Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing.

Authors: Roger Bruning; Michael Dempsey; Douglas F. Kauffman; Courtney McKim; Sharon Zumbrunn;

Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing.

Abstract

A multifactor perspective on writing self-efficacy was examined in 2 studies. Three factors were proposed—self-efficacy for writing ideation, writing conventions, and writing self-regulation—and a scale constructed to reflect these factors. In Study 1, middle school students (N = 697) completed the Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale (SEWS), along with associated measures. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed SEWS data fit the proposed 3-factor model well. In Study 2, a second CFA of data from 563 students from 2 high schools likewise showed good model fit. Scores based on the 3 writing self-efficacy factors were examined in relation to students' liking writing, self-reported writing grades, and statewide writing assessment (SWA) scores. Results showed writing ideation and self-regulation self-efficacy to be significantly more strongly related to liking writing than conventions self-efficacy but less related than conventions self-efficacy to SWA scores. All 3 writing self-efficacy dimensions showed moderate positive correlations with self-reported writing performance. Further analyses showed higher levels for all 3 dimensions of writing self-efficacy for students in more advanced English/language arts classes. Overall, results from the studies were interpreted as supporting multifactor models of writing self-efficacy and the utility of closer ties between self-efficacy measures and domains being assessed.

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    307
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 0.1%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 1%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
307
Top 0.1%
Top 1%
Top 10%
Beta
sdg_colorsSDGs:
Related to Research communities
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!