hawthorne journal

8/3/2019 Hawthorne Journal

1/14

Students beliefs about barriers to engagement with writing in secondary school English:

A focus group studyI

Sean HawthorneW E S T E R N S P R I N G S C O L L E G E , A U C K L A N D

This paper presents ndings about student beliefs regarding the barriers th face in engaging with writing tasks in English. The participants were 28 Ye10 English students from two Auckland secondary schools. The studenrepresented engaged writers and reluctant writers from the two schools. Resusuggest that interest in a topic and the perceived relevance of the task to tstudent is the main factor inuencing engagement. Other ndings suggest threluctant writers are more likely to be inuenced by teacher, self-belief, aknowledge and skill factors than engaged writers, who are more likely to wchoice and control over their writing. Some gender differences also appeared particular girls appeared to be more aware of the inuence of self-belief faon engagement, and reluctant girls were particularly inuenced by teach factors. This study informs English teachers of factors that are importantimproving the engagement of students in writing tasks.

IntroductionThe purpose of the study reported here was to explore student beliefs andthoughts about the writing tasks they were asked to do in their secondaryschool English classes and how they felt about them. In particular, the studyfocused on the potential barriers to engaging with writing that the studentsidentied, and on what teachers of English could do to improve engage-ment. It was expected that students would be able to clearly describe what

they found de-motivating about writing tasks they were asked to do inEnglish classes. The results from these focus group discussions give someclear indications of what is needed to improve student engagement withwriting.

In this article the term engagement is used because it is a useful meta-construct for discussing complex tasks such as writing (Fredricks,Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Engagement has three dimensions: behavioural,emotional and cognitive, and all three are relevant when discussing engage-ment with writing tasks. Students need to be more than just behaviourallyinvolved in a task to be engaged. Rather, it is the quality of thought and

H A W T H O

R N E A

U S T R A L I A N J O U R N A L O F L A N G U A G E A N D L I T E R A C Y , V o l . 3 1

, N o .

1 , 2 0 0 8

. p p .

3 0 4

2

30

Volume 31Number 1

February 2008


2/14

purpose that they bring to their involvement that is crucial to beingengaged. While there has been a signicant amount of comment on how toimprove student engagement in writing, particularly by advocates of theprocess approach to teaching writing (Atwell, 1998; Calkins, 1994; Graves,2003; Graves & Stuart, 1985; Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2006), little of this work actually refers to the growing research into motivation (Bruning & Horn,2000; Hidi & Boscolo, 2007). Although we now seem to have a good under-standing of the processes involved in writing, we have a lot to learn abouthow to develop motivation to write (Bruning & Horn, 2000). In an activity ascomplex as writing, issues of engagement assume great importance as it isnecessary for developing writers to persist and practise skills to become pro-cient (Hayes & Nash, 1996).

Recent reports into students writing highlight that the writing perfor-mance of adolescents is of concern. In New Zealand, for example, theIn

Focus: Student Outcome Overview 20012005kit prepared by the Ministry of Education (2006) reports on analyses of the writing achievement of studentsfrom Year 5 to Year 12, and concludes that the writing skills of many sec-ondary school students are no better than that of many primary school stu-dents (Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 13). These results are of concern because students need to be able to express their thoughts and knowledgeeffectively in writing if they are to participate actively in modern society. If they are reluctant to write at school, students may nd themselves unable toengage fully with a society that requires prociency in many written genres.English teachers know that as students progress through primary to sec-ondary school their liking for English decreases signicantly. This decreasein positive opinions about writing is of concern because it affects studentengagement and achievement (Abu-Hilal, 2000; Boyd, 2002; Bruning &Horn, 2000; Coldwell & Holland, 2001; Flockton & Crooks, 1998, 2002;Hansen, 2002; Smith & Elley, 1997). It is the purpose of this study to helpteachers understand what turns students on or off writing so that we canimprove their engagement with this essential skill.

Method

ParticipantsParticipants were 28 (15 boys and 13 girls) Year 10 students drawn from twoco-educational secondary schools from different parts of Auckland. The rstschool is a decile 7 central city school with a role of approximately 900(where the researcher teaches), and the second is a decile 4 West Aucklandschool with a roll of approximately 1500(Decile is an approximate measure of the socio-economic status of the neighbourhood the school draws from. A 10 pointscale is used where 10 is high and 1 low).Both schools have ethnically diversepopulations, although the central city school has a larger proportion of Pakeha (European) New Zealanders.

31

Australian Journal of Languaand Literacy

H A W T H O

R N E A


, N o .

1 , 2 0 0 8

. p p .

3 0 4

2


3/14

Focus groups were formed with students on the basis of their level of reluctance to write. Two focus groups from each school were formed, each of seven students. This provided enough variety of responses and experiencesto keep new ideas owing but was small enough that every person couldfeel heard (Krueger & Casey, 2000; Morgan, 1997). All students in the groupshad completed a questionnaire developed specically for this study (TheSurvey of Motivation to Engage in Writing [SMEW])that measured their levelof engagement with writing prior to involvement in the focus groups. Thequestionnaire was administered to the complete Year 10 cohorts in twoschools during an English class. The students in the groups reected differ-ences in levels of engagement with writing tasks, coming from either the topor bottom quartile of scores from the questionnaire administered at theirschool.

Engaged Groups(E1) This group consisted of four boys and three girls. The mean scorefrom the survey results for the participants in this group was 3.82 (out of apossible 5). In this report the students in E1 are given names starting withA.(E2) This group consisted of four boys and three girls. The mean scorefrom the survey results for the participants in this group was 3.42. In thisreport the students in E2 are given names starting with S.

Reluctant Groups(R1) This group consisted of four boys and three girls. The mean scorefrom the survey results for the participants in this group was 2.48. In thisreport the students in R1 are given names starting with D.(R2) This group consisted of three boys and four girls. The mean scorefrom the survey results for the participants in this group was 2.39. In thisreport the students in R2 are given names starting with T.

ProcedureThe focus groups began with the researcher (as facilitator) describing the

purpose of the group and briey stating the kinds of questions or topics thatwould be covered in the 50-minute discussions. The students were asked torespond to a range of guiding questions about what types of writing theyliked or disliked and what helped or hindered their engagement withwriting in classroom situations. During the 50 minute discussions the stu-dents spontaneously claried and elaborated on each others comments andclearly felt able to agree or disagree with one another. To ensure the actualwords and behaviours of the participants in the research were recordedaccurately, the focus group sessions were audio-taped (Morgan, 1997). Theresearcher facilitated each of the focus groups to ensure consistency of

H A W T H O

R N E A


, N o .

1 , 2 0 0 8

. p p .

3 0 4

2

32

Volume 31Number 1

February 2008


4/14

approach in the discussions. All of the audio-tapes were later transcribedverbatim.

Thematic content analysisThe transcripts generated from the audio-tapes were read through carefullyonce by the researcher, and notes were made summarising signicant ornoteworthy comments and identifying themes that emerged during theserst readings. The participant responses were divided up into units of meaning (i.e., quotes on particular topics) and these were then grouped intolarger categories. These categories were initially based on the discussionprompts put to the groups but were amended to reect the broad themesthat emerged in the comments. After feedback on the categorisation wasreceived from other researchers, six broad themes were decided upon whichcovered most of the comments made by the students, and also reected the

theoretical conceptualising of reluctance to write that has underpinned thisresearch. Finally, each student response was analysed and coded. The unit of analysis used in the coding was the expression of a complete idea(comment). This meant it was possible for responses to contain more thanone idea and thus result in more than one coding category. To verify the reli-ability of the researchers coding, one of the classroom teachers indepen-dently coded approximately 40% of the transcript responses. There was 89%agreement between the two coders in their coding judgements.

ResultsIn total, 591 complete ideas (comments) from across the four groups werecoded and placed into one of six themes. The six themes were inter-est/relevance factors, choice or control factors, environmental factors,knowledge or skill factors, self-belief factors and teacher factors. The fre-quency of comments within each theme, and group, is shown in Table 1.

Group commonalitiesResults show that interest in a topic, or its perceived relevance, is the pre-dominant factor that the students attribute to engagement with writing

tasks. This was a common nding across both the engaged and reluctantgroups. The other common nding between the groups was the inuence of environmental factors.

Interest/Relevance FactorsThe most signicant theme to come through the focus group discussionswas the importance of interest in a topic and the perceived relevance that thestudents felt about the writing tasks they were asked to do. In total, com-ments related to this theme (whether positive or negative) accounted for36% of all the comments the students made. In each group, except group E2,

33


H A W T H O

R N E A


, N o .

1 , 2 0 0 8

. p p .

3 0 4

2


5/14

H A W T H O

R N E A


, N o .

1 , 2 0 0 8

. p p .

3 0 4

2

this area was by far the most commented on by the students (group E2placed environmental factors slightly above interest/relevance). Group E1,the group with the most engaged students, made the most number of com-ments in this area (49% of their comments were about interest and rele-vance). This suggests that for these students, who are comfortable in theirability to write and who enjoy writing overall, their interest in a topic and itsperceived relevance to them is by far the most signicant factor inuencingtheir engagement. The following quotes from students in each group exem-plify the common concern with interest across the four groups.

ALEX: The more you care about the topic the more youll care about the wriALICE: If you give people topics that they are interested in or motivated

that helps.SHELLY: The more you write about something that you dont want to

about, the more you hate writing and dont want to do it.DAN: (People) just cant be bothered. The topics not interesting or they

dont like writingDEREK: I dont like writing essays about things that I dont give a crap abasically.

TOM: Topics. Theres just nothing of interest. Its just a waste of time idont like it.

Students were also concerned about how often they were given topics towrite about that they perceived of as having no relevance to their own livesor goals, or where they could not even see the need for doing the writingtask.

34

Volume 31Number 1

February 2008

Table 1. Frequency of Each Category of Comment Within Each Group

Student comments Engaged Frequency of Reluctant Frequency ofon various themes Groups Comments Groups Comments

Within Engaged Within Reluctant

Groups GroupsE1 E2 R1 R2

Comments No. No. No. % No. No. No. %Interest/Relevance factors 85 28 113 40 54 49 103 33Choice & Control factors 21 12 33 12 13 4 17 5Environmental factors 25 33 58 21 32 18 50 16Learning/Knowledge/ Skill factors 21 14 35 13 22 23 45 14Self-Belief factors 17 6 23 8 21 15 36 12Teacher factors 6 11 17 6 40 21 61 19Total Comments 175 104 279 182 130 312


6/14

35


H A W T H O

R N E A


, N o .

1 , 2 0 0 8

. p p .

3 0 4

2AARON: I dont care about teenage issues much because theyre a bit trivialreally.

DON: I dont like it when youre just copying something that youve beenasked to write down. I dont see the point.

DEBRA: I dont like writing about the past. I hate the past. I mean, who cares?DIANE: I quite like writing my opinion about real stuff.TRACY: [Why cant we write about] whats happening in today. Like whats

happening in the 21st century.TOBY: Not like old stuff like Egyptian stuff and World War 2 stuff.TAMMY: Yeah, like something thats real.

Environmental factorsAfter interest/relevance the next largest category for overall comments being made was the inuence of environmental factors on student engage-ment with writing. The environmental factors included working at home orat school, working alone or collaboratively, the classroom atmosphere andalso the medium that was used to do the writing and the time given towriting tasks. Both groups of writers appear to nd the same environmentalfactors enhance or hinder engagement with writing. For example, all groupscommented on the fact that they usually preferred to work on computersrather than handwriting for their writing tasks. The reasons for this rangedfrom nding it physically easier to type than to handwrite through to prefer-ring the end look of what they had produced on the computer.

SHANE: Its better on computers.DAVE: Let us do assignments on computers. Thats good. That helps with my

writing cos its easy. You dont get a sore hand from writing.TRELICE: If youre writings usually messy you can write better on computer.

It was also noted that disruptive or distracting students in classes hinderengagement. This theme was important in all four groups but there were afew points of difference between the engaged and reluctant writers. Theengaged students from group E1 were usually able to work around any dis-

tractions.

ABBY: If you want to work you sometimes have to separate yourself from thetalkers so you wont be distracted.

On the other hand, the reluctant writers in group R2 let disruption become areason not to have to engage with the writing tasks.

TRACY: half the people in our classes wont listen to the teachers anyway. We just talk anyway so theres no point trying.


7/14

Time and place factors were also commonly mentioned as inuencingengagement. That is, students commented that they sometimes found thetime of day in which they were asked to complete writing tasks a hindranceto their engagement. They did not get enough time to complete a task prop-erly or they mostly preferred to do writing at home in their own environ-ments.

ABBY: [Some] tasks could be spread out a bit more.ANN: I much prefer to do [my essays] at home.SALLY: The time of day as well. Like if its rst period sometimes youre

last period when its too hot and youre bothered and tired and youwant to go home.

SEAN: [at home] you can do what you want, listen to musicDAVE: Its not good to write in the last period.

TANIA: I dont like writing after school.Another trend in the comments on environmental factors was whether ornot students were allowed to work in groups or discuss their ideas anddrafts. While a few students across the groups preferred to work individual-ly, most preferred being able to share their writing with a partner or group because this helped them feel good about what they had written and alsogave them further ideas.

ABBY: I think we should have more discussions in class, because it help get more passionate about stuff when youre getting different poinview. Arguing with someone will make you more interested in it.

SALLY: I dont know, but, well there are other people here to help you. Y get other peoples ideas about what youre writing.

DIANE: I like projects and stuff where you have to do lots of things togetheTANIA: If you talk about it with a friend then you get a detention. It depen

the teacher but lots of my teachers wont let us talk then write.

Apart from these two thematic categories, where there was signicant uni-formity in the number and tenor of comments being made, the other fourcategories showed differences between the groups that are discussed next.

Group differencesThe most striking differences that emerged between the two groups of stu-dents were in the frequency of comments made about the importance of teacher support and the inuence choice and control factors had on levels of engagement. Reluctant girls made the most comments about the effects of teacher inuences on their engagement with writing, and the reluctantgroups expressed more negative beliefs about themselves as writers. The

H A W T H O

R N E A


, N o .

1 , 2 0 0 8

. p p .

3 0 4

2

36

Volume 31Number 1

February 2008


8/14

results presented in Table 1 show that there were some differences in the fre-quencies of comments made between the engaged and reluctant groups.The two areas that are statistically signicant, and that are focused on below,are those associated with teacher factors and choice and control factors.

Teacher factorsThe most signicant area of difference between engaged and reluctant stu-dents was the contrast in the number of comments made on the inuence of teacher factors. The students in the reluctant groups accounted for 78% of the comments associated with the positive or negative inuence of theteacher. An independent t-test was conducted to compare the frequency of comments made on teacher factors for engaged students (M = 1.21, SD =1.31) and reluctant students (M = 3.93, SD = 4.36). There was a signicantdifference [t(26) = -2.23, p < .05, partial eta squared = .15] in the frequency of

comments on this area made between engaged students and reluctant stu-dents. The following comments from students in the reluctant writer groupshighlight teacher behaviours that the students felt would affect their engage-ment with their work.

DIANE: Some teachers just explain it, to the point where they think that theyvedone enough explaining... and then they look at us like we should knowby now.

DEBRA: Teachers are good when theyre not, like, too strict but when they willhelp you and listen to you.

TRELICE: Explain things properly. Instead of just making us writing it down andwe dont know what to do.

TANIA: The way they teach it. Teachers need to explain things better.

One complicating factor in this result was the marked difference betweenthe reluctant boys and reluctant girls for this category, which makes it morelikely that the differences in regard to teacher factors are more signicant forreluctant girls than for reluctant boys. Girls made 57 (73%) of the 78 com-ments relating to the positive or negative inuences teachers can have onengagement with writing. In this small study, however, even this large dif-ference in the frequency of comments on this issue was not statistically sig-nicant. When looked at in combination with group membership, resultsshowed that girls in the reluctant writer groups (R1 & R2) made 49 (86%) of the 57 comments made by girls about the effects of teacher factors. This sug-gests that for girls who are reluctant to write the way they perceive theteacher has an important role in their reluctance to write.

Choice and control factorsThe next most signicant difference between the two types of groups was

37


H A W T H O

R N E A


, N o .

1 , 2 0 0 8

. p p .

3 0 4

2


9/14

that associated with choice and control factors. The engaged students made66% of the comments associated with the effects of having choice or control,or the lack of it, on their engagement to write. An independent t-test wasconducted to compare the frequency of comments made on control factorsfor engaged students (M=2.36, SD=1.78) and reluctant students (M=1.21,SD= 1.19). While not signicant [t(26) = 2.00, p =.058, partial eta squared =.13], the result suggested that engaged students were likely to be more awarethat being able to adapt or mould tasks to suit their particular interests, orstrengths in terms of writing genre, were important in motivating them todo their best with the writing.

ABBY: [You should] have choice about your topics and what to write aboALICE: If you give people topics that they are interested in or motivated

that helps.SHELLY: [I like creative writing because] it gives you the freedom to do wha

want.SAM: [I dont like] formal writing and essays where youve got like, I

know, a rigid way of doing it.

The group with the highest overall levels of engagement (E1) contrastsmarkedly with the group with the lowest levels of engagement (R2). Twelvepercent of the comments in E1 dealt with the importance of having choice, ornot, in their engagement with tasks. This contrasts with only 3% of com-ments from R2. A one-way between groups analysis of variance was con-ducted to explore the frequency of comments made regarding control effects.When scores for frequency of comments made between the four differentgroups were compared there was a statistically signicant difference inscores for the four groups [F(3,24) = 3.45, p


10/14

39


H A W T H O

R N E A


, N o .

1 , 2 0 0 8

. p p .

3 0 4

2 between groups, the results suggest that reluctant students may be moreaware that belief in themselves as writers plays a potentially important partin determining levels of motivation or engagement with writing tasks. Aninteresting result was the difference in the results by gender for self-belief factors. Girls made 37 (63%) of the 59 comments on self-belief factors. Thisresult raised the possibility that girls were more aware of the potentialeffects students beliefs about themselves as writers could have on theirengagement with writing. It is also possible that for girls self-belief issuesmay be more important in terms of how much they will engage with writingtasks than for boys.

Groups E1 and E2 made only passing comments about how a sense of failure might stop (other) students from wanting to write, whereas groupsR1 and R2 spoke personally about how experiencing failure, or believingthat they would fail, was an important factor in hindering their engagement

with writing.

DAN: I hate knowing how dumb I am. Like, being in a low class I just feel likeshit and dont want to do any work.

DEBRA: People just think I know Im not going to do well so whats the point of trying.

DAVE: If you think youre going to do badly people think theyre just not goingto do well so its stops them trying.

TRELICE: I worry about the teacher marking it all the time.TRACY: I was never any good at writing at school.TAMMY: Yeah. I used to write quite a lot at Intermediate, cos it was easy and

now the standards got too hard and its just really boring.

Knowledge, skill and learning factorsThe fourth area of difference was the number of comments students madeabout how their knowledge, or skill, or feeling that they were learning some-thing, inuenced their levels of engagement. The reluctant writers made56% of the comments about the inuence that knowledge and skill had on

their engagement. Of interest was the fact that they made 69% of the com-ments about how knowing something or knowing they had the skill to do awriting task (being self-efcacious for writing) improved their writingengagement. This suggests that for reluctant writers much of their reluctancemay arise from a feeling that they do not know what to do for a task or howto approach a task and that they dont know what to write about in terms of content. Many of the reluctant writers in this study mentioned beingrequired to write about topics about which they had no background knowl-edge and that this had a negative impact on how motivated they were toattempt the task.


11/14

DEBRA: [Writing about] a holiday or something is alright cos you know youre doing so you can write.

TRACY: Cos you dont understand what you have to do.TANIA: Essays. Yeah, and speeches. I hate writing them because you

know what to do.

DiscussionThe students in this study were able to make some very clear statementsabout what aspects of writing tasks improved their engagement.Overwhelmingly, interest in and perceived relevance of the tasks they wereasked to write about were the main factors that made students more or lessengaged. Interest in a topic is thought to have positive inuences on astudents writing because it links what students know about a topic withwhat they value. For example, high levels of topic knowledge, interest anddiscourse knowledge have all been found to have positive impacts on thequality of narrative writing in ninth grade and undergraduate students(Shell, Bruning, & Colvin, 1995). This was supported by the results of thisstudy where many of the reasons students gave to explain why they pre-ferred some topics or types of writing over others had to do with their topicknowledge or knowledge of how to write in that style of writing. This seemsparticularly important with the most reluctant writers who often lack boththe skills in how to write in particular styles, as well as lacking topic knowl-edge to have anything to actually write about. The implication for teachingis that we should be careful to give students the opportunity to write on

topics they are knowledgeable about and to teach them the topic and dis-course knowledge they need to be able to do the task.Although Bruning & Horn (2000) have noted that there is still not a lot of

empirical evidence about the importance of providing students withauthentic tasks, this study strongly supports the conclusion that studentsneed to see the links between the work required of them and the real world or the personal goals they have set for themselves. Providing students withreal audiences or purposes to direct their writing helps build an awarenessof audience in them as writers, and helps connect with their personal inter-ests and goals. If we only give students writing tasks that have no real

context or a purpose that makes no connections with what the studentvalues or perceives as being important we cannot blame them for havinglittle interest in trying to communicate their knowledge and ideas. One of the issues in secondary schooling that may affect teachers ability to giveauthentic writing tasks is the pressure exerted by the national qualications.These privilege a small number of writing tasks and also decrease theauthenticity by setting very short and controlled time constraints on the pro-duction of the writing, and often only have the articial audience of theassessor. The effect of these qualications on student writing and motiva-tion needs to be further examined.

H A W T H O

R N E A


, N o .

1 , 2 0 0 8

. p p .

3 0 4

2

40

Volume 31Number 1

February 2008


12/14

The results of this study support previous research that shows thatengagement is also inuenced by students perceptions of teacher warmthand interest in them and their work (Wentzel, 1997). This was especiallyevident in the results of the reluctant girls. The reasons behind this resultneed further investigation, but it is possible that reluctant girls are moreaffected by perceptions of teacher support because they may share thestereotypical view that girls should be able to write better than boys and thatthey should enjoy it more (Pajares, 2003). Rather than attributing their reluc-tance to write as something that they are able to control and manage them-selves, the reluctant girls in this study appear to place more responsibilityfor their engagement at the feet of the teachers than other groups of stu-dents.

The present study also supports previous research that self-perceptionand belief is an important factor inuencing levels of engagement with a

task (Klassen, 2002; Pajares & Valiante, 2006). Peoples beliefs about theirabilities in particular domains are known to be important in motivatingthem to do what they can to achieve. One area that needs future research,however, is the suggestion in this study that girls seemed more aware of theeffect of self-belief on engagement.

ConclusionThe goal of this study was to nd out what students felt helped or hinderedtheir engagement with writing tasks. This study supports the ndings of prior research identifying four conditions that are required to enhance themotivation to write. Namely, (1) Nurture students functional beliefs aboutwriting. (2) Foster student engagement through authentic writing goals andcontexts. (3) Provide a supportive context for writing. (4) Create a positiveemotional environment in which to write (Bruning & Horn, 2000). In addi-tion, this study suggests that teachers of English can improve the engage-ment of their students in writing tasks by: (a) allowing students choice intheir tasks wherever possible; (b) explaining the purpose and relevance of each task; (c) allowing students chances to collaborate on tasks; (c) beingopen to negotiation about deadlines, task expectations etc so that studentsperceive them as realistic; (d) ensuring students have understood all of thecomponents in the task; (e) ensuring students have been taught the knowl-edge and skills or strategies needed to complete the task successfully and (f)giving feedback that is constructive and detailed.

ReferencesAbu-Hilal, M. M., (2000). A structural model of attitudes towards school subjects,

academic aspiration and achievement.Educational Psychology, 20(1), 7584.Atwell, N. (1998).In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading and learning

(2nd ed.). Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.

41


H A W T H O

R N E A


, N o .

1 , 2 0 0 8

. p p .

3 0 4

2


13/14

Boyd, F. (2002). Motivation to continue: Enhancing literacy learning for strugglingreaders and writers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18 , 257277.

Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write.EducationalPsychologist, 35(1), 2538.

Calkins, L. M. (1994).The art of teaching writing(2nd ed.). Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Coldwell, M., & Holland, M. (2001). Challenges at 12 and 16: Views on some aspectsof secondary education in a former coal mining Town in Northern England.International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5(15).

Flockton, L., & Crooks, T. (1998).NEMP writing: Assessment results 1998(No. NEMPREPORT NO. 12). New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Flockton, L., & Crooks, T. (2002).NEMP writing: Assessment results 2002 (NEMPREPORT No. 27). New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of theconcept, state of the evidence.Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59109.

Graves, D. (2003).Writing: Teachers and children at work(20th Anniversary Edition).Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Graves, D., & Stuart, V. (1985).Write from the start: Tapping your childs natural ability twrite. New York: Dutton.

Hansen, S. (2002). Writing sux! Boys and writing: Whats the problem?Set: ResearchInformation for Teachers , 1 , 3843.

Hayes, J., & Nash, J. G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In C. M. Levy &S. Ransddell (Eds.),The science of writing, theories, methods, individual differencesapplications.(pp. 2954). New Jersey: Erlbaum, Mahweh.

Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (Eds.). (2007).Writing and motivation. New York: Elsevier.Klassen, R. (2002). Writing in early adolescence: A review of the role of self-efcacy beliefs.Educational Psychology Review, 14(2), 173204.

Krueger, R., & Casey, M. A. (2000).Focus groups: A practical guide for applied resear(3rd ed.). Sage Publishers Inc.

Ministry of Education. (2006).In focus: Information kit: Student achievement in NeZealand. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.Morgan, D. (1997).Focus groups as qualitative research(2nd ed., Vol. 16). Sage

Publications.Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efcacy beliefs, motivation and achievement in writing: A

review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming LearninDifculties, 19(2), 139158.

Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efcacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),Handbook of writingresearch(pp. 158170). New York: The Guildford Press.

Pritchard, R., & Honeycutt, R. (2006). The process approach to writing instruction:

Examining its effectiveness. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),Handbook of writing research(pp. 275290). New York: The Guildford Press.Shell, D., Bruning, R., & Colvin, C. (1995). Self-efcacy, attribution, and outcome

expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level andachievement-level differences.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 386398.

Smith, J., & Elley, W. (1997).How children learn to write. Longman.Wentzel, K. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived peda-

gogical caring.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411419.

H A W T H O

R N E A


, N o .

1 , 2 0 0 8

. p p .

3 0 4

2

42

Volume 31Number 1

February 2008


14/14

hawthorne journal

Documents