Journal of Educational Psychology 2013, Vol. 105, No.

1, 2538

2012 American Psychological Association 0022-0663/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0029692

Examining Dimensions of Self-Efficacy for Writing

Roger Bruning, Michael Dempsey, and Douglas F. Kauffman
University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Courtney McKim
University of Wyoming

Sharon Zumbrunn
Virginia Commonwealth University
A multifactor perspective on writing self-efficacy was examined in 2 studies. Three factors were proposedself-efficacy for writing ideation, writing conventions, and writing self-regulationand 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. Keywords: writing, self-efficacy, ideation, conventions, self-regulation

Few perceptions about the self are more important than selfefficacy beliefs confidence that one can perform successfully in a particular domain (Bandura, 1997, 2006). Willingness to engage in domain-related activities and persist when confronted with difficulties or distractions are only two of self-efficacys important correlates. Higher self-efficacy levels relate to multiple positive outcomes, including setting higher goals, using more effective learning strategies, and having lower anxiety (Bong, 2006). Selfefficacy becomes especially critical when domain-related tasks are demanding and motivational conditions are less than ideal. Writing is one such domain. This article describes a new perspective on writing self-efficacy. It builds on a large body of prior research showing self-efficacys importance for successful writing performance and its ties to a

This article was published Online First August 13, 2012. Roger Bruning, Michael Dempsey, and Douglas F. Kauffman, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; Courtney McKim, Department of Professional Studies, University of Wyoming; Sharon Zumbrunn, Foundations of Education Department, Virginia Commonwealth University. We want to thank members of the Nebraska Writing Research Group for their suggestions and feedback and express our deep appreciation to the administration and teachers of the Lincoln (NE) Public Schools, especially Leslie Lukin, Karen Saunders, and David Smith, for their generous support throughout the planning and conduct of this research. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Roger Bruning, Center for Instructional Innovation, 209 Teachers College Hall, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588-0384. E-mail: rbruning@unl.edu 25

variety of other writing-related variables (McCarthy, Meier, & Rinderer, 1985; Pajares, 2003, 2007; Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares, Miller, & Johnson, 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 2006; Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, 1995; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). This prior research also has helped attune researchers and practitioners to writings motivational and self-regulatory dimensions (e.g., Bruning & Horn, 2000; Graham, 2006; Hayes, 1996; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999, 2002, 2007). At the same time, however, it seems to have shed relatively little light on the processes involved in the act of writing. With only a few exceptions, writing self-efficacy measures have tended to atheoretically sample writing activities, tasks, and outcomes. We propose that aligning measures more explicitly with psychological and linguistic features of the writing process may provide opportunities to learn more about both self-efficacy for writing and writing itself. The starting point for this study, therefore, was an assumption that a multifactor portrayal of writing self-efficacy, as contrasted with a more global sampling view, might better reflect selfefficacy for writing. Based on models and research emphasizing idea translation and the role of language-related processes in writing (e.g., Beers & Nagy, 2009; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Flower & Hayes, 1981, 1984; Hayes, 2012; Myhill, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2007) and research showing strong effects of strategy instruction on writing quality (e.g., Graham & Perin, 2007; Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006), we posited three classes of activities as consistently involved in the writing act: (1) generating ideas (ideation), (2) expressing those ideas using writings language-related tools (conventions), and (3) managing writing

26

BRUNING, DEMPSEY, KAUFFMAN, MCKIM, AND ZUMBRUNN

decisions and behaviors (self-regulation). This model guided construction of a writing self-efficacy measure. We then examined the models theoretical and practical implications in two studies, one with middle school students and a second with high school students.

Prior Measures of Writing Self-Efficacy

In this section we present examples of previous research on writing self-efficacy that informed our current effort. Our primary goal here is not to comprehensively review writing self-efficacy research, which has been done elsewhere (e.g., Klassen, 2002; Pajares, 2003), but to illustrate how writing self-efficacy has been conceptualized and assessed. We focus specifically on the measures utilized in these studies and on views of writing that each seems to reflect, beginning with research by McCarthy and her associates (1985).

Shell et al.s self-efficacy scales were similar to those they had used earlier but were adapted to fit this studys younger participants. Writing skills self-efficacy was shown to predict writing performance at all grade levels but, unlike writing task selfefficacy, did not increase significantly with grade level, suggesting that writing self-efficacy gains are more related to students abilities to successfully perform various writing tasks than to changes in specific writing skills.

Research by Pajares and Associates

In work beginning in the 1990s, Pajares and his associates (e.g., Pajares, 2003, 2007; Pajares, Britner, & Valiante, 2000; Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2006) developed what arguably has been the most comprehensive writing selfefficacy research program to date. In an early study, Pajares and Johnson (1994) found that writing skills but not writing task self-efficacy predicted students actual performance in composing essays, mirroring Shell et al.s (1989) earlier findings. Subsequent research by Pajares and Valiante revealed several additional findings related to writing self-efficacy, including gender-related differences, an inverse relationship to writing apprehension, and its independent and mediating effects on writing achievement (Pajares, 2007; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001). Pajares and Valiantes primary measure of writing self-efficacy has been the Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (WSES; Pajares, 2007; Pajares & Valiante, 1999). As described by Pajares (2007), this scale was constructed based on discussions of items previously used by Shell et al. (1995, 1989) and rewriting them to make them appropriate across all grade levels. As reported in Pajares (2007), the WSES requires that students provide judgments of their confidence in their ability to successfully perform grammar, usage, composition, and mechanical writing skills, such as correctly punctuating a one page passage or organizing sentences into a paragraph to clearly express a theme (p. 240). In most of Pajares and his associates work, writing self-efficacy has been treated as a unidimensional construct. Pajares (2007) suggested, however, that the WSES might reflect potentially separable dimensions of writing self-efficacy and conducted exploratory factor analyses of WSES performance of students in Grades 4 through 11 (Pajares, 2007) showing this to be the case. Two factors emergedthe first reflecting basic skills (e.g., spelling, using punctuation and verb tenses correctly) and a second tapping more complex composition skills (e.g., structuring paragraphs and essays, using topic sentences). Like Shell and colleagues tasks and skills measures previously, Pajaress basic and complex factors suggest the possibility of parsing the construct of writing self-efficacy to good effect. At the same time, it clearly is difficult to tie either of these researchers measures directly to models of writing (e.g., Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Flower & Hayes, 1984; Hayes, 1996, 2006) or to potentially writing-relevant psychological and language-related processes (e.g., Flower & Hayes, 1984; Myhill, 2008: Schleppegrell, 2007). As an illustration of how this connection has been made for self-regulation and writing, we now turn to work by Zimmerman and his associates. In the body of writing self-efficacy research, Zimmermans framing of self-efficacy for self-regulation as writers plan, write, and reflect on their writing (see Zimmerman

Research by McCarthy and Associates

In one of the earliest empirical studies to explicitly reference writing self-efficacy, McCarthy et al. (1985) studied the relationship between college students writing self-efficacy and performance. McCarthy et al.s index of writing quality was raters judgments of 19 skills students used in writing expository essays; their measure of writing self-efficacy was students ratings of their certainty about whether they could demonstrate these same skills. As described by the authors, their measures items focused most directly on writing mechanics, such as writing an essay without major spelling errors or run-on sentences, and accounted for approximately 10%15% of the variance in students actual writing scores.

Research by Shell and Associates

Following up on McCarthy et al.s (1985) work, Shell et al. (1989) surveyed college students to examine relationships among writing self-efficacy, outcome expectancy beliefs, and writing achievement. They gathered writing samples from each student written in response to the prompt What do you believe to be the qualities of a successful teacher? These writing samples were judged analytically by independent raters blind to the students survey responses. Shell et al. (1989) measured writing efficacy with two subscales: a task subscale and a component skills subscale. The first consisted of items sampling self-efficacy for writing activities students might conceivably perform (e.g., writing an essay or short story), while the second required efficacy judgments about writing-related skills (e.g., correctly spelling words, using parts of speech properly). Shell et al. found that although writing task self-efficacy did not predict writing performance, writing skills self-efficacy did, foreshadowing findings in both their own and others studies (e.g., Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 2001) that writing selfefficacy measures focusing on basic writing skills reliably predicts writing quality. In a subsequent study, Shell et al. (1995) studied grade- and achievement-level differences in fourth, seventh, and 10th graders writing self-efficacy. Short essays again were gathered from students, this time descriptions of their favorite television programs.

DIMENSIONS OF WRITING SELF-EFFICACY

27

& Kitsantas, 2007) seems to rest most clearly on a theory-based account of writing processes.

Toward an Alternative Perspective on Writing Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a domain-specific construct, which means that there can be no all-purpose measure of self-efficacy. As Bandura (2006) has stated, scales of perceived self-efficacy must be tailored to the particular domain of functioning that is the object of interest (p. 308). Pajares and Valiante (2006) similarly argued that measures of self-efficacy must reflect an understanding of both the domain under investigation and its different features, as well as of the types of capabilities the domain requires and the range of situations in which these capabilities might be applied (p. 162). In our judgment, these views strongly suggest the value of framing writing self-efficacy in ways that will yield information on writers judgments about successfully meeting writings psychological, linguistic, and behavioral challenges. Operationalizing such a framework presumably should be directed at dimensions of writing judged to be both theoretically and practically important. We sought to build on Zimmerman and colleagues research by tying our measure to a model of writing that separately highlights writings cognitive and language-related aspects as well as its self-regulatory dimensions.

Research by Zimmerman and Associates

In an influential early study, Zimmerman and Bandura (1994) predicted that college students self-efficacy for regulating writing activities along with self-efficacy for academic achievement and grade-related goals would predict writing attainment beyond verbal aptitude. Students in regular and advanced English composition classes completed the authors Writing Self-Regulatory Efficacy Scale, consisting of 25 items on which students rated their perceived capability for successfully executing strategic aspects of writing such as planning and revising, responding to creative requirements of writing, and self-managing writing time and activities. Principal components analysis showed the Writing SelfRegulatory Efficacy Scale represented a single factor. Among Zimmerman and Banduras findings were that students in the advanced class had higher self-efficacy for managing writing activities. Self-efficacy scores also predicted the self-evaluative standards students used and confidence in receiving higher grades. To Zimmerman and Bandura, these results not only indicated selfregulatory efficacys importance for writing but suggested their measures potential use in making diagnostic assessments. In subsequent research, however, Zimmerman and his associates emphasized measures of self-efficacy closely tied to their experimental work, in which modeling and directing attention to writing process goals were utilized to improve writing skills and writing self-efficacy (e.g., Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999, 2002; see also Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). Zimmerman and Kitsantas (1999, 2002), for instance, designed experimental interventions in which students learned to combine simple kernel sentences into a nonrepetitive sentence and then were asked to make self-efficacy judgments about whether they could successfully rewrite new kernel sentences. Thus, while these writing self-efficacy measures are highly suited to their experimental purposes, they were not intended to function as general assessments.

Four Assumptions About the Act of Writing and Writing Self-Efficacy

Four assumptions guided development of our writing selfefficacy framework. The first, following the models and conceptions of Flower and Hayes and others (e.g., Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001; Flower & Hayes, 1980, 1981, 1984; Hayes, 1996, 2012; McCutchen, Teske, & Bankston, 2008; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007) is that writing is a complex cognitive act generating high demands on working memory. As Flower and Hayes (1980) wrote in an oft-quoted description, a writer in the act of writing is a thinker on a full-time cognitive overload (p. 33). Compared with conversation, for instance, which provides a great deal of contextual scaffolding for speech production and understanding, most writing contexts provide much less support (Bruning & Horn, 2000). Writings grammatical forms are highly formalized. Writers also typically are displaced from their audience, requiring they expend cognitive resources figuring out how to communicate with an unseen reader. A second assumption is that writing development advances slowly. Writing requires coordination and integration of numerous subskills, and the typically slow course of writing development reflects writers need to proceduralize knowledge at multiple cognitive, metacognitive, and linguistic levels (e.g., Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Kellogg, 2008; McCutchen et al., 2008). For novice writers, for example, the activity of writingwhether retrieving words from long-term memory or expressing ideas within appropriate syntactic framesrequires conscious attention to virtually all levels of the composition process (e.g., choosing words, spelling them correctly, putting them in sentences). For such writers, especially, working memory will be freed for essential tasks such as idea generation and organization only when fluency is achieved on other levels (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001). Our third assumption, perhaps somewhat more conjectural than the first two, stems from our own writing experiences and obser-

Summary of Previous Writing Self-Efficacy Research

Writing self-efficacy research extending back into the mid1980s has illuminated relationships between writing self-efficacy and multiple writing-related variables (e.g., writing quality and standards, level of writing apprehension), revealed groups in which writing self-efficacy may be lower or higher (e.g., students in different grades, boys or girls), and pointed to the possibility of self-efficacy varying by type of writing performance. Most writing self-efficacy measures, however, have broadly sampled writingrelated skills and tasks, making them less than ideal for yielding information about writers self-efficacy for specific dimensions of writing. An exception has been Zimmermans work on selfefficacy for writing self-regulation, which identified multiple activities tied to self-regulatory competence in writing (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007). Thus far, however, no models or measures have been developed that provide independent information on writers self-efficacy for meeting writings cognitive and linguistic, as well as its self-regulatory demands.

28

BRUNING, DEMPSEY, KAUFFMAN, MCKIM, AND ZUMBRUNN

vations. Because writing typically is an extended, effortful act, we propose that writers form strong impressions of their own writing experiences. These can range from judgments of their levels of success on various tasks (e.g., the ability to choose appropriate words or satisfy a languages conventions) to feelings of anxiety or frustration. Certainly, writing-related outcomes (e.g., writing grades) affect writing self-efficacy, as has been shown in numerous studies (e.g., see Pajares, 2003), but we assume also that many self-evaluative judgments about degree of success in meeting writings many challengesand hence self-efficacy for writing emerge during the writing process itself. Our fourth assumption also is conjecturalwriters group their writing-related experiences into psychologically meaningful categories but is grounded in the tendency to organize knowledge into schema-like conceptual structures (Schraw, 2006). Aggregated over time, we argue, writers judgments about their writing become identifiable, stable dimensions of their sense of themselves as writers. While we do not dispute the validity of a generalized writing self-efficacy, potentially interesting subcategories may be implied by questions such as these: Can I think of things to write about? Can I express my ideas in writing? Can I keep myself on track as I write by avoiding distractions and coping with my feelings as Im writing? If they are, their measurement may hold further clues for building writing motivation and success. Overall, then, our portrayal of writing begins with the assumption, widely shared, that writing is a demanding process that only slowly becomes automatized and fluent. We also assume that the writing process creates strong memorial impressions that writers group into psychologically identifiable categories. With these assumptions in mind, we now turn to our proposed dimensions of writing self-efficacy and the rationales for each. If they do in fact reflect writers psychological realities and are represented adequately in a writing self-efficacy measure, we would first expect our empirical data to reflect the posited dimensions. If so, we then could explore the extent to which these dimensions relate to other variables, such as liking writing and writing performance.

highly recursive and therefore do not posit a sequential ordering for these domains.

Writing Self-Efficacy: Ideation

We argue that one likely dimension of writing self-efficacy is writers beliefs about their abilities to generate ideas, their ideation. Writing cannot proceed without ideas. Idea generation has a prominent place both in Flower and Hayess (1984) model of the writing process and in Hayess (1996, 2006, 2012) later revisions of the original Flower and Hayes model. In all of these models, idea generation is portrayed as an ongoing process in working memory influencing all other parts of writing. Various dimensions of ideation can be conceptualized as creating distinguishable writing-related challenges. For instance, do I have ideas to write about, are they good ideas, and can I find the right words to express them? Idea generation is situated primarily within the domain of semantics (Cruse, 2004; Evans & Green, 2006; Langacker, 1987, 2008) and involves writers abilities to generate the content and ordering of their thoughts. Although often thought of as tied mostly to words (Cruse, 1986, 2004; Langacker, 2008; Read, 2000), semantic knowledge also exists in schema-like structures and is reflected in fluid use of connotative and denotative meanings. As will be seen subsequently, our writing ideation selfefficacy items focus on writers judgments of the availability, quality, and ordering of their ideas.

Writing Self-Efficacy: Conventions

A second dimension of our model is self-efficacy for writing conventions, which refer to a set of generally accepted standards for expressing ideas in writing in a given language. In English these would include agreed-upon ways to spell, punctuate, capitalize, and structure sentences. We have drawn this label from the writing literature; related terms include writing mechanics and translation (Fayol, Alamargot, & Berninger, 2012; Flower & Hayes, 1981). Conventions provide the frames within which writers express their ideas successfully. Although terms like conventions and mechanics seem to connote low-level writing processes, writing draws on a complex array of linguistically based knowledge for beginning and advanced writers alike (e.g., Myhill, 2008; Schleppegrell, 2007). Whereas speakers can rely on contextual support, writers mostly cannot, requiring them to recognize and use rules of written expression. Self-efficacy for executing writing conventions can vary widely, just as using them can be highly automatized (e.g., as in a professional journalists writing) or require a conscious, effortful set of responses (e.g., a childs attempt to write a neat paper; Graham, 2006). Using writings conventions begins early and develops along multiple dimensions. In English, for example, beginning writers must understand the alphabetic principle, that letters represent a languages sounds, and have phonemic awareness, the ability to recognize separable sounds in spoken words (Ehri, 2005; Vellutino, Tunmer, Jaccard, & Chen, 2007). These understandings, along with knowledge of words spellings, orthography, are needed to give writing meaning. Morphological awareness knowing how a language ties sound and meaning and how mor-

A Model of Writing Self-Efficacy

We see the writing self-efficacy model described in this section as consonant with writing process models emphasizing working memorys centrality (e.g., Flower & Hayes, 1984; Hayes, 2006, 2012), as well as with other portrayals of writing and writing development (e.g., Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Bruning & Horn, 2000; Graham, 2006; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007). The model has three focal dimensions tied to earlier researchers work (e.g., Pajares, 2007; Shell et al., 1995; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007). The first is ideation, which we view as rooted in cognitive processes, primarily idea generation, and generally tied to the domains of semantics and schematic knowledge (Schraw, 2006). The second is writing conventions, which in our operationalization refers to the specific articulation of ideas into writings forms and is aligned with Flower and Hayes concept of translation (Flower & Hayes, 1980; Hayes, 2006, 2012). The third dimension is self-regulation, which we see as extending well beyond writings activities (see Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007) to its management, monitoring, and evaluation. Consistent with most writing researchers, we view writing as

DIMENSIONS OF WRITING SELF-EFFICACY

29

phemes can be combined (Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006)also is needed for communication of such concepts as tense, number, and possession. Putting words to screen or paper reflects other important dimensions of conventions. Spelling words correctly, for example, depends on knowledge in many linguistic categories. Other conventions lie literally beyond wordsin the domains of syntax and discourse. Each written language has its own devicesranging from word order to punctuationfor signaling writers intended meanings. Can writers generate complete sentences and use a languages markers (e.g., capitalization) to clearly express what is meant? Can they sequence and combine ideas, the target of the early instructional approach called sentence combining (e.g., OHare, 1973), recently revisited by Saddler and Graham (Saddler, Behforooz, & Asaro, 2008; Saddler & Graham, 2005)? Beyond the sentence level lie discourse structures such as those of narrative and exposition. Mature writing requires understanding not only of such structures features and purposes but of ways to signal their presence (e.g., by paragraphing, headers). As with ideation, we assume writers cumulative experiences with writing conventions to be reflected in self-efficacy judgments. In grappling with writing conventions, writers presumably gradually form a sense of their capabilities with this set of challenges and their likely future success in performing them. For instance, spelling self-efficacy both varies widely across individuals (e.g., Rankin, Bruning, & Timme, 1994) and correlates significantly with various writing-related measures, including writing selfefficacy, predictions of writing success, and writing performance itself (Klassen & Georgiou, 2008).

it gets difficult? and Can I manage my frustrations when my progress slows or stalls?

Summary of the Model and Introduction to the Present Studies

We have proposed three dimensions for a model of writing self-efficacy: self-efficacy for writing ideation, conventions, and self-regulation. Writings ideational processes include generating and shaping the concepts, principles, and reasoning upon which writing depends. Success in using conventions, in contrast, seems to draw more heavily on linguistic skills as writers choose from among a languages words, syntactic forms, and discourse structures in expressing their ideas. The final categoryself-efficacy for writing self-regulation can reasonably be identified with a writers self-management and affective control but also involves judgments about cognitive and linguistic features as writing is being produced. In the studies reported here, we describe tests of this model with two groups in which we expected writing-related efficacy judgments to be well formed. First, in a study of middle school students, we hypothesized that our writing self-efficacy data would be characterized by a three-factor structure consistent with our proposed framework. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test this hypothesis. If the data reflected the hypothesized framework, we then could test its generality with a sample of high school students and examine potential relationships to variables previously explored in writing self-efficacy research. These included students actual and self-reported writing performance, their liking of writing, and indicators of their general literacyrelated competence.

Writing Self-Efficacy: Self-Regulation

Self-efficacy for writing self-regulation is reflected in writers confidence they can direct themselves successfully through writings many dimensions and subtasks (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007). Having ideas to write about and command of writings conventions are essential to writing but not all of it. Writing can be difficult and tedious. Self-regulatory skills are needed not only to generate productive ideas and writing strategies but also to manage the anxieties and emotions that can accompany writing. As operationalized by Zimmerman and Bandura (1994), writing self-regulation includes activities providing a start to finish portrayal of writing a paper. Among them are the ability to find suitable writing topics, start writing without difficulty, capture readers interest early on, adjust writing style for varied audiences, clarify sentences by rewriting them, get unstuck from writing problems, motivate oneself to write even when a topic is less than captivating, and find and correct grammatical errors. Writers obviously need a variety of self-regulatory strategies to cope with such complexity. They need to coordinate syntactic and semantic knowledge, control aspects of the writing process as diverse as getting started and avoiding distractions (e.g., Hidi & Boscolo, 2006), and evaluate whether they are achieving their goals. Like self-efficacy for ideation and conventions, self-efficacy for self-regulation of writing likely varies greatly across writers (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994), with questions such as these pointing to some of writings key self-regulatory challenges: Can I get started writing? Can I keep my writing going, especially when

Study 1 Method
The goal of Study 1 was to test the adequacy of a three-factor model of writing self-efficacy. For this study, middle school students completed the Writing Habits and Beliefs Survey (WHBS), which included the Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale (SEWS) selfefficacy items. The WHBS, designed to yield information on students writing habits and motivations, also tapped students writing achievement goals (Kauffman et al., 2010; Zumbrunn, Bruning, Kauffman, & Hayes, 2010); implicit beliefs about writing (Bruning, Kauffman, Haines, & Zumbrunn, 2012; White & Bruning, 2005); and writing-related activities, habits, and attitudes (Zeleny & Yilmaz-Soylu, 2010: Zumbrunn, Kauffman, Hayes, & Yilmaz-Soylu, 2010). WHBS data relating to writing achievement goals, implicit beliefs, and habits extend beyond the present articles scope and are not reported here. Our hypothesis was that data yielded by the self-efficacy measure would closely fit the three-factor model previously described. As a first step in testing model fit, we proposed a single-factor model as a contrasting case, based on an assumption that the data would not reflect a multifactor structure. We then compared the fit of this single-factor model with the fit of our hypothesized threefactor model. Participants. Six hundred ninety-seven students from four middle schools in a midsize midwestern city completed the WHBS

30

BRUNING, DEMPSEY, KAUFFMAN, MCKIM, AND ZUMBRUNN

during the spring semester. The sample included all students enrolled in eighth grade English/language arts (ELA) classes. In the overall pool of Study 1 participants, of those reporting their grade level (n 694), 692 (99.7%) were eighth graders, one was a seventh grader, and one a ninth grader. Of those reporting gender (n 692), 327 (47.3%) were boys and 365 (52.7%) girls. Mean reported age (n 678) was 13.8 years; modal age was 14 (70.4%). Overall, approximately 62% of the participating students reported their racial ethnic status as Caucasian, 10% as African American, 8% as Latino/Latina, 5% as Asian/Pacific Islander, and 15% as multiracial or another ethnicity. Five hundred eighty-two (83.5%) reported that English was the primary language spoken at home; 110 students (16.5%) reported languages other than English primarily being spoken there. The proportions of students participating in free or reduced lunch programs in the four participating schools were 76%, 66%, 51%, and 23% (overall proportion in district middle schools 38.1%). Measures Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale (SEWS). SEWS consists of 16 items corresponding to the three posited categories of writingrelated experience: ideation, conventions, and self-regulation. Some of these items, primarily from the ideation and conventions categories, had been previously utilized in a study of college students (Dempsey, Bruning, & Kauffman, 2010), in which our goal was to obtain a general estimate of writing self-efficacy. We also examined items from Pajares (2007), Zimmerman and Bandura (1994), and those of Shell et al. (1995, 1989) as we began to formulate and operationalize the framework for the current study. As the framework was further refined through discussions within our research team and in consultations with school personnel, a new, expanded set of items reflecting the hypothesized three-factor structure was created and pilot-tested with a second set of college students. A near-final set of items was again reviewed by school personnel, who suggested changes in wording and methods of

survey administration to make the measure more suitable for students in middle and high school. The final version of the 16 SEWS items can be seen in Table 1. Five items were designed to represent idea generation, five conventions, and six writing self-regulation. Following methods suggested by Bandura (2006) and utilized by other self-efficacy researchers (Pajares, Hartley, & Valiante, 2001; Shell et al., 1989), participants rated their self-efficacy on each item on a 0 to 100 scale ranging from no confidence to complete confidence. Analyses of SEWS item performance and factor structure were the primary goals of this study. Permission for conducting the study was obtained from the university institutional review board, the schools district office, and principals of the participating schools. A letter from the senior researchers informing parents/guardians about the study and its purposes was distributed to ELA teachers and sent home with their students. It stated that students would be completing a writingrelated survey (the WBHS) in their ELA classes that would take 1520 min to complete, that results were confidential, and that participation in the study was voluntary and would have no effect on their students grades or relationships with teachers or the school. No students declined participation. Surveys were administered during class time in the students assigned classrooms by their teachers. The teachers read general instructions for completing the survey, which indicated that there were no correct or incorrect answers and that students should raise their hands if they had any questions. While there was no time limit for completing the survey, the instructions to teachers indicated that when most of the students had finished, they could suggest that all students try to finish in the next minute or two. Feedback received from teachers indicated that students completed the survey comfortably within the 20-min time frame. When finished, students returned their surveys to their teachers, who forwarded them on to the district office.

Table 1 Final Model Parameters for a Three-Factor Model of Writing Self-Efficacy: Middle School Students
Factor and item Factor loading Ideation 1.000 0.978 1.018 0.991 0.928 Conventions 1.000 0.920 1.281 1.381 0.843 Self-regulation 1.000 0.984 0.964 0.742 0.826 0.803 Standard error Standardized value

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I I I I I

can think of many ideas for my writing. can put my ideas into writing. can think of many words to describe my ideas. can think of a lot of original ideas. know exactly where to place my ideas in my writing.

0.000 0.041 0.041 0.043 0.042

0.799 0.823 0.838 0.800 0.770

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

I I I I I

can can can can can

spell my words correctly. write complete sentences. punctuate my sentences correctly. write grammatically correct sentences. begin my paragraphs in the right spots.

0.000 0.058 0.073 0.077 0.062

0.636 0.728 0.835 0.869 0.595

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

I I I I I I

can can can can can can

focus on my writing for at least one hour. avoid distractions while I write. start writing assignments quickly. control my frustration when I write. think of my writing goals before I write. keep writing even when its difficult.

0.000 0.042 0.041 0.043 0.042 0.039

0.803 0.806 0.816 0.634 0.701 0.734

DIMENSIONS OF WRITING SELF-EFFICACY

31

Results
We first sought to determine goodness of fit of the SEWS data to a single-factor model and to our proposed three-factor model. The criteria and standards used to judge model fit (see Hu & Bentler, 1999) included the comparative fit index (CFI; values above 0.95 indicate very good fit, and those at or above 0.90 indicate reasonable fit; Bentler, 1990), Steigers root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; values below 0.05 indicate a very good fit, and those at or below 0.10 indicate a reasonable fit; Steiger, 1990), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR; 0.05; Hu & Bentler, 1999). This constellation of fit statistics conforms to recommended strategies for evaluating fit of structural models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We first fit the data from SEWS to the single-factor model. The fit was unacceptable, 2(104) 1,750.205, p .001, CFI 0.750, RMSEA 0.151, SRMR 0.094, indicating that this model did not adequately explain the datas structure. We then fit the data to the hypothesized three-factor model. The fit this time was acceptable, 2(101) 439.152, p .001, CFI 0.949, RMSEA 0.069, SRMR 0.046, and was significantly better than the one-factor model, 2(3) 1,311.053, p .001. The fitted data, which encompassed all 16 items, was consistent with the proposed model, so no further models were tested. Factor loadings are presented in Table 1. Mean ratings of self-efficacy were 70.46 (SD 20.49), 79.31 (SD 16.44), and 61.31 (SD 23.26) for the ideation, conventions, and self-regulation subscales, respectively. Distributions for each showed significant (p .001) levels of negative skewness ( 0.804, 1.450, and 0.513, respectively; all SEs 0.093), indicating that student ratings of writing self-efficacy tended toward higher levels of the rating scale and were not normally distributed. The three scales showed significant positive correlations with one another. The correlation between ideation and self-regulation was strong (r .718), while conventions was moderately correlated with both ideation (r .526) and selfregulation (r .463). Reliabilities for each of the factor-related subscales also were high. Alpha for the five items related to the ideation factor was 0.903, for the five conventions items 0.847, and for the six self-regulation items 0.884.

examine relationships of its dimensions to other variables in this new sample.

Study 2 Method
Overview. Data for Study 2 were gathered from high school students in the same school system as students in Study 1. Like Study 1 participants, Study 2 participantsmostly 11th graders completed the comprehensive survey of writing habits, the WHBS. The majority of these students would take the states statewide writing assessment (SWA) approximately one month later. Our goals in Study 2 were to (1) use CFA to test the generalizability of the three-factor self-efficacy for writing model and (2) contingent on the CFA findings replicating those at the middle school level, examine SEWS factors relationships to other variables, which included liking writing, SWA performance, self-reported writing grades, and English/language arts (ELA) class enrollment. As in Study 1, the WHBS tapped additional student data (e.g., achievement goal orientation, implicit beliefs about writing) not reported here. Participants. Five hundred sixty-three 11th and 12th graders in two public high schools in a midwestern city completed the survey during the spring semester. The four middle schools from which Study 1 participants were drawn served as feeder schools for these two schools. Of participants reporting their grade level (n 557), 520 (93.4%) were 11th graders and 37 (6.6%) were 12th graders; of those reporting gender (n 553), 292 (52.8%) were boys and 261 (47.2%) girls. Mean reported age (n 537) was 16.76 (SD 0.77), with a modal age of 17. Overall, approximately 70% of the participating students were Caucasian, 7% African American, 6% Latino/Latina, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 10% multiracial or of another ethnicity. Four hundred eighty (87%) of the participants reported that English was the primary language spoken at home, while 75 students reported languages other than English primarily being spoken there. Proportions of students participating in free or reduced lunch programs in the participating schools were 45% and 22% (overall proportion in district high schools 31.0%). SWA scores in the schools database that could be matched to our survey data set were available for 470 students. These students demographics mirrored those in the overall survey sample. English class enrollment. All participants were enrolled in one of four ELA courses in their high schools: General English (GE), Composition (Comp), American Literature and Composition (ALC), and Advanced Placement Language and Composition (APLC). General English is the most basic of the classes. As described in information provided by school personnel, GE is designed for juniors and seniors needing further work in developing language and composition skills needed to meet the schools graduation demonstration requirement. The class focuses on building writing skills through narrative and expository writing; students study a variety of American fiction and nonfiction, as well as magazines and newspaper articles. They also receive instruction in study skills and strategies. Thirty-seven (6.6%) of our participants were enrolled in GE, 12 of whom reported a language other than English being spoken at home.

Discussion
The purpose of Study 1 was to test the extent to which responses to SEWS items fit the proposed model of self-efficacy of writing. Results revealed evidence for SEWS capture of three dimensions of self-efficacy for writing generating writing ideas; expressing them within writings linguistic forms; and managing the behavioral, mental, and emotional challenges of writing. Although differences in levels of self-efficacy cannot be judged directly from mean ratings of different item types, there plainly were some sizeable differences by category, with these middle school students on average rating their confidence highest for carrying out writing conventions and lowest on their ability to manage writings selfregulatory dimension. Based on Study 1 results consistent with the proposed threefactor model, we then turned to a new sample high school studentsto test the models generality. If high school students performance also was consistent with the model, we then would

32

BRUNING, DEMPSEY, KAUFFMAN, MCKIM, AND ZUMBRUNN

Composition, in which 31 participants (5.5%) were enrolled (11 reporting a language other than English spoken at home), is the next-level class. This class is intended to help students acquire skills in narrative, expository, and persuasive writing through guided practice, which focuses on writing processes and products and includes study of the students own and others writings. Study of the English language and effective research techniques also are included. This course can be taken as an alternative to meet the writing graduation demonstration requirement. The majority of our participants (n 323, 57%) were enrolled in American Literature and Composition classes. Of these, 40 reported that a language other than English was spoken at home. Students in these classes study literature of the Americas reflecting a multicultural society and its history. They read and discuss short stories, novels, folklore, drama, poetry, essays, and biographies. Emphasis in written composition is placed on expository form and style and on critical responses to literature and film. Finally, just over 30% (n 172) of our participants were enrolled in Advanced Placement Language and Composition, the most advanced of the classes. Twelve of these students reported that English was not the primary language spoken at home. This course is designed to help students become skilled readers of prose written in a variety of rhetorical styles and skilled writers who compose for a variety of purposes. Writing and reading activities are designed to help students become aware of interactions among a writers purposes, audience, and subjects, as well as how language conventions and resources make writing effective. Measures Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale (SEWS). The SEWS measure administered to the high school students in Study 2 was identical to that given to the middle school students in Study 1, consisting of 16 items representing self-efficacy for performing in three writing-related dimensions: ideation, conventions, and selfregulation. As in Study 1, the high school students rated their writing self-efficacy on a 0 to 100 scale (Bandura, 2006). Liking Writing Scale (LWS). Four Likert-type items were constructed to provide general information about the extent of students positive attitudes about writing. These items were (1) I enjoy writing, (2) I dont like to write (reverse-coded), (3) writing is fun, and (4) I feel bad when I write (reverse-coded). Students rated items on a 5-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. CFA results revealed a good fit between the LWS data and a one-factor solution, 2(2) 4.72, p .0942, CFI 0.998, RMSEA 0.049, SRMR 0.012, and item analysis showed good reliability for the LWS ( .831). Self-reported writing performance. Students reported their writing-related grades in two school-related contexts for the current year: (1) on writing assignments in their ELA classes and (2) on writing assignments in other classes. For each, they were asked to indicate if their current-year writing assignment grades were all or mostly all A or A, B or B, C or C, D or D, or F. Each self-reported grade category was coded on a 5-point scale (A or A 5, B or B 4, etc.) and the two scores combined to create a single writing performance index ( .774). Statewide writing assessment (SWA). Approximately one month after completing the WHBS, which included the above measures, most of these same students took part in the states statewide writing assessment (SWA), writing to a prompt ask-

ing them to create a persuasive essay. SWA procedures involved a first day, in which students received the prompt and planned their response, and a second, in which they completed their writing (Dappen, Isernhagen, & Anderson, 2008). In the administration in which our participants were involved, each of the approximately 22,000 essays generated statewide at each grade level was then hand-scored in a central location in the state in a 3-day session by practicing teachers familiar with student writing at the grade level being assessed. Each students writing sample was judged by two trained raters, who first reviewed each paper based on the analytic criteria of the 6-Trait Writing Model (Spandel, 2005)ideas and content, organization, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions, and voice and then assigned global ratings on a 1 4 scale. Thus, all participants in the SWA, including ours, received a rating that was the sum of the two individual ratings and ranged from 2 8. Reliabilities for the SWA scoring procedure generally have been acceptable. For the 2007 SWA, for instance, 49% of rater pairs produced exact categorical matches, and 48% of raters placed papers in adjacent categories; only 3% of papers required adjudication (Nebraska Department of Education, 2007). SWA scores for the students in our high school sample were made available for our research through a blinded process in which the school systems evaluation personnel matched students SWA scores provided by the state to our survey data and then forwarded an anonymous data set back to us. Procedures. Permission for conducting Study 2 was obtained from our universitys institutional review board, the schools district office, and the participating schools principals. A letter informing parents/guardians of the study and its purposes was distributed to the schools ELA teachers and sent home with the students. It stated that students would complete a 15- to 20-min writing-related survey in class, that results were confidential, and that participation in the study was voluntary and would have no effect on student grades or relationships with teachers or the school. No students declined participation. In addition to completing the SEWS and LWS as part of the WHBS, students also reported which of the four high school ELA courses they were enrolled in; their writing-related grades in ELA and other classes; and their age, gender, and ethnicity. Surveys were administered during class time in the students assigned ELA classrooms by their teachers. As in Study 1, teachers gave students general instructions for responding to the survey and told them there was no time limit. When students finished, they returned the completed surveys to their teachers, who forwarded them to the school district office.

Results
Tests of model fit. We tested the new datas fit to the threefactor model observed in Study 1, again employing the generally accepted criteria used to judge model fit (see Hu & Bentler, 1999); these included the comparative fit index (CFI), Steigers (1990) root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR; Hu & Bentler, 1999). The fit of SEWS 16 items to the three-factor model in the high school data was acceptable, 2(101) 361.489, p .001, CFI

DIMENSIONS OF WRITING SELF-EFFICACY

33

0.953, RMSEA 0.069, SRMR 0.045.1 Because this model reflected both theoretical predictions and current data, no further models were tested. Loadings of SEWS items on the three factors are presented in Table 2. Mean ratings of writing self-efficacy were 73.56 (SD 18.99), 84.39 (SD 14.43), and 62.63 (SD 23.02) for the ideation, conventions, and self-regulation subscales, respectively. As in Study 1, subscale distributions were negatively skewed (skewness 1.018, 1.677, and 0.589, respectively; SEs 0.104, 0.103, and 0.104, respectively; ps .001). The three factors showed medium to high correlations with one another. The correlation between writing ideation self-efficacy and self-regulatory self-efficacy again was the strongest (r .707, p .001), while self-efficacy for writing conventions was moderately correlated with self-efficacy for ideation (r .530, p .001) and selfregulation (r .440, p .001). Alphas for the writing ideation, conventions, and self-regulation self-efficacy subscales were high 0.923, 0.858, and 0.874, respectivelyparalleling Study 1 findings. Relationship of SEWS to other variables. Table 3 shows correlations among SEWS subscales, the LWS, self-reported writing grades, and student SWA performance. Each of the three SEWS subscales showed significant positive correlations to the LWS (p .001). While the correlations between ideation (r .487) and self-regulation (r .497) subscale scores with the LWS did not differ from one another (Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin, 1992), both were significantly greater (p .001) than the relationship between the SEWS conventions scale and the LWS (r .225). Each of the three SEWS subscales also showed significant (p .001) moderate positive correlations with self-reported writing performance (rs ranging from .357 to .404). The relationships of SEWS subscales to SWA performance were considerably more variable, however, with positive but relatively low relationships between SEWS ideation and SWA scores (r .203) and between self-regulation and SWA scores (r .206), compared with a significantly higher (p .001) relationship between SEWS conventions and SWA scores (r .378). Self-reported writing performance in school was moderately related (r .332, p .001) to scores on the SWA. Table 4 presents mean scores for the SEWS measure, the LWS, for self-reported writing performance, and SWA performance as a function of ELA class enrollment. Potential differences by class enrollment on each of the SEWS dimensions, the LWS, and the performance measures were tested by means of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Because of the multiple tests of significance, evidence of heterogeneity of variance in some tests, and uneven ns among the groups, alpha levels for all tests and followups were set at p .01. ANOVAs showed that mean scores on all variables differed significantly by group (see Table 4), with ratings on all categories of beliefs (SEWS ideation, conventions, and self-regulation variables; LWS scores) and performance scores (self-reported writing grades, SWA scores) trending higher at each higher level of ELA enrollment. Follow-up tests using Tukeys honestly significant difference analysis showed that APLC students scored significantly higher in SEWS self-efficacy for writing ideation than all other groups, while GE students scored significantly lower than all other groups. On the SEWS self-efficacy for writing conventions scale, students in ALC and APLC classes scored higher than did those in Comp classes, who in turn scored

higher than did GE students. On SEWS self-efficacy for writing self-regulation subscale, APLC students scored higher than did GE and Comp students. On the LWS, APLC students indicated significantly more positive feelings about writing than did GE students. APLC and ALC students reported receiving significantly better grades on their classroom-related writing than did students in GE and Comp groups. Finally, students in the APLC and ALC classes scored significantly higher on the SWA than did the Comp students, who in turn scored significantly better than did the GE students.

Discussion
The purposes of Study 2 were to (1) use CFA to test the generalizability of the three-factor self-efficacy for writing model in a new sample of students and, assuming good model fit, to (2) examine SEWS factors relationships with other writing-related constructs. Consistent with Study 1s findings with middle school students, Study 2 results for high school students supported a multifactor conceptualization of writing self-efficacy, with high school students responses to the three SEWS subscalesselfefficacy for writing ideation, writing conventions, and writing self-regulation closely matching the proposed three-factor model. Positive relationships among SEWS subscale scores also were noted. Self-efficacy for writing ideation and self-regulation shared nearly 50% of their variance (r .707), while self-efficacy for conventions again had significantly less in common with either of these dimensions (rs .530 and .440, respectively). Our measure of writing affect, the LWS, was considerably more strongly related to self-efficacy for meeting the ideational and selfregulatory challenges of writing (rs .487 and .497, respectively) than to self-efficacy for conventions (r .225). These findings suggest a commonality between confidence for managing writings cognitive and metacognitive dimensions that has stronger ties to feelings about writing than confidence in ones ability to carry out writings conventions. Significant differences were present in the high school group in patterns of relationships of SEWS subscale scores with selfreported writing grades and SWA scores. As can been seen in Table 3, correlations are moderate, positive, and roughly equivalent between the SEWS ideation, conventions, and self-regulation dimensions and self-reported writing performance (rs .357, .404, and .394, respectively). For SWA performance, however, this approximate level of relationship to the writing self-efficacy subscales was present only for writing conventions (r .378). Although significant, the relationships between self-efficacy for writing ideation and SWA scores (r .203) and self-efficacy for writing self-regulation and SWA scores (r .206) were significantly lower, with each sharing less than 5% of variance with SWA performance. Liking writing had only a small relationship (r .133) to SWA performance, with less than 2% of variance shared. Overall, the relationships noted in this study between the writing beliefs measures (i.e., self-efficacy, liking writing) and SWA per1 The model fit statistics were essentially the same when tested with and without students reporting a language other than English as the primary language spoken at home. The model reported here is based on all students in the pool.

34

BRUNING, DEMPSEY, KAUFFMAN, MCKIM, AND ZUMBRUNN

Table 2 Final Model Parameters for a Three-Factor Model of Writing Self-Efficacy: High School Students
Factor and item Factor loading Ideation 1.000 1.036 1.052 0.986 1.016 Conventions 1.000 0.829 1.253 1.297 0.919 Self-regulation 1.000 0.983 1.056 0.832 0.929 0.901 Standard error Standardized value

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I I I I I

can think of many ideas for my writing. can put my ideas into writing. can think of many words to describe my ideas. can think of a lot of original ideas. know exactly where to place my ideas in my writing.

0.000 0.041 0.042 0.042 0.043

0.841 0.863 0.848 0.820 0.826

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

I I I I I

can can can can can

spell my words correctly. write complete sentences. punctuate my sentences correctly. write grammatically correct sentences. begin my paragraphs in the right spots.

0.000 0.059 0.077 0.079 0.070

0.645 0.703 0.857 0.869 0.643

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

I I I I I I

can can can can can can

focus on my writing for at least one hour. avoid distractions while I write. start writing assignments quickly. control my frustration when I write. think of my writing goals before I write. keep writing even when its difficult.

0.000 0.053 0.052 0.051 0.050 0.047

0.769 0.768 0.820 0.679 0.766 0.784

formance are relatively modest. At least two factors may have contributed to this. First, approximately a month passed between the administration of the writing beliefs measures and when students took the SWA, which creates the potential for other factors to moderate the relationship between confidence about performance and actual performance. Ideally, such measures should be administered contextually and in close temporal contiguity to the performance. Second, the SEWS measure, while designed to yield scores for subdomains of writing performance, is not focused on specific writing tasks and genres. That is, SEWS provides information about confidence for performing identifiable dimensions of the writing process, but in its present form it does not query self-efficacy for performance on writing assessments or any other specific writing task or genre. Future research involving more targeted measures of writing self-efficacy designed to explore such relationships should prove valuable.

Writing self-efficacy beliefs of students across the four ELA classes differed significantly on all three SEWS factors, showing that student beliefs about performing capably in writing-related tasks are tied to class placement along multiple dimensions. APLC students on average reported significantly higher self-efficacy for writing ideation than did all other groups, for instance, while GE students reported lower self-efficacy for their ability to generate ideas for writing than did students in all other classes. Other differences were that APLC and ALC students had higher selfefficacy for writing conventions than did students in Comp and GE classes, while APLC students judged their ability to self-regulate their writing activities significantly more positively than did both the GE and Comp students. If, as Bandura (1986) has argued, enactive mastery in any domain is the most reliable route to building self-efficacy, differential experiences and success as writers seem likely to have

Table 3 Relationships Among SEWS Self-Efficacy Variables, Liking Writing, and Self-Reported and Test-Based Writing Performance for High School Students
Self-reported writing performance 0.357 (N 550) 0.404 (N 553) 0.394 (N 551) 0.256 (N 553) Statewide writing assessment (SWA)a 0.203 (N 457) 0.378 (N 460) 0.206 (N 457) 0.133 (N 462) 0.332 (N 455)

Measure SEWS: Ideation SEWS: Conventions SEWS: Self-regulation Liking Writing Scale (LWS) Self-reported writing performance

SEWS: Conventions 0.530 (N 555)

SEWS: Self-regulation 0.707 (N 554) 0.440 (N 554)

Liking Writing Scale (LWS) 0.487 (N 553) 0.225 (N 557) 0.497 (N 553)

Note. All correlations, with the exception of the relationship between the LWS and SWA (p .003), are significant at p .001. SEWS Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale. a Our sample included all students enrolled in 11th grade English/language arts classes at participating schools. Ns are lower for SWA comparisons because not all of these students took the SWA. Demographic data showed that approximately 30% of these missing students were 12th graders enrolled in these classes who could not have taken the SWA, which is given only to 11th graders. Correlations run with and without 12th graders produced nearly identical results for all relationships.

DIMENSIONS OF WRITING SELF-EFFICACY

35

Table 4 Mean SEWS Writing Ideation, Conventions, and Self-Regulation Self-Efficacy; LWS Scores; Self-Reported Writing Performance; and SWA Performance by High School Students ELA Class Enrollment
English/language arts class enrollment Measure SEWS: Ideation SEWS: Conventions SEWS: Self- regulation Liking Writing Scale (LWS) Self-reported writing performance Statewide writing assessment (SWA) GE (n 37) M (SD) 62.05 (24.69) 64.66 (20.06) 53.71 (24.51) 3.10 (0.90) 7.17 (2.06) 3.95 (1.64) Comp (n 31) M (SD) 69.40 (19.13) 72.17 (16.12) 53.73 (20.76) 3.41 (0.78) 6.74 (1.48) 4.86 (1.68) ALC (n 323) M (SD) 72.39 (19.84) 84.65 (13.70) 60.60 (23.31) 3.33 (0.95) 8.15 (1.40) 5.98 (1.17) APLC (n 172) M (SD) 78.84 (13.93) 90.19 (7.78) 69.66 (20.82) 3.71 (0.85) 8.93 (1.08) 6.73 (0.74) F 10.22 49.15 9.95 8.53 34.70 61.59 p .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 MSE 343.57 165.85 506.70 0.822 1.875 1.191 Effect size .053 .211 .052 .044 .160 .287

Note. SEWS ratings ranged from 0 (no confidence) to 100 (completely confident), LWS scores from 1 to 5, self-reported writing performance scores from 2 to 10, and SWA scores from 2 to 8. Ns for the SWA analysis were 28, 14, 254, and 166 for the four groups, respectively. The effect size index is partial 2. SEWS Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale; LWS Liking Writing Scale; SWA statewide writing assessment; ELA English/language arts: GE General English; Comp Composition; ALC American Literature and Composition; APLC Advanced Placement Language and Composition; MSE mean square error.

played a role in the formation of these students self-efficacy beliefs. For instance, students in the APLC and ALC classes had significantly higher SWA scores than did the GE and Comp students and reported receiving significantly better writing-related grades. As can be seen in Table 4, these performance differences were substantial, especially between the least and most advanced groups. There also were considerable differences in attitudes toward writing between the groups at the high and low ends of the class placement continuum (APLC and GE groups), although ratings of feelings about writing were moderately positive overall in Study 2s high school sample, averaging 3.43 on a 5-point scale. One possible source of self-efficacy differences was a significant, 2(3, N 552) 31.19, p .001, disproportionality among the proportions of students reporting that a language other than English was the primary language spoken in their home. These proportions were 32% and 35% in the GE and Comp courses, respectively, compared with only 12% in the ALC and 7% in the APLC classes. However, post hoc analyses showed no significant differences in SWA scores in any of the classes between students reporting English and those reporting a language other than English as the primary language spoken at home. Future research explicitly focusing on such factors as language background and course-related experiences will be needed to provide a better account of such factors influence on writing self-efficacy.

General Discussion
The two studies reported here establish an empirical foundation for multifactorial models of writing self-efficacy and for other writing self-efficacy measures based on such views. The logic underlying this studys three-part model, which divided the writing act into ideational, expressive, and self-regulatory dimensions, is that writers sort their views of their capabilities for carrying out writing-related tasks into recognizable categories. Such categories, we argue, can be both theoretically and practically meaningful. In Flower and Hayes models of writing (e.g., Flower & Hayes, 1981, 1984; Hayes, 1996, 2012), for example, writers are portrayed as calling on their topical and world knowledge to generate and organize writing-related ideas. We recognize a second category of self-efficacy beliefs as having more direct ties to the craft of

writingsuccessfully translating ideas into linguistic forms. Although some might underestimate the importance of writing mechanics, they in fact are a key to successful writingthe ability to express what one wants to say by putting the world on paper (Olson, 1994). Self-efficacy for self-regulation also seems to occupy at least some part of every writers judgments of him- or herself as a writer. Individuals can form at least some conclusions about their capabilities for articulating writing goals, embarking on writing tasks, and keeping at writing, especially when it becomes difficult. Analyses of these two sets of data show that middle and high school students responded to the categories represented by SEWS items in similar ways and provide initial evidence for the utility of measuring separable dimensions of writing self-efficacy. Students enrolled in different levels of high school English/language arts classes, for instance, showed significant differences in levels of writing-related self-efficacy on each of the SEWS subscales, which themselves showed varying relationships to different writing outcome measures. Self-efficacy for writing conventions and scores on a formal measure of writing, the SWA, also shared significantly more variance than did self-efficacy for ideation and self-regulation and the SWA. In contrast, the significantly greater relationships between liking writing and self-efficacy for writing ideation and writing self-regulation than between liking writing and self-efficacy for writing conventions hint at the possibility of greater affect associated with writers confidence for thinking of good ideas (ideation) and managing the writing process (selfregulation) than with believing they can capably execute writings conventions. The SEWS measure may have potential utility for research in both theoretical and applied domains. Because it ties more explicitly than does general self-efficacy measures to dimensions of writing performance yet samples them reasonably broadly, the data it yields could be useful in studies of instructional interventions and outcomes. Future studies using SEWS or another multifaceted measure of writing self-efficacy, for example, could extend earlier studies of writing self-efficacy development by providing finer grained data on developmental patterns (e.g., Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Shell et al., 1995) and gender-related differences (Pajares et

36

BRUNING, DEMPSEY, KAUFFMAN, MCKIM, AND ZUMBRUNN

al., 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 2001) in writing self-efficacy. Because of their relative brevity and straightforwardness, such measures may also lend themselves to evaluations of writing-based interventions or use in connection with standardized measures of writing performance. Although we are optimistic about this approach thus far, we recognize several limitations in the work reported here. First, we do not view the three-part model operationalized in the current studies as adequately representing writings complexities but as only one of many potentially useful frameworks for measuring writing self-efficacy that could be proposed. In constructing the current model, we deliberately limited our perspective to selfefficacy for accomplishing activities happening during the writing act. We excluded planning, for instance, because we judged that it does not occur with every writer and writing occasion. There doubtless are also other important dimensions of writing (e.g., revision) about which writers may hold self-efficacy beliefs that are both sensitive to differences in writers backgrounds or developmental levels and tied to writing success. Second, this study does not address issues of genre or other contextual factors tied to writing self-efficacy. It seems highly probable that, for most writers, self-efficacy differs substantially by type of writing and writing contexts. For instance, there obviously are many genres (e.g., poetry, narrative, exposition) and categories of content to write about (e.g., science, history, sports) for which writers self-efficacy would vary widely. Third, in the current study we examined writing self-efficacys connections to only a relatively limited number of writing-related variables and theoretical issues. As we continue our research, however, we expect to further probe relationships of different categories of writing self-efficacy to other motivational and epistemological variables (e.g., goal orientation, implicit beliefs about writing), as well as to developmental and gender-related differences in writing self-efficacy. Finally, as indicated above, the present studies provide only minimal information about the sources of students writing selfefficacy beliefs. As we move forward, however, we expect to tie measures of self-efficacy to students writing experiences and to interventions targeted at specific dimensions of the writing process. In spite of these limitations, we hope that the current research will suggest new approaches to investigating writing self-efficacy, along with potential ways of conceptualizing efficacy for other foundational skills (e.g., reading) or subject-matter areas (e.g., mathematics, science). In our view, self-efficacy research becomes stronger to the extent that it maps onto key processes and capabilities underlying successful performance in domains of interest. We thus interpret Banduras (2006) and Pajaress (1999) recommendations to make self-efficacy scales domain-specific as not only implying a need to link self-efficacy items to learners developmental levels and specific contexts but as a call to specify the domain-related cognitive, procedural, and self-regulatory subskills underlying successful performance in the domain. Of course, this is much easier said than done. A basic challenge is to get the level of specificity just rightneither so broad that we gain minimal understanding about learners self-efficacy for engaging in domain-critical tasks nor so specific that we learn little about their confidence for engaging generally in a domain. Another challenge is that theoretical models for different domains

vary widely; within even a single domain (e.g., reading, mathematics), a given model and associated measures will reflect only one of many potentially valid frameworks for representing domain-related self-efficacy. Nonetheless, we believe that the present study points to the possibility of advances in self-efficacy research through improved alignment of self-efficacy measures with theory-based models of student learning and performance.

References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide to constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22, 185200. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5 Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238 246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bong, M. (2006). Asking the right question: How confident are you that you could successfully perform these tasks? In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 287303). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35, 2537. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3501_4 Bruning, R., Kauffman, D., Haines, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2012, April). Implicit beliefs about writing, liking writing, and writing performance of 8th graders, 11th graders, and college students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80 98. doi:10.1177/ 0741088301018001004 Cruse, A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, A. (2004). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Dappen, L., Isernhagen, J., & Anderson, S. (2008). A statewide writing assessment model: Student proficiency and future implications. Assessing Writing, 13, 45 60. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2008.04.001 Dempsey, M., Bruning, R., & Kauffman, D. (2010). An empirical test of a new model of self-efficacy for writing. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167188. doi:10.1207/ s1532799xssr0902_4 Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Fayol, M., Alamargot, D., & Berninger, V. W. (Eds.). (2012). Translation of thought to written text while composing. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21 32. doi:10.2307/356630 Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365387. doi:10.2307/ 356600

DIMENSIONS OF WRITING SELF-EFFICACY Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1984). The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1, 120 160. doi:10.1177/ 0741088384001001006 Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 457 478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445 476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445 Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Self-regulated strategy development for 2nd-grade students who struggle with writing. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 295340. doi:10.3102/ 00028312043002295 Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 127). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hayes, J. R. (2006). New directions in writing theory. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 28 40). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hayes, J. R. (2012). Evidence from language bursts, revision, and transcription for translation and its relation to other writing processes. In M. Fayol, D. Alamargot, & V. W. Berninger (Eds.), Translation of thought to written text while composing (pp. 1525). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2006). Motivation and writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 144 157). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Kauffman, D. K., Zhao, R., Dempsey, M., Zeleny, M., Wang, S., & Bruning, R. (2010). How writing goals impact high school students affect, self-efficacy beliefs, and achievement within writing-intensive high school courses. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1, 126. Klassen, R. (2002). Writing in early adolescence: A review of the role of self-efficacy beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 173203. doi: 10.1023/A:1014626805572 Klassen, R., & Georgiou, G. (2008). Spelling and writing self-efficacy of Indo-Canadian and Anglo-Canadian early adolescents. International Migration and Integration, 9, 311326. doi:10.1007/s12134-008-0068-6 Kuo, L., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-cultural perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161180. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3 Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing: A different view of self-evaluation. College Composition and Communication, 36, 465 471. doi:10.2307/357865 McCutchen, D., Teske, P., & Bankston, C. (2008). Writing and cognition: Implications of the cognitive architecture for learning to write and writing to learn. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 451 470). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172175. Myhill, D. (2008). Towards a linguistic model of sentence development in writing. Language and Education, 22, 271288. Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elemen-

37

tary and middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134 147. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.134 Nebraska Department of Education. (2007). Nebraska Department of Education 2007 Statewide Writing Assessment for Grades 4, 8, and 11: Scoring Report. Lincoln, NE: Author. OHare, F. (1973). Sentence combining: Improving student writing without formal grammar instruction. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139 158. doi:10.1080/10573560308222 Pajares, F. (2007). Empirical properties of a scale to assess writing selfefficacy in school contexts. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 39, 239 249. Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 406 422. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1027 Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214 221. Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1994). Confidence and competence in writing: The role of writing self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 313331. Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in the writing of high school students: A path analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 163175. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6807(199604)33:2 163::AIDPITS103.0.CO;2-C Pajares, F., Miller, M. D., & Johnson, M. J. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-beliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 50 61. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.50 Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students writing. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353360. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 390 405. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0995 Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement of middle school students: A function of gender orientation? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 366 381. doi: 10.1006/ceps.2000.1069 Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 158 170). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Rankin, J. L., Bruning, R. H., & Timme, V. L. (1994). The development of beliefs about spelling and their relationship to spelling performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 213232. doi:10.1002/acp .2350080303 Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511732942 Saddler, B., Behforooz, B., & Asaro, K. (2008). The effects of sentencecombining instruction on the writing of fourth-grade students with writing difficulties. Journal of Special Education, 42, 79 90. doi: 10.1177/0022466907310371 Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentencecombining instruction on the writing performance of more and less skilled young writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 4354. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.43 Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). At last: The meaning in grammar. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 121128.

38

BRUNING, DEMPSEY, KAUFFMAN, MCKIM, AND ZUMBRUNN Zeleny, M., & Yilmaz-Soylu, M. (2010). Writing habits and attitudes of adolescents: A look at the roles of technology-enhanced and traditional writing in adolescent lives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Ft. Worth, TX. Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845 862. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 241250. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.241 Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660 668. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.660 Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). A writers discipline: The development of self-regulatory skill. In S. Hidi & P. Boscolo (Eds.), Motivation and writing: Research and school practice (pp. 51 69). New York, NY: Kluwer. Zumbrunn, S. K., Bruning, R. H., Kauffman, D. F., & Hayes, M. (2010). Explaining determinants of confidence and success in the elementary writing classroom. Poster presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO. Zumbrunn, S. K., Kauffman, D. F., Hayes, M., & Yilmaz-Soylu, M. (2010). How writing achievement goals and self-efficacy relate to college writing goals and grade point averages. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO.

Schraw, G. (2006). Knowledge: Structures and processes. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 245264). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing childrens selfefficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 725. doi:10.1080/ 10573560600837578 Shell, D., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. (1995). Developmental and ability differences in self-efficacy, causal attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386 398. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.386 Shell, D., Murphy, C., & Bruning, R. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 91100. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91 Spandel, V. (2005). Creating writers through 6-trait writing assessment and instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173180. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4 Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (1996). Finding something to write about: Strategic and automatic processes in idea generation. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 199 205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 332. White, M. J., & Bruning, R. (2005). Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 166 189. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.002

Received February 16, 2011 Revision received June 19, 2012 Accepted June 27, 2012

Call for Papers: Special Issue Ethical, Regulatory, and Practical Issues in Telepractice
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice will publish a special issue on recent ethical, regulatory and practical issues related to telepractice. In its broadest definition the term telepractice refers to any contact with a client/patient other than face-to-face in person contact. Thus, telepractice may refer to contact on a single event or instance such as via the telephone or by means of electronic mail, social media (e.g., Facebook) or through the use of various forms of distance visual technology. We would especially welcome manuscripts ranging from the empirical examination of the broad topic related to telepractice to those manuscripts that focus on a particular subset of issues associated with telepractice. Although manuscripts that place an emphasis on empirical research are especially encouraged, we also would welcome articles on these topics that place an emphasis on theoretical approaches as well as an examination of the extant literature in the field. Finally, descriptions of innovative approaches are also welcome. Regardless of the type of article, all articles for the special issue will be expected to have practice implications to the clinical setting. Manuscripts may be sent electronically to the journal at http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/pro/index.aspx to the attention of Associate Editor, Janet R. Matthews, Ph.D.