Are Writing and Reading Motivational Beliefs Separable Constructs?

• In Event: Advancing Understanding of Oral Language, Motivation, Writing, and Shared Skills Between Reading and Writing

Abstract

Objectives: The current study examined if writing and reading motivations were separable constructs with four different motivational beliefs: attitudes, self-efficacy, goal orientation, and motives with Grade 7 to 9 students. Studies examining the separability of writing and reading motivational constructs have yielded mixed results. Mata (2011) found that items assessing enjoyment, value, and self-concept did not result in separate construct for reading and writing with kindergarten children. Likewise, Meece and Miller (1999) reported that separate constructs were not obtained for items assessing writing and reading goal orientation with Grade 1 students. However, Graham et al. (2012) did find that reading and writing attitudes were separable construct with primary grade students, whereas DeSmedt et al. (2020) reported that autonomous and controlled motivations for writing and reading were separable constructs with Grade 3 to 8 students.
Theory: The theoretical framework guiding this study was the Shared Knowledge Theory of Reading and Writing Relations (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). According to this theory, students draw on the same knowledge sources and cognitive systems when writing and reading. Given that writing and reading skills are significantly correlated with each other (Kim et al., 2024), it is possible that writing and reading motivations are not separable constructs. This proposition was tested here.
Methods: Participants were 563 Grade 7 to 9 students in in Macao, China (58% were male). Students completed surveys with Likert items assessing writing and reading motivational beliefs: (1) attitudes toward academic and recreational print and digital tasks, (2) autonomous and controlled motives, (3) self-efficacy, and (4) mastery, performance, and avoidance goal orientation. The surveys were administered on multiple days by teachers.
Data: The data from the administered surveys served as the data source.
Results: Models were fitted for each set of motivational belief scales for reading and writing separately using Weighted Least Square Mean and Variance Adjusted estimator in Mplus. The 4 factor motives model (autonomous writing, controlled writing, autonomous reading, controlled reading) was tested against 2 factor model of autonomous and controlled motives [each factor included relevant reading and writing items] and 1 factor model with all items. For all four analyses (attitude, motives, efficacy, and goal orientation), the 4 factor model had the best fit and demonstrated a statistically better fit than the other models (ps < .001) which did not include separate constructs for writing and reading motivational beliefs. Weak to moderate correlations were found between writing and reading constructs.
Significance: Motivational beliefs serve as the catalysts for students’ literacy actions and performance. Our findings demonstrate that beliefs in these two related domains can be viewed as separate constructs. Since a basic goal of literacy is to develop motivated writers and readers, this study provides researchers and teachers with evidence that assessing writing and reading motivational beliefs separately is valid.

Authors

• Steve Graham, Arizona State University

• Tien Ping Hsiang, University of Macau

• Gustaf Bernhard Uno Skar, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

• Falynn Thompson, University of Toledo

• Zhisheng Wang, University of Macau