academic writing? 2. Methodology 2.1. Participants In the first stage of this study, the present researchers randomly selected 30 Iranian M.A. students of TEFL, aged 24-30 from Shahrekord University and the University of Isfahan. In order to ensure the homogeneous entry behavior of the participants in terms of proficiency, the Oxford Placement Test (OPT), with reasonable measures of validity and reliability, was used to screen the participants. The

479

480


participants who scored lower than 50% of the total possible score were eliminated from the study. The reason for the selection of the aforementioned participants was that they were expected to have a better understanding of motivation and attitude toward writing in an L2 context. 2.2. Materials

attitude/motivation test battery questionnaire (1985). The questionnaire showed that how many of students had positive and negative attitude toward learning language in one hand, on the other hand, how many of students had instrumental and integrative orientation toward language. In addition, the Writing Proficiency Test adapted from (Arnold, 1991; current English writing proficiency level. 2.3. Procedure In the first stage of the study, to homogenize the participants in terms of proficiency, the OPT was questionnaire. The results of the questionnaires showed that how many of participants had instrumental and integrative orientation toward learning a language on one hand, and how many of participants had toward writing, they were asked to rate their level of enjoyment in writing a text on a five-point Likert scale ranging from extreme dislike to extreme enjoyment. This also showed how many of participants had positive attitude towards writing because they enjoyed writing. In addition, the Writing Proficiency Test adapted from (Arnold, 1991; Tompkins, 2004) which aimed given period of time. After that, their compositions were assessed against the following criteria: a) content, b) organization, and c) language. Each of these criteria had its own subcomponent. For example, the subcomponents of content were: 1) ideas are interesting, 2) ideas are well-developed, 3) ideas are original and creative, and 4) audience and purpose are considered. The subcomponents of organization were: 1) appropriate paragraphing is used, 2) ideas are logically presented, and 3) connectives are appropriately used. Finally, the subcomponents of language were: 1) there is good choice of vocabulary, 2) there is a variety of phrase and sentence patterns, 3) different tenses are correctly used, 4) spelling and punctuation are appropriately used, 5) other aspects of language are appropriately used, like, articles, pronouns, prepositions, agreement, etc. 3. Results According to descriptive statistics, the mean score of integrative motivation (23.43) was a little higher than that of instrumental motivation (22.97). This showed that the participants were just a little more integratively motivated, but the standard deviation of integrative scores was larger than that of instrumental motivation, indicating that integrative scores were more widely spread.

481


Table 1. Descriptive statistics

N

Integrative motivation Instrumental motivation Academic writing Positive attitude Negative attitude Valid N (listwise)

30 30 30 30 30 30

Minimum

Maximum

14.00 19.00 35.00 54.00 52.00

28.00 28.00 58.00 70.00 70.00

Mean

Std. deviation

Statistic

Statistic

23.4333 22.9667 47.4667 63.7000 62.1333

4.02307 2.44221 8.00316 6.90402 5.87651

Skewness

Statistic

Std. Error

-.630 .254 -.111 -.415 -.075

.427 .427 .427 .427 .427

Kurtosis Statistic Std. Error -.806 -.712 -1.543 -1.843 -1.299

.833 .833 .833 .833 .833

Moreover, because the possible integrative and instrumental scores ranged from 1-28, the sample mean scores (23.43 and 22.97) were greater than the possible median scores, indicating that the degree of motivation was high in the sample. Before addressing the first research question (or null hypothesis), it was important to make sure that the distribution of instrumental and L2 academic writing scores would not violate the assumption of normality. The normality of scores was initially investigated by the obtaining the ratios of the skewness and kurtosis statistics to their standard error. According to Bachman and Kunnan (2005), the ratios within +2 and -2 indicate that the distributions tend to be mesokurtic (i.e., normal). The values of this ratio for skewness for both instrumental (+0.59) and writing scores (-0.26) were within the rule-of-thumb of plus and minus two. Also, the values of this ratio for kurtosis for both instrumental (-0.85) and writing scores (-1.84) were within the rule-of-thumb of plus and minus two. However, since the kurtosis statistic for the writing scores was above one and close to two, indicating some degree of peakedness. The test of normality was conducted too. The significance value of Kolmogrov-Smirnov showed the normality of both scores. That is, the instrumental and L2 academic writing scores were not very significantly skewed or peaked. Table 2. Test of normality

Variable

Kolmogrov-Smirnov Statistic

df

Sig.

Instrumental motivation

.123

30

.200

Academic writing

.148

30

.93

As Table 2 shows, the significance value of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for both instrumental type of motivation (Sig. = 0.200, p = 0.200) and L2 academic writing (Sig. = .093, p = 0.093) scores were found to be more than 0.05, indicating the normality of scores. This result also proved that it was appropriate to use Pearson product moment correlation for linear scores. Table 3 reports the result of Pearson product moment correlation between the scores.

482


Table 3. Correlations between the instrumental motivation and L2 academic writing scores

Variable

Instrumental

Instrumental

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

1.000

Writing


-0.33 0.073 30

Writing -0.33 0.073 30

1.000

In light of the result of Pearson correlation, there was a negative correlation between them (r = -0.33). The higher instrumental motivation is, the lower the success is in L2 academic writing. But the size of the value of the correlation coefficient was not found to be significant. Thus, the first null hypothesis below is not rejected: H01: There is no significant relationship between instrumental type of motivation and success in L2 academic writing. Before addressing the second research question (or second null hypothesis), the normality of integrative scores was initially investigated by the obtaining the ratios of the skewness and kurtosis statistics to their standard error. The values of this ratio for skewness and kurtosis were -1.47 and -0.97. However, since the skewness statistic for the writing was high (-1.47), indicating that integrative scores were negatively skewed. The test of normality was conducted to see its significance. The significance value of Kolmogrov-Smirnov supported that the integrative scores were significantly skewed. Table 4. Test of normality

Variable


Integrative motivation

.218

df

Sig.

30

.001

If it appears that variable is not normally distributed, this may lead to a problem with unequal variance, and we should consider using the Spearman correlation Therefore, Spearman correlation was conducted in order not to overestimate the linear relationship. Table 5 reports the result of Spearman correlation between the scores.


Table 5. Correlations between the integrative motivation and L2 academic writing scores

Variable

Integrative

Writing **+0.56 0.001 30

Integrative


1.000

Writing


**+0.56 0.001 30

1.000

In light of the result of Spearman correlation, there was a positive correlation between them (r = +0.56). The higher the integrative motivation is, the higher the success is in L2 academic writing. And the size of the value of the correlation coefficient was found to be significant. Thus, the second null hypothesis below is rejected: H02: There is no significant relationship between integrative type of motivation and success in L2 academic writing. The scatter plots of positive attitude and academic writing scores indicated the linear relationship between the two sets of scores. The normality of positive attitude scores was initially investigated by the obtaining the ratios of the skewness and kurtosis statistics to their standard error. The values of this ratio for skewness and kurtosis were -0.97, -0.2.12 respectively. The ratio of kurtosis was not within the ruleof-thumb of plus and minus two. When the test of normality was conducted, the significance value of Kolmogrov-Smirnov showed the nonnormality of positive attitude scores (Sig. = 0.284, p < 0.05). Therefore, Spearman correlation was conducted to be on the safe ground. Therefore, Spearman correlation was conducted to be on the safe ground. Table 6. Test of normality

Variable

Positive attitude


df

Sig.

.284

30

.000

Table 7. Correlations between the positive attitude and L2 academic writing scores

Variable

Positive attitude

Positive attitude


1.000

Writing


**+0.55 0.002 30

Writing **+0.55 0.002 30

1.000

483

484


As depicted in Table 7, there was a positive correlation between them (r = +0.55). The higher the the positive attitude is, the higher the success is in L2 academic writing. And the size of the value of the Thus, the third null hypothesis below is correlation coefficient was found to be significant (p . rejected: H03: There is no significant relationship between positive attitude and success in L2 academic writing. The normality of positive attitude scores was initially investigated by the obtaining the ratios of the skewness and kurtosis statistics to their standard error. The value of this ratio for skewness was -0.17 and for kurtosis was -1.55. The ratio of kurtosis was a little large, indicating some degree of peakedness. To check its significance, the test of normality was conducted. When the test of normality was conducted, the significance value of Kolmogrov-Smirnov did not show the nonnormality of negative attitude scores (Sig. = 0.130, p = 0.200). Therefore, Pearson product moment correlation was conducted to find the relationship between the two sets of scores. Table 8. Test of normality

Variable


Negative attitude

.130

df

Sig.

30

.200

Table 9. Correlations between negative attitude and L2 academic writing scores

Variable Negative attitude

Writing

Negative attitude Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

1.000

-0.48 0.007 30

Writing -0.48 0.007 30

1.000

A significant and negative correlation was found at 0.05 level between negative attitude and L2 academic writing (r = -0.48). The size of the value of the correlation coefficient between the two was found to be around .50, indicating a moderately high reversed relationship. Thus, the fourth null hypothesis below is not rejected: H04: There is no significant relationship between negative attitude and success in L2 academic writing. 4. Discussion and Conclusion The present researchers divided the motivation into two orientations: integrative type of motivation and instrumental type of motivation. Then, they divided the attitude into two parts: negative attitude and


positive attitude. Furthermore, the researchers tried hard to find a relationship between the role of motivation and attitude of L2 participants and their success in an L2 academic context. As mentioned in section 3, the mean score of integrative motivation (23.43) was a little higher than that of instrumental motivation (22.97). This showed that the participants were just a little more integratively motivated, but the standard deviation of integrative scores was larger than that of instrumental motivation, indicating that integrative scores were more widely spread. Moreover, because the possible integrative and instrumental scores ranged from 1-28, the sample mean scores (23.43 and 22.97) were greater than the possible median scores, indicating that the degree of motivation was high in the sample. The minimum and maximum writing scores were 35 and 58 respectively, indicating that the sample performance on the writing test was very good. The writing mean score (47.47) was above 38, which suggests excellent performance. However, the standard deviation was high, indicating a large variance in L2 writing scores. Concerning the attitude, the mean scores of positive and negative attitude scores were not very different with positive attitude mean score a little higher than that of negative attitude mean score. L2 participants showed a high level of positive and negative attitudes towards L2 learning. As to the first null hypothesis, there was a negative correlation between instrumental type of motivation and L2 academic writing (r = -0.33). The higher the instrumental motivation is, the lower the success in L2 academic writing is . So, the first null hypothesis was not rejected. Regarding the second null hypothesis, there was a positive correlation between integrative type of motivation and L2 academic writing (r = +0.56). The higher the integrative motivation is, the higher the success is in L2 academic writing. And the size of the value of the correlation coefficient was found to be significant. Thus, the second null hypothesis was rejected. Also, regarding the third null hypothesis, there was a positive correlation between positive attitude and L2 academic writing (r = +0.55). The higher the positive attitude is, the higher the success is in L2 academic writing. And the size of the value of the correlation coefficient was found to be significant (p Therefore, the third null hypothesis was rejected. Finally, regarding the fourth null hypothesis, a significant and negative correlation was found at 0.05 level between negative attitude and L2 academic writing (r = -0.48). The size of the value of the correlation coefficient between the two was found to be around .50, indicating a moderately high reversed relationship. Thus, the fourth null hypothesis was not rejected. To wrap up the discussion, results showed that those who were integrative had a better success in L2 academic writing than those who were instrumentally motivated. Furthermore, those participants who had positive attitude showed better operation in L2 writing than their peers with negative attitude.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Shahrekord University for their support.

References

Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning. (2th ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analysis for language assessment. Cambridge University Press.

485

486


Bachman, L. F., & Kunnan, A. J. (2005). Statistical analysis for language assessment workbook and CDROM. Cambridge University Press. Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 272-281. Brindley, R., & Schneider, J. J. (2002). Writing instruction or destruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 328-341. Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating student to learn. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 25-37. Calkins, L. M. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Calkins, L. M., & Harwayne, S. (1987). The writing workshop: A world of difference. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cleary, L. M. (1991). Affect and cognition in the writing processes of eleventh graders. Written Communication, 8(4), 473-507. Reading Association, Inc. anguage Teaching, 31, 117-135.

Dyson, A., & Freedman, S. (1991). Critical challenges for research on writing and literacy: 1990-1995. (Technical report No. 1-B). Office of Educational Research and Empowerment, U.S. Department of Education. Fletcher, F., & Portalupi, Y. (2001). Writing workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gan, Z., Humphreys, G., & Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL Students in Chinese Universities. The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 228- 244. Gau, E., Hermanson, J., Logar, M., & Smerek, C. (2003). Improving student attitudes and writing abilities through increased writing time and opportunities. (Report No. CS512508). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 481441). Gardner, R. C. (1983). Learning another language: A true social psychological experiment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 219-239. II): Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1-11. Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander, & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology


(pp. 457-478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 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(3), 516536. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). A components analysis of cognitive strategies instruction: Effects on -efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 353361. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing developments. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3-12. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and selfefficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207-241. Graves, D. H. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Graves, D. H. (2003). Writing: Teachers & children at work. (2th ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hansen, J. (1987). When writers read. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hindley, J. (1996). In the company of children. York, ME: Stenhouse. Hughey, J. B., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Jacobs, H. L. (1983). Teaching ESL composition: Principles and techniques (pp. 125-137). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House. 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, 34, 10-22. Knudson, R. E. (1991). Development and use of a writing attitude survey in grades 4 to 8. Psychological Reports, 68(1), 807-816. Krapels, A. R. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37-56). Cambridge University Press. Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing, research, theory, and applications. Oxford, England: Pergamon Institute of English. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 119-137. MaCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 13-23. S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 115-130). NY: Guilford Press.

487

488


McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40(7), 812-825. survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 934-956. Nagin, C. (2003). Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Newkirk, T. (2007). Popular culture and writing development. Language Arts, 84(6), 539-548. Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-cantered curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Olinghouse, N. G., & graham, S. (2009). The relationship between the discourse knowledge and the writing performance of elementary-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 37-50. -centeredness: Or the importance of doing ordinary things well. ELT Journals, 45, 293-304. Oxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 72(1), 12-28. Perry, N., VandeKamp, K., Mercer, L., & Nordby, C. (2002). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5-15. Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40. Potter, E., McCormick, C., & Busching, B. (2001). Academic and life goals: Insights from adolescents writers. High School Journals, 85(1), 45-55. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers. Routman, R. (2000). Conversations: Strategies for teaching, learning, and evaluating. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Scarcella, R. C., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Shell, D. F., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attributions, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 386-398. Silva, T. T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). Cambridge University Press.


Simmons, J. (1997). Attack of the killer baby faces: Gender similarities in third-grade writing. Language Arts, 74, 116-123. Spandel, V. (2005). Creating writers through 6-trait writing assessment and instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 241-250.

489