Post on 12-Oct-2015
description
transcript
THE READING AND WRITING SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS OF STUDENTS
WITH DISCREPANT READING AND WRITING
PERFORMANCE
EMILY JENNIFER SHAW
BS, Cornell University, 2001 MSEd, Fordham University, 2003
Mentor Akane Zusho, PhD
Readers John C. Houtz, PhD
Amy Elizabeth Schmidt, PhD
DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
rN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION OF FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK 2007
UMI Number: 3302121
Copyright 2007 by Shaw, Emily Jennifer
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI UMI Microform 3302121
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC 789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
11
Emily Jennifer Shaw, 2007, All Rights Reserved.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this dissertation has been accomplished with the helpful
contributions of many wonderful people. My mentor, Dr. Akane Zusho, and readers,
Drs. John Houtz and Amy Schmidt, deserve special mention. They have all guided
me in different but incredibly wise and supportive ways throughout my graduate
school and professional experience as an educational researcher. I feel extremely
lucky to have gone through the dissertation process with all of them.
I must also express my sincerest thanks to my colleagues at the College Board
for providing support and resources to me in every imaginable and conceivable way
to make this process more manageable. In particular, I'd like to thank Mary-Margaret
Kerns for her unwavering encouragement and understanding during this long and
demanding project. Wayne Camara deserves special mention for allowing me the
opportunity to complete my dissertation while growing professionally at the College
Board. Thanks to Krista Mattern Burrus for her expertise in measurement, statistics,
and making me laugh, as well as Sandra Barbuti for pulling much of the archival data
and making herself available for many questions. Additionally, I must acknowledge
Maureen Ewing, Glenn Milewski, Sheryl Packman, Viji Sathy, Ellen Sawtell, and
Jeff Wyatt very giving colleagues and friends.
Throughout my (long) time at Fordham, I have been fortunate and thankful to
have met many people that have taught me a great deal about educational psychology,
research, and also myself. This includes Dean Hennessy, Dean McGrath, Dean
iv
Bernhardt, Mitch Rabinowitz, Fran Blumberg, Peg Tarnowsky, Jennifer Shore,
Christine Gough, Joe Korevec, Pat Biggins, and Kelli Delaco.
Writing this dissertation has also been made less overwhelming with the
loving support of my friends and family. I couldn't imagine going through this
process with anyone more thoughtful, kind, intelligent, and fun than Tanya Warren. I
am thankful for Susan Verni's encouraging notes and gestures (and allowing my
books to take over the living room!). Josh D'Aleo also played a special role in
making me believe I could accomplish this goal. There are many other friends who I
am grateful for and whom despite my limited availability these past few years, have
still chosen to remain my friends and are proud of me for accomplishing this goal.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my extraordinary family. Though this
group extends far beyond my mother, father, sister, and grandmother - 1 will focus on
them for the sake of space. I look at this moment as an opportunity to let my mother
and father know how proud I am to be their daughter and how much they are loved.
My sister has taught me so much over the past many years and has helped me in more
ways than I could ever explain. I'm so lucky to have Hillary as my sister, friend, and
roommate. My grandmother, Sally, has been a wonderful cheerleader and a treasured
friend throughout this process. I must also thank Jordan from the very bottom of my
heart, who since walking into my life, has made everything easier, sweeter, lovelier,
and more fun - even writing this dissertation.
V
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my mother and father, Elaine and David Shaw, for
giving me a life of always knowing they are in my corner - wherever I have chosen
or will choose that corner to be.
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
DEDICATION v
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM 1
Purpose of the Study 2
Research Questions 4
Definition of Terms 5
Significance of the Study 7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 12
Reading-Writing Relations 12
History of the Reading-Writing Relationship 12
Shared Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities of Reading and Writing 15
Developmental Aspects of the Reading-Writing Relationship 19
Good Readers/Poor Writers and Good Writers/Poor Readers 22
Social Cognitive Theory 26
Self-Efficacy Beliefs 27
Developmental Aspects of Self-Efficacy 30
Vll
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Group Differences in Self-Efficacy 31
Gender 31
Culture 32
Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy 33
Measuring Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy 36
Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy Interventions 37
Summary 39
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 42
Participants 42
Instruments and Materials 43
PSAT/NMSQTCritical Reading Section 43
PSAT/NMSQTWriting Skills Section 44
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument 44
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument 46
SAT Critical Reading Test 47
SAT Writing Test 47
SAT Questionnaire 48
Procedures 48
Data Analysis 50
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS 54
Characteristics of the Participants 55
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Vlll
Page
Research Questions 1 and 2: The Mediational Role of Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy 72
Research Questions 3 and 4: The Contribution of Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs to Same Domain Performance 81
Research Questions 5 and 6: The Contribution of Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs to Opposite Domain Performance 96
Research Question 7: Chi-Square Analyses and t-Tests of Discrepant Group Differences 110
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION 118
Summary and Review of the Findings 118
Implications for Researchers and Literacy Educators 128
Limitations 131
Recommendations for Future Research 134
Conclusions 136
REFERENCES 138
APPENDIX A. INSTRUMENTS 150
APPENDIX B. CORRESPONDENCE WITH PARTICIPANTS 156
ABSTRACT 160
VITA 163
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Participant Distribution by Gender 56
Participant Distribution by Ethnicity 57
Participant Distribution by First and Best Languages 58
Participant Distribution by Parental Education and Income Level 59
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and Self-Efficacy Measures for the Total Sample 61
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and Self-Efficacy Measures for Strong Readers/Strong Writers 62
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and Self-Efficacy Measures for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 63
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and Self-Efficacy Measures for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 64
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and Self-Efficacy Measures for Weak Readers/Weak Writers 65
Correlations among Continuous Variables for Total Sample 67
Correlations among Continuous Variables for Strong Readers/Strong Writers 68
Correlations among Continuous Variables for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 69
X
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
13. Correlations among Continuous Variables for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 70
14. Correlations among Continuous Variables for Weak Readers/Weak Writers 71
15. Model Testing Indices for Partially and Fully Mediated Models for the Total Sample 77
16. z and p Values for Indirect Paths of Path Models of Reading and Writing 80
17. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for the Total Sample 83
18. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers 84
19. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 85
20. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 86
21. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers 87
22. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for the Total Sample 91
23. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers 92
24. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 93
XI
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
25. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 94
26. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers 95
27. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for the Total Sample 98
28. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers 99
29. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 100
30. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 101
31. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers 102
32. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for the Total Sample 105
33. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers 106
34. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 107
Xll
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 108
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers 109
Background Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers and Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 112
Academic Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers and Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 115
Xlll
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
General Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy and Performance Model 9
Partially Mediated Model of Reading Performance for the Total Sample 78
Partially Mediated Model of Writing Performance for the Total Sample 79
1
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Despite the similarities that literacy researchers have found between the cognitive
processes and knowledge involved in both the acts of reading and writing (Kucer, 1987,
2005; Langer & Flihan, 2000; Rosenblatt, 1994; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Tierney &
Shanahan, 1991), there are students who appear to be much stronger readers than writers
and much stronger writers than readers (Langer, 1986a, 1986b; Palmer, 1986; Thacker,
1990, 1991; Tierney, 1983). Very few studies, however, have effectively examined the
discrepant reading and writing performance of high school students, despite Stotsky's
(1983) call for such research over two decades ago. In particular, Stotsky noted that such
research would be useful for teachers to understand the qualities of good writing that
seem to be independent of high reading ability. Largely because of the renewed emphasis
on writing instruction and assessment in the United States (The National Commission on
Writing in America's Schools and Colleges, 2003), investigating students with clearly
discrepant reading and writing performance would be valuable. The SAT Reasoning
Test (SAT) and ACT, the two major college admissions tests, now incorporate
measures of writing performance in addition to reading performance, so that the existence
of students who are stronger readers and weaker writers or stronger writers and weaker
readers has become more apparent to the educational community.
2
It is possible that the reading and writing performance discrepancies are caused by
differences in the beliefs that students hold about their reading and writing capabilities, or
their reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs. The relationship between reading and
writing self-efficacy beliefs and reading and writing performance among students with
discrepant reading and writing performance has not been examined. Such research can
lead to the development of self-efficacy interventions that aid performance in the weaker
area by building on the stronger area.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the present study was to determine the role of students' reading
and writing self-efficacy beliefs in performance discrepancies in the reading and writing
domains. Differing self-efficacy beliefs in reading and writing, formed by different
experiences, perceived messages, or interpretations of emotional and physiological states
in the reading and writing domains, can offer a possible and remediable explanation as to
why these students have performed so differently in such cognitively similar domains.
Reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs significantly influence student
performance in reading and writing. According to social cognitive theory advanced by
Bandura (1986, 1997), human achievement depends on interactions between an
individual's behaviors, personal factors, and environmental conditions. Individuals hold
self-efficacy beliefs that enable them to exert control over their thoughts, feelings, and
actions. Bandura (1986, 1993) acknowledged that when self-efficacy is lacking, people
will tend to underachieve, despite knowing what it is they need to do to be successful.
3
Self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific, or linked to a domain, whereas similar
constructs such as self-concept or competence beliefs are more general and based on
social comparisons instead of normative criteria (Klassen, 2002; Zimmerman, 1995).
Reading self-efficacy has been closely linked to reading performance (Paris & Oka,
1986; Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, 1995; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989), as has writing
self-efficacy to writing performance (Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1999;
Schunk & Swartz, 1993; Shell et al., 1995; Shell et al., 1989; Zimmerman & Bandura,
1994). As students get older, their self-efficacy beliefs appear to be even more predictive
of their achievement in reading and writing (Shell et al., 1995).
Researchers have also concluded that self-efficacy is a more consistent predictor
of behavioral outcomes than other self-beliefs (Graham & Weiner, 1996; Pajares, 2003;
Shell et al., 1995; Shell et al., 1989). For example, the writing self-efficacy literature has
shown that writing self-efficacy, perceived value of writing, writing apprehension, self-
efficacy for self-regulation, and previous writing performances are all correlated with the
writing performance of students of all ages. However, multiple regression and path
analyses show that self-efficacy and prior achievement were the only significant
predictors (Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares, Miller, & Johnson, 1999; Pajares &
Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001). As there are numerous studies indicating that self-efficacy
and achievement can be enhanced through instructional methods that incorporate
modeled strategy use, goal setting, constructive feedback, and self-evaluation of progress,
it appears that students can effectively and efficiently improve their reading or writing
4
performance through these practices (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Schunk, 2003;
Walker, 2003).
Bandura (2001) stated that cultural embeddedness shapes the ways that self-
efficacy beliefs are developed and the way they are put to use. Therefore, it is important
to investigate the role of self-efficacy beliefs in the reading and writing domains after
controlling for the effects of certain cultural and sociological variables. This helps to
more precisely determine the amount of variance in reading and writing performance
explained by the most mutable aspects of self-efficacy, beyond what is not immediately
alterable by educators.
Research Questions
This study answered the following questions:
1. Did reading self-efficacy beliefs mediate the role of students' background and
experiences in reading (including prior achievement in reading and culture) on
reading performance?
2. Did writing self-efficacy beliefs mediate the role of students' background and
experiences in writing (including prior achievement in writing and culture) on
writing performance?
3. For the total sample and the four reading and writing performance groups (strong
readers/strong writers, stronger readers/weaker writers, weaker readers/stronger
writers, and weak readers/weak writers), how much of the variance in reading
performance was explained by reading self-efficacy beliefs, after controlling for
5
prior reading achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best language, and
socioeconomic status (SES)?
4. For the total sample and each of the four reading and writing performance groups,
how much of the variance in writing performance was explained by writing self-
efficacy beliefs, after controlling for prior writing achievement, gender,
race/ethnicity, best language, and SES?
5. After controlling for prior reading achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best
language, and SES, did writing self-efficacy predict reading performance?
6. After controlling for prior writing achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best
language, and SES, did reading self-efficacy predict writing performance?
7. Were there significant differences in writing self-efficacy, reading self-efficacy,
prior English achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best language, and
socioeconomic status between the two discrepant groups (stronger readers/weaker
writers and weaker readers/stronger writers)?
Definition of Terms
In this study, culture was operationalized as the students' gender, race/ethnicity,
first and best languages, and parental income level as a measure of SES taken from the
SAT Questionnaire. These variables are proxies for studying the role of culture in this
study and were chosen due to their availability.
Students were considered to exhibit discrepant reading and writing ability when
their standardized Critical Reading and Writing SAT scores were one standard deviation
or more apart from each other.
6
Prior English achievement was defined as an average of the English course grades
students' had taken in high school. This information came from the SAT Questionnaire.
Prior reading achievement was operationalized by students' scores on the Critical
Reading section of the Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test
(PSAT/NMSQT).
Prior writing achievement was operationalized by students' scores on the Writing
Skills section of the PSAT/NMSQT.
Students were considered to be strong readers/strong writers (SR/SW) when they
had a Critical Reading score that was equivalent to their Writing score based on
standardized SAT scores, and both were approximately one standard deviation above the
mean of the SAT Critical Reading and Writing tests for the October or November 2006
administration.
Students were considered to be stronger readers/weaker writers (SR/WW) when
they had a Critical Reading score that was one standard deviation or more greater than
their Writing score, based on standardized SAT scores from either the October or
November 2006 administration.
Students' background and experiences with reading were operationalized as
students' race/ethnicity, gender, best language, parental income level, and
PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading score.
Students' background and experiences with writing were operationalized as
students' race/ethnicity, gender, best language, parental income level, and
PSAT/NMSQT Writing Skills score.
7
Students were considered to be weaker readers/stronger writers (WR/SW) when
they had a Writing score that was one standard deviation or more greater than their
Critical Reading score, based on standardized SAT scores from either the October or
November 2006 administration.
Students were considered to be weak readers/weak writers (WR/WW) when they
had a Critical Reading score that was equivalent to their Writing score based on
standardized SAT scores, and both were approximately one standard deviation below the
mean of the SAT Critical Reading and Writing tests for the October or November 2006
administration.
Significance of the Study
This research holds both theoretical and practical value for the educational
community. It was hypothesized that students with discrepant reading and writing
performance held different reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs that significantly
contribute to this performance discrepancy. Particularly because reading and writing are
believed to rely on very similar cognitive knowledge, skills, and strategies, self-efficacy
interventions in the weaker area may be quite effective for these students. This study
sheds light on a number of issues related to reading and writing self-efficacy, as well as
literacy instruction and assessment.
Theoretically guided by the model in Figure 1, this study sought to more precisely
understand the relationship between reading and writing self-efficacy and performance,
as well as the relationship between reading and writing self-efficacy. This model shows
that students' backgrounds and experiences with reading (including their cultural
8
background and prior achievement in reading) influence their reading self-efficacy
beliefs. Reading self-efficacy beliefs partially mediate the role of the students'
backgrounds and experiences with reading on reading performance. Similarly, student's
backgrounds and experiences with writing (including their cultural background and prior
achievement in writing) influence their writing self-efficacy beliefs. Writing self-efficacy
beliefs partially mediate the influence of the students' backgrounds and experience with
writing on writing performance. The model also shows some overlap between the
influence of students' backgrounds and experiences with reading and writing on reading
and writing self-efficacy beliefs.
Figure 1
General Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy and Performance Model
10
In particular, it is useful for researchers to understand when self-efficacy can be
considered a mediator of other independent variables on performance. Also, recognizing
the conditions under which reading self-efficacy beliefs generalized to writing activities,
and the conditions under which writing self-efficacy beliefs generalized to reading
activities, informs the self-efficacy literature as to the interchangeability of measures of
writing and reading self-efficacy. An additional question examined was whether the
measures proved interchangeable for certain groups of students but not others. Pajares
(1997) stated that understanding the conditions and circumstances under which self-
beliefs generalize to different academic activities can provide information regarding the
interventions and instructional strategies that aid students in building competence and the
corresponding perceptions of competence.
Using samples of predominantly White students in the Midwest, Shell et al.
(1989) and Shell et al. (1995) identified a single underlying dimension linking students'
beliefs in reading and writing to reading and writing achievement. Due to this, reading
and writing self-efficacy beliefs have rarely been considered simultaneously. Given that
thousands of students displayed discrepant reading and writing performance on the SAT
based on data from the October 2005 SAT administration, a renewed exploration of this
issue was warranted. The further investigation of reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs
among a more geographically and ethnically diverse sample aids in our understanding of
when and for whom writing self-efficacy beliefs generalize to reading activities or
achievement, and when and for whom reading self-efficacy beliefs generalize to writing
11
activities. Ultimately this information can lead to the more informed design of reading
and writing interventions for students struggling with reading, writing, or both.
In addition, this study investigated the role of self-efficacy in reading and writing
performance after controlling for the effects of certain cultural and sociological variables
such as gender, race/ethnicity, best language, and socioeconomic status. This facilitated
the more precise determination of the amount of variance explained by the most mutable
aspects of self-efficacy, beyond what is not immediately alterable by educators.
Practically, this study provided the first demographic description of students who
were categorized as stronger readers/weaker writers and weaker readers/stronger writers
based on a standardized test taken by students across the United States. This allows
educators, as well as theorists, to better understand who these students are in order to
more accurately shape interventions to improve their weaker area in the related domain.
Having access to this sample of students provided a rare opportunity to determine
characteristics that may be unique to students with discrepant reading and writing skills.
Furthermore, because the SAT is taken by approximately 1.5 million students each year,
it is useful to help students with discrepant Critical Reading and Writing scores, as well
as other consumers of the test, understand why they have scored so differently in such
cognitively similar domains.
12
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Reading-Writing Relations
History of the Reading-Writing Relationship
In American schools, the separation of reading and writing was clear from as far
back as the colonial times when the first two "R"s were taught as separate subjects to
children in all types of schools (Nelson & Calfee, 1998). This disjointed instruction of
reading and writing was also characterized by two features that persisted for many years:
(a) a greater emphasis was placed on reading than writing in schools, and (b) writing
instruction was delayed until the fundamentals of reading were mastered. Nelson and
Calfee (1998) wrote that the ability to read was so highly valued by the Protestant settlers
of America because it was essential for reading the Bible and other religious passages, as
well as the common law. Writing was secondary because it was thought to depend on the
ability to read and was viewed as more difficult than reading.
In the United States, reading and writing as disciplines were shaped by different
scholars with different backgrounds and training (Clifford, 1989; Langer & Flihan, 2000).
Early on, academic writing was grounded in Aristotelian rhetoric, focusing on an author's
connection with an audience through invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery
(Langer & Flihan, 2000; Nelson & Calfee, 1998). Writing, primarily an upper-class
13
activity, was intended to be formal, grammatically correct, free from spelling errors, and
largely argumentative or expository in style. However, by the end of the nineteenth
century, traditional views of writing were challenged by more practical and functional
views of writing, with students learning to write contracts, receipts, and invoices in
school (Clifford, 1989). During the era of progressive education in the early twentieth
century, educators were encouraged to connect writing topics to students' experiences
and develop the reader-writer interaction. By the 1970s and 1980s, educators and
researchers showed an increased interest in writing, as studies on language and cognition
highlighted the connections between the learner, the text, and the actual writing process
(Langer & Allington, 1992; Langer & Flihan, 2000).
Academic reading in the United States was originally grounded in British notions
of primary instruction and heavily relied on the recitation and repetition of religious
material (Langer & Allington, 1992; Langer & Flihan, 2000). By the late nineteenth
century, however, the foundation and purpose of academic reading was based on the
results of scientific experiments, and later, on psychological research (Langer & Flihan,
2000). Factor analytic studies in the 1940s, for example, revealed that there were two
major components of readingword knowledge and reasoning, which affected the
structure of reading instruction and launched further research on reading (Langer &
Allington, 1992). Until the 1960s, reading instruction continued to be heavily influenced
by associationist and behaviorist psychology, particularly the work of B. F. Skinner, as
the value of specific skill hierarchies for word recognition and comprehension was
emphasized (Langer & Allington, 1992; Langer & Flihan, 2000). However, with the
14
cognitive revolution of the 1970s, reading began to be viewed as an interactive process
between the reader and the text, focusing reading instruction and research on the
construction of meaning that occurs during reading (Langer & Flihan, 2000).
The major link between the history of writing and the history of reading is that the
cognitive revolution of the 1970s and 1980s encouraged the consideration of both the
reader and writer audience. There was also a conceptual shift in the research during this
time, when scholars and practitioners began to focus on the relationship between reading
and writing in order to more effectively develop integrated curricula (Brandt, 1986;
Clifford, 1989; Petersen, 1986; Stotsky, 1983; Tierney & Leys, 1986). Awareness of the
sociocultural nature of reading and writing, or the influences of social identities,
communities, and environments on readers and writers helped to facilitate the
conceptualization of the two processes as interwoven (Nelson, 1998). Though studies had
been conducted on the reading-writing relationship in the first half of the twentieth
century, the research was sparse and largely atheoretical until the 1980s (Fitzgerald &
Shanahan, 2000; Mosenthal, 1983; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Stotsky, 1983).
Since the 1980s, research on the reading-writing relationship has largely fallen
into three major categories (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991).
The first category, which is also the most commonly studied and of greatest relevance to
the present study, has focused on understanding the cognitive processes, linguistic
resources, social resources, and knowledge bases that reading and writing share. The
second category of research has focused on the ways that the reader and writer transact
with each other in an effort to make meaning, also referred to as rhetorical relations.
15
Another category of research has been the study of the procedural connections of reading
and writing, or how the tasks of reading and writing can be used together to accomplish
different learning goals. Based on the body of research on the reading-writing
relationship, a number of scholars have noted that as many similarities as there are
between reading and writing, there are also as many differences (Shanahan, 1984).
Currently, what researchers as well as reading and writing educators are certain about is
the complexity of the reading-writing relationship and the value in better understanding
it. The present study tested a theoretical model of the reading-writing relationship with a
specific focus on the role of reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs in reading and
writing performance. This research will guide future study in this area and can ultimately
lead to more informed reading and writing instruction.
Shared Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities of Reading and Writing
An examination of the shared knowledge, skills, and abilities of reading and
writing can further shed light on what is known about the reading-writing relationship.
One common approach has been to correlate two general measures of reading and writing
ability (Tierney & Shanahan, 1991). In general, a high correlation would denote a great
amount of similarity between the two processes, while a low correlation would indicate a
low amount of relatedness. Most studies, however, have reported moderate correlations,
between .20 and .50, with a few studies citing higher correlations (Fitzgerald &
Shanahan, 2000; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991). While this method has provided important
information on the relatedness of reading and writing, studies that make use of more
16
complex and multivariate methodologies have been more useful in understanding how
reading and writing are related.
Stotsky (1983) conducted an extensive literature review of the correlational and
experimental studies on reading-writing relationships published before 1981 in order to
guide future theoretical and practical work in this realm. Stotsky acknowledged that the
results from the correlational studies she reviewed consistently showed that students who
were better writers also tended to be better readers of their own and others' writing and
also read more than poorer writers. Students who were better readers tended to produce
more syntactically complex and mature material than poorer readers. The experimental
studies reviewed showed that when writing was taught to improve writing skills, while
also measuring the effect on reading, there were usually no significant effects on reading.
However, studies that used writing activities specifically to improve reading
comprehension found significant improvements. When studies examined the impact of
reading experiences on writing improvement, the reading experiences were found to be as
efficacious, if not more so, in improving writing, than lessons in grammar or extra
writing practice. This demonstrated the complex interrelatedness of the reading and
writing domains and posed many questions for future research.
In one approach to studying the overlap between reading and writing, Langer
(1986b) focused on the knowledge sources, reasoning processes, monitoring behaviors,
and specific strategies used when constructing meaning before, during, and after reading
and writing. She studied 67 third-, sixth-, and ninth-grade students as they read and wrote
reports and stories. Special procedures were developed for analyzing how students
17
question, hypothesize, assume, use schemata, meta-analyze, cite evidence and validate
throughout the reasoning process, as well as how students strategically generate ideas,
formulate meaning, evaluate, and revise when reading and writing. The overarching
finding from this study was that reading and writing rely on the same core set of
linguistic and cognitive skills, but that these same skills are differently orchestrated when
reading or writing. Similarly, both readers and writers focus on the meanings developed
when reading and writing. Readers and writers also seemed to exhibit similar behaviors
during reading and writing, and after reading and writing. During reading and writing,
students focused on global units of text, questioning, hypothesizing, generating ideas, and
goal-setting, while after reading and writing, they focused on validating schemata and the
greater refinement of meaning. Students were slightly more concerned with bottom-up
issues such as syntax, mechanics, and lexical choices when writing than when reading.
They also were more concerned with setting goals when writing and were more cognizant
of the strategies they were using to arrive at meaning. When reading, however, students
were more focused on the content and validation of the text worlds they were generating.
The results of this study highlight the difficulty in clearly determining the connections
and distinctions between reading and writing.
In another study of the amount of overlap between many reading or writing
component skills and knowledge-bases, Shanahan (1984, 1987) administered measures of
reading assessing phonics, vocabulary, sentence comprehension, and passage
comprehension, and measures of writing assessing spelling ability, vocabulary diversity,
sentence structure complexity, and grammar structure, to a sample of approximately 500
18
second- and fifth-grade students. Results indicated that neither reading nor writing was
able to explain more than 43% of the variance in the opposite set. While this was a
significant amount of variance explained in each, it was less than many would have
expected at the time of the study. Shanahan concluded that reading and writing were
comprised of both dependent and independent abilities, and that contrary to a popular,
understudied belief, instruction in reading should not replace instruction in writing, nor
vice versa.
Shanahan and Lomax (1986) tested three theoretical models of the reading-
writing relationship by administering equivalent measures of particular components of
reading and writing performance in the second and fifth grades. The first model, an
interactive model, hypothesized that reading can influence writing development and
writing can influence reading development. The second model tested, the reading-to-
writing model, differs from the interactive model only in that all relations between the
reading and writing variables were believed to emanate from reading. The third model,
the writing-to-reading model differed only from the interactive model in that writing was
thought to affect reading, but reading was not believed to affect writing. Path analysis
was used to determine how well the three models fit with the student data. Results
indicated that the interactive model better described the data than the reading-to-writing
and writing-to-reading models at both grade levels. Also, the reading-to-writing model
was a better fit than the writing-to-reading model at both grade levels. An explanation
offered for the superiority of the reading-to-writing model was that these students were
not necessarily given enough of an opportunity to write in school and use their writing
19
knowledge to inform their reading knowledge. The overarching conclusion drawn from
the results of the study was that because a great deal of knowledge is shared between
reading and writing, curriculum design and instruction should better take advantage of
this shared knowledge as opposed to teaching reading for several years before
introducing writing.
Developmental Aspects of the Reading-Writing Relationship
It is widely acknowledged that the relationship between reading and writing
changes over the course of development, just as reading and writing each develop
separately over the course of the lifespan (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). Over the years,
numerous studies have confirmed that the types of knowledge and skills needed for
reading and writing and the ways they are used change with ability level, often
operationalized as grade level (Kucer, 1987; Langer & Flihan, 2000; Shanahan, 1984,
1987; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Tierney & Leys, 1986; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991).
Kucer (2005) noted that if a researcher's primary interest was reading, then he/she would
be more apt to interpret reading developments as contributing to writing, and vice versa.
More appropriately, aspects of reading affect writing development, and aspects of writing
affect reading development differently as the student matures. For example, Graves and
Hanson (1983) found that first-grade students initially approached reading a text with a
sense of distance and complete acceptance of the author's message. However, as the
children learned to question the meaning behind their own writing, they also began to
question the meanings in the texts they read.
20
Fitzgerald and Shanahan (2000) formulated a developmental model of the
reading-writing relationship, spanning from birth to adulthood. The model has six stages,
each comprised of the critical knowledge that reading and writing share at that
developmental time period largely based on Chall's (1996) developmental stages of
reading (as cited in Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). These stages include: stage 1: literacy
roots (birth-age 6), stage 2: initial literacy (grades 1-2, ages 6-7), stage 3: confirmation,
fluency, ungluing from print (grades 2-3, ages 7-8), stage 4: reading and writing for
learning the new: a first step (grades 4-8, ages 9-13), stage 5: multiple viewpoints (high
school, ages 14-18), and stage 6: construction and reconstructiona worldview (college,
age 18 and above).
Of greatest relevance to the present study is the fifth stage, or multiple
viewpoints. The major characteristic of this stage is that it entails understanding different
points of view (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). This is linked to an advanced
understanding of text structures and knowing how to use or interpret them most
appropriately, and how to see from another viewpoint. Also, critical reading, or the
criticism of one's thinking as well as the author's thinking while reading, and revision in
writing or when an author compares his/her beliefs to what their readers may be
expecting and adjusts accordingly, are important examples of the shared reading and
writing knowledge and thinking processes at this stage. One could argue, however, that
understanding different viewpoints is a facet of the reading-writing relationship that
should be mastered at a much earlier stage of development. Given that critical literacy
(Freire, 1970), or the consideration of multiple viewpoints and the social, historical, and
21
political systems affecting literacy, is being promoted in many early childhood
classrooms, it is possible that Fitzgerald and Shanahan's (2000) model needs to be
revisited.
One of the most significant contributions of Fitzgerald and Shanahan's (2000)
developmental stages of reading-writing relations is that it extends beyond the elementary
school years. The majority of literacy research focuses on elementary school children
during the primary time of literacy acquisition. While this research is important and
necessary, it has widely overshadowed any of the less prolific work done with
adolescents.
Jetton and Dole (2004) commented that, as of 2003, there was a very limited body
of research to inform the discussion on appropriate interventions to help struggling
middle and secondary school readers and writers. This is particularly disconcerting given
the notable diversity of literacy skills that adolescents possess in middle and high school.
Stanovich (1986) showed that when students do not acquire the necessary literacy skills
in elementary school, the gap between the lagging students and those who have acquired
the skills increases as they progress through school. Secondary school teachers,
especially those in the content areas that often require reading difficult texts to acquire
knowledge, are not equipped to deal with such diverse literacy skills. Though a few
recent publications have highlighted the needs and issues related to adolescent literacy,
Pressley (2004) expressed the profound need for literacy researchers to turn their focus to
the secondary classrooms. He noted that much is not known about what secondary
22
students can and cannot do in the literacy realm beyond the information garnered by the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
Over time and even currently, reading and writing instruction has taken many
different forms. This is not necessarily surprising, given that much of the research on the
reading-writing relationship has not resulted in a solidified understanding of the
relationship and has not arrived at a definitive best practices approach to instruction. This
is especially true of reading and writing instruction in the upper grades. Additionally, two
somewhat recent publications recognized the important roles played by gender, race,
ethnicity, and self-efficacy in adolescent literacies (Alvermann, 2002; Alvermann,
Hinchman, Moore, Phelps, & Waff, 1998). This present study focused on many of these
relevant literacy issues at the adolescent level.
Good Readers/Poor Writers and Good Writers/Poor Readers
The present study also focused on students with discrepant reading and writing
ability. Students with discrepant reading and writing skills, though not nearly in the
majority, have been identified (Honeycutt, 2002; Jordan, 1986; Loban, 1976; Thacker,
1990, 1991; Tierney, 1983) and to a lesser extent studied in previous research
(Honeycutt, 2002; Jordan, 1986; Palmer, 1986; Thacker, 1990,1991). Tierney and Leys
(1986) acknowledged that different hypotheses have been offered to explain why some
students are good readers but poor writers or good writers but poor readers. One
explanation is that the definitions of reading and writing, as operationalized by different
performance measures or assessments, are capturing very different aspects or lesser
aspects of reading or writing. Potentially, reading skills are assessed using multiple
23
choice measures and writing skills are assessed with essays or qualitative measures.
Tierney and Leys pointed out that because reading and writing instruction are sometimes
taught and tested very separately in the schools, it is not entirely surprising that some
students are considered to be good readers and poor writers or vice versa (see also Pike,
Compain, & Mumper, 1994).
One of the earliest studies on good readers/poor writers looked at the differences
between good readers/good writers' and good readers/poor writers' composing processes.
Using think-aloud protocols, Jordan (1986) used a set of descriptive categories to code
reading and writing behaviors. This research showed that good readers/good writers: (a)
were able to abstract content from a reading passage and write about what they read in
their own words, (b) were more aware of the structural features of sentences, and (c)
spent much more time planning prior to writing. Good readers/poor writers struggled
with each of these aspects.
In a different approach to the study of discrepant reading and writing
performance, Palmer (1986) examined the separate literatures on good readers and on
poor writers. This research was intended to aid in the understanding of what cognitive
strategies and reading and writing practices characterize good readers/poor writers. A
major goal of this work was to answer how the positive strategies used by good readers
could be most effectively parlayed to improve writing performance. Palmer found that
good readers tended to plan, translate or interpret, reread, and reflect on or evaluate when
they read. These students appeared to utilize a number of metacognitive strategies. Poor
writers tended to make limited use of planning time, limit the reading of texts during the
24
writing process, limit reading for revision after they have written text, and devote little
time for reflection or evaluation after text production. Given these characteristics, Palmer
recommended that when teaching good readers/poor writers, the following practices
should be applied: (a) begin with low-risk unevaluated writing assignments during the
composing process, (b) use sound prewriting activities such as brainstorming or focused
freewriting to prepare students for writing assignments, (c) prepare writing assignments
that are cumulative and sequential in nature, and (d) encourage students to read their own
work while they are writing. The utility of these practices in improving the writing
performance of good readers/poor writers has not been empirically tested.
Thacker (1990, 1991) studied students' ability to understand and recognize
varying degrees of text organization when reading. Participants included 90 ninth-grade
students divided equally into groups of good readers/good writers, good readers/poor
writers, and poor readers/poor writers. Students were determined to be good readers if
they scored at or above grade level on the district-created Achievement Levels Test in
Reading in the spring of their eighth-grade year, and were considered poor readers if their
scores were at least one year below grade level. Students were determined to be good
writers if they scored above the average on both analytically and holistically scored
writing samples from the district-created Direct Writing Assessment given in February to
all eighth-grade students. Students were determined to be poor writers if they scored
below average on both of these measures. The students in the three groups were asked to
read and evaluate the organizational clarity of ordered and unordered paragraphs at the
sixth- and ninth-grade reading levels. Additionally, students were asked to reconnect sets
25
of scrambled sentences into organized paragraphs. Results indicated that good
readers/good writers and good readers/poor writers were both skilled at distinguishing
between well and poorly organized text. However, good readers/poor writers seemed to
lack an awareness of how cohesive ties can bring meaning to disorganized text and would
likely benefit from greater instructional focus on cohesive relationships and the effective
organization of their own written responses to material.
Honeycutt (2002) examined the strategy applications, perceptions and emotions of
good readers/poor writers when writing narrative text. This was a qualitative study of 11
fifth-grade students with discrepant reading and writing performance based on state
reading and writing examinations. The students were individually interviewed and also
participated in focus group discussions. Additional data were gathered by holding focus
group discussions with teachers, and using teachers' conference and lesson-planning
notes, and samples from students' portfolios. Honeycutt determined that good
readers/poor writers were lacking knowledge of prewriting strategies and schema for
story structure thereby hindering their ability to plan and generate text. These students
also showed minimal use of self-regulation strategies in evaluating and revising their
writing. Of greatest relevance to the present study, Honeycutt found that good
readers/poor writers were inhibited in their writing due to intense negative emotions
surrounding their writing ability and their perception of themselves as poor writers. It is
difficult, however, to draw any broad conclusions based on this research, as the study
only focused on a small number of fifth-grade students in one particular school.
26
Interestingly, only Honeycutt's (2002) study took an affective component into
consideration when studying good readers/poor writers. Also, none of the studies on
students with discrepant reading and writing performance considered weaker
readers/stronger writers. The present study has built on the previous work on students
with discrepant reading and writing performance but also focused on the influence of
reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs on discrepant reading and writing performance.
Also, because this study assessed a large number of students with discrepant reading and
writing performance from across the United States, the results are more generalizable
than in previous studies. Similarly, this study included students who were stronger in
writing than in reading, a group of students that has been neglected in previous studies of
discrepant reading and writing performance.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theorists recognize that people act as proactive regulators of their
motivations and actions and adopt an agentic perspective of human development,
adaptation, and change (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2001, 2002; Bandura & Locke, 2003).
Agency is the power to originate actions for particular purposes. There are three primary
sources of agency according to social cognitive theory: direct personal agency, proxy
agency which relies on others to act on one's behalf, and collective agency in which
people act together to shape their future (Bandura, 1986, 2001, 2002). The fundamental
implication is that people are contributors to their life circumstances and not just products
of them.
27
Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Among the most central mechanisms of human agency are self-efficacy beliefs.
Self-efficacy beliefs are people's judgments of their abilities to perform certain actions.
These beliefs can promote a sense of agency whereby people believe they can influence
their own lives (Bandura, 1997, 2001). Self-efficacy beliefs affect cognitive,
motivational, affective, and decisional processes and determine whether individuals will
view themselves as capable or incapable, whether or not they are motivated to persevere
in the face of hardships and barriers, their emotional well-being, as well as the choices
they make at crucial points in time (Bandura, 1997; Bandura & Locke, 2003).
The centrality of self-efficacy beliefs in human agency can be better understood
through Bandura's (1986) interdependent model of triadic reciprocality. Bandura stated
that human functioning is comprised of a series of reciprocal interactions between
environmental, behavioral, and personal variables (such as self-efficacy) that influence
each other bidirectionally. Therefore, people are both the products and the creators of
their social structures. While social structures can impose constraints and supply
resources in differing amounts in differing situations, these social structures cannot
predict what individuals will become or do under particular circumstances (Bandura,
1997). This is because the individual has the ability to influence his/her environment by
operating proactively, and not only reactively, to shape different situations and social
structures. An example of this reciprocal relationship is when a foreign language teacher
chooses to teach a particular lesson entirely in that foreign language (environmental
variable). A student with high self-efficacy for learning and understanding the foreign
28
language (personal variable) will likely increase and sharply focus his/her attention to
what the teacher is saying (behavior) so that he/she will maximize the educational
benefits of the lesson.
Self-efficacy beliefs are largely formed through mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, verbal messages and social persuasions, and interpretations of physiological
and emotional states (Bandura, 1995). For most students, past performance is the most
reliable guide for gauging self-efficacy (Schunk & Meece, 2006). Successful experiences
will generally raise self-efficacy, while failures will generally lower self-efficacy.
However, an intermittent failure among many successful experiences is not likely to
significantly alter a person's self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy beliefs can also be formed
by watching the performance of people who we believe to be similar to ourselves. For
example, if a student sees a similar peer learn a complicated mathematical concept, then
that student may be more likely to believe that he/she could also learn that concept.
Vicarious experiences are not as powerful as personal experiences in forming self-
efficacy beliefs because personal performance failure will usually take precedence over
vicarious success. Self-efficacy can also be raised or lowered through comments or
feedback from others. Telling a student, "You can do it!" before taking a spelling test
may raise their spelling self-efficacy, but it probably will not raise his/her spelling self-
efficacy if the student has done poorly on most of the previous tests. Finally, self-efficacy
beliefs can also be influenced by physiological reactions such as increased heart rate or
feelings of anxiety that can communicate to the person that they are lacking in skill or
ability to accomplish something.
29
There are a number of distinctions that must be highlighted between self-efficacy
and other constructs related to self beliefs. Self-efficacy is not the same thing as self-
concept, self-esteem, or self-confidence. Recall that self-efficacy is one's judgment of
how capable he/she is to perform a particular task in a particular situation. This differs
from an expectancy construct such as self-concept because self-concept is comprised of
one's collective self-beliefs formed through various experiences with and interpretations
of the environment, largely dependent on reinforcement and evaluation by significant
others (Pajares & Schunk, 2002; Schunk & Pajares, 2003). Self-concept is a broad and
general construct that is inclusive of self-efficacy beliefs in more specific areas. A self-
concept judgment may be stated as "I am a good English student," whereas a self-
efficacy judgment may be stated as, "I am confident that I can write a paragraph with no
grammatical errors." Moreover, studies have found that self-efficacy beliefs are more
closely related to actual engagement and learning, and are also more predictive of
performance than measures of general self-concept (Graham & Weiner, 1996;
Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Miller, 1994; Shell et al., 1995;
Shell etal., 1989).
Confidence, a conversational term that is similar to self-concept, has been
conceptualized by researchers as a general self-belief of capability that doesn't specify
the object of that belief as self-efficacy does (Schunk & Pajares, 2003). Self-esteem
differs from both self-efficacy and self-concept in that self-esteem involves people's
emotional reactions to their actual accomplishments or failures, such as feeling good or
bad about themselves because they can or cannot write a research paper (Linnenbrink &
30
Pintrich, 2003). The highly predictive nature of self-efficacy beliefs over other self-belief
constructs is the primary reason it was selected for analysis in the present study.
While self-efficacy beliefs are highly predictive of performance, they are not
always accurate or truly representative of the student's true capabilities. Not surprisingly,
students lacking confidence in skills they actually possess will be less likely to engage in
tasks requiring those skills, put forth the needed effort, and will be more likely to quit
when the task becomes challenging (Bandura, 1993,1997; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003;
Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Schunk, 2003). While low self-efficacy can be detrimental to
learning, overly high levels of self-efficacy can be just as problematic (Schunk, 2003).
Students with overly high levels of self-efficacy may feel overconfident and not exercise
the appropriate effort needed to be successful at something (Bandura, 1989; Linnenbrink
& Pintrich, 2003; Salomon, 1984; Schunk, 2003). Bandura and Schunk (1981) noted that
students' inaccurate self-efficacy estimates may develop from erroneous task analysis or
lack of self-knowledge, both of which, Klassen (2006) highlighted, are problems
commonly associated with learning disabled students. What seems apparent is that
students benefit from holding accurate and appropriate self-efficacy beliefs, and teachers
also benefit from knowing and understanding their students' self-efficacy beliefs.
Developmental Aspects of Self-Efficacy
The developmental changes that occur during adolescence certainly impact the
self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Though many would argue that it is the raging
hormones of adolescence that are responsible for many of the changes that occur during
this developmental period, there are also significant changes to and developments in the
31
structure of social systems that cannot be underestimated (Eccles et al., 1993). Beginning
in middle school, students no longer have a single teacher directing their learning and
assignments. Adolescents have many teachers, requiring the improved management of
assignments and expectations (Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). Additionally, the workload
increases in middle school and high school, and students are given the responsibility of
knowing when to seek help if they are struggling. Zimmerman and Cleary wrote that
when an adolescent does not effectively regulate this increasingly academically
demanding environment, their grades will suffer as well as their efficacy beliefs
surrounding their ability to succeed in school.
Group Differences in Self-Efficacy
Gender
Most of the research on group differences in self-efficacy beliefs has examined
gender differences in various academic domains and across development. It is not
uncommon to observe gender differences in measures of academic motivation and self-
beliefs (Wigfield, Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996). The results of research on gender differences
in self-efficacy have not always been consistent and generally depend on how the
academic domain in question is perceived by girls and boys (Pajares & Valiante, 1999,
2001; Schunk & Meece, 2006). Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, and Wigfield (2002)
observed that self-competence beliefs in language arts become increasingly differentiated
by gender with age. A number of studies have found modest gender differences in writing
self-efficacy favoring girls as early as in elementary school (Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares
& Valiante, 1997). Although Pajares and Valiante (2001) found gender differences in
32
writing self-efficacy in middle school favoring girls, the difference became
nonsignificant when students' feminine orientation beliefs, or how strongly they
identified with characteristics typically associated with females in the United States, were
controlled for. Other studies have found no gender differences in reading or writing self-
efficacy beliefs (Schunk & Lilly, 1984; Shell et al., 1995).
Culture
Bandura (2006a) stated that a great deal of research has confirmed the cross-
cultural generalizability of self-efficacy theory. Regardless of culture or country of
origin, higher self-efficacy is associated with higher achievement. While students from
various countries have similar levels of efficacy to master different academic subjects,
those from countries with authoritarian educational structures tend to have a lower sense
of efficacy to assume responsibility for their own learning (Bandura, 2002). Oettingen
and Zosuls (2006) noted that adolescents socialized in collectivist, Asian cultures tend to
have weaker self-efficacy beliefs coupled with comparatively higher performance than
adolescents socialized in Western cultures. Various hypotheses have been offered to
explain this, including that many Asian Americans are socialized to feel responsible to
their family and community, and therefore the expectations of others become more
important than their own perception of their academic performance (Eaton & Dembo,
1997). This is also related to the notion of calibration, or the degree to which students can
accurately assess their actual performance.
Many studies have linked calibration accuracy to metacognitive skills and
academic achievement (Bol, Hacker, O'Shea, & Allen, 2005). Cross-cultural studies of
33
calibration have demonstrated that students from collectivist cultures, with a high level of
communalism, almost always rate their efficacy as lower than students from individualist,
independent Western cultures, regardless of their performance level (Klassen, 2004).
However, when a form of calibration is included, in most cases, the efficacy beliefs of the
students from collectivist, non-Western cultures, were more predictive of subsequent
performance and were therefore considered to be more realistic in their predictions
(Eaton & Dembo, 1997; Klassen, 2004; Oettingen, 1995). Research on calibration has
also shown that there is a tendency for higher achieving students to be more accurate but
less confident in their performance predictions, while lower achieving students are less
accurate and overconfident in their predictions (Bol et al., 2005; Klassen, 2004).
Schunk and Meece (2006) reported that studies comparing the self-efficacy beliefs
of White, African American, and Hispanic students have produced inconsistent findings
with no clear patterns, likely due to differences in the specificity of the self-efficacy
beliefs assessed. It should also be highlighted that when studying racial/ethnic differences
in self-efficacy beliefs, other associated variables should be considered such as
socioeconomic status and second-language learners.
Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy
As previously mentioned, self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific, or linked to a
domain, whereas similar constructs such as self-concept or competence beliefs are more
general and based on social comparisons instead of normative criteria (Klassen, 2002;
Zimmerman, 1995). Self-efficacy is usually assessed at the level of specificity warranted
by the criterion task within a particular domain (Schunk & Pajares, 2004). Therefore,
34
simply assessing students' perceived competence to perform well in English class, would
not be a fine-grained enough measure because an English class is comprised of numerous
subskills and areas, including reading and writing. It is not necessarily an accurate
assumption to believe that students will hold the same self-efficacy beliefs for both
reading and writing tasks.
The present study was primarily concerned with reading and writing self-efficacy.
A number of studies have specifically examined writing self-efficacy (Klassen, 2002;
Page-Voth & Graham, 1999; Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares et al.,
1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001; Schunk & Swartz, 1993; Valiante, 2001) or
reading self-efficacy (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003; Nicaise & Gettinger, 1995; Schunk &
Rice, 1993; Wentzel, 1996; Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2004), while fewer
have studied both writing and reading self-efficacy concurrently (Shell et al., 1995; Shell
et al., 1989). Higher reading self-efficacy beliefs have been linked to more skillful
reading performance and more proficient strategy use (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003;
Schunk & Rice, 1993) and higher writing self-efficacy beliefs are correlated with and
usually predictive of more skillful writing performance in students of all ages (Pajares &
Johnson, 1996; Pajares et al , 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001). Effect sizes
between writing self-efficacy and writing achievement in multiple regression and path
analyses that control for prior achievement have ranged from .19 to .40 (Pajares, 2003).
Shell et al. (1989) designed the first study that simultaneously examined reading
and writing self-efficacy and achievement in a sample of 153 primarily White
undergraduates. They administered a reading self-efficacy questionnaire, writing self-
35
efficacy questionnaire, reading outcome expectancy instrument, writing outcome
expectancy instrument, a timed and holistically-scored written essay, and the Degrees of
Reading Power test. Shell et al. hypothesized that: (a) self-beliefs would account for
significant variance in reading and writing achievement, with self-efficacy accounting for
a larger amount than outcome expectancy; (b) self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in
either reading or writing would account for significant variance in the other; and (c) there
would be a significant, underlying relation that links beliefs and performance in both
domains, with self-efficacy contributing more strongly to this relationship than outcome
expectancy. Results from the study indicated that self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
beliefs accounted for a significant amount of variance in reading achievement, with self-
efficacy being the stronger predictor. Only self-efficacy beliefs, however, accounted for a
significant amount of variance in writing achievement. The study also found there was a
single underlying dimension linking beliefs and achievement for reading and writing,
with reading beliefs and achievement serving as the strongest contributors to the
relationship. The results, however, cannot be generalized given the homogenous,
unrepresentative sample.
A later study by Shell et al. (1995) additionally considered grade-level and
achievement-level differences in students' control-related, self-efficacy, and outcome
expectancy beliefs for reading and writing, and their relationship with reading and
writing achievement. They found that there were significant main effects, for grade- and
achievement-level in control-related, self-efficacy, and outcome expectancy beliefs, but
there was no significant interaction between them. The findings suggest that as students
36
mature, their beliefs for reading become more predictive of higher order comprehension
skills, while their beliefs for writing become more predictive of component subskills.
Shell et al. speculated that these results could be indicative of the nature of literacy
instruction in the later grades where there is little direct teaching or assessment of reading
component subskills and feedback on students' writing is often focused on grammar,
spelling, mechanics, or other component subskills. Also, results indicated a single
underlying dimension linking beliefs and reading and writing achievement for all grades
and achievement-levels, demonstrating a reciprocal relationship between beliefs in both
reading and writing.
Measuring Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy
In order to study self-efficacy beliefs, we must be able to effectively measure
these beliefs. There is no general measure of perceived self-efficacy, but numerous
domain-specific self-efficacy scales. Perceived self-efficacy involves a person's
judgment of capability to execute given types of performances, and does not entail a
person's judgment of self-worth or the outcome likely to result from a given type of
performance (Bandura, 2006b). Typically, a self-efficacy scale will ask students to rate
their confidence, on a scale of 0 to 100, to carry out specific tasks such as writing a
research paper on a teacher-assigned topic. How self-efficacy is assessed can produce
varying results in relation to relevant outcomes. Pajares and Miller (1995) demonstrated
the importance of thoughtfully, specifically, and accurately assessing self-efficacy in their
study of two different types of math self-efficacy scales on math problem-solving
performance. As hypothesized, math problem-solving self-efficacy was a better predictor
37
of math problem-solving performance than math course self-efficacy among college
students. Greater prediction from self-efficacy measures to task performance is also aided
by response formats that range from 0 to 100, rather than scales that use fewer steps and
less discrimination (Pajares, Hartley, & Valiante, 2001).
Shell et al. (1989) developed, and later revised (Shell et al., 1995), what are likely
the most commonly used measures of reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs among
adolescents. Each instrument contains a task subscale and a component skills subscale.
Items from the reading task subscale, for example, ask students to rate their confidence,
on a scale of 0 (no chance) to 100 (complete certainty), to be able to read and understand
what the author was saying for 18 different reading tasks. Items from the reading
component skill subscale, for example, ask students to rate their confidence, on a scale of
0 to 100, to be able to perform nine different reading skills. Accurately understanding
students' reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs is crucial in helping educators
comprehend students' underlying academic motivation, choices, and behavior in
particular domains (Pajares & Miller, 1995). Students with unrealistically low self-
efficacy in the presence of strong skills, in particular, should be targeted for self-efficacy
interventions to improve motivation and performance (Bandura, 1997).
Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy Interventions
One of the primary reasons that self-efficacy is so widely researched is due to its
mutable natureor because educators understand that there are useful interventions for
increasing students' self-efficacy that are associated with better performance. Jinks and
his colleagues have asserted that self-efficacy beliefs are antecedent to academic success
38
because they motivate behavior (Jinks & Lorsbach, 2003; Jinks & Morgan, 1999).
Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) explicated this notion by proposing that self-efficacy
influences (a) behavioral engagement through effort, persistence, and instrumental help-
seeking, (b) cognitive engagement through strategy use and metacognition, and (c)
motivational engagement through interest, value, and affectall of which influence
learning and achievement. Therefore, when teachers engage in self-efficacy
enhancement, underachieving students, in particular, should experience academic
improvements because they have improved their use of strategies, their ability to persist,
their interest in the domain, and other related factors.
Researchers have offered numerous recommendations for appropriately
increasing students' self-efficacy. Schunk (2003) emphasized using instructional methods
that incorporate modeled strategies for reading and writing, progress feedback to
students, goal-setting, and self-evaluations of progress. Studies on the effects of goal
setting and progress feedback on self-efficacy and writing achievement have indicated
that setting process goals instead of product goals, coupled with progress feedback, have
the greatest impact on posttest self-efficacy and skill, efficacy for improvement, and
progress in strategy learning (Schunk & Swartz, 1993). Walker (2003) noted related ways
for teachers to implement interventions to promote higher reading and writing self-
efficacy, including (a) giving students more choice in the curriculum, (b) encouraging
strategic thinking, (c) providing self-evaluation opportunities, and (d) changing the types
of assessments used in the classroom. Similarly, Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) made
the following recommendations for teachers to be mindful of when considering students'
39
self-efficacy beliefs: (a) help students to maintain high but accurate self-efficacy beliefs,
(b) academically challenge students in a way that most can be successful after exerting
effort, (c) foster the belief that ability is not a fixed entity but can be changed and
improved upon over time, and (d) promote students' domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs
rather than their general self-esteem.
Pajares (2003) commented that most teachers and parents would agree that there
are many situations in which students' inaccurate self-beliefs, as opposed to having a
weak knowledge base or subpar skills, are responsible for their academically
shortchanging themselves. It is situations such as these, where students would greatly
benefit from having teachers identify, challenge, and alter these inaccurate judgments and
reposition students for academic success.
Summary
Although there are many known similarities between the cognitive processes and
knowledge involved in the acts of reading and writing (Kucer, 1985, 1987, 2005; Langer
& Flihan, 2000; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991; Rosenblatt,
1994), there are students who can be considered much stronger readers than writers and
much stronger writers than readers (Langer, 1986; Palmer, 1986; Thacker, 1991). Very
few studies, however, have effectively examined the discrepant reading and writing
performance of high school students. Now that the two major college admission tests in
the United States, the SAT and ACT, include writing sections, investigating this type of
discrepant performance would be quite valuable. Such research can offer insight into the
40
relationship between reading and writing and could focus instructional efforts for
improving students' reading and writing performance.
One explanation for students' discrepant reading and writing performance may be
related to differing reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs. Individuals hold self-
efficacy beliefs that enable them to exert control over their thoughts, feelings, and
actions. These self-efficacy beliefs, or the beliefs people hold about their capabilities, are
largely formed through mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal messages and
social persuasions, and interpretations of physiological and emotional states (Bandura,
1995). Self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific, or linked to particular domains such as
reading or writing. Reading self-efficacy has been closely linked to reading performance
(Paris & Oka, 1986; Shell et al., 1995; Shell et al., 1989), as has writing self-efficacy to
writing performance (Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Schunk &
Swartz, 1993; Shell et al, 1995; Shell et al., 1989; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994).
Bandura (1986, 1993) stated that when self-efficacy is lacking, people will tend to
underachieve, despite knowing what it is they need to do to be successful. It is possible
that students exhibiting discrepant reading and writing performance may possess the
knowledge, skills, and strategies needed to succeed in both domains, but are not able
successfully leverage them for both, due to differing self-efficacy beliefs in reading and
writing. Encouragingly, there are numerous studies indicating that self-efficacy and
achievement can be enhanced through instructional methods that incorporate modeled
strategy use, goal setting, constructive feedback, and self-evaluation of progress,
indicating that students can improve their reading or writing performance through these
practices (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Schunk, 2003; Walker, 2003).
42
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Participants
Participants in this study were drawn from the 18- and 19-year-olds who took the
October 2006 and/or November 2006 standard administrations of the SAT in the United
States. Students in this age range were chosen for the sample because students younger
than 18 would have needed to obtain parental permission before participating in the
study, significantly jeopardizing the response rate. Students who are older than 19 who
take the SAT are more likely to be nontraditional students, so they were excluded from
the sample. As this research examined the influence of reading and writing self-efficacy
on reading and writing performance among four groups of students (strong readers/strong
writers, stronger readers/weaker writers, weaker readers/stronger writers, and weak
readers/weak writers), the groups were determined by computing standardized scores on
the Critical Reading and Writing SAT tests. A standardized score is expressed in standard
deviation units and provides a measure of a student's relative standing in a group (Vogt,
1999). The standardized score is comparable across all tests and provides a uniform
measure for ease of use and interpretation. All of the students deemed to fit in either the
stronger readers/weaker writers (n = 4,678), weaker readers/stronger writers (n = 4,120)
categories were included in the sample. As expected, the consistently strong and
43
consistently weak groups each included over 10,000 students, so that smaller,
representative samples of the strong readers/strong writers (N = 4,657) and weak
readers/weak writers (n = 4,727) groups were included in the total sample of students (N
= 18,182). The mean age of the sample receiving the measures was 18.04 (SD = .19). The
racial composition of the students receiving the measures was 0.6% (n = 117) American
Indian or Alaska Native, 10.9% (n = 1,979) Asian, Asian-American, or Pacific Islander,
11.9% (n = 2,167) Black or African American, 11.3% (n = 2,066) Hispanic, 62.0% (n
= 11,266) White, and 3.2% (n =587) Other. The overall gender composition of those
receiving the measures was 51.8% (n = 9,238) female and 49.2% (n = 8,944) male. The
mean SAT Critical Reading score for this sample was 518.13 (SD = 155.13), the mean
SAT Writing score was 509.12 (SD = 149.60), and the mean SAT Math score was 527.36
(SZ>= 131.05).
Instruments and Materials
Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT)
Critical Reading Section
The PSAT/NMSQT is 2-hour and 10-minute test. It has two 25-minute Critical
Reading sections (48 questions), two 25-minute Math sections (38 questions), and one
30-minute Writing Skills section (39 questions). The PSAT/NMSQT measures skills that
are important for successful academic performance in college, including knowledge and
skills developed through years of study in a wide range of courses as well as through
experiences outside th