Writing Skills1

THE READING AND WRITING SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS OF STUDENTS
WITH DISCREPANT READING AND WRITING

PERFORMANCE
EMILY JENNIFER SHAW
BS, Cornell University, 2001
MSEd, Fordham University, 2003
Mentor
Akane Zusho, PhD
Readers
John C. Houtz, PhD
Amy Elizabeth Schmidt, PhD
DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
rN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
OF FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK
2007
UMI Number: 3302121
Copyright 2007 by
Shaw, Emily Jennifer
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI
UMI Microform 3302121
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
11
Emily Jennifer Shaw, 2007, All Rights Reserved.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this dissertation has been accomplished with the helpful
contributions of many wonderful people. My mentor, Dr. Akane Zusho, and readers,
Drs. John Houtz and Amy Schmidt, deserve special mention. They have all guided
me in different but incredibly wise and supportive ways throughout my graduate
school and professional experience as an educational researcher. I feel extremely
lucky to have gone through the dissertation process with all of them.
I must also express my sincerest thanks to my colleagues at the College Board
for providing support and resources to me in every imaginable and conceivable way
to make this process more manageable. In particular, I'd like to thank Mary-Margaret
Kerns for her unwavering encouragement and understanding during this long and
demanding project. Wayne Camara deserves special mention for allowing me the
opportunity to complete my dissertation while growing professionally at the College
Board. Thanks to Krista Mattern Burrus for her expertise in measurement, statistics,
and making me laugh, as well as Sandra Barbuti for pulling much of the archival data
and making herself available for many questions. Additionally, I must acknowledge
Maureen Ewing, Glenn Milewski, Sheryl Packman, Viji Sathy, Ellen Sawtell, and
Jeff Wyat t very giving colleagues and friends.
Throughout my (long) time at Fordham, I have been fortunate and thankful to
have met many people that have taught me a great deal about educational psychology,
research, and also myself. This includes Dean Hennessy, Dean McGrath, Dean
iv
Bernhardt, Mitch Rabinowitz, Fran Blumberg, Peg Tarnowsky, Jennifer Shore,
Christine Gough, Joe Korevec, Pat Biggins, and Kelli Delaco.
Writing this dissertation has also been made less overwhelming with the
loving support of my friends and family. I couldn't imagine going through this
process with anyone more thoughtful, kind, intelligent, and fun than Tanya Warren. I
am thankful for Susan Verni's encouraging notes and gestures (and allowing my
books to take over the living room!). Josh D'Aleo also played a special role in
making me believe I could accomplish this goal. There are many other friends who I
am grateful for and whom despite my limited availability these past few years, have
still chosen to remain my friends and are proud of me for accomplishing this goal.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my extraordinary family. Though this
group extends far beyond my mother, father, sister, and grandmother - 1 will focus on
them for the sake of space. I look at this moment as an opportunity to let my mother
and father know how proud I am to be their daughter and how much they are loved.
My sister has taught me so much over the past many years and has helped me in more
ways than I could ever explain. I'm so lucky to have Hillary as my sister, friend, and
roommate. My grandmother, Sally, has been a wonderful cheerleader and a treasured
friend throughout this process. I must also thank Jordan from the very bottom of my
heart, who since walking into my life, has made everything easier, sweeter, lovelier,
and more fun - even writing this dissertation.
V
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my mother and father, Elaine and David Shaw, for
giving me a life of always knowing they are in my corner - wherever I have chosen
or will choose that corner to be.
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
DEDICATION v
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM 1
Purpose of the Study 2
Research Questions 4
Definition of Terms 5
Significance of the Study 7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 12
Reading-Writing Relations 12
History of the Reading-Writing Relationship 12
Shared Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities of Reading and Writing 15
Developmental Aspects of the Reading-Writing Relationship 19
Good Readers/Poor Writers and Good Writers/Poor Readers 22
Social Cognitive Theory 26
Self-Efficacy Beliefs 27
Developmental Aspects of Self-Efficacy 30
Vll
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Group Differences in Self-Efficacy 31
Gender 31
Culture 32
Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy 33
Measuring Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy 36
Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy Interventions 37
Summary 39
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 42
Participants 42
Instruments and Materials 43
PSAT/NMSQTCritical Reading Section 43
PSAT/NMSQTWriting Skills Section 44
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument 44
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument 46
SAT Critical Reading Test 47
SAT Writing Test 47
SAT Questionnaire 48
Procedures 48
Data Analysis 50
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS 54
Characteristics of the Participants 55
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Vlll
Page
Research Questions 1 and 2: The Mediational Role of Reading
and Writing Self-Efficacy 72
Research Questions 3 and 4: The Contribution of Reading and
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs to Same Domain Performance 81
Research Questions 5 and 6: The Contribution of Reading and
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs to Opposite Domain Performance 96
Research Question 7: Chi-Square Analyses and t-Tests of
Discrepant Group Differences 110
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION 118
Summary and Review of the Findings 118
Implications for Researchers and Literacy Educators 128
Limitations 131
Recommendations for Future Research 134
Conclusions 136
REFERENCES 138
APPENDIX A. INSTRUMENTS 150
APPENDIX B. CORRESPONDENCE WITH PARTICIPANTS 156
ABSTRACT 160
VITA 163
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Participant Distribution by Gender 56
Participant Distribution by Ethnicity 57
Participant Distribution by First and Best Languages 58
Participant Distribution by Parental Education and Income Level 59
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the
PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and Self-Efficacy Measures for the Total
Sample 61
PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and Self-Efficacy Measures for
Strong Readers/Strong Writers 62
Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers 63
Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 64
Weak Readers/Weak Writers 65
Correlations among Continuous Variables for Total Sample 67
Correlations among Continuous Variables for
Correlations among Continuous Variables for
X
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
13. Correlations among Continuous Variables for
14. Correlations among Continuous Variables for
15. Model Testing Indices for Partially and Fully Mediated Models
for the Total Sample 77
16. z and p Values for Indirect Paths of Path Models of Reading
and Writing 80
17. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of
Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for the Total Sample 83
18. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction
of Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for
Reading Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for
Writing Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for the Total Sample 91
Wri t i ng Performance from Wri t i ng Self-Efficacy for
Writing Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for
XI
Table Page
Reading Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for the Total
Sample 98
Reading Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for
Writing Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for the Total
Sample 105
Writing Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for
Xll
Page
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of
Background Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers
and Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 112
Academic Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers
and Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers 115
Xl l l
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
General Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy and Performance Model 9
Partially Mediated Model of Reading Performance for the Total Sample 78
Partially Mediated Model of Writing Performance for the Total Sample 79
1
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Despite the similarities that literacy researchers have found between the cognitive
processes and knowledge involved in both the acts of reading and writing (Kucer, 1987,
2005; Langer & Flihan, 2000; Rosenblatt, 1994; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Tierney &
Shanahan, 1991), there are students who appear to be much stronger readers than writers
and much stronger writers than readers (Langer, 1986a, 1986b; Palmer, 1986; Thacker,
1990, 1991; Tierney, 1983). Very few studies, however, have effectively examined the
discrepant reading and writing performance of high school students, despite Stotsky's
(1983) call for such research over two decades ago. In particular, Stotsky noted that such
research would be useful for teachers to understand the qualities of good writing that
seem to be independent of high reading ability. Largely because of the renewed emphasis
on writing instruction and assessment in the United States (The National Commission on
Writing in America's Schools and Colleges, 2003), investigating students with clearly
discrepant reading and writing performance would be valuable. The SAT Reasoning
Test (SAT) and ACT, the two major college admissions tests, now incorporate
measures of writing performance in addition to reading performance, so that the existence
of students who are stronger readers and weaker writers or stronger writers and weaker
readers has become more apparent to the educational community.
2
It is possible that the reading and writing performance discrepancies are caused by
differences in the beliefs that students hold about their reading and writing capabilities, or
their reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs. The relationship between reading and
writing self-efficacy beliefs and reading and writing performance among students with
discrepant reading and writing performance has not been examined. Such research can
lead to the development of self-efficacy interventions that aid performance in the weaker
area by building on the stronger area.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the present study was to determine the role of students' reading
and writing self-efficacy beliefs in performance discrepancies in the reading and writing
domains. Differing self-efficacy beliefs in reading and writing, formed by different
experiences, perceived messages, or interpretations of emotional and physiological states
in the reading and writing domains, can offer a possible and remediable explanation as to
why these students have performed so differently in such cognitively similar domains.
Reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs significantly influence student
performance in reading and writing. According to social cognitive theory advanced by
Bandura (1986, 1997), human achievement depends on interactions between an
individual's behaviors, personal factors, and environmental conditions. Individuals hold
self-efficacy beliefs that enable them to exert control over their thoughts, feelings, and
actions. Bandura (1986, 1993) acknowledged that when self-efficacy is lacking, people
will tend to underachieve, despite knowing what it is they need to do to be successful.
3
Self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific, or linked to a domain, whereas similar
constructs such as self-concept or competence beliefs are more general and based on
social comparisons instead of normative criteria (Klassen, 2002; Zimmerman, 1995).
Reading self-efficacy has been closely linked to reading performance (Paris & Oka,
1986; Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, 1995; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989), as has writing
self-efficacy to writing performance (Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1999;
Schunk & Swartz, 1993; Shell et al., 1995; Shell et al., 1989; Zimmerman & Bandura,
1994). As students get older, their self-efficacy beliefs appear to be even more predictive
of their achievement in reading and writing (Shell et al., 1995).
Researchers have also concluded that self-efficacy is a more consistent predictor
of behavioral outcomes than other self-beliefs (Graham & Weiner, 1996; Pajares, 2003;
Shell et al., 1995; Shell et al., 1989). For example, the writing self-efficacy literature has
shown that writing self-efficacy, perceived value of writing, writing apprehension, self-
efficacy for self-regulation, and previous writing performances are all correlated with the
writing performance of students of all ages. However, multiple regression and path
analyses show that self-efficacy and prior achievement were the only significant
predictors (Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares, Miller, & Johnson, 1999; Pajares &
Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001). As there are numerous studies indicating that self-efficacy
and achievement can be enhanced through instructional methods that incorporate
modeled strategy use, goal setting, constructive feedback, and self-evaluation of progress,
it appears that students can effectively and efficiently improve their reading or writing
4
performance through these practices (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Schunk, 2003;
Walker, 2003).
Bandura (2001) stated that cultural embeddedness shapes the ways that self-
efficacy beliefs are developed and the way they are put to use. Therefore, it is important
to investigate the role of self-efficacy beliefs in the reading and writing domains after
controlling for the effects of certain cultural and sociological variables. This helps to
more precisely determine the amount of variance in reading and writing performance
explained by the most mutable aspects of self-efficacy, beyond what is not immediately
alterable by educators.
Research Questions
This study answered the following questions:
1. Did reading self-efficacy beliefs mediate the role of students' background and
experiences in reading (including prior achievement in reading and culture) on
reading performance?
2. Did writing self-efficacy beliefs mediate the role of students' background and
experiences in writing (including prior achievement in writing and culture) on
writing performance?
3. For the total sample and the four reading and writing performance groups (strong
readers/strong writers, stronger readers/weaker writers, weaker readers/stronger
writers, and weak readers/ weak writers), how much of t he vari ance in readi ng
performance was explained by reading self-efficacy beliefs, after controlling for
5
prior reading achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best language, and
socioeconomic status (SES)?
4. For the total sample and each of the four reading and writing performance groups,
how much of the variance in writing performance was explained by writing self-
efficacy beliefs, after controlling for prior writing achievement, gender,
race/ethnicity, best language, and SES?
5. After controlling for prior reading achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best
language, and SES, did writing self-efficacy predict reading performance?
6. After controlling for prior writing achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best
language, and SES, did reading self-efficacy predict writing performance?
7. Were there significant differences in writing self-efficacy, reading self-efficacy,
prior English achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best language, and
socioeconomic status between the two discrepant groups (stronger readers/weaker
writers and weaker readers/stronger writers)?
Definition of Terms
In this study, culture was operationalized as the students' gender, race/ethnicity,
first and best languages, and parental income level as a measure of SES taken from the
SAT Questionnaire. These variables are proxies for studying the role of culture in this
study and were chosen due to their availability.
St udent s were consi dered to exhibit discrepant readi ng and wri t i ng ability when
their standardized Critical Reading and Writing SAT scores were one standard deviation
or more apart from each other.
6
Prior English achievement was defined as an average of the English course grades
students' had taken in high school. This information came from the SAT Questionnaire.
Prior reading achievement was operationalized by students' scores on the Critical
Reading section of the Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test
(PSAT/NMSQT).
Prior writing achievement was operationalized by students' scores on the Writing
Skills section of the PSAT/NMSQT.
Students were considered to be strong readers/strong writers (SR/SW) when they
had a Critical Reading score that was equivalent to their Writing score based on
standardized SAT scores, and both were approximately one standard deviation above the
mean of the SAT Critical Reading and Writing tests for the October or November 2006
administration.
Students were considered to be stronger readers/weaker writers (SR/WW) when
they had a Critical Reading score that was one standard deviation or more greater than
their Writing score, based on standardized SAT scores from either the October or
November 2006 administration.
Students' background and experiences with reading were operationalized as
students' race/ethnicity, gender, best language, parental income level, and
PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading score.
Students' background and experiences with writing were operationalized as
students' race/ethnicity, gender, best language, parental income level, and
PSAT/NMSQT Writing Skills score.
7
Students were considered to be weaker readers/stronger writers (WR/SW) when
they had a Writing score that was one standard deviation or more greater than their
Critical Reading score, based on standardized SAT scores from either the October or
November 2006 administration.
Students were considered to be weak readers/weak writers (WR/WW) when they
had a Critical Reading score that was equivalent to their Writing score based on
standardized SAT scores, and both were approximately one standard deviation below the
mean of the SAT Critical Reading and Writing tests for the October or November 2006
administration.
Significance of the Study
This research holds both theoretical and practical value for the educational
community. It was hypothesized that students with discrepant reading and writing
performance held different reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs that significantly
contribute to this performance discrepancy. Particularly because reading and writing are
believed to rely on very similar cognitive knowledge, skills, and strategies, self-efficacy
interventions in the weaker area may be quite effective for these students. This study
sheds light on a number of issues related to reading and writing self-efficacy, as well as
literacy instruction and assessment.
Theoretically guided by the model in Figure 1, this study sought to more precisely
understand the relationship between reading and writing self-efficacy and performance,
as well as the relationship between reading and writing self-efficacy. This model shows
that students' backgrounds and experiences with reading (including their cultural
8
background and prior achievement in reading) influence their reading self-efficacy
beliefs. Reading self-efficacy beliefs partially mediate the role of the students'
backgrounds and experiences with reading on reading performance. Similarly, student's
backgrounds and experiences with writing (including their cultural background and prior
achievement in writing) influence their writing self-efficacy beliefs. Writing self-efficacy
beliefs partially mediate the influence of the students' backgrounds and experience with
writing on writing performance. The model also shows some overlap between the
influence of students' backgrounds and experiences with reading and writing on reading
and writing self-efficacy beliefs.
Figure 1
General Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy and Performance Model
10
In particular, it is useful for researchers to understand when self-efficacy can be
considered a mediator of other independent variables on performance. Also, recognizing
the conditions under which reading self-efficacy beliefs generalized to writing activities,
and the conditions under which writing self-efficacy beliefs generalized to reading
activities, informs the self-efficacy literature as to the interchangeability of measures of
writing and reading self-efficacy. An additional question examined was whether the
measures proved interchangeable for certain groups of students but not others. Pajares
(1997) stated that understanding the conditions and circumstances under which self-
beliefs generalize to different academic activities can provide information regarding the
interventions and instructional strategies that aid students in building competence and the
corresponding perceptions of competence.
Using samples of predominantly White students in the Midwest, Shell et al.
(1989) and Shell et al. (1995) identified a single underlying dimension linking students'
beliefs in reading and writing to reading and writing achievement. Due to this, reading
and writing self-efficacy beliefs have rarely been considered simultaneously. Given that
thousands of students displayed discrepant reading and writing performance on the SAT
based on data from the October 2005 SAT administration, a renewed exploration of this
issue was warranted. The further investigation of reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs
among a more geographically and ethnically diverse sample aids in our understanding of
when and for whom writing self-efficacy beliefs generalize to reading activities or
achievement, and when and for whom reading self-efficacy beliefs generalize to writing
11
activities. Ultimately this information can lead to the more informed design of reading
and writing interventions for students struggling with reading, writing, or both.
In addition, this study investigated the role of self-efficacy in reading and writing
performance after controlling for the effects of certain cultural and sociological variables
such as gender, race/ethnicity, best language, and socioeconomic status. This facilitated
the more precise determination of the amount of variance explained by the most mutable
aspects of self-efficacy, beyond what is not immediately alterable by educators.
Practically, this study provided the first demographic description of students who
were categorized as stronger readers/weaker writers and weaker readers/stronger writers
based on a standardized test taken by students across the United States. This allows
educators, as well as theorists, to better understand who these students are in order to
more accurately shape interventions to improve their weaker area in the related domain.
Having access to this sample of students provided a rare opportunity to determine
characteristics that may be unique to students with discrepant reading and writing skills.
Furthermore, because the SAT is taken by approximately 1.5 million students each year,
it is useful to help students with discrepant Critical Reading and Writing scores, as well
as other consumers of the test, understand why they have scored so differently in such
cognitively similar domains.
12
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Reading-Writing Relations
History of the Reading-Writing Relationship
In American schools, the separation of reading and writing was clear from as far
back as the colonial times when the first two "R"s were taught as separate subjects to
children in all types of schools (Nelson & Calfee, 1998). This disjointed instruction of
reading and writing was also characterized by two features that persisted for many years:
(a) a greater emphasis was placed on reading than writing in schools, and (b) writing
instruction was delayed until the fundamentals of reading were mastered. Nelson and
Calfee (1998) wrote that the ability to read was so highly valued by the Protestant settlers
of America because it was essential for reading the Bible and other religious passages, as
well as the common law. Writing was secondary because it was thought to depend on the
ability to read and was viewed as more difficult than reading.
In the United States, reading and writing as disciplines were shaped by different
scholars with different backgrounds and training (Clifford, 1989; Langer & Flihan, 2000).
Early on, academic writing was grounded in Aristotelian rhetoric, focusing on an author's
connection with an audience through invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery
(Langer & Flihan, 2000; Nelson & Calfee, 1998). Writing, primarily an upper-class
13
activity, was intended to be formal, grammatically correct, free from spelling errors, and
largely argumentative or expository in style. However, by the end of the nineteenth
century, traditional views of writing were challenged by more practical and functional
views of writing, with students learning to write contracts, receipts, and invoices in
school (Clifford, 1989). During the era of progressive education in the early twentieth
century, educators were encouraged to connect writing topics to students' experiences
and develop the reader-writer interaction. By the 1970s and 1980s, educators and
researchers showed an increased interest in writing, as studies on language and cognition
highlighted the connections between the learner, the text, and the actual writing process
(Langer & Allington, 1992; Langer & Flihan, 2000).
Academic reading in the United States was originally grounded in British notions
of primary instruction and heavily relied on the recitation and repetition of religious
material (Langer & Allington, 1992; Langer & Flihan, 2000). By the late nineteenth
century, however, the foundation and purpose of academic reading was based on the
results of scientific experiments, and later, on psychological research (Langer & Flihan,
2000). Factor analytic studies in the 1940s, for example, revealed that there were two
major components of readingword knowledge and reasoning, which affected the
structure of reading instruction and launched further research on reading (Langer &
Allington, 1992). Until the 1960s, reading instruction continued to be heavily influenced
by associationist and behaviorist psychology, particularly the work of B. F. Skinner, as
the value of specific skill hierarchies for word recognition and comprehension was
emphasized (Langer & Allington, 1992; Langer & Flihan, 2000). However, with the
14
cognitive revolution of the 1970s, reading began to be viewed as an interactive process
between the reader and the text, focusing reading instruction and research on the
construction of meaning that occurs during reading (Langer & Flihan, 2000).
The major link between the history of writing and the history of reading is that the
cognitive revolution of the 1970s and 1980s encouraged the consideration of both the
reader and writer audience. There was also a conceptual shift in the research during this
time, when scholars and practitioners began to focus on the relationship between reading
and writing in order to more effectively develop integrated curricula (Brandt, 1986;
Clifford, 1989; Petersen, 1986; Stotsky, 1983; Tierney & Leys, 1986). Awareness of the
sociocultural nature of reading and writing, or the influences of social identities,
communities, and environments on readers and writers helped to facilitate the
conceptualization of the two processes as interwoven (Nelson, 1998). Though studies had
been conducted on the reading-writing relationship in the first half of the twentieth
century, the research was sparse and largely atheoretical until the 1980s (Fitzgerald &
Shanahan, 2000; Mosenthal, 1983; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Stotsky, 1983).
Since the 1980s, research on the reading-writing relationship has largely fallen
into three major categories (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991).
The first category, which is also the most commonly studied and of greatest relevance to
the present study, has focused on understanding the cognitive processes, linguistic
resources, social resources, and knowledge bases that reading and writing share. The
second category of research has focused on the ways that the reader and writer transact
with each other in an effort to make meaning, also referred to as rhetorical relations.
15
Another category of research has been the study of the procedural connections of reading
and writing, or how the tasks of reading and writing can be used together to accomplish
different learning goals. Based on the body of research on the reading-writing
relationship, a number of scholars have noted that as many similarities as there are
between reading and writing, there are also as many differences (Shanahan, 1984).
Currently, what researchers as well as reading and writing educators are certain about is
the complexity of the reading-writing relationship and the value in better understanding
it. The present study tested a theoretical model of the reading-writing relationship with a
specific focus on the role of reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs in reading and
writing performance. This research will guide future study in this area and can ultimately
lead to more informed reading and writing instruction.
Shared Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities of Reading and Writing
An examination of the shared knowledge, skills, and abilities of reading and
writing can further shed light on what is known about the reading-writing relationship.
One common approach has been to correlate two general measures of reading and writing
ability (Tierney & Shanahan, 1991). In general, a high correlation would denote a great
amount of similarity between the two processes, while a low correlation would indicate a
low amount of relatedness. Most studies, however, have reported moderate correlations,
between .20 and .50, with a few studies citing higher correlations (Fitzgerald &
Shanahan, 2000; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991). While this method has provided important
information on the relatedness of reading and writing, studies that make use of more
16
complex and multivariate methodologies have been more useful in understanding how
reading and writing are related.
Stotsky (1983) conducted an extensive literature review of the correlational and
experimental studies on reading-writing relationships published before 1981 in order to
guide future theoretical and practical work in this realm. Stotsky acknowledged that the
results from the correlational studies she reviewed consistently showed that students who
were better writers also tended to be better readers of their own and others' writing and
also read more than poorer writers. Students who were better readers tended to produce
more syntactically complex and mature material than poorer readers. The experimental
studies reviewed showed that when writing was taught to improve writing skills, while
also measuring the effect on reading, there were usually no significant effects on reading.
However, studies that used writing activities specifically to improve reading
comprehension found significant improvements. When studies examined the impact of
reading experiences on writing improvement, the reading experiences were found to be as
efficacious, if not more so, in improving writing, than lessons in grammar or extra
writing practice. This demonstrated the complex interrelatedness of the reading and
writing domains and posed many questions for future research.
In one approach to studying the overlap between reading and writing, Langer
(1986b) focused on the knowledge sources, reasoning processes, monitoring behaviors,
and specific strategies used when constructing meaning before, during, and after reading
and writing. She studied 67 third-, sixth-, and ninth-grade students as they read and wrote
reports and stories. Special procedures were developed for analyzing how students
17
question, hypothesize, assume, use schemata, meta-analyze, cite evidence and validate
throughout the reasoning process, as well as how students strategically generate ideas,
formulate meaning, evaluate, and revise when reading and writing. The overarching
finding from this study was that reading and writing rely on the same core set of
linguistic and cognitive skills, but that these same skills are differently orchestrated when
reading or writing. Similarly, both readers and writers focus on the meanings developed
when reading and writing. Readers and writers also seemed to exhibit similar behaviors
during reading and writing, and after reading and writing. During reading and writing,
students focused on global units of text, questioning, hypothesizing, generating ideas, and
goal-setting, while after reading and writing, they focused on validating schemata and the
greater refinement of meaning. Students were slightly more concerned with bottom-up
issues such as syntax, mechanics, and lexical choices when writing than when reading.
They also were more concerned with setting goals when writing and were more cognizant
of the strategies they were using to arrive at meaning. When reading, however, students
were more focused on the content and validation of the text worlds they were generating.
The results of this study highlight the difficulty in clearly determining the connections
and distinctions between reading and writing.
In another study of the amount of overlap between many reading or writing
component skills and knowledge-bases, Shanahan (1984, 1987) administered measures of
reading assessing phonics, vocabulary, sentence comprehension, and passage
comprehension, and measures of writing assessing spelling ability, vocabulary diversity,
sentence structure complexity, and grammar structure, to a sample of approximately 500
18
second- and fifth-grade students. Results indicated that neither reading nor writing was
able to explain more than 43% of the variance in the opposite set. While this was a
significant amount of variance explained in each, it was less than many would have
expected at the time of the study. Shanahan concluded that reading and writing were
comprised of both dependent and independent abilities, and that contrary to a popular,
understudied belief, instruction in reading should not replace instruction in writing, nor
vice versa.
Shanahan and Lomax (1986) tested three theoretical models of the reading-
writing relationship by administering equivalent measures of particular components of
reading and writing performance in the second and fifth grades. The first model, an
interactive model, hypothesized that reading can influence writing development and
writing can influence reading development. The second model tested, the reading-to-
writing model, differs from the interactive model only in that all relations between the
reading and writing variables were believed to emanate from reading. The third model,
the writing-to-reading model differed only from the interactive model in that writing was
thought to affect reading, but reading was not believed to affect writing. Path analysis
was used to determine how well the three models fit with the student data. Results
indicated that the interactive model better described the data than the reading-to-writing
and writing-to-reading models at both grade levels. Also, the reading-to-writing model
was a better fit than the writing-to-reading model at both grade levels. An explanation
offered for the superiority of the reading-to-writing model was that these students were
not necessarily given enough of an opportunity to write in school and use their writing
19
knowledge to inform their reading knowledge. The overarching conclusion drawn from
the results of the study was that because a great deal of knowledge is shared between
reading and writing, curriculum design and instruction should better take advantage of
this shared knowledge as opposed to teaching reading for several years before
introducing writing.
Developmental Aspects of the Reading-Writing Relationship
It is widely acknowledged that the relationship between reading and writing
changes over the course of development, just as reading and writing each develop
separately over the course of the lifespan (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). Over the years,
numerous studies have confirmed that the types of knowledge and skills needed for
reading and writing and the ways they are used change with ability level, often
operationalized as grade level (Kucer, 1987; Langer & Flihan, 2000; Shanahan, 1984,
1987; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Tierney & Leys, 1986; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991).
Kucer (2005) noted that if a researcher's primary interest was reading, then he/she would
be more apt to interpret reading developments as contributing to writing, and vice versa.
More appropriately, aspects of reading affect writing development, and aspects of writing
affect reading development differently as the student matures. For example, Graves and
Hanson (1983) found that first-grade students initially approached reading a text with a
sense of distance and complete acceptance of the author's message. However, as the
children learned to question the meaning behind their own writing, they also began to
question the meanings in the texts they read.
20
Fitzgerald and Shanahan (2000) formulated a developmental model of the
reading-writing relationship, spanning from birth to adulthood. The model has six stages,
each comprised of the critical knowledge that reading and writing share at that
developmental time period largely based on Chall's (1996) developmental stages of
reading (as cited in Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). These stages include: stage 1: literacy
roots (birth-age 6), stage 2: initial literacy (grades 1-2, ages 6-7), stage 3: confirmation,
fluency, ungluing from print (grades 2-3, ages 7-8), stage 4: reading and writing for
learning the new: a first step (grades 4-8, ages 9-13), stage 5: multiple viewpoints (high
school, ages 14-18), and stage 6: construction and reconstructiona worldview (college,
age 18 and above).
Of greatest relevance to the present study is the fifth stage, or multiple
viewpoints. The major characteristic of this stage is that it entails understanding different
points of view (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). This is linked to an advanced
understanding of text structures and knowing how to use or interpret them most
appropriately, and how to see from another viewpoint. Also, critical reading, or the
criticism of one's thinking as well as the author's thinking while reading, and revision in
writing or when an author compares his/her beliefs to what their readers may be
expecting and adjusts accordingly, are important examples of the shared reading and
writing knowledge and thinking processes at this stage. One could argue, however, that
understanding different viewpoints is a facet of the reading-writing relationship that
should be mastered at a much earlier stage of development. Given that critical literacy
(Freire, 1970), or the consideration of multiple viewpoints and the social, historical, and
21
political systems affecting literacy, is being promoted in many early childhood
classrooms, it is possible that Fitzgerald and Shanahan's (2000) model needs to be
revisited.
One of the most significant contributions of Fitzgerald and Shanahan's (2000)
developmental stages of reading-writing relations is that it extends beyond the elementary
school years. The majority of literacy research focuses on elementary school children
during the primary time of literacy acquisition. While this research is important and
necessary, it has widely overshadowed any of the less prolific work done with
adolescents.
Jetton and Dole (2004) commented that, as of 2003, there was a very limited body
of research to inform the discussion on appropriate interventions to help struggling
middle and secondary school readers and writers. This is particularly disconcerting given
the notable diversity of literacy skills that adolescents possess in middle and high school.
Stanovich (1986) showed that when students do not acquire the necessary literacy skills
in elementary school, the gap between the lagging students and those who have acquired
the skills increases as they progress through school. Secondary school teachers,
especially those in the content areas that often require reading difficult texts to acquire
knowledge, are not equipped to deal with such diverse literacy skills. Though a few
recent publications have highlighted the needs and issues related to adolescent literacy,
Pressley (2004) expressed the profound need for literacy researchers to turn their focus to
the secondary classrooms. He noted that much is not known about what secondary
22
students can and cannot do in the literacy realm beyond the information garnered by the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
Over time and even currently, reading and writing instruction has taken many
different forms. This is not necessarily surprising, given that much of the research on the
reading-writing relationship has not resulted in a solidified understanding of the
relationship and has not arrived at a definitive best practices approach to instruction. This
is especially true of reading and writing instruction in the upper grades. Additionally, two
somewhat recent publications recognized the important roles played by gender, race,
ethnicity, and self-efficacy in adolescent literacies (Alvermann, 2002; Alvermann,
Hinchman, Moore, Phelps, & Waff, 1998). This present study focused on many of these
relevant literacy issues at the adolescent level.
Good Readers/Poor Writers and Good Writers/Poor Readers
The present study also focused on students with discrepant reading and writing
ability. Students with discrepant reading and writing skills, though not nearly in the
majority, have been identified (Honeycutt, 2002; Jordan, 1986; Loban, 1976; Thacker,
1990, 1991; Tierney, 1983) and to a lesser extent studied in previous research
(Honeycutt, 2002; Jordan, 1986; Palmer, 1986; Thacker, 1990,1991). Tierney and Leys
(1986) acknowledged that different hypotheses have been offered to explain why some
students are good readers but poor writers or good writers but poor readers. One
explanation is that the definitions of reading and writing, as operationalized by different
performance measures or assessments, are capturing very different aspects or lesser
aspects of reading or writing. Potentially, reading skills are assessed using multiple
23
choice measures and writing skills are assessed with essays or qualitative measures.
Tierney and Leys pointed out that because reading and writing instruction are sometimes
taught and tested very separately in the schools, it is not entirely surprising that some
students are considered to be good readers and poor writers or vice versa (see also Pike,
Compain, & Mumper, 1994).
One of the earliest studies on good readers/poor writers looked at the differences
between good readers/good writers' and good readers/poor writers' composing processes.
Using think-aloud protocols, Jordan (1986) used a set of descriptive categories to code
reading and writing behaviors. This research showed that good readers/good writers: (a)
were able to abstract content from a reading passage and write about what they read in
their own words, (b) were more aware of the structural features of sentences, and (c)
spent much more time planning prior to writing. Good readers/poor writers struggled
with each of these aspects.
In a different approach to the study of discrepant reading and writing
performance, Palmer (1986) examined the separate literatures on good readers and on
poor writers. This research was intended to aid in the understanding of what cognitive
strategies and reading and writing practices characterize good readers/poor writers. A
major goal of this work was to answer how the positive strategies used by good readers
could be most effectively parlayed to improve writing performance. Palmer found that
good readers tended to plan, translate or interpret, reread, and reflect on or evaluate when
they read. These students appeared to utilize a number of metacognitive strategies. Poor
writers tended to make limited use of planning time, limit the reading of texts during the
24
writing process, limit reading for revision after they have written text, and devote little
time for reflection or evaluation after text production. Given these characteristics, Palmer
recommended that when teaching good readers/poor writers, the following practices
should be applied: (a) begin with low-risk unevaluated writing assignments during the
composing process, (b) use sound prewriting activities such as brainstorming or focused
freewriting to prepare students for writing assignments, (c) prepare writing assignments
that are cumulative and sequential in nature, and (d) encourage students to read their own
work while they are writing. The utility of these practices in improving the writing
performance of good readers/poor writers has not been empirically tested.
Thacker (1990, 1991) studied students' ability to understand and recognize
varying degrees of text organization when reading. Participants included 90 ninth-grade
students divided equally into groups of good readers/good writers, good readers/poor
writers, and poor readers/poor writers. Students were determined to be good readers if
they scored at or above grade level on the district-created Achievement Levels Test in
Reading in the spring of their eighth-grade year, and were considered poor readers if their
scores were at least one year below grade level. Students were determined to be good
writers if they scored above the average on both analytically and holistically scored
writing samples from the district-created Direct Writing Assessment given in February to
all eighth-grade students. Students were determined to be poor writers if they scored
below average on both of these measures. The students in the three groups were asked to
read and evaluate the organizational clarity of ordered and unordered paragraphs at the
sixth- and ninth-grade reading levels. Additionally, students were asked to reconnect sets
25
of scrambled sentences into organized paragraphs. Results indicated that good
readers/good writers and good readers/poor writers were both skilled at distinguishing
between well and poorly organized text. However, good readers/poor writers seemed to
lack an awareness of how cohesive ties can bring meaning to disorganized text and would
likely benefit from greater instructional focus on cohesive relationships and the effective
organization of their own written responses to material.
Honeycutt (2002) examined the strategy applications, perceptions and emotions of
good readers/poor writers when writing narrative text. This was a qualitative study of 11
fifth-grade students with discrepant reading and writing performance based on state
reading and writing examinations. The students were individually interviewed and also
participated in focus group discussions. Additional data were gathered by holding focus
group discussions with teachers, and using teachers' conference and lesson-planning
notes, and samples from students' portfolios. Honeycutt determined that good
readers/poor writers were lacking knowledge of prewriting strategies and schema for
story structure thereby hindering their ability to plan and generate text. These students
also showed minimal use of self-regulation strategies in evaluating and revising their
writing. Of greatest relevance to the present study, Honeycutt found that good
readers/poor writers were inhibited in their writing due to intense negative emotions
surrounding their writing ability and their perception of themselves as poor writers. It is
difficult, however, to draw any broad conclusions based on this research, as the study
only focused on a small number of fifth-grade students in one particular school.
26
Interestingly, only Honeycutt's (2002) study took an affective component into
consideration when studying good readers/poor writers. Also, none of the studies on
students with discrepant reading and writing performance considered weaker
readers/stronger writers. The present study has built on the previous work on students
with discrepant reading and writing performance but also focused on the influence of
reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs on discrepant reading and writing performance.
Also, because this study assessed a large number of students with discrepant reading and
writing performance from across the United States, the results are more generalizable
than in previous studies. Similarly, this study included students who were stronger in
writing than in reading, a group of students that has been neglected in previous studies of
discrepant reading and writing performance.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theorists recognize that people act as proactive regulators of their
motivations and actions and adopt an agentic perspective of human development,
adaptation, and change (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2001, 2002; Bandura & Locke, 2003).
Agency is the power to originate actions for particular purposes. There are three primary
sources of agency according to social cognitive theory: direct personal agency, proxy
agency which relies on others to act on one's behalf, and collective agency in which
people act together to shape their future (Bandura, 1986, 2001, 2002). The fundamental
implication is that people are contributors to their life circumstances and not just products
of them.
27
Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Among the most central mechanisms of human agency are self-efficacy beliefs.
Self-efficacy beliefs are people's judgments of their abilities to perform certain actions.
These beliefs can promote a sense of agency whereby people believe they can influence
their own lives (Bandura, 1997, 2001). Self-efficacy beliefs affect cognitive,
motivational, affective, and decisional processes and determine whether individuals will
view themselves as capable or incapable, whether or not they are motivated to persevere
in the face of hardships and barriers, their emotional well-being, as well as the choices
they make at crucial points in time (Bandura, 1997; Bandura & Locke, 2003).
The centrality of self-efficacy beliefs in human agency can be better understood
through Bandura's (1986) interdependent model of triadic reciprocality. Bandura stated
that human functioning is comprised of a series of reciprocal interactions between
environmental, behavioral, and personal variables (such as self-efficacy) that influence
each other bidirectionally. Therefore, people are both the products and the creators of
their social structures. While social structures can impose constraints and supply
resources in differing amounts in differing situations, these social structures cannot
predict what individuals will become or do under particular circumstances (Bandura,
1997). This is because the individual has the ability to influence his/her environment by
operating proactively, and not only reactively, to shape different situations and social
structures. An example of this reciprocal relationship is when a foreign language teacher
chooses to teach a particular lesson entirely in that foreign language (environmental
variable). A student with high self-efficacy for learning and understanding the foreign
28
language (personal variable) will likely increase and sharply focus his/her attention to
what the teacher is saying (behavior) so that he/she will maximize the educational
benefits of the lesson.
Self-efficacy beliefs are largely formed through mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, verbal messages and social persuasions, and interpretations of physiological
and emotional states (Bandura, 1995). For most students, past performance is the most
reliable guide for gauging self-efficacy (Schunk & Meece, 2006). Successful experiences
will generally raise self-efficacy, while failures will generally lower self-efficacy.
However, an intermittent failure among many successful experiences is not likely to
significantly alter a person's self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy beliefs can also be formed
by watching the performance of people who we believe to be similar to ourselves. For
example, if a student sees a similar peer learn a complicated mathematical concept, then
that student may be more likely to believe that he/she could also learn that concept.
Vicarious experiences are not as powerful as personal experiences in forming self-
efficacy beliefs because personal performance failure will usually take precedence over
vicarious success. Self-efficacy can also be raised or lowered through comments or
feedback from others. Telling a student, "You can do it!" before taking a spelling test
may raise their spelling self-efficacy, but it probably will not raise his/her spelling self-
efficacy if the student has done poorly on most of the previous tests. Finally, self-efficacy
beliefs can also be influenced by physiological reactions such as increased heart rate or
feelings of anxiety that can communicate to the person that they are lacking in skill or
ability to accomplish something.
29
There are a number of distinctions that must be highlighted between self-efficacy
and other constructs related to self beliefs. Self-efficacy is not the same thing as self-
concept, self-esteem, or self-confidence. Recall that self-efficacy is one's judgment of
how capable he/she is to perform a particular task in a particular situation. This differs
from an expectancy construct such as self-concept because self-concept is comprised of
one's collective self-beliefs formed through various experiences with and interpretations
of the environment, largely dependent on reinforcement and evaluation by significant
others (Pajares & Schunk, 2002; Schunk & Pajares, 2003). Self-concept is a broad and
general construct that is inclusive of self-efficacy beliefs in more specific areas. A self-
concept judgment may be stated as "I am a good English student," whereas a self-
efficacy judgment may be stated as, "I am confident that I can write a paragraph with no
grammatical errors." Moreover, studies have found that self-efficacy beliefs are more
closely related to actual engagement and learning, and are also more predictive of
performance than measures of general self-concept (Graham & Weiner, 1996;
Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Miller, 1994; Shell et al., 1995;
Shell etal., 1989).
Confidence, a conversational term that is similar to self-concept, has been
conceptualized by researchers as a general self-belief of capability that doesn't specify
the object of that belief as self-efficacy does (Schunk & Pajares, 2003). Self-esteem
differs from both self-efficacy and self-concept in that self-esteem involves people's
emotional reactions to their actual accomplishments or failures, such as feeling good or
bad about themselves because they can or cannot write a research paper (Linnenbrink &
30
Pintrich, 2003). The highly predictive nature of self-efficacy beliefs over other self-belief
constructs is the primary reason it was selected for analysis in the present study.
While self-efficacy beliefs are highly predictive of performance, they are not
always accurate or truly representative of the student's true capabilities. Not surprisingly,
students lacking confidence in skills they actually possess will be less likely to engage in
tasks requiring those skills, put forth the needed effort, and will be more likely to quit
when the task becomes challenging (Bandura, 1993,1997; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003;
Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Schunk, 2003). While low self-efficacy can be detrimental to
learning, overly high levels of self-efficacy can be just as problematic (Schunk, 2003).
Students with overly high levels of self-efficacy may feel overconfident and not exercise
the appropriate effort needed to be successful at something (Bandura, 1989; Linnenbrink
& Pintrich, 2003; Salomon, 1984; Schunk, 2003). Bandura and Schunk (1981) noted that
students' inaccurate self-efficacy estimates may develop from erroneous task analysis or
lack of self-knowledge, both of which, Klassen (2006) highlighted, are problems
commonly associated with learning disabled students. What seems apparent is that
students benefit from holding accurate and appropriate self-efficacy beliefs, and teachers
also benefit from knowing and understanding their students' self-efficacy beliefs.
Developmental Aspects of Self-Efficacy
The developmental changes that occur during adolescence certainly impact the
self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Though many would argue that it is the raging
hormones of adolescence that are responsible for many of the changes that occur during
this developmental period, there are also significant changes to and developments in the
31
structure of social systems that cannot be underestimated (Eccles et al., 1993). Beginning
in middle school, students no longer have a single teacher directing their learning and
assignments. Adolescents have many teachers, requiring the improved management of
assignments and expectations (Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). Additionally, the workload
increases in middle school and high school, and students are given the responsibility of
knowing when to seek help if they are struggling. Zimmerman and Cleary wrote that
when an adolescent does not effectively regulate this increasingly academically
demanding environment, their grades will suffer as well as their efficacy beliefs
surrounding their ability to succeed in school.
Group Differences in Self-Efficacy
Gender
Most of the research on group differences in self-efficacy beliefs has examined
gender differences in various academic domains and across development. It is not
uncommon to observe gender differences in measures of academic motivation and self-
beliefs (Wigfield, Eccles, & Pintrich, 1996). The results of research on gender differences
in self-efficacy have not always been consistent and generally depend on how the
academic domain in question is perceived by girls and boys (Pajares & Valiante, 1999,
2001; Schunk & Meece, 2006). Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, and Wigfield (2002)
observed that self-competence beliefs in language arts become increasingly differentiated
by gender with age. A number of studies have found modest gender differences in writing
self-efficacy favoring girls as early as in elementary school (Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares
& Valiante, 1997). Although Pajares and Valiante (2001) found gender differences in
32
writing self-efficacy in middle school favoring girls, the difference became
nonsignificant when students' feminine orientation beliefs, or how strongly they
identified with characteristics typically associated with females in the United States, were
controlled for. Other studies have found no gender differences in reading or writing self-
efficacy beliefs (Schunk & Lilly, 1984; Shell et al., 1995).
Culture
Bandura (2006a) stated that a great deal of research has confirmed the cross-
cultural generalizability of self-efficacy theory. Regardless of culture or country of
origin, higher self-efficacy is associated with higher achievement. While students from
various countries have similar levels of efficacy to master different academic subjects,
those from countries with authoritarian educational structures tend to have a lower sense
of efficacy to assume responsibility for their own learning (Bandura, 2002). Oettingen
and Zosuls (2006) noted that adolescents socialized in collectivist, Asian cultures tend to
have weaker self-efficacy beliefs coupled with comparatively higher performance than
adolescents socialized in Western cultures. Various hypotheses have been offered to
explain this, including that many Asian Americans are socialized to feel responsible to
their family and community, and therefore the expectations of others become more
important than their own perception of their academic performance (Eaton & Dembo,
1997). This is also related to the notion of calibration, or the degree to which students can
accurately assess their actual performance.
Many studies have linked calibration accuracy to metacognitive skills and
academic achievement (Bol, Hacker, O'Shea, & Allen, 2005). Cross-cultural studies of
33
calibration have demonstrated that students from collectivist cultures, with a high level of
communalism, almost always rate their efficacy as lower than students from individualist,
independent Western cultures, regardless of their performance level (Klassen, 2004).
However, when a form of calibration is included, in most cases, the efficacy beliefs of the
students from collectivist, non-Western cultures, were more predictive of subsequent
performance and were therefore considered to be more realistic in their predictions
(Eaton & Dembo, 1997; Klassen, 2004; Oettingen, 1995). Research on calibration has
also shown that there is a tendency for higher achieving students to be more accurate but
less confident in their performance predictions, while lower achieving students are less
accurate and overconfident in their predictions (Bol et al., 2005; Klassen, 2004).
Schunk and Meece (2006) reported that studies comparing the self-efficacy beliefs
of White, African American, and Hispanic students have produced inconsistent findings
with no clear patterns, likely due to differences in the specificity of the self-efficacy
beliefs assessed. It should also be highlighted that when studying racial/ethnic differences
in self-efficacy beliefs, other associated variables should be considered such as
socioeconomic status and second-language learners.
Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy
As previously mentioned, self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific, or linked to a
domain, whereas similar constructs such as self-concept or competence beliefs are more
general and based on social compari sons instead of normat i ve criteria (Kl assen, 2002;
Zimmerman, 1995). Self-efficacy is usually assessed at the level of specificity warranted
by the criterion task within a particular domain (Schunk & Pajares, 2004). Therefore,
34
simply assessing students' perceived competence to perform well in English class, would
not be a fine-grained enough measure because an English class is comprised of numerous
subskills and areas, including reading and writing. It is not necessarily an accurate
assumption to believe that students will hold the same self-efficacy beliefs for both
reading and writing tasks.
The present study was primarily concerned with reading and writing self-efficacy.
A number of studies have specifically examined writing self-efficacy (Klassen, 2002;
Page-Voth & Graham, 1999; Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares et al.,
1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001; Schunk & Swartz, 1993; Valiante, 2001) or
reading self-efficacy (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003; Nicaise & Gettinger, 1995; Schunk &
Rice, 1993; Wentzel, 1996; Wigfield, Guthrie, Tonks, & Perencevich, 2004), while fewer
have studied both writing and reading self-efficacy concurrently (Shell et al., 1995; Shell
et al., 1989). Higher reading self-efficacy beliefs have been linked to more skillful
reading performance and more proficient strategy use (Chapman & Tunmer, 2003;
Schunk & Rice, 1993) and higher writing self-efficacy beliefs are correlated with and
usually predictive of more skillful writing performance in students of all ages (Pajares &
Johnson, 1996; Pajares et al , 1999; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 1999, 2001). Effect sizes
between writing self-efficacy and writing achievement in multiple regression and path
analyses that control for prior achievement have ranged from .19 to .40 (Pajares, 2003).
Shell et al. (1989) desi gned the first study that si mul t aneousl y exami ned readi ng
and writing self-efficacy and achievement in a sample of 153 primarily White
undergraduates. They administered a reading self-efficacy questionnaire, writing self-
35
efficacy questionnaire, reading outcome expectancy instrument, writing outcome
expectancy instrument, a timed and holistically-scored written essay, and the Degrees of
Reading Power test. Shell et al. hypothesized that: (a) self-beliefs would account for
significant variance in reading and writing achievement, with self-efficacy accounting for
a larger amount than outcome expectancy; (b) self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in
either reading or writing would account for significant variance in the other; and (c) there
would be a significant, underlying relation that links beliefs and performance in both
domains, with self-efficacy contributing more strongly to this relationship than outcome
expectancy. Results from the study indicated that self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
beliefs accounted for a significant amount of variance in reading achievement, with self-
efficacy being the stronger predictor. Only self-efficacy beliefs, however, accounted for a
significant amount of variance in writing achievement. The study also found there was a
single underlying dimension linking beliefs and achievement for reading and writing,
with reading beliefs and achievement serving as the strongest contributors to the
relationship. The results, however, cannot be generalized given the homogenous,
unrepresentative sample.
A later study by Shell et al. (1995) additionally considered grade-level and
achievement-level differences in students' control-related, self-efficacy, and outcome
expectancy beliefs for reading and writing, and their relationship with reading and
wri t i ng achi evement . They found that there were significant mai n effects, for grade- and
achievement-level in control-related, self-efficacy, and outcome expectancy beliefs, but
there was no significant interaction between them. The findings suggest that as students
36
mature, their beliefs for reading become more predictive of higher order comprehension
skills, while their beliefs for writing become more predictive of component subskills.
Shell et al. speculated that these results could be indicative of the nature of literacy
instruction in the later grades where there is little direct teaching or assessment of reading
component subskills and feedback on students' writing is often focused on grammar,
spelling, mechanics, or other component subskills. Also, results indicated a single
underlying dimension linking beliefs and reading and writing achievement for all grades
and achievement-levels, demonstrating a reciprocal relationship between beliefs in both
reading and writing.
Measuring Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy
In order to study self-efficacy beliefs, we must be able to effectively measure
these beliefs. There is no general measure of perceived self-efficacy, but numerous
domain-specific self-efficacy scales. Perceived self-efficacy involves a person's
judgment of capability to execute given types of performances, and does not entail a
person's judgment of self-worth or the outcome likely to result from a given type of
performance (Bandura, 2006b). Typically, a self-efficacy scale will ask students to rate
their confidence, on a scale of 0 to 100, to carry out specific tasks such as writing a
research paper on a teacher-assigned topic. How self-efficacy is assessed can produce
varying results in relation to relevant outcomes. Pajares and Miller (1995) demonstrated
the importance of thoughtfully, specifically, and accurately assessing self-efficacy in their
study of two different types of math self-efficacy scales on math problem-solving
performance. As hypothesized, math problem-solving self-efficacy was a better predictor
37
of math problem-solving performance than math course self-efficacy among college
students. Greater prediction from self-efficacy measures to task performance is also aided
by response formats that range from 0 to 100, rather than scales that use fewer steps and
less discrimination (Pajares, Hartley, & Valiante, 2001).
Shell et al. (1989) developed, and later revised (Shell et al., 1995), what are likely
the most commonly used measures of reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs among
adolescents. Each instrument contains a task subscale and a component skills subscale.
Items from the reading task subscale, for example, ask students to rate their confidence,
on a scale of 0 (no chance) to 100 (complete certainty), to be able to read and understand
what the author was saying for 18 different reading tasks. Items from the reading
component skill subscale, for example, ask students to rate their confidence, on a scale of
0 to 100, to be able to perform nine different reading skills. Accurately understanding
students' reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs is crucial in helping educators
comprehend students' underlying academic motivation, choices, and behavior in
particular domains (Pajares & Miller, 1995). Students with unrealistically low self-
efficacy in the presence of strong skills, in particular, should be targeted for self-efficacy
interventions to improve motivation and performance (Bandura, 1997).
Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy Interventions
One of the primary reasons that self-efficacy is so widely researched is due to its
mutable natureor because educators understand that there are useful interventions for
increasing students' self-efficacy that are associated with better performance. Jinks and
his colleagues have asserted that self-efficacy beliefs are antecedent to academic success
38
because they motivate behavior (Jinks & Lorsbach, 2003; Jinks & Morgan, 1999).
Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) explicated this notion by proposing that self-efficacy
influences (a) behavioral engagement through effort, persistence, and instrumental help-
seeking, (b) cognitive engagement through strategy use and metacognition, and (c)
motivational engagement through interest, value, and affectall of which influence
learning and achievement. Therefore, when teachers engage in self-efficacy
enhancement, underachieving students, in particular, should experience academic
improvements because they have improved their use of strategies, their ability to persist,
their interest in the domain, and other related factors.
Researchers have offered numerous recommendations for appropriately
increasing students' self-efficacy. Schunk (2003) emphasized using instructional methods
that incorporate modeled strategies for reading and writing, progress feedback to
students, goal-setting, and self-evaluations of progress. Studies on the effects of goal
setting and progress feedback on self-efficacy and writing achievement have indicated
that setting process goals instead of product goals, coupled with progress feedback, have
the greatest impact on posttest self-efficacy and skill, efficacy for improvement, and
progress in strategy learning (Schunk & Swartz, 1993). Walker (2003) noted related ways
for teachers to implement interventions to promote higher reading and writing self-
efficacy, including (a) giving students more choice in the curriculum, (b) encouraging
strategic thinking, (c) providing self-evaluation opportunities, and (d) changing the types
of assessments used in the classroom. Similarly, Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) made
the following recommendations for teachers to be mindful of when considering students'
39
self-efficacy beliefs: (a) help students to maintain high but accurate self-efficacy beliefs,
(b) academically challenge students in a way that most can be successful after exerting
effort, (c) foster the belief that ability is not a fixed entity but can be changed and
improved upon over time, and (d) promote students' domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs
rather than their general self-esteem.
Pajares (2003) commented that most teachers and parents would agree that there
are many situations in which students' inaccurate self-beliefs, as opposed to having a
weak knowledge base or subpar skills, are responsible for their academically
shortchanging themselves. It is situations such as these, where students would greatly
benefit from having teachers identify, challenge, and alter these inaccurate judgments and
reposition students for academic success.
Summary
Although there are many known similarities between the cognitive processes and
knowledge involved in the acts of reading and writing (Kucer, 1985, 1987, 2005; Langer
& Flihan, 2000; Shanahan & Lomax, 1986; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991; Rosenblatt,
1994), there are students who can be considered much stronger readers than writers and
much stronger writers than readers (Langer, 1986; Palmer, 1986; Thacker, 1991). Very
few studies, however, have effectively examined the discrepant reading and writing
performance of high school students. Now that the two major college admission tests in
the Uni t ed States, the SAT and ACT, include wri t i ng sections, investigating this type of
discrepant performance would be quite valuable. Such research can offer insight into the
40
relationship between reading and writing and could focus instructional efforts for
improving students' reading and writing performance.
One explanation for students' discrepant reading and writing performance may be
related to differing reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs. Individuals hold self-
efficacy beliefs that enable them to exert control over their thoughts, feelings, and
actions. These self-efficacy beliefs, or the beliefs people hold about their capabilities, are
largely formed through mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal messages and
social persuasions, and interpretations of physiological and emotional states (Bandura,
1995). Self-efficacy beliefs are context-specific, or linked to particular domains such as
reading or writing. Reading self-efficacy has been closely linked to reading performance
(Paris & Oka, 1986; Shell et al., 1995; Shell et al., 1989), as has writing self-efficacy to
writing performance (Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Schunk &
Swartz, 1993; Shell et al , 1995; Shell et al., 1989; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994).
Bandura (1986, 1993) stated that when self-efficacy is lacking, people will tend to
underachieve, despite knowing what it is they need to do to be successful. It is possible
that students exhibiting discrepant reading and writing performance may possess the
knowledge, skills, and strategies needed to succeed in both domains, but are not able
successfully leverage them for both, due to differing self-efficacy beliefs in reading and
writing. Encouragingly, there are numerous studies indicating that self-efficacy and
achi evement can be enhanced t hrough instructional met hods that incorporate model ed
strategy use, goal setting, constructive feedback, and self-evaluation of progress,
indicating that students can improve their reading or writing performance through these
practices (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Schunk, 2003; Walker, 2003).
42
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Participants
Participants in this study were drawn from the 18- and 19-year-olds who took the
October 2006 and/or November 2006 standard administrations of the SAT in the United
States. Students in this age range were chosen for the sample because students younger
than 18 would have needed to obtain parental permission before participating in the
study, significantly jeopardizing the response rate. Students who are older than 19 who
take the SAT are more likely to be nontraditional students, so they were excluded from
the sample. As this research examined the influence of reading and writing self-efficacy
on reading and writing performance among four groups of students (strong readers/strong
writers, stronger readers/weaker writers, weaker readers/stronger writers, and weak
readers/weak writers), the groups were determined by computing standardized scores on
the Critical Reading and Writing SAT tests. A standardized score is expressed in standard
deviation units and provides a measure of a student's relative standing in a group (Vogt,
1999). The standardized score is comparable across all tests and provides a uniform
measure for ease of use and interpretation. All of the students deemed to fit in either the
stronger readers/weaker writers (n = 4,678), weaker readers/stronger writers (n = 4,120)
categories were included in the sample. As expected, the consistently strong and
43
consistently weak groups each included over 10,000 students, so that smaller,
representative samples of the strong readers/strong writers (N = 4,657) and weak
readers/weak writers (n = 4,727) groups were included in the total sample of students (N
= 18,182). The mean age of the sample receiving the measures was 18.04 (SD = .19). The
racial composition of the students receiving the measures was 0.6% (n = 117) American
Indian or Alaska Native, 10.9% (n = 1,979) Asian, Asian-American, or Pacific Islander,
11.9% (n = 2,167) Black or African American, 11.3% (n = 2,066) Hispanic, 62.0% (n
= 11,266) White, and 3.2% (n =587) Other. The overall gender composition of those
receiving the measures was 51.8% (n = 9,238) female and 49.2% (n = 8,944) male. The
mean SAT Critical Reading score for this sample was 518.13 (SD = 155.13), the mean
SAT Writing score was 509.12 (SD = 149.60), and the mean SAT Math score was 527.36
(SZ>= 131.05).
Instruments and Materials
Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT)
Critical Reading Section
The PSAT/NMSQT is 2-hour and 10-minute test. It has two 25-minute Critical
Reading sections (48 questions), two 25-minute Math sections (38 questions), and one
30-minute Writing Skills section (39 questions). The PSAT/NMSQT measures skills that
are important for successful academic performance in college, including knowledge and
skills developed through years of study in a wide range of courses as well as through
experiences outside the classroom. Some of the critical reading skills tested in this section
include: understanding main ideas in a reading passage, understanding tone, comparing
and contrasting ideas presented in two passages, understanding the use of examples,
44
recognizing the purpose of various writing strategies, and many others. The Critical
Reading section includes 13 sentence-completion items and 35 passage-based reading
questions. Scores on each section of the test range from 20 to 80. The PSAT/NMSQT
generally demonstrates excellent psychometric properties. The IRT reliability of the
Critical Reading section is .88 (College Board, 2006).
Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT) -
Writing Skills Section
The PSAT/NMSQT is 2-hour and 10-minute test. It has two 25-minute Critical
Reading sections (48 questions), two 25-minute Math sections (38 questions), and one
30-minute Writing Skills section (39 questions). The PSAT/NMSQT measures skills that
are important for successful academic performance in college, including knowledge and
skills developed through years of study in a wide range of courses as well as through
experiences outside the classroom. Some of the writing skills tested in this section
include: being precise and clear, following conventions in writing, recognizing logical
connections with sentences and passages, using verbs correctly, and many others. The
Writing Skills section includes 20 sentence improvement items, 14 sentence error
identification items, and five paragraph improvement items. Scores on each section of the
test range from 20 to 80. The PSAT/NMSQT generally demonstrates excellent
psychometric properties. The IRT reliability of the Writing Skills section is .88 (College
Board, 2006).
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument
The Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument, developed and perfected by Shell
et al. (1995; Shell et al., 1989), was adapted for use in the present study to measure
45
students' self-efficacy beliefs for reading tasks and reading component skills (see
Appendix A for all of the instruments that will be used in the study). Most studies
examining reading and/or writing self-efficacy in adolescents use the reading and writing
self-efficacy instruments developed by Shell and his colleagues. The instruments are
based directly on Bandura's guidelines for self-efficacy scales, following the generally
accepted methods for creating valid self-efficacy assessments. These instruments were
originally intended for college students, and therefore some items needed to be removed
and others were added to ensure that the measure was appropriate and valid for high
school-age students and better aligned with the reading performance measure in this
study. Items from the reading task subscale of the instrument asked students to rate their
confidence, on a scale of 0 (no chance) to 100 (complete certainty), to be able to read and
understand what the author was saying for 18 different reading tasks. Items from the
reading component skill subscale, for example, asked students to rate their confidence, on
a scale of 0 to 100, to be able to perform nine different reading skills. Two additional,
highly applicable reading skills were included on the subscale for this study, including
comparing and contrasting ideas in a passage and making inferences about an author's
views. Each subscale resulted in its own score determined by the mean of the item
responses for each subscale. Validity evidence for the instrument includes its utility in
predicting reading achievement across grade levels (Shell et al., 1995; Shell et al., 1989).
Also, consistent with prior research, Shell et al. (1989) found that the reading self-
efficacy instrument had a stronger relationship with reading achievement than the
outcome expectancy instruments. The established reliability coefficient of the reading
46
task subscale, assessed with Cronbach's alpha, is .92 and is .93 for the component skills
subscale. In this study, the reliability coefficient of the reading task subscale, assessed
with Cronbach's alpha, was .94 and was also .94 for the component skills subscale.
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument
Similarly, the Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument, developed and revised by
Shell et al. (1995; Shell et al., 1989), was adapted for use in the present study to measure
students' self-efficacy beliefs for writing tasks and component skills. Items from the
writing task subscale of the instrument asked students to rate their confidence, on a scale
of 0 (no chance) to 100 (complete certainty), to be able to successfully communicate
what they wanted to say for 16 different writing tasks. Two of the original items were
removed because they were outdated and replaced with more applicable items. Items
from the writing component skill subscale asked students to rate their confidence, on a
scale of 0 to 100, in their ability to perform eight different writing skills. One additional
item regarding the use of clear examples to support a point of view was added for its
applicability to the study. Each subscale resulted in its own score determined by the mean
of the item responses for each subscale. Validity evidence for the instrument includes its
utility in predicting writing achievement across grade levels (Shell et al., 1995; Shell et
al., 1989). Also, consistent with prior research, Shell et al. (1989) found that the writing
self-efficacy instrument had a stronger relationship with writing achievement than the
out come expect ancy i nst rument s. The established reliability of the wri t i ng task subscale,
assessed with Cronbach's alpha, is .92 and .95 for the component skills subscale. In this
47
study, the reliability coefficient of the reading task subscale, assessed with Cronbach's
alpha, was .93 and was .96 for the component skills subscale.
SAT Critical Reading Test
The SAT Critical Reading Test consists of two 25-minute sections and one 20-
minute section on the SAT Reasoning Test, primarily used for college admissions and
placement in the United States. In 2005, 1,475,623 students took the SAT. The SAT
Critical Reading Test measures a student's ability to read and think carefully based on
sentence completions and items related to passages ranging in length from 100 to
approximately 850 words, on topics ranging from literary fiction to natural sciences. The
sentence completions measure a student's knowledge of the meaning of words and their
ability to understand how parts of a sentence fit together in a logical manner. The
questions related to the reading passages test either vocabulary-in-context, literal
comprehension, or extended reasoning. The SAT Critical Reading Test is scored on a
scale of 200-800. The internal consistency reliability (Dressel KR-20) of the Critical
Reading section ranges from .91 to .92.
SAT Writing Test
The SAT Writing Test consists of one 25-minute essay, one 25-minute multiple-
choice section and one 10-minute multiple-choice section on the SAT Reasoning Test,
primarily used for college admissions and placement in the US. The SAT Writing Test
measures a student's ability to improve sentences, identify sentence errors, improve
paragraphs, and write an essay that will assess a student's ability to think critically and
write effectively in response to a prompt adapted from an authentic text, under time
48
constraints similar to those encountered in essay tests in college courses. The SAT
Writing Test is scored on a scale of 200-800, and an essay score is also produced based
on the ratings of two trained essay readers on a scale of 0 to 12. The IRT reliability
estimates of the Writing section ranges from .89 to .91.
SA T Questionnaire
The SAT Questionnaire is an informational survey administered to all students
when they register for the SAT, either online or by mail. It consists of 42 questions about
the student's background, high school experiences, and thoughts about college.
Responses to the Questionnaire are used by counselors and college admissions officers to
assist students in making future educational plans, and help the College Board Research
& Analysis group ensure that the SAT is fair and accurate for all students. The present
study used 11 items from the SAT Questionnaire (see Appendix A).
Procedures
The College Board e-mailed the students identified by the researcher for
participation in the study based on their SAT Critical Reading and Writing scores from
the October or November 2006 administration. The e-mail was sent to inform these
students that a researcher would be contacting them to participate in a study that is
endorsed by the College Board (see Appendix B for correspondence with participants).
Participants were told that participation in the study was voluntary and that completing
the measures would automatically qualify them to enter a raffle to win one of two
available iPods in appreciation for their participation. Additionally, participants were told
that their responses to the instruments would remain confidential and were in no way tied
49
to any of the College Board programs. Two days later, the researcher e-mailed an
informed consent letter (see Appendix B) and the adapted Reading Self-Efficacy
Instrument (Shell et al., 1989) and the adapted Writing Self-Efficacy Instrument (Shell et
al., 1989) to participants via online survey software. Completion of the instruments took
approximately 15 minutes. The measures remained available online for a two week
period. The researcher also had access to the students' SAT scores, PSAT/NMSQT
scores, SAT registration information including the students' e-mail addresses and gender,
and SAT Questionnaire information from an internal database at the College Board that
was merged with the returned data from the online survey software.
The original response rate for the measures was 4.2% (N- 764); however after
examining the responses for missing data, it was determined that only 3.4% (N = 619) of
the responses were complete enough for meaningful analysis. Though this is a low
response rate, this rate was expected due to the attrition of participants that takes place
when students are asked to respond to online materials or surveys (Carini, Hayek, Kuh,
Kennedy, & Ouimet, 2003; Sax, Gilmartin, Lee, & Hagedorn, 2003). For example, online
survey response rates may be influenced by a mistrust of the internet or a lesser sense of
urgency to complete the survey when it can be filled out at one's leisure and there is no
physical reminder of a paper to respond to (Kaye & Johnson, 1999).
The mean age of the participants was 18.03 (SD = .16) which was very similar to
the mean age of those receiving the measures. The highest response rate of the four
groups was the SR/SW group with a 5.6% (n =261) response rate, followed by SR/WW
with a 3.7% (n = 174) response rate, WR/SW with a 2.9% (n = 121) response rate, and
50
WR/WW with a 1.3% (n = 63) response rate. The racial composition of the participants
was . 3% (n = 2) American Indian or Alaska Native, 14.5% (n = 90) Asian, Asian-
American, or Pacific Islander, 5.8% (n = 36) Black or African American, 8.4% (n = 52)
Hispanic, 67.5% (n = 418) White, and 3.4% (n = 21) other. This sample was comprised
of more Asian and White students, and fewer Black and Hispanic students than the
overall group receiving the measures. The gender composition of those responding to the
measures was 52.7% (n =326) female and 47.3% (n =293) male, which was similar to
the composition of the total group receiving the measures. The participants' mean SAT
Critical Reading score was 618.90 (SD = 133.35), the mean SAT Writing score was
600.52 (SD = 129.39), and the mean SAT Math score was 605.95 (SD = 114.27).
Therefore, the students responding to the self-efficacy measures were a much more able
group than the larger sample of students receiving the measures. This is primarily
because the largest performance group in the overall sample is the strong readers/strong
writers groupa group selected based on their high level of performance on the SAT
Critical Reading and Writing sections.
Data Analysis
Analyses were conducted using SPSS version 14.0, as well as AMOS 5.0
(Arbuckle, 2003). First, preliminary analyses were computed, including means, standard
deviations, ranges, skewness, and kurtosis on the self-efficacy items, scales, and across
the participants' academic variables. Frequencies and ranges were computed for the
demographic variables.
51
Descriptive statistics for the four groups were examined, as well as chi-square
tests of association and Mests between the stronger reader/weaker writer and weaker
reader/stronger writer groups for prior English achievement, gender, best language,
race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other characteristics. This information was
useful in highlighting the commonalities and differences that characterize students
exhibiting discrepant reading and writing performance on the SAT, and can be
particularly helpful in the design and development of specific educational interventions
for them. These analyses were related to answering the seventh research question
mentioned in the earlier section, regarding the differences in writing self-efficacy,
reading self-efficacy, prior English achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best language,
and socioeconomic status between the two discrepant groups (stronger readers/weaker
writers and weaker readers/stronger writers).
The first and second research questions, related to testing the mediational role of
reading and writing self-efficacy on reading and writing performance were answered with
Baron and Kenny's (1986) recommended set of analyses to test for mediation with path
analysis using AMOS 5.0 (Arbuckle, 2003). Given that multiple independent variables
were presumed to affect the mediator, self-efficacy, the more straightforward mediational
tests using regression would not suffice. Instead, the Sobel (1982) statistic was calculated
for each path to test for mediation in the models of reading and writing performance (as
cited in Baron & Kenny, 1986). Sobel's formula is computed after the path model has
been constructed, and is based on the regression weights of the paths and their
corresponding standard errors. The formula is:
52
z = ab/-\]b
2
s
a
2
+a
2
s
b
2
,
where a is the unstandardized regression coefficient for the association between a
predictor and a mediator, b is the unstandardized regression coefficient for the unique
association between the mediator and the criterion when the predictor is entered into the
equation, and s
a
is the standard error of a, and % is the standard error of b. The resulting
test statistic is treated as a z-test, so that values larger than 1.96 are significant at the .05
level. In order to meet the precondition for mediation, a predictor must significantly
affect the criterion and the potential mediator, and the potential mediator must also
significantly affect the criterion when that predictor is accounted for in the path model.
Provided these conditions are satisfied, an examination of the Sobel statistic can test for
the extent that the mediator accounts for the relationship between the predictor and
criterion.
The third and fourth research questions pertained to the prediction of reading or
writing performance from reading or writing self-efficacy beliefs, after controlling for
prior reading or writing achievement, gender, best language (English or not English),
race/ethnicity (minority or nonminority), and parental income using hierarchical linear
regression. In keeping with the principles of regression analysis, all assumptions were
checked after data collection in order to determine whether or not the assumptions have
been violated, and if the data need to be transformed or analyzed using another method
(Miles & Shevlin, 2001). Using hierarchical linear regression techniques, the first block
of variables representing students' background and experiences with reading or writing
included reading or writing achievement, gender, best language, race/ethnicity, and
53
parental income. The second block entered into the regression was reading or writing
self-efficacy beliefs. The dependent variables were reading or writing performance
(based on SAT Critical Reading or Writing scores). Hierarchical linear regression allows
the researcher to enter independent variables, or sets of independent variables, into an
equation in a specified order (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Each independent variable is
evaluated based on what it adds to the equation at its own point of entry. For each of the
four groups (strong readers/strong writers, stronger readers/weaker writers, weaker
readers/stronger writers, and weak readers/weak writers), the contribution of reading self-
efficacy to reading performance and the contribution of writing self-efficacy to writing
performance was examined.
The fifth and sixth research questions, which involved the prediction of reading
achievement from writing self-efficacy scores and writing achievement from reading self-
efficacy scores, were also analyzed using hierarchical linear regression techniques,
controlling for prior English achievement, gender, best language, race/ethnicity, and
parental income.
54
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This study was designed to examine the role of reading and writing self-efficacy
beliefs on reading and writing performance on the SAT. Also, this study included
descriptive differences between students exhibiting discrepant reading and writing
performance on the SAT. It was expected that reading and writing self-efficacy would
partially mediate the effect of students' backgrounds and experiences with reading and
writing on reading and writing performance on the SAT. It was also expected that reading
self-efficacy beliefs would uniquely contribute to the prediction of reading performance
after controlling for prior performance and other background variables. The same
expectation held for the prediction of writing performance. Of particular interest was
whether the contribution of reading or writing self-efficacy beliefs to reading or writing
performance was larger for the discrepant groups. An examination of reading self-
efficacy beliefs to predict writing performance and writing self-efficacy beliefs to predict
writing performance was also conducted. Finally, the results of chi-square and /-tests
were used to examine differences between the discrepant groups across various
characteristics, including: high school GPA, high school English GPA, English
coursework, highest planned level of education, ethnicity, best language, parents' highest
level of education, and combined parental income.
55
Characteristics of the Participants
The distribution of participants in the four performance groups along gender,
ethnicity, first language, best language, parental education level, and combined parental
income level are presented in Tables 1-4. Overall, 53% of responders were female (n =
326) and 47% were male (n = 293). The largest differences between the number of male
and female responders were found in the stronger reader/weaker writer group, with 59%
of responders being male, and the weaker reader/stronger writer group, with 63% of the
responders being female. Differences in the percentage of non-White students in each
group were evident with the highest percentage of these students in the weak
readers/weak writers group (65%), followed by the stronger readers/weaker writers group
(33%), then the weaker readers/stronger writers group (28%), and finally the strong
readers/strong writers group (26%). Strong readers/strong writers have the highest
percentage of students reporting English to be their first (79%) and best (92%) languages,
while the weak readers/weak writers have the lowest percentage of students reporting
English to be either their first (64%) or best (73%) language among the four performance
groups. Of the two discrepant groups, a slightly higher percentage of students in the
stronger reader/weaker writer group reported English to be their first (78%) and best
(88%) language over the weaker reader/stronger writer group, with 76% reporting
English to be their first language and 85% reporting English to be their best language.
1

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

b
y

G
e
n
d
e
r

S
t
r
o
n
g

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

W
e
a
k
e
r

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

W
e
a
k

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

W
e
a
k
e
r

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

W
e
a
k

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

{
n

=

2
6
1
)

(
n

=

1
7
4
)

(
n

=

1
2
1
)

(
n

=

6
3
)

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

G
e
n
d
e
r

F
e
m
a
l
e

1
4
2

5
4
.
4

7
1

4
0
.
8

7
6

6
2
.
8

3
7

5
8
.
7

M
a
l
e

1
1
9

4
5
.
6

1
0
3

5
9
.
2

4
5

3
7
.
2

2
6

4
1
.
3

T
a
b
l
e

2

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

b
y

E
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y

S
t
r
o
n
g

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

W
e
a
k
e
r

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

W
e
a
k

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

W
e
a
k
e
r

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

W
e
a
k

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

(
n

=

2
6
1
)

(
n

=

1
7
4
)

(
n

=

1
2
1
)

(

=

6
3
)

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

E
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
y

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

I
n
d
i
a
n

o
r

A
l
a
s
k
a

N
a
t
i
v
e

A
s
i
a
n
,

A
s
i
a
n
-
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
,

o
r

P
a
c
i
f
i
c

I
s
l
a
n
d
e
r

B
l
a
c
k

o
r

A
f
r
i
c
a
n
-
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

M
e
x
i
c
a
n

o
r

M
e
x
i
c
a
n
-
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

O
t
h
e
r

H
i
s
p
a
n
i
c
,

L
a
t
i
n
o
,

o
r

L
a
t
i
n

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

W
h
i
t
e

O
t
h
e
r

0

0

4
2

1
6
.
1

5

1
.
9

5

1
.
9

6

2
.
3

1
9
3

7
3
.
9

1
0

3
.
8

2

1
.
1

0

2
3

1
3
.
2

1
6

1
0

5
.
7

1
0

9

5
.
2

2

1
0

5
.
7

5

1
1
6

6
6
.
7

8
7

4

2
.
3

1

0

0

0

1
3
.
2

9

1
4
.
3

8
.
3

1
1

1
7
.
5

1
.
7

5

7
.
9

4
.
1

1
0

1
5
.
9

7
1
.
9

2
2

3
4
.
9

.
8

6

9
.
5

T
a
b
l
e

3

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

b
y

F
i
r
s
t

a
n
d

B
e
s
t

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
s

F
i
r
s
t

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

O
n
l
y

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

a
n
d

A
n
o
t
h
e
r

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

A
n
o
t
h
e
r

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

B
e
s
t

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

O
n
l
y

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

a
n
d

A
n
o
t
h
e
r

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

S
t
r
o
n
g

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

0
=
2
6
1
)

S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

W
e
a
k
e
r

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

{
n

=

1
7
4
)

W
e
a
k
e
r

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

(
n

=

1
2
1
)

W
e
a
k

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

W
e
a
k

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

{
n

=

6
3
)

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

2
0
6

2
9

2
6

2
3
9

1
3

7
8
.
9

1
1
.
1

1
0
.
0

9
1
.
6

5
.
0

1
3
7

7
8
.
7

2
0

1
7

1
5
3

1
4

1
1
.
5

9
.
8

8
7
.
9

8
.
0

9
2

1
0

1
8

1
0
3

7
6
.
0

8
.
3

1
4
.
9

8
5
.
1

7
.
4

4
0

6
3
.
5

1
3

2
0
.
6

1
0

1
5
.
9

4
6

7
3
.
0

1
1

1
7
.
5

A
n
o
t
h
e
r

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

3
.
4

4
.
0

7
.
4

9
.
5

T
a
b
l
e

4

P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

b
y

P
a
r
e
n
t
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

I
n
c
o
m
e

L
e
v
e
l

P
a
r
e
n
t
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

L
e
v
e
l

N
o

H
i
g
h

S
c
h
o
o
l

D
i
p
l
o
m
a

H
i
g
h

S
c
h
o
o
l

D
i
p
l
o
m
a

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
'
s

D
e
g
r
e
e

B
a
c
h
e
l
o
r
'
s

D
e
g
r
e
e

G
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

D
e
g
r
e
e

P
a
r
e
n
t
a
l

I
n
c
o
m
e

L
e
v
e
l

<
$
2
0
,
0
0
0

$
2
0
,
0
0
0
-
3
5
,
0
0
0

$
3
5
,
0
0
0
-
6
0
,
0
0
0

>
$

1
0
0
,
0
0
0

S
t
r
o
n
g

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

S
t
r
o
n
g

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

(
=
2
6
1
)

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

2

3
1

1
2

9
1

1
2
5

2
0

5
3

8
4

1
0
4

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

.
8

1
1
.
9

4
.
6

3
4
.
9

4
7
.
9

7
.
7

2
0
.
3

3
2
.
2

3
9
.
8

S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

W
e
a
k
e
r

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

(
n

=

1
7
4
)

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

1
0

3
7

1
5

4
7

6
5

2
8

4
9

4
6

5
1

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

5
.
7

2
1
.
3

8
.
6

2
7
.
0

3
7
.
4

1
6
.
1

2
8
.
2

2
6
.
4

2
9
.
3

W
e
a
k
e
r

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

{
n

=

1
2
1
)

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

2

2
4

1
0

4
1

4
4

1
2

2
7

4
3

3
9

1
.
7

1
9
.
8

8
.
3

3
3
.
9

3
6
.
4

9
.
9

2
2
.
3

3
5
.
5

3
2
.
2

W
e
a
k

R
e
a
d
e
r
s

/

W
e
a
k

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

(
n

=

6
3
)

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

8

2
5

2

1
7

1
1

2
4

1
7

1
1

1
1

1
2
.
7

3
9
.
7

3
.
2

2
7
.
0

1
7
.
5

3
8
.
1

2
7
.
0

1
7
.
5

1
7
.
5

60
Means, standard deviations, and ranges of scores for all measures are
presented for the total sample and the four groups in Tables 5-9. Not surprisingly, the
strong readers/strong writers had the highest mean scores and weak readers/weak
writers had the lowest mean scores on all academic and self-efficacy measures.
Comparisons of means for the two discrepant groups were examined. The stronger
readers/weaker writers had significantly higher SAT Critical Reading (t= 11.33,/? <
.001) and PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading (/ = 4.89,p < .001) scores and
significantly lower SAT Writing scores (t = -10.97, p < .001) than the weaker
reader/stronger writer group. The stronger readers/weaker writers also had
significantly higher Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTask scores (t = 2.44,/? < .05).
61
Table 5
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores for the PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, and
Self-Efficacy Measures for Total Sample (N - 619)
Possible
Variable Mean SD Range Range
PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading
Writing Skills
SAT
Critical Reading
Writing
Reading Skills
Reading Tasks
Writing Skills
Writing Tasks
57.65
59.35
618.90
600.52
91.57
88.99
90.72
83.82
12.12
12.15
133.35
129.39
10.82
11.29
13.56
13.91
20-80
29-80
200-800
220-800
20.91-100.00
33.33-100.00
2.22-100.00
22.19-100.00
20-80
20-80
200-800
200-800
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
62
Table 6
Self-Efficacy Measures for the Strong Readers/Strong Writers (n = 261)
Variable
PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading
Writing Skills
SAT
Critical Reading
Writing
Reading Skills
Reading Tasks
Writing Skills
Writing Tasks
Mean
64.72
66.66
697.09
685.13
95.10
92.07
95.10
87.85
SD
7.01
7.49
52.62
49.95
8.80
7.13
8.80
10.94
Range
37-80
46-80
590-800
590-800
71.82-100.00
62.72-100.00
31.11-100.00
31.25-100.00
Possible Range
20-80
20-80
200-800
200-800
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
63
Table 7
Self-Efficacy Measures for the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers (n = 174)
Variable
PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading
Writing Skills
SAT
Critical Reading
Writing
Self-Efficacy
Beliefs
Reading Skills
Reading Tasks
Writing Skills
Writing Tasks
Mean
58.51
56.44
660.52
527.07
92.06
90.59
89.82
84.04
SD
10.07
10.51
97.98
94.66
9.70
9.57
13.71
12.83
Range
30-80
33-80
350-800
220-720
44.55-100.00
38.33-100.00
21.11-100.00
23.13-100.00
Possible
Range
20-80
20-80
200-800
200-800
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
64
Table 8
Self-Efficacy Measures for the Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers (n = 121)
Variable
PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading
Writing Skills
SAT
Critical Reading
Writing
Reading Skills
Reading Tasks
Writing Skills
Writing Tasks
Mean
52.75
58.77
528.93
651.49
90.28
87.58
91.20
82.31
SD
9.77
10.35
98.28
97.43
9.70
10.97
10.55
13.16
Range
25-78
32-80
200-690
310-800
54.55-100.00
53.89-100.00
52.78-100.00
40.63-100.00
Possible
Range
20-80
20-80
200-800
200-800
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
65
Table 9
Self-Efficacy Measures for the Weak Readers/Weak Writers (n = 63)
Variable
PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading
Writing Skills
SAT
Critical Reading
Writing
Reading Skills
Reading Tasks
Writing Skills
Writing Tasks
Mean
35.41
38.21
352.86
354.92
76.10
74.55
74.11
69.41
SD
5.46
4.13
42.78
37.33
17.07
17.47
20.12
18.64
Range
20-45
29^18
200-440
260-480
20.91-100.00
33.33-98.22
2.22-100.00
22.19-97.69
Possible Range
20-80
20-80
200-800
200-800
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
0.00-100.00
66
Pearson correlations were computed for all of the continuous variables in the
study, including reading and writing PSAT/NMSQT, SAT, self-efficacy belief scores,
high school English GPA, and parental income for the total group as well as for the
four performance groups in Tables 10-14. Significant positive correlations were
found between all variables for the total group at/? < .01, except for the relationship
between parental income and high school English GPA, and income and Reading
Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks, which were both significant positive relationships at p
< .05. For each of the performance groups, the four measures of self-efficacy were
highly correlated, and income appeared to consistently have the weakest relationship
among the variables. The strength and significance of the correlations were more
variable among the weak readers/weak writers than any of the other performance
groups. The relationship between high school English GPA and the other variables
was among the more inconsistent relationships, with significant positive relationships
among only the reading and writing performance measures for the stronger
readers/weaker writers (p < .01), but significant positive relationships with all
variables for the weaker readers/stronger writers (p < .01 and/? < .05). None of the
correlations with high school English GPA were significant for the weak
readers/weak writers; however, this sample was much smaller than the other
performance groups.
T
a
b
l
e

1
0

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
m
o
n
g

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
f
o
r

T
o
t
a
l

S
a
m
p
l
e

(
N

=

6
1
9
)

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1
0

1
.

H
S

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

G
P
A

~

2
.

I
n
c
o
m
e

(
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l

c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
)

.
0
9
*

3
.

P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

.
5
0
*
*

4
.

P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
k
i
l
l
s

.
5
0
*
*

5
.

S
A
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

.
4
8
*
*

6
.

S
A
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

.
5
2
*
*

7
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s

.
3
4
*
*

8
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s

.
2
4
*
*

9
.

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s

.
3
2
*
*

1
0
.

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s

.
2
6
*

*

*
p
<
.
0
5
.

*
*
/
?
<
.
0
1
.

.
2
4
*
*

2
4
*
*

8
2
*
*

.
2
0
*
*

.
8
7
*
*

.
7
8

*
*

7
8
*
*

.
2
8
*
*

.
7
5
*
*

.
8
3
*
*

.
7
3
*
*

.
1
4
*
*

.
5
6
*
*

.
5
3
*
*

.
5
7
*
*

.
5
3
*
*

1
0
*

4
9
*
*

4
4
*
*

4
7
*
*

.
4
3
*
*

.
7
8
*
*

1
3
*
*

.
4
6
*
*

.
4
9
*
*

.
4
7
*
*

.
5
1
*
*

.
8
1
*
*

.
6
1
*
*

1
2
*
*

4
3
*
*

4
2
*
*

4
2
*
*

4
2
*
*

7
7
*
*

7
4
*
*

.
6
9
*
*

T
a
b
l
e

1
1

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
m
o
n
g

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
f
o
r

S
t
r
o
n
g

R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
S
t
r
o
n
g

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

(
n

=

2
6
1
)

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1
0

1
.

H
S

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

G
P
A

~

2
.

I
n
c
o
m
e

(
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l

c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
)

-
.
0
1

3
.

P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

.
1
0

4
.

P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
k
i
l
l
s

.
1
4
*

5
.

S
A
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

.
1
7
*

6
.

S
A
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

.
0
6

7
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s

.
0
8

8
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s

.
0
3

9
.

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s

.
1
2

1
0
.

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s

.
0
4

*
/
?
<
.
0
5

*
*
p
<
.
0
1

<
^

.
1
2
*

.
1
0

.
5
3
*
*

.
0
1

.
5
5
*
*

.
4
9
*
*

.
1
6
*
*

.
4
2
*
*

.
5
6
*
*

.
5
6
*
*

.
0
5

.
2
8
*
*

.
2
5
*
*

.
1
0

.
1
6
*
*

.
1
0

.
2
1
*
*

.
1
9
*
*

.
0
0

.
1
1

.
5
6
*
*

.
0
2

.
1
3
*

.
2
4
*
*

.
0
9

.
2
0
*
*

.
7
2
*
*

.
3
9
*
*

.
0
8

.
1
2
*

.
1
9
*
*

.
0
2

.
1
6
*
*

.
7
1
*
*

.
6
8
*
*

.
5
8
*
*

-
-
T
a
b
l
e

1
2

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
m
o
n
g

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
f
o
r

S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r

R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
W
e
a
k
e
r

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

(
n

=

1
7
4
)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1
0

1
.

H
S

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

G
P
A

^
~

2
.

I
n
c
o
m
e

(
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l

c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
)

.
0
6

3
.

P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

.
4
3
*
*

4
.

P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
k
i
l
l
s

.
3
7
*
*

5
.

S
A
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

.
4
2
*
*

6
.

S
A
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

.
4
1
*
*

7
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s

.
1
4

8
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s

.
0
5

9
.

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s

.
1
6
*

1
0
.

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s

.

1
5

*
p
<
.
0
5
.

*
*
/
?
<
.
0
1
.

O
N

N
O

.
1
9
*

.
1
8
*

.
8
0
*
*

.
0
7

.
0
5

.
0
5

.
0
6

*
*

.
1
8
*

.
8
5
*
*

.
8
0

2
2
*
*

8
3
*
*

8
0
*
*

9
5
*
*

3
7
*
*

4
7
*
*

4
7
*
*

4
6
*
*

3
1
*
*

3
2
*
*

3
3
*
*

3
4
*
*

6
6
*
*

*
*

2
9
*
*

4
i
*
*

4
^
*
*

4
0
*
*

7
7
*
*

5
7

.
2
9
*
*

.
3
6
*
*

.
3
7
*
*

.
3
8
*
*

.
7
2
*
*

.
6
6
*
*

.
6
8
*
*

T
a
b
l
e

1
3

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
m
o
n
g

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
f
o
r

W
e
a
k
e
r

R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
S
t
r
o
n
g
e
r

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

(
n

=

1
2
1
)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1
0

1
.

H
S

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

G
P
A

~

2
.

I
n
c
o
m
e

(
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l

c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
)

-
.
2
0
*

3
.

P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

.
4
0
*
*

4
.

P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
k
i
l
l
s

.
3
8
*
*

5
.

S
A
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

.
4
3
*
*

6
.

S
A
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

.
4
7
*
*

7
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s

.
3
3
*
*

8
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s

.
2
0
*

9
.

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s

.
3
3
*
*

1
0
.

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s

.
2
3

*

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

.
1
6

.
0
9

.
7
8
*
*

.
1
8
*

.
8
0
*
*

.
7
5
*
*

.
1
5

.
7
9
*
*

.
7
6
*
*

.
9
6

*
*

Q
A
*
*

0
8

4
g
*
*

4
2
*
*

5
2
*
*

5
3
*
*

.
0
4

.
4
2
*
*

.
3
7
*
*

.
4
2
*
*

.
4
4
*
*

.
7
8
*
*

0
9

.
4
6
*
*

.
4
3
*
*

.
4
9
*
*

.
5
3
*
*

8
3
*
*

.
6
8
*
*

.
0
5

.
4
0
*
*

.
3
5
*
*

.
3
8
*
*

.
3
8
*
*

.
7
6
*
*

.
7
0
*
*

.
7
0
*
*

T
a
b
l
e

1
4

C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
m
o
n
g

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
f
o
r

W
e
a
k

R
e
a
d
e
r
s
/
W
e
a
k

W
r
i
t
e
r
s

(
n

=

6
3
)

1
0

1
.

H
S

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

G
P
A

2
.

I
n
c
o
m
e

(
p
a
r
e
n
t
a
l

c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
)

3
.

P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

4
.

P
S
A
T
/
N
M
S
Q
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
k
i
l
l
s

5
.

S
A
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

6
.

S
A
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

7
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s

8
.

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s

9
.

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
S
k
i
l
l
s

1
0
.

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

B
e
l
i
e
f
s
T
a
s
k
s

.
0
2

.
2
3

.
0
9

.
0
6

.
1
7

.
1
0

.
0
1

.
0
8

.
0
3

-
.
1
2

-
.
0
6

-
.
2
4

.
0
2

-
.
1
0

-
.
1
7

-
.
0
2

-
.
0
8

.
1
5

.
3
4
*
*

.
1
7

.
1
8

.
2
3

.
1
8

.
2
7
*

-
.
2
5
*

.
2
7
*

-
.
2
2

-
.
1
7

-
.
1
5

-
.
2
8
*

~

3
5
*
*

.
0
3

.
0
1

-
.
0
5

-
.
0
5

-
.
0
8

.
0
8

.
2
1

.
0
5

.
8
1
*
*

.
7
6
*
*

.
7
8
*
*

-
4
9
*
*

.
7
6
*
*

-
.
5
8
*
*

*
p
<
.
0
5
.

*
*
p
<
.
0
1
.

72
Research Questions 1 and 2:
The Mediational Role of Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy
In order to determine whether reading and writing self-efficacy were partially
mediating the effects of prior achievement and student background variables on
reading and writing performance, paths representing these relationships were tested
using AMOS 5.0/SPSS 14.0 (Arbuckle, 2003) statistical package. As the inclusion of
categorical data is problematic in path analysis, the model was designed to include
only gender (as opposed to minority status or English as a best language) as a
categorical variable due to its clear relationship in the literature with self-efficacy and
with reading and writing performance, and because it was determined to meet the
assumptions of normality required (Byrne, 2001). Prior achievement was represented
by high school English GPA in the models and parental income served as a proxy for
SES. English GPA was chosen as the measure of prior achievement as opposed to
PSAT/NMSQT scores because these scores are so closely related to and largely based
on the SAT. In this study the SAT is a proxy of reading or writing performance, and
not necessarily a particular score that one is always interested in predicting. Little
variance in the SAT performance would be left to explain by other factors if
PSAT/NMSQT scores were included in the model. Also, using English GPA in both
of the models would allow for a better understanding of the relationship of the high
school English GPA to reading and writing self-efficacy and performance. The
average of the self-efficacy tasks and skills measures served as the proxy for reading
or writing self-efficacy beliefs and reading or writing performance were represented
by SAT scores. Both partially and fully mediated models were tested, though based
73
on the literature, one would expect the partially mediated model to more
appropriately fit the data. None of the data were missing and the assumptions of
multivariate normality were met.
The partially mediated models tested are represented in Figures 2 and 3. The
paths from three variables, high school English GPA, SES, and gender, were
examined for their influence on self-efficacy beliefs, as well as their direct influence
on reading or writing performance. The path of primary interest in all models is the
direct influence of self-efficacy beliefs on performance. Self-efficacy would be
shown to be a partial mediator of student background and prior achievement if the
direct paths from self-efficacy beliefs to SAT scores, student background to SAT
scores, and prior achievement to SAT scores were all statistically significant.
Based on the literature reviewed, it was expected that reading or writing
performance, would be partially mediated by reading or writing self-efficacy,
respectively. A partially mediated model of reading performance assumes that there is
a direct effect of student background and prior achievement variables on SAT Critical
Reading performance, as well as an indirect effect of these variables on SAT Critical
Reading performance as mediated by reading self-efficacy beliefs. The model would
provide a good fit to the data if the student background and prior achievement
variables were directly, as well as indirectly, related to SAT performance.
The chi-square fit, as well as three other indices of fit were examined in the
path analysis: the comparative fit index (CFI), the incremental fit index (IFI), and the
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). The chi-square fit index
indicates whether or not a given model's covariance structure differs significantly
74
from the observed covariance matrix. A significant chi-square value indicates lack of
satisfactory model fit. The CFI represents the improvement of the hypothesized
model over a null model which assumes the latent variables in the model are
uncorrected. Values for the CFI range from 0.00 to 1.00. In order to consider a model
well-fitting, Byrne (2001) stated that the generally accepted cutoff for the CFI is .95.
The IFI compares the lack of fit in the hypothesized model with the lack of fit in an
uncorrelated baseline model. This statistic is similar to the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)
but is recommended for smaller samples (Hoyle & Panter, 1995). In order to accept
the model, the IFI should be greater than .90, but may exceed 1.00, which may occur
in cases where the model is overspecified with an almost perfect fit (Gushue &
Whitson, 2006). The RMSEA indicates the extent to which the lack of model fit is
due to the misspecification of the model tested, as opposed to the sampling error. It is
expressed per degree of freedom, and is therefore sensitive to the number of
parameters estimated in the model. Byrne noted that RMSEA values under .05
indicate good fit, and values as high as .08 represent reasonable errors of
approximation in the population; values from .08 to .10 indicate mediocre fit, and
values greater than . 10 indicate poor fit.
The fit statistics and standardized partial regression coefficients are reported
for each of these models in Table 15. All of the reading and writing performance
models tested were recursive and identified. The results of the chi-square fit for the
partially mediated reading model, x
2
(1, iV= 619) = .35,p = .56, and writing model, x
2
(1, N = 619) = .35, p = .56, indicated that both models should not be rejected.
Evaluations of the CFI, IFI, and RMSEA for both partially mediated models also
75
indicated that they are a good fit to the data. The fully mediated models have very
different results. The chi-square fit for the fully mediated reading model x
2
(4, N =
619) = 140.72,/? = .00, and writing model, $ (4, N= 619) = 177.52,/? = .00,
indicated that both models should be rejected. The CFI, IFI, and RMSEA confirm that
the fully mediated models do not fit the data well at all.
The results of the mediation analyses from the partially mediated models of
reading and writing performance can be found in Table 16. The Sobel (1982) statistic
was calculated for each path to test for mediation (as cited in Baron & Kenny, 1986).
This statistic is treated as a z-test, so that values larger than 1.96 are significant at the
.05 level. In order to meet the precondition for mediation, a predictor must
significantly affect the criterion and the potential mediator, and the potential mediator
must also significantly affect the criterion when that predictor is accounted for in the
path model. Provided these conditions are satisfied, an examination of the Sobel
statistic can test for the extent that the mediator accounts for the relationship between
the predictor and criterion. The mediational role of reading or writing self-efficacy on
gender in the both models was not examined as the preconditions for mediation were
not met due to non-significant correlations between gender and SAT scores.
The mediation tests indicated that reading self-efficacy beliefs significantly
mediated the effects of high school English GPA on SAT Critical Reading scores (z =
3.02,/? = .002), and also significantly mediated the effect of SES on SAT Critical
Reading scores (z = 3.05,p = .002). Similarly, writing self-efficacy beliefs
significantly mediated the effects of high school English GPA on SAT Writing
76
scores, (z = 6Jl,p< .001), and also significantly mediated the effect of SES on SAT
Writing scores (z = 3.38,p < .001).
T
a
b
l
e

1
5

M
o
d
e
l

T
e
s
t
i
n
g

I
n
d
i
c
e
s
f
o
r

P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y

a
n
d

F
u
l
l
y

M
e
d
i
a
t
e
d

M
o
d
e
l
s
f
o
r

t
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

S
a
m
p
l
e

(
N
=
6
1
9
)

M
o
d
e
l

^

d
f

p

C
F
I

I
F
I

R
M
S
E
A

P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y

M
e
d
i
a
t
e
d

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

F
u
l
l
y

M
e
d
i
a
t
e
d

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

N
o
t
e
.

C
F
I

=

c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
v
e

f
i
t

i
n
d
e
x
;

I
F
I

=

i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

f
i
t

i
n
d
e
x
;

R
M
S
E
A

=

r
o
o
t
-
m
e
a
n
-
s
q
u
a
r
e

e
r
r
o
r

o
f

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
.

.
3
5

3
5

1

1

.
5
6

.
5
6

1
.
0
0

1
.
0
0

1
.
0
0

1
.
0
0

.
0
0

.
0
0

1
4
0
.
7
2

1
7
7
.
5
2

4

4

.
0
0

.
0
0

.
6
9

.
6
1

.
6
9

.
6
2

.
2
4

.
2
7

F
i
g
u
r
e

2

P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y

M
e
d
i
a
t
e
d

M
o
d
e
l

o
f

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

f
o
r

t
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

S
a
m
p
l
e

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

G
P
A

S
E
S

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y
^

.
4
4

G
e
n
d
e
r

S
A
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

X
2

(
1
,

N
=

6
1
9
)

=

3
5
,
p

=

.
5
6
.

*
p

<

.
0
5
.

*
*
p

<

.
0
1
.

o
o

F
i
g
u
r
e

3

P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y

M
e
d
i
a
t
e
d

M
o
d
e
l

o
f

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

f
o
r

t
h
e

T
o
t
a
l

S
a
m
p
l
e

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

G
P
A

S
E
S

G
e
n
d
e
r

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

S
e
l
f
-
E
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

S
A
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

X
2

(
1
,

N
=

6
1
9
)

=

.
3
5
,
p

=

.
5
6
.

*
p

<

.
0
5
.

*
*
p

<

.
0
1
.

T
a
b
l
e

1
6

z

a
n
d

p

V
a
l
u
e
s
f
o
r

I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

P
a
t
h
s

o
f

P
a
t
h

M
o
d
e
l
s

o
f

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

P
a
t
h

z

p

h
i
g
h

s
c
h
o
o
l

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

G
P
A

>

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

s
e
l
f
-
e
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

>

S
A
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

3
.
0
2

.
0
0
2

S
E
S

-

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

s
e
l
f
-
e
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

-
>

S
A
T

C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

3
.
0
5

.
0
0
2

h
i
g
h

s
c
h
o
o
l

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

G
P
A

>

w
r
i
t
i
n
g

s
e
l
f
-
e
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

>

S
A
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

6
.
7
1

<
.
0
0
1

S
E
S

-
w
r
i
t
i
n
g

s
e
l
f
-
e
f
f
i
c
a
c
y

-
*

S
A
T

W
r
i
t
i
n
g

3
.
3
8

<
.
0
0
1

81
Research Questions 3 and 4: The Contribution of Reading and Writing
Self-Efficacy Beliefs to Same Domain Performance
A number of regression analyses were performed on the data to answer the
research questions in this study. Prior to running the regression analyses, all
assumptions of regression were checked and determined to be met (Miles & Shevlin,
2001). Hierarchical multiple regressions were run on the total group as well as the
four performance groups to understand the contribution of reading self-efficacy
beliefs to reading performance, after controlling for important background variables.
Each regression was run with two different measures of prior reading achievement,
either PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading or high school English GPA, to compare
results. Tables 17-21 display the results of these analyses.
In all analyses, the model including PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores as
opposed to high school English GPA as a measure of prior reading achievement
explained a greater amount of the variance in SAT Critical Reading scores. For the
total group, the model with PSAT/NMSQT scores significantly predicted reading
performance, R
2
= .78, i?
2
adj
= .78, F(l, 611) = 314.40,/? < .01. The PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading scores also had the highest beta weights in each model, ranging from
P =.83, t(34.78),p < .01 in the model for the total sample and/? =.31, t(2.21),p < .05
in the model for the weak readers/weak writers.
For the total sample, the model with high school English GPA significantly
predicted reading performance, R
2
= .45, #
2
adj
= .45, F(7,611) = 71.99, p < .01. With
the exception of the weak readers/weak writers, the models including high school
82
English GPA showed the largest contribution of reading self-efficacy to the
prediction of SAT Critical Reading scores, with the percent of variance explained by
reading self-efficacy ranging from 17% for the total group to 2% for the strong
readers/strong writers. In all models, Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills rather
than Reading Self-EfficacyTasks had the strongest standardized beta among the
self-efficacy measures.
As expected, among the four performance groups, reading self-efficacy
explained a significant amount of variance for the total group, the stronger readers/
weaker writers, and the weaker readers/stronger writers for both the models including
PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores and high school English GPA as measures of
prior reading achievement. For the models including PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading
scores, reading self-efficacy beliefs explained 1% of the variance in reading
performance in the total group, 3% of the variance in the performance of stronger
readers/weaker writers, and 3% of the variance in the performance of weaker
readers/stronger writers. For the models including high school English GPA, reading
self-efficacy beliefs explained 17% of the variance in reading performance in the total
group, 14% of the variance in the performance of stronger readers/weaker writers,
and 14% of the variance in the performance of weaker readers/stronger writers.
Therefore, if an educator or researcher was unable to obtain access to PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading scores for students, measuring students' reading self-efficacy beliefs
can be quite useful in predicting performance on the SAT Critical Reading test,
particularly for students with discrepant reading and writing performance.
83
Table 17
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Reading
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Total Sample (TV = 619)
Variable
Step 1
English is best language
Gender (1 = female)
Income (parental combined)
Prior reading achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading)
Student from minority group
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA)
Step 2
B
-51.69
-19.54
.13
9.07
2.99
1.89
-.30
11.66
-37.26
10.03
82.02
1.22
4.47
1.27
SEB
12.31
5.08
1.88
.26
5.92
.40
.36
19.36
8.08
2.95
7.79
9.43
.62
.57
fi
0o**
-.07**
.00
.83**
.01
.15**
-.03
.02
-.14**
1 ] **
.34**
.00
.36**
.11*
R
J
AR
Z
77**
78** 01**
.28**
45** J7**
*p <.05. **p <. 01.
84
Table 18
Performance from Reading Self Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers (n = 261,)
Variable
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
B
-37.96
1.43
-.98
4.64
10.38
.31
-.76
-2.64
-7.29
1.45
28.73
16.64
1.58
-.47
SEB
15.96
5.46
1.98
.41
6.47
.64
.46
18.79
6.63
2.38
9.21
7.83
.76
.55
fi
-. 13*
.01
-.03
.62**
.09
.03
-.10
-.01
-.07
.04
.20**
.14*
.16*
-.06
R*
.33**
33**
.05*
.06*
AR
2
.01
.02
*p<. 05. **p<.01
85
Table 19
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers
(n = 174;
Variable
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
B
-32.27
-5.78
-.19
7.67
-14.72
2.30
-.46
-1.71
3.36
6.70
59.74
-19.70
3.66
.61
SEB
20.79
7.72
2.73
.41
8.45
.53
.53
33.55
12.51
4.37
10.88
13.68
.86
.86
fi
-.07
-.03
-.00
JQ**
-.07
23**
-.05
-.00
.02
.10
.35**
-.10
.36**
.06
R
2
73**
.76**
23**
.37**
ARf
.03**
.14**
*/><.05. **/?<.01.
86
Table 20
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers
(n = 12i;
Variable
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
B
-28.18
-22.44
5.53
7.52
17.59
2.20
-.31
37.89
-20.97
15.28
65.09
8.53
2.62
1.43
SEB
21.71
10.78
4.15
.64
12.69
.90
.77
28.95
14.83
5.93
14..42
17.44
1.27
1.07
fi
-.08
- . 11*
.08
.75**
.08
.22*
-.03
.10
-.10
.21*
.36**
.04
.26*
.16
R
2
.66**
.69**
.28**
.42**
AR
J
03**
.14**
*P<.05. **p<m.
87
Table 21
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers (n = 63)
Variable
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
B
8.87
-10.09
-5.12
2.38
13.98
.27
-.31
30.10
-8.68
-6.11
7.15
17.35
.28
-.22
SEB
20.70
11.13
4.24
1.08
12.74
.53
.53
19.52
11.65
4.40
9.00
13.10
.55
.56
P
.06
-.12
-.17
.31*
.16
.12
-.13
.21
-.10
-.21
.10
.20
.11
-.09
R
2
.19*
.20*
.13
.14
AR
J
.01
.00
*p<. 05. **p<. 01.
88
Hierarchical multiple regressions were also run on the total sample and four
performance groups to understand the contribution of writing self-efficacy beliefs to
writing performance, after controlling for important background variables. Each
regression was run with two different measures of prior writing achievement, either
PSAT/NMSQT Writing Skills or high school English GPA, to compare results.
Tables 22-26 display the results of these analyses.
Similar to the reading analyses, the model that included PSAT/NMSQT
Writing scores as opposed to high school English GPA as a measure of prior writing
achievement explained a greater amount of the variance in SAT Writing scores. For
the total group, the model with PSAT/NMSQT scores significantly predicted writing
performance, R
2
= .72, R
2
adi
= .72, F(7,611) = 223.23,;? < .01. The PSAT/NMSQT
Writing scores also had the highest beta weights in each model that included this
measure of prior achievement, ranging from/? =.75, t(29A8),p < .01 in the model for
the total group and/? =.29, t(2.23),p < .05 in the model for the weak readers/weak
writers. With the exception of the weak readers/weak writers, the models including
high school English GPA showed the largest contribution of writing self-efficacy to
the prediction of SAT Writing scores, with the percent of variance explained by
writing self-efficacy ranging from 13% for the weaker readers/stronger writers to 5%
for the strong readers/strong writers and weak readers/weak writers. For the total
group, the model with high school English GPA significantly predicted writing
performance, R
2
= .45, R
2
ad
j = .44, F(7,611) = 71.06,/? < .01. In all models, Writing
Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills rather than Writing Self-EfficacyTasks had the
strongest standardized beta among the self-efficacy measures, and only in the model
89
including high school English GPA for the total group, was the Writing Self-Efficacy
BeliefsTasks measure a significant contributor to the model /? =.09, ^(2.08), p < .05.
Writing self-efficacy explained a significant amount of variance for the total
group, the stronger readers/weaker writers, and the weaker readers/stronger writers
for both the models including PSAT/NMSQT Writing scores and high school English
GPA. Unlike the reading performance models, writing self-efficacy beliefs also
significantly contributed to the model including high school English GPA for the
strong readers/strong writers. For the models that included PSAT/NMSQT Writing
scores, writing self-efficacy beliefs explained 1% of the variance in writing
performance in the total group, 3% of the variance in the performance of stronger
readers/weaker writers, and 5% of the variance in the performance of weaker
readers/stronger writers. For the models including high school English GPA, writing
self-efficacy beliefs explained 11% of the variance in writing performance in the total
group, 5% of the variance in writing performance of strong readers/strong writers,
14% of the variance in the performance of stronger readers/weaker writers, and 13%
of the variance in the performance of weaker readers/stronger writers.
Based on these analyses, reading self-efficacy beliefs contribute to reading
performance in very similar ways to the contribution of writing self-efficacy to
writing performance. Among the four reading and writing performance groups, the
contribution of self-efficacy is greatest for the two discrepant groups. The largest
difference between the reading and writing analyses was in the model including
English GPA for the total group. Reading self-efficacy explains 17% of the variance
90
in reading performance for the total group, whereas writing self-efficacy explains
11% of the variance in writing performance.
91
Table 22
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Total Sample (N =6X9)
Variable
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Prior Writing Achievement
(PSAT/NMSQT Writing)
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Step 1
Gender (1 = female)
-Skills
-Tasks
Step 2
-Skills
-Tasks
B
-39.80
.47
7.38
8.00
-9.96
1.25
.04
-14.19
-8.42
16.86
90.26
-10.16
2.88
.81
SEB
13.38
5.62
2.08
.27
6.53
.30
.28
18.71
7.90
2.87
7.53
9.18
.40
.39
ft
_ Q7**
.00
.08**
.75**
-.04
13**
.01
-.02
-.03
.19**
39**
-.04
30**
.09*
Bf AR
2
7] **
72** 01**
.34**
45** \ \**
*/7 < .05. **/?<.01.
92
Table 23
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance from
Writing Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers (n = 26 \)
Variable B SEB R Rf ARf
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks
.34 **
-12.13
-8.01
4.71
3.60
9.12
.43
.15
14.65
5.14
1.89
.35
6.18
.37
.29
-.04
-.08
.13*
54**
.08
.08
.03
.35 ** .01
Step 1
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
.04
-4.83
-7.68
6.41
9.55
10.57
.96
.34
17.46
6.18
2.23
8.68
7.38
.43
.43
-.02
-.08
.18
.07
.09
.17*
.07
.08
s 1
.05 **
*p< .05. **/?<.01.
93
Table 24
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers
(n = 174;
Variable B SEB
fi
R< AR
Z
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
.65 * *
.65
5.62
3.27
6.69
17.41
.26
.50
22.75
8.78
3.10
.45
9.58
.43
.46
.00
.03
.05
74**
-.09
.04
.07
.66 * * .01
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA) 55.28
Step 2
.24 * *
24.99
9.36
9.49
55.28
-16.38
1.48
1.09
32.03
12.45
4.33
10.80
13.55
.60
.64
.05
.05
.15*
33**
-.08
.21*
.15
.34 * * .10 * *
*;?<.05. **p<.Ql.
94
Table 25
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Writing Performance
from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers (n-\2\)
Variable B SEB
fi
Rf ARf
St epl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
.59 * *
21.49
24.64
4.98
6.18
-.56
2.51
-.08
22.71
11.63
4.39
.61
13.52
.77
.59
-.06
-.12*
.07
.66**
-.00
.27**
-.01
.65 * * .05 * *
St epl
Gender (1 = female)
Prior English achievement (Eng. GPA) 67.48
Step 2
.27 **
24.04
-26.98
11.46
67.48
.54
3.43
.34
28.16
14.70
5.77
14.00
17.21
.97
.75
.07
-.13
.16*
.38**
.00
37**
.05
.40 * * .13 * *
*/?<.05. **/?<.01.
95
Table 26
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers (n = 63)
Variable
Step 1
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
Step 1
Gender (1 = female)
-Skills
-Tasks
Step 2
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs
-Skills
-Tasks
B
-13.56
6.95
2.53
2.65
5.73
.51
-.06
-8.67
6.98
2.26
6.77
9.51
.52
-.24
SEB
16.44
10.09
3.67
1.19
11.47
.29
.33
17.11
10.62
3.82
7.97
11.75
.30
.33
P
-.11
.09
.10
.29*
.07
.28
-.03
-.07
.09
.09
.11
.12
.28
-.11
R
J
AR
J
.10
.16 .06
.05
.10 .05
*p<.05. **p<. 01.
Research Questions 5 and 6: Contribution of Reading and Writing
Self-Efficacy Beliefs to Opposite Domain Performance
Hierarchical multiple regressions were run on the total sample as well as the
four performance groups to understand the contribution of writing self-efficacy
beliefs to reading performance, after controlling for important background variables.
Each regression was run with two different measures of prior reading achievement,
either PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading or high school English GPA, to compare
results. The purpose of these analyses was to understand the interchangeability of
reading and writing self-efficacy measures to predict reading and writing performance
for the different performance groups. Tables 27-31 display the results of these
analyses.
For the total sample, stronger readers/weaker writers, and weaker
readers/stronger writers, writing self-efficacy beliefs significantly contributed to
models of reading performance, when controlling for either PSAT/NMSQT Critical
Reading scores or high school English GPA as well as other background variables.
The model controlling for PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores significantly
predicted reading performance, R
z
= .78, i?
2
ad
j= .78, F(7,611) = 305.63,p < .01. In
this model, writing self-efficacy beliefs explained 1% of the variance in reading
performance. This is the same amount of variance explained in reading performance
by reading self-efficacy beliefs. The model controlling for high school English GPA
also significantly predicted reading performance, R = .39, R
ad
j = .39, F(7,611) =
56.67,/? <. 01. Writing self-efficacy beliefs explained 11% of the variance in reading
97
performance, which is less than the variance explained in reading performance by
reading self-efficacy beliefs (17%).
In addition to the models for the total group, the contribution of writing self-
efficacy beliefs to reading performance was significant for the stronger readers/
weaker writers and weaker readers/stronger writers in analyses including both
PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores and high school English GPA. In each of
these models, only Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills, and not Tasks, significantly
contributed to the prediction of reading performance. The strongest predictor of
reading performance in each of these models was the measure of prior reading
achievement included, however the second strongest predictor was Writing Self-
Efficacy BeliefsSkills. The beta weight for Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
was P=.\l, ^(3.26),p < .01 for the stronger readers/weaker writers, and/? =. 17,
t(2.\l),p < .05 for the weaker readers/stronger writers in the models with
PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores. In the models with high school English GPA,
the beta weight for Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills was fi =.26, /(2.98), p < .01
for the stronger readers/weaker writers, and/? =.30, t(2.79),p < .01 for the weaker
readers/stronger writers.
98
Table 27
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Total Sample (N =6\9)
Variable
Stepl
Gender (1= female)
Step 2
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Prior English achievement
(Eng. GPA)
Step 2
B
-50.72
-15.79
-.11
9.34
1.64
.84
.18
28.03
-39.12
9.72
89.30
-3.78
2.21
1.61
SEB
12.41
5.17
1.90
.25
5.99
.27
.26
20.22
8.54
3.10
8.14
9.92
.44
.42
P
-.08**
-.06**
-.00
.85**
.01
09**
.02
.05
-.15**
j j * *
37**
-.01
.23**
1 - 7 * *
R
J
AR'
77**
7
8
**
01
**
.28**
39** 11**
V<. 05. **;?<.01.
99
Table 28
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers
(n = 26\)
Variable
Step 1
Gender (1= female)
Step 2
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
B
-42.79
.47
-.99
4.55
11.07
.53
-.31
-1.27
-6.18
1.40
28.16
15.79
.63
-.08
SEB
15.96
5.42
1.99
.40
6.50
.38
.31
18.66
6.60
2.39
9.27
7.89
.46
.37
fi
-.15**
.00
-.03
.61**
.09
.09
-.06
-.00
-.06
.04
19**
.13*
.11
-.02
R
2
.34**
.35**
.05*
.06*
AR
2
.01
.01
*/?< .05. **p<.0l.
100
Table 29
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers
(n = MA)
Variable
Stepl
Gender (1= female)
Step 2
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
B
-28.37
-5.02
-.51
7.73
-18.06
1.21
.29
23.32
4.87
6.13
57.77
-25.81
1.84
.89
SEB
20.12
7.73
2.72
.40
8.43
.37
.40
33.12
12.87
4.48
11.17
14.01
.62
.67
B
-.06
-.03
-.01
.80**
-.09*
.17**
.04
.05
.02
.09
33**
-.13
.26**
.12
B
2
AR
J
.73**
76** 03**
.23**
34** j ] * *
*;?<.05. **p<.01.
101
Table 30
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers
(n = 12i;
Variable B SEB
P
R' AST
Step 1 .66 * *
Gender (1= female)
Step 2
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
-25.78
-25.74
5.14
7.60
15.13
1.58
.01
40.55
-26.67
13.04
63.44
4.58
2.82
.70
21.88
11.04
4.17
.64
12.94
.73
.56
29.35
15.32
6.02
14.59
17.93
1.01
.78
-.07
-. 13*
.07
.76**
.07
.17*
.00
.11
-.13
.18*
.35**
.02
.30**
.09
.69** .02*
.28**
40** 12**
*/><.05. **/?<.01.
Table 31
Performance from Writing Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers (n = 63)
Variable
Stepl
Gender (1= female)
Step 2
Step 1
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
B
6.57
-8.18
-5.00
2.58
12.40
-.01
-.24
29.56
-7.74
-6.10
7.70
16.66
.03
-.09
SEB
20.39
11.30
4.12
1.10
12.83
.32
.36
19.24
11.94
4.30
8.96
13.21
.33
.37
P
.05
-.10
-.17
.33*
.14
-.00
-.10
.20
-.09
-.21
.11
.19
.01
-.04
R
J
.19*
.20*
.13
.13
AR
J
.01
.00
*p<.05. **/><.01.
103
Hierarchical multiple regressions were also conducted on the total sample as
well as the four performance groups to understand the contribution of reading self-
efficacy beliefs to writing performance, after controlling for important background
variables. Each regression was run with two different measures of prior writing
achievement, either PSAT/NMSQT Writing Skills or high school English GPA, to
compare results. Tables 32-36 display the results of these analyses.
For the total group and weaker readers/stronger writers, reading self-efficacy
beliefs significantly contributed to models of writing performance, when controlling
for either PSAT/NMSQT Writing scores or high school English GPA in addition to
other background variables. Reading self-efficacy beliefs also significantly
contributed to the model with high school English GPA for the strong readers/strong
writers and the stronger readers/weaker writers. For the total group, the model
controlling for PSAT/NMSQT Writing scores significantly predicted writing
performance, R
2
= .72, i?
2
a
dj= .71, F(7,611) = 221.12, p < .01. In this model, reading
self-efficacy beliefs explained 1% of the variance in writing performance. This is the
same amount of variance explained in writing performance by writing self-efficacy
beliefs. The model controlling for high school English GPA also significantly
predicted writing performance, R
2
= .46, i?
2
adj
= .45, F(7,611) = 73.31,/? < .01.
Reading self-efficacy beliefs explained 12% of the variance in writing performance,
which is slightly more than the variance explained in writing performance by writing
self-efficacy beliefs (11%).
In each of these models, only Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills, and not
Tasks, significantly contributed to the prediction of writing performance. Aside from
104
the total group, the only significant beta weight for Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Skills among the models with PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores was /? =.25,
t(2.64), p < .01 for the weaker readers/stronger writers. In the models with high
school English GPA, the beta weight for Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills was /?
=. 18, ^(2.32),p < .05 for the strong readers/strong writers, and /? -.32, r(3.80),p < .01
for the stronger readers/weaker writers.
Table 32
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Total Group (N =619)
Variable
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Prior Writing achievement
Step 2
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs-
Step 1
Gender (1 = female)
Prior English achievement (En
Step 2
-Skills
-Tasks
g. GPA)
-Skills
-Tasks
B
-41.93
1.07
7.59
7.97
-8.75
1.58
-.02
-23.67
-6.14
17.45
88.65
-6.79
3.88
.83
SEB
13.49
5.61
2.09
.28
6.55
.44
.40
18.71
7.81
2.85
7.53
9.12
.60
.55
B
-.07**
.00
09**
.75**
-.03
.13**
-.00
-.04
-.02
.20**
3g**
-.03
.33**
.07
R
2
AR
2
7j **
72** 01**
.34**
45** 12**
*/7<.05. **/?<.01.
106
Table 33
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Strong Readers/Strong Writers
(n = 261)
Variable B SEB
P
R
z
ABf
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
(PSATVNMSQT Writing)
Step 2
34=M
-11.23 14.84 -.04
-7.85 5.20 -.08
4.71 1.89 .13*
3.67 .35 .55**
8.49 6.18 .08
.66 .61 .07
-.16 .44 -.02
.34** .00
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
.04
-6.60
-8.08
6.38
10.80
10.57
1.67
.12
17.80
6.27
2.25
8.72
7.41
.72
.52
-.02
-.08
.18**
.08
.09
.18*
.02
.07" .03*
*p< .05. **p< .01.
107
Table 34
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers
(n = 174;
Variable
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
Stepl
Gender (1 - female)
Step 2
B
-6.90
6.73
3.52
6.66
-16.59
.52
.64
-.86
8.78
10.06
57.33
-11.20
3.14
.96
SEB
23.50
8.72
3.10
.46
9.57
.63
.60
32.42
12.08
4.23
10.51
13.22
.83
.83
fi
-.01
.04
.05
74**
-.08
.05
.07
-.00
.05
.15*
.34**
-.06
32**
.10
R
2
AR
2
.66**
.67** .01
.24**
37** ] 3**
*p< .05. **p< .01.
108
Table 35
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weaker Readers/Stronger Writers
(n = \2\)
Variable
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
Step 1
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
Skills
-Tasks
ig. GPA)
-Skills
-Tasks
B
-24.43
-20.33
6.18
6.21
3.63
2.48
.25
23.16
-21.21
14.75
72.39
6.14
2.16
1.90
SEB
22.65
11.40
4.38
.60
13.34
.94
.81
28.01
14.35
5.74
13.95
16.87
1.23
1.03
fi
-.07
-.10
.09
.66**
.02
.25**
.03
.06
-.11
.21*
40**
.03
.22
.21
R
J
.59**
.65**
.30**
.45**
AR
2
.06**
.15**
*/?<.05. **/><.01.
Table 36
Performance from Reading Self-Efficacy for Weak Readers/Weak Writers (n = 61)
Variable
Stepl
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
Step 1
Gender (1 = female)
Step 2
Skills
-Tasks
ig. GPA)
-Skills
-Tasks
B
-16.37
6.28
2.83
2.71
3.40
.15
.22
-12.23
4.96
2.59
8.03
7.36
-.06
.29
SEB
17.09
10.07
3.85
1.19
11.68
.48
.49
17.79
10.62
4.01
8.20
11.94
.50
.51
P
-.13
.08
.11
.30*
.04
.07
.10
-.10
.07
.10
.13
.10
-.03
.14
R
2
.10
12.
.05
.06
AR
2
.02
.01
*/?<.05. **/?<.01.
110
Research Question 7: Chi-Square Analyses and /-Tests
of Discrepant Group Differences
Chi-square tests of association and /-tests were conducted to determine
whether there were significant differences between the stronger readers/weaker
writers and weaker readers/stronger writers on a number of important variables,
including language and racial/ethnic background, gender, parental income, help
desired in Reading and Writing, region of the country they are from, and different
measures of academic achievement and self-efficacy. The results of these analyses
can be found in Tables 37 and 38. There were a few statistically significant
differences between the two groups of students.
Differences were found in the English as a Second Language (ESL)
experience of the stronger readers/weaker writers and weaker readers/stronger
writers, with significantly more students reporting to have had ESL experience in the
weaker reader/stronger writer group (X
2
(1, n = 295) = 4.38,p < .05). There was also a
significant difference in the proportion of males and females between the two
performance groups, with more females than males in the weaker reader/stronger
writer group and more males than females in the stronger reader/weaker writer group
(X (1, n - 295) = 12.96, p < .01). The weaker readers/stronger writers were more
likely than the stronger readers/weaker writers to report that they desired help in both
reading (x
2
(1, n = 295) = 14.31, p < .01) and writing { (1, n = 295) = 4.70,/? < .05).
To test for differences in continuous variables between the stronger
readers/weaker writers and weaker readers/stronger writers, a number of/-tests were
analyzed. Performance group membership was created based on students' SAT
Critical Reading and Writing scores, so it was expected that there would be
I l l
statistically significant differences between the two groups based on these scores.
Group differences were also found in PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores, but not
PSAT/NMSQT Writing scores. The stronger readers/weaker writers had significantly
higher PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores than the weaker readers/stronger
writers (t - 4.89,/? < .01). The stronger readers/weaker writers also had significantly
higher Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks scores (t = 2.44, p < .05), however,
there were no other statistically significant differences found on the self-efficacy
measures.
As the students' self-efficacy beliefs were at the higher end of their scales, it
is possible that the means are not necessarily distinguishing students well enough in
order to predict the discrepant groups based on these meanssimilar to a ceiling
effect (McDonald, 1999). Therefore, new variables were created based on the
subtraction of students' scores on the Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills and
Tasks measures from the Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills and Tasks measures
to arrive at the Writing minus ReadingSkills and Writing minus ReadingTasks
values. The results of Mests comparing these variables for the two discrepant groups
showed that there were significant mean differences found between students' Writing
minus Reading -Skills scores (t = -3.69, p < .01), with students in the weaker
readers/stronger writers group, for example, indicating significantly higher self-
efficacy on the Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills measure than they did on the
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills measure.
112
Table 37
Background Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers and Weaker
Readers/Stronger Writers
Variable
Best Language
English Only
English and
Another
Language
All
(n = 295)
86.8%
7.8%
Stronger
Readers/
Weaker
Writers
(= 174)
87.9%
8.0%
Weaker
Readers/
Stronger
Writers
(=121)
85.1%
39.1%
Test of Significance
X*(2, = 295)=1.63
Another Language 5.4%
English as a Second
Language (ESL)
Experience
No 95.3%
4.0% 56.3%
X
2
(l, = 295) = 4.38*
97.7% 91.7%
Yes
Ethnicity/Race
Asian
4.7% 2.3% 8.3%
X
2
(4, = 295) = 5.15
13.2% 13.2% 13.2%
Black or African-
American
6.8% 5.7% 8.3%
Hispanic
White
Other
8.8% 10.9%
68.8%
2.4%
66.7%
3.4%
5.8%
71.9%
.8%
*p<.05. **/><.01.
113
Table 37 (continued)
Variable
Stronger Weaker
Readers/ Readers/
Weaker Stronger
All Writers Writers
(ft = 295) (ft =174) (n =121) Test of Significance
Help Desired in
Reading
X
z
(l, ft = 295) =14.31**
No 83.1% 90.2% 72.7%
Yes 16.9% 9.8% 27.3%
Help Desired in
Writing
X
2
(l,ft = 295) = 4.70*
No 76.3% 81.0% 69.4%
Yes 23.7% 19.0% 30.6%
Gender X
2
(l, ft = 295) =12.96 * *
Females
Males
Parental Income
Level (combined)
<$20,000
$20,000-35,000
$35,000-60,000
>$ 100,000
49.8%
50.2%
13.6%
25.8%
30.2%
30.5%
40.8% 62.8%
59.2% 37.2%
16.1% 9.9%
28.2% 22.3%
26.4% 35.5%
29.3% 32.2%
^ ( 3 , ft = 295) = 5.11
*p<.05. **p<.01.
114
Variable
Stronger Weaker
Readers/ Readers/
Weaker Stronger
All Writers Writers
Q? = 295) (ft =174) (rc=121)
Test of Significance
egionof the U.S.
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
New England
South
Southwest
West
18.2%
12.6%
11.2%
28.0%
11.2%
18.9%
18.5%
14.9%
7.1%
29.8%
10.1%
19.6%
17.8%
9.3%
16.9%
25.4%
12.7%
17.8%
t (5, n = 286) = 8.68
*p<.05. **p<. 01.
115
Table 38
Academic Differences between the Stronger Readers/Weaker Writers and Weaker
Variable
Stronger
Readers/
Weaker
Writers
(ft =174)
Weaker
Readers/
Stronger
Writers
(n =121)
Test of
Significance
Average Grade in English r(293) = -1.28
Mean 3.49 3.58
SD 0.57 0.54
Cumulative High School GPA r(284) = -1.90
Mean 3.58 3.70
SD 0.53 0.47
Years of English
PSAT/NMSQT
Critical Reading
Mean
SD
7.75
1.06
7.90
0.71
f(293) = -1.49
r(293) = 4.89*
]
Mean 58.51 52.75
SD 10.07 9.77
Writing
Mean
SD
56.44
10.51
58.77
10.35
r(293) = -1.89
*p<.05. **/?<.01.
116
Variable
Stronger
Readers/
Weaker
Writers
(/i =174)
Weaker
Readers/
Stronger
Writers
(ft =121)
Test of
Significance
SAT
Critical Reading /(293)= 11.33*"
Mean 660.52 528.93
SD 97.98 98.28
Writing ^(293) =-10.97**
Mean 527.07 651.49
SD 94.65 97.43
ReadingSkills
Reading Tasks
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
92.06
9.70
90.59
9.57
90.28
9.70
87.58
10.97
/(293)= 1.55
f(293) = 2.44
*p<.05. **/?<.01.
117
Variable
Stronger
Readers/
Weaker
Writers
in = 174)
Weaker
Readers/
Stronger
Writers
p? = 121)
Test of
Significance
Writing Skills f(293) = -0.93
Mean 89.82 91.20
SD 13.71 10.55
Writing Tasks /(293)= 1.13
Writing minus Reading
Skills
Mean
SD
84.04
12.83
Mean -2.24
82.31
13.16
.92
^(293) = -3.69**
SD 8.8 5.93
Writing minus Reading
Tasks
Mean
SD
-6.55
9.64
-5.26
9.63
f(293) = -1.13
*/7<.05. **p<.01.
118
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This study was designed to examine the role of reading and writing self-
efficacy beliefs in the reading and writing performance of high school students,
particularly those students who appeared to be much stronger readers than writers,
and much stronger writers than readers. Students were identified as exhibiting
discrepant reading and writing performance based on their 2006 SAT Critical
Reading and Writing scores. Their self-efficacy beliefs were assessed with the
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument and the Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Instrument, both developed by Shell et al. (1995; Shell et al., 1989).
Summary and Review of Findings
The first two research questions were designed to examine whether reading
self-efficacy beliefs mediate the role of students' background and experiences in
reading (including prior English achievement, gender, and parental income) on
reading performance, as well as whether writing self-efficacy beliefs mediate the role
of students' background and experiences in writing (including prior English
achievement, gender, and parental income) on writing performance. These questions
were tested with partially and fully mediated path models that included the 619
students in the total sample.
119
As expected, the partially-mediated model, as opposed to the fully mediated
model, provided a better fit to the reading and writing performance data. The
partially-mediated reading and writing performance models both provided good fits to
the data based on chi-square and other fit indices. In the reading performance model,
reading self-efficacy significantly mediated the effects of high school English GPA
and parental income, but not gender, on reading performance. In other words, using
Sobel's formula to test for significance of mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986), reading
self-efficacy beliefs partially account for the influence of prior achievement in
English and parental income on reading performance. The standardized path
coefficient from reading self-efficacy beliefs to reading performance was positive and
significant at .44, which was the strongest path in that model.
In the writing performance model, writing self-efficacy significantly mediated
the effects of high school English GPA and parental income, but not gender, on
writing performance, with the strongest effect of mediation in the path from high
school English GPA to writing self-efficacy to writing performance (z = 6.71,/? <
.001). The standardized path coefficient from writing self-efficacy beliefs to writing
performance was positive and significant at .36, however, the strongest path in the
model was the direct path from high school English GPA to writing performance at
.40. Although Shell et al. (1995) found there was equivalent reading and writing
prediction from reading and writing self-efficacy and outcome expectancy measures,
the finding from the current study is consistent with Shell et al.'s (1989) finding that
student beliefs were less strongly related to writing performance than reading
performance.
120
There are a few differences between the reading and writing path models that
are worth noting. Based on the standardized path coefficients, the path from gender
(being female) to writing self-efficacy beliefs is significant, while the path from
gender to reading self-efficacy beliefs is not. Other research has shown similar
relationships between gender and writing self-efficacy (Pajares et al., 1999; Pajares &
Valiante, 1997; Pajares & Valiante, 2001). Interestingly, gender is only significantly
related to SAT Critical Reading scores and not SAT Writing scores, with males
scoring higher on SAT Critical Reading than females. This relationship does not
appear to be mediated by self-efficacy beliefs, however the finding is consistent with
previous subgroup differences research on the SAT noting that for the past 20 years,
males have scored higher than females on the SAT Critical Reading test (Kobrin,
Sathy, & Shaw, 2006).
Another difference is that although high school English GPA appears to have
a similar relationship with reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs, there is a slightly
greater direct relationship between high school English GPA and SAT Writing, rather
than SAT Reading. Although further research is likely needed to better understand
why this may be so, potential reasons may be because high school English curricula
incorporate more writing activities as they are more easily and concretely assessed in
the school environment than reading comprehension or skills. Shell et al. (1995)
commented that in high school there is little direct emphasis on teaching or assessing
reading skills. Another reason may be because there is an increased emphasis on
writing in high schools with the introduction of the writing section on the SAT (Noeth
& Kobrin, 2007).
121
The following two research questions examined the amount of variance in
reading and writing performance that can be explained by reading and writing self-
efficacy beliefs, after controlling for prior reading and writing achievement, gender,
race/ethnicity, best language, and parental income. Of particular interest was whether
or not the role of self-efficacy beliefs was greater for the students exhibiting
discrepant performance. Each of these analyses were run in two different ways, with
PSAT/NMSQT scores as a measure of prior reading or writing achievement, as well
as with high school English GPA as a measure of prior achievement.
Of the four performance groups, reading self-efficacy beliefs significantly
contributed to the amount of variance explained in reading performance, when
controlling for both PSAT/NMSQT scores and high school English GPA, only for the
two discrepant groups. The amount of variance explained by self-efficacy beliefs was
higher for all groups when high school English GPA was in the model rather than
PSAT/NMSQT scores, except for the weak readers/weak writers. This is not
surprising given the close relationship between the PSAT/NMSQT and the SAT, and
the little variance left to be explained when PSAT/NMSQT is entered into a
regression analysis to explain SAT scores. Prior reading achievement was a
significant predictor of reading performance in all models except for the weak
readers/weak writers model with high school English GPA. The weak readers/weak
writers appeared to have weaker and different relationships among essentially all
variables in this study. This may be due to the lower motivation among this group as
they answered the measures, or the smaller sample size than the other groups. It is
possible that this group did not take the measures as seriously as the other three
groups. Any findings related to the weak readers/weak writers must be interpreted
with caution.
The patterns for predicting writing performance from writing self-efficacy
beliefs were slightly different from the patterns of reading self-efficacy predicting
reading performance. Of the four performance groups, all analyses including high
school English GPA resulted in a significant contribution of writing self-efficacy
beliefs to writing performance, except for the weak readers/weak writers. In the
analyses including PSAT/NMSQT Writing, writing self-efficacy beliefs contributed
significantly to the variance explained in writing performance only for the weaker
readers/stronger writers. This was also the largest amount of variance explained by
self-efficacy beliefs across the reading and writing models that included
PSAT/NMSQT scores (5%). It appears that for this group, as compared to the other
groups, writing self-efficacy beliefs played a larger role in predicting writing
performance. This is not necessarily surprising given that these students tend to be
stronger in their writing than their reading performance.
An additional two research questions addressed the role that reading self-
efficacy beliefs may play in writing performance and the role that writing self-
efficacy beliefs may play in reading performance in order to gain a better
understanding of the interchangeability of the reading and writing self-efficacy belief
measures. This was examined by controlling for prior reading achievement, gender,
race/ethnicity, best language, and parental income, and determining whether writing
self-efficacy beliefs predicted reading performance. It was also examined by
controlling for prior writing achievement, gender, race/ethnicity, best language, and
123
parental income, and determining whether reading self-efficacy beliefs predicted
writing performance. Each of these analyses were run in two different ways, with
PSAT/NMSQT scores as prior measures of reading or writing achievement as well as
with high school English GPA as a measure of prior achievement. Of particular
interest was whether the discrepant groups showed that the measures of reading and
writing self-efficacy beliefs were less interchangeable than the strong readers/strong
writers and the weak readers/weak writers. If this was to be the case, then merely
providing a measure of reading self-efficacy to assess students' reading or writing
self-efficacy could be misleading for those with discrepant reading and writing beliefs
and performanceEnglish educators could be missing out on noticing this particular
issue for the discrepant students in order to target interventions.
The results of these analyses revealed that for the total group, reading self-
efficacy did a slightly better job of predicting reading performance than writing self-
efficacy beliefs, however, writing and reading self-efficacy beliefs seem to similarly
predict writing performance. This may be related to Shanahan and Lomax's (1986)
finding that, although the most accurate theoretical model of the reading-writing
relationship was the interactive model where reading and writing influence the
development of each other, the reading-to- writing model fit their data better than the
writing-to-reading model. They hypothesized that this may be due to students being
given a greater opportunity to use their reading skills to enhance their writing
knowledge in schools and less of an opportunity to use their writing skills to enhance
their reading knowledge and skills. Another hypothesis to explain this finding may be
that any test of writing is usually inherently also a test of reading, as the test-taker
124
must read and interpret the question or prompt before responding in an essay format
or multiple choice format (Powers & Fowles, 1999). For the stronger readers/weaker
writers as well as the weaker readers/stronger writers, reading self-efficacy beliefs
better predicted reading performance than writing self-efficacy beliefs, and reading
self-efficacy also better predicted writing performance than writing self-efficacy
beliefs. For the strong readers/strong writers, reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs
seemed to similarly predict reading performance, and writing self-efficacy beliefs
better predicted writing performance than reading self-efficacy beliefs. For the weak
readers/weak writers, neither reading nor writing self-efficacy beliefs predict reading
or writing performancealthough the standardized betas for the self-efficacy
measures are stronger in both cases when the self-efficacy beliefs matched the
performance domain (e.g. writing self-efficacy beliefs more strongly related to
writing performance than reading performance).
Though a preliminary look at these findings may result in the thinking that the
reading and writing self-efficacy measures may be somewhat interchangeable, a
closer look may suggest otherwise. When a Mest was conducted on the variables that
represented the differences in students' Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Tasks and Skills, there were significant mean differences found in the differences
between students' Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills scores for the
stronger readers/weaker writers and weaker readers/stronger writers. This analysis
showed that simply by subtracting the reading and writing self-efficacy measures for
individual students, educators may be able to reveal the same reading and writing
performance discrepancies that exist and help these students build and improve their
weaker area.
Finally, this study examined whether there were significant differences in
writing self-efficacy, reading self-efficacy, prior English achievement, gender,
race/ethnicity, best language, socioeconomic status, and other background variables
between the two discrepant groups. These chi-square tests of association and /-tests
showed that the weaker reader/stronger writer group had significantly more students
reporting to have had ESL experience. There was also a significant difference in the
proportion of males and females between the two performance groups, with more
females than males in the weaker reader/stronger writer group. Interestingly, the
weaker readers/stronger writers were significantly more likely than the stronger
readers/weaker writers to report that they desired help in both reading, as well as and
writing.
As performance group membership was created based on students' SAT
Critical Reading and Writing scores, it was expected that there would be statistically
significant differences between the two groups based on these scores. However,
group differences were also found in PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores, but not
PSAT/NMSQT Writing scores. The stronger readers/weaker writers had significantly
higher PSAT/NMSQT Critical Reading scores than the weaker readers/stronger
writers. It is possible that a great deal of writing instruction and practice in the form
of college essays or SAT preparation takes place in between when these students take
the PSAT/NMSQT and the SAT, and is thus responsible for the larger writing
performance differences between the two groups on the SAT as opposed to the
PSAT/NMSQT. The stronger readers/weaker writers also had significantly higher
Reading Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks scores, however there were no other
statistically significant difference in the means of the individual self-efficacy
measures. There were, however, significant differences in the means of the subtracted
Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills measures for the two discrepant
groups.
These findings paint a very interesting picture of the weaker readers/stronger
writers group. Particularly because this group has never been studied, there are clear
avenues for future research to better understand these students. It is not necessarily
surprising that the group that is stronger in writing is more likely to be female. There
has been a great deal of research on writing performance with gender differences
favoring females (see Burton, Lewis, & Robertson, 1988; Hyde & Linn, 1988;
Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Wilder & Powell, 1989). In an examination of the
influence of gender on different writing tasks, Engelhard, Gordon, Siddle Walker, and
Gabrielson (1994), found that adolescent females tended to use more precise and
exact grammar, and were also more likely than males to have mastered the language
of the schools as reflected in statewide writing assessments.
The greater ESL experience in the weaker reader/stronger writer group, may
be related to issues of biliteracy or the transfer of literacy processing skills from
students' first language to English. For example, Holm and Dodd (1996) found that
students from nonalphabetic written language backgrounds will likely have
difficulties with new or unfamiliar words when attending universities where English
is the medium of instruction. There are likely a great deal of unfamiliar words to
127
students on the SAT Critical Reading section, whereas the Writing multiple choice
section is more rule-based and related to grammar. Also, the SAT essay is student-
produced as opposed to based on the constraints placed on a reader by the author of
an existing text. This explanation may be partially responsible for the performance
discrepancy for these students. Escamilla (2006) points out that there is a great need
for research on biliteracy in the United States, as there are many language-specific
issues in the acquisition of literacy and biliteracy and different orthographic systems,
for example, may warrant different reading or writing strategies for students.
Another interesting finding related to the weaker readers/stronger writers is
that there was a significant negative correlation between combined parental income
and high school GPA (r = -.20, p < .05). Perhaps this is related to their greater ESL
experience, having parents who possibly immigrated to the United States and finding
lower-paying jobs, yet instilling the importance of education in their children. This
also may be tied into the finding that these students desire help in reading and writing
significantly more than the stronger readers/weaker writers. It is possible that after
having ESL experience, it is hard for students to distinguish when they no longer
require help or assistance in Englishin both reading and writing. It is also possible
that these students may simply be help-seekers, highly resourceful, and utilize a great
deal of self-regulatory strategies in both reading and more so writing. This may
influence their performance in high schoolwhich this study showed is more closely
tied to writing performance. Though the findings are not significant, the weaker
readers/stronger writers did have higher overall high school and English GPAs than
the stronger readers/weaker writers. Future research on these students may be used to
128
inform instructional and motivational interventions to boost their lagging reading
performance.
Implications for Researchers and Literacy Educators
The results of this study have showed that both directly and indirectly, reading
and writing self-efficacy play a prominent role in reading and writing performance,
respectively. Partially mediated models tested by path analysis clearly showed these
strong relationships. This highlights the need for educators to recognize the important
role of reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs on reading and writing performance
and the value in implementing reading and writing self-efficacy interventions in the
classroom to improve students' motivation and performance (Linnenbrink & Pintrich,
2003; Schunk, 2003; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). Though reading and writing
performance do depend in part on students' verbal abilities, research has shown that
cognitive and motivational variables play a significant role (Schunk & Zimmerman;
Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). In an in-depth, qualitative study of how one
Michigan elementary school produced high reading and writing achievement
compared with schools serving similar student populations, Pressley, Mohan,
Raphael, and Fingeret (2007) found that almost every page of field notes contained an
observation of teachers utilizing motivating strategies with students.
By assessing students reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs using the
Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills measures, for example, educators
can better understand how closely related students' reading and writing self-efficacy
beliefs are to each other. Subtracting the two averages on these measures for each
student can show whether there is a large gap between students' reading and writing
129
self-efficacy beliefsand in what direction this gap may present itself. This
information can be useful in targeting the students' weaker areas and building on the
shared aspects of reading and/or writing to enhance self-efficacy beliefs and
performance in the weaker area.
Recommended methods for raising reading and writing self-efficacy are not
necessarily in short supply in the research, though potentially they are in limited use
in the classroom. Schunk and his colleagues have written extensively on the influence
of modeling, goal setting, and progress feedback on reading and writing self-efficacy
(Schunk, 2003: Schunk & Lilly, 1984; Schunk & Pajares, 2003; Schunk & Rice,
1993; Schunk & Swartz, 1993; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). Students acquire a
great deal of self-efficacy information vicariously, or through exposure to models.
Observing similar others succeed at a task can raise the observer's self-efficacy.
Models can raise self-efficacy for observers who may believe that he/she can also be
successful at a task if they follow the same behavioral sequence. This is somewhat
related to Vygotsky's (1962) sociocultural theory that states socially-mediated
activity is an important influence on thought (as cited in Schunk & Zimmerman,
2007).
Goal setting entails beginning a learning activity with goals related to
acquiring skills and knowledge, finishing work and attaining good grades (Schunk,
2003). When students evaluate their progress in relation to the goals they have set,
self-efficacy is usually increased and motivation is sustained. Similarly, when there is
a discrepancy between the student's performance and their goal, they are more likely
to increase their effort to achieve that goal.
130
Feedback by others and by oneself is also crucial to raising students' self-
efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986; Schunk, 2003; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). This is
related to setting goals and understanding when they have been reached and when
more work needs to be done. Accurate self-evaluation of one's capabilities and
progress are particularly important in high school when teachers may have 150
students as opposed to 25 in elementary school and may not be able to provide
detailed feedback for each student on their reading and writing skills. Schunk (2003)
recommends teaching students self-evaluative strategies, such as completing a self-
report scale where students rate their progress in meeting certain goals and then
discuss these ratings with the teacher or similar others who provide feedback.
It would be difficult to argue that any of these interventions or strategies
would not be useful for all of the students in this study. However, the potential
effectiveness of these interventions for students with discrepant reading and writing
performance lies in the notion that students must be able to first differentiate between
their reading and writing performance in high schooland not just on the SAT or
other tests of reading and writing performance. In schools, reading and writing are
often lumped together, and perhaps taught and tested in a class called English
Language Arts, or simply English. In high school, in order for students to hold
accurate self-efficacy beliefs in reading and writing, they must given opportunities to
understand and differentiate these beliefs in reading and writing separately. This is
not to undermine the educational utility in connecting reading with writing and
writing with reading, but to allow for students to understand the most accurate and
complete picture of their literacy skills and abilities. This differentiation would seem
131
to have benefited the weaker readers/stronger writer group, many of whom reported
they desire help in both reading and writing, despite doing well in writing. They also
had lower Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsTasks scores than the stronger
readers/weaker writers. It is possible that because a person can quickly assess whether
he/she understands something they are reading, as opposed to needing feedback from
others on their writing, that reading self-efficacy is more often generalized to serve as
English self-efficacy for high school students.
Another finding of import to educators is the existence of students who are
weaker readers/stronger writers and their unique characteristics worthy of future
research. Though researchers examining patients with brain injuries recognized long
ago that there could be students who could read well and write poorly or vice versa
(Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000), there has been almost no research on the students
who can write well but read at lower levels than expected. This study provides a
useful first glimpse for researchers and educators interested in better serving these
students. It appears that these students are more likely to be female, have ESL
experience, and are more likely to report desiring help in both reading and writing. A
great deal of future research must be done to better understand why these students
might be performing differently in the similar domains of reading and writing.
Limitations
There were a few inevitable limitations of this study that deserve mention.
First, the low response rate to the online measures and the higher academic ability of
the students that did respond to the measures brings to question the generalizability of
the results of this study. Low response rates are commonly found in online surveys
132
(Carini, Hayek, Kuh, Kennedy, & Ouimet, 2003; Sax, Gilmartin, Lee, & Hagedorn,
2003), and therefore many more students were e-mailed the measures (N= 18,182)
than were expected to respond. The students that did respond (N= 619) were more
academically able than the nonresponders, suggesting that the results should be
interpreted with some caution. It is not surprising to find that students with higher
SAT scores were more likely to participate in a study related to the College Board
these students probably had more positive feelings toward the testing experience.
Despite the low response rate and the more academically able sample, it is important
to note the robustness of the two structural equation models predicting reading and
writing performance, as well as the large amount of variance explained in the
regression models. Up to 78% of the variance in reading performance was predicted
and up to 72% of the variance in writing performance was predicted in the models
tested. It is likely that these models would also be significantly predictive for a less
academically able sample.
Second, in order to target the students considered to have discrepant reading
and writing abilities, it was necessary to first know their SAT scores. It is possible
that because these students have received and processed their Critical Reading and
Writing SAT scores that their reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs may be
affected by this information (e.g., a personally satisfying Critical Reading score might
positively impact the student's reading self-efficacy beliefs).
This is also related to the notion that self-efficacy instruments are most useful
when administered in close temporal proximity to the prediction target, such as the
SAT (Bandura, 1997). However, this is not necessarily a limitation to this study.
133
Bong (2002) tested this notion by comparing the utility of adolescents' self-efficacy
for predicting various performance outcomes assessed after increasingly longer time
periods from the self-efficacy instrument. This research found that students' self-
efficacy beliefs at the beginning of a semester predicted end-of-semester exam
performance just as accurately as they predicted performance on exams given earlier
in the semester and closer in time to the administration of the self-efficacy instrument.
Bong (2006) commented that researchers are urged to assess adolescents' self-
efficacy beliefs and performance in reasonable temporal proximity. The current study
was certainly within the realm of reasonable temporal proximity.
An additional limitation is that reading and writing performance in this study
was defined only by scores on the Critical Reading and Writing sections of the SAT,
respectively. In particular, the SAT Writing test has received criticism because it is a
short, timed test that includes multiple choice questions that "emphasize editing
skills" and an essay scoring system that focuses on " a few relatively narrow features
of a text" (National Council of Teachers of English Task Force on SAT and ACT
Writing Tests, 2005, p. 7). Although the SAT Critical Reading and Writing sections
are neither complete nor perfect measures of these domains, research has
demonstrated a strong link between the skills measured by the SAT introduced in
March 2005 and high school and college curricula and instructional practice in
reading and writing (Milewski, Johnsen, Glazer, & Kubota, 2005). Another limitation
includes that the sample only consisted of students who turned 18-years-old prior to
taking the SAT, in order to be able to contact students to administer the self-efficacy
instruments online without parental permission. While many students who take the
SAT are 18-years-old or older, most of the students are younger.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research on this topic should likely focus on three main issues: (a)
replicating this study with different measures of reading and writing performance; (b)
the ways that students' school experiences influence the development of their reading
and writing self-efficacy beliefs and the relationship of the beliefs to performance;
and (c) a more in depth examination of the weaker readers/stronger writers.
First, it would be interesting to conduct similar research with other measures
of reading and writing performance serving as the dependent variables to ensure that
the findings from this study are not unique to the SAT. For the same reason, it may
also be worthwhile to pursue other measures of reading and writing self-efficacy
beliefs and their relationship to the SAT and other reading and writing performance
measures. Also, research using state reading and writing assessments taken in
different academic grades at the same time, along with measures of reading and
writing self-efficacy, would allow for the study of the developmental aspects of
reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs and performance. It could provide an
informative snapshot of the relationship between reading and writing self-efficacy
beliefs and reading and writing performance at different developmental stages.
A second avenue of research resulting from this study is the relationship of
high school English instruction to the development of reading and writing self-
efficacy beliefs and their relation to reading and writing performance. It may useful to
conduct a study of the discrepant students using multilevel modeling techniques to
understand if there something varying in English instruction at the school level for
these particular students. Research in this area may also include studying whether
different self-efficacy interventions (e.g. goal setting, feedback, self-evaluation) may
be more effective for reading versus writing self-efficacy, or for stronger
readers/weaker writers versus weaker readers/stronger writers. It would also be useful
to examine the effectiveness of targeting a discrepant student's area of weaker self-
efficacy to improve self-efficacy and performance in that area using methods that
build on their stronger domain.
Also, because the weaker readers/stronger writers were identified as more
likely to be female, have ESL experience, and to desire help in both reading and
writing, it would be important to examine the role of gender in discrepant reading and
writing performanceas well as the potential mediational role of self-efficacy on
gender for the discrepant groups. In addition, an examination of the role of ESL
instruction and experience on the development of discrepant reading and writing
performance would be usefuland it would be important to study this experience
based on differences in students' first languages. Research on the students' desiring
help in writing when they appear to be exhibiting successful writing performance is
also essential. It is possible these students are not able to differentiate their weaker
reading performance from their stronger writing performance and are generalizing
their views of themselves as weak readers to writing and other domains. It is also
possible that these help-seeking behaviors are what have launched them to become so
successful in writing. There is a great deal to learn about this group of students, as
they have never been studied before and such research may shed light on how
discrepant reading and writing performance develops.
Conclusions
The results of this study have showed that both directly and indirectly, reading
and writing self-efficacy beliefs play a prominent role in reading and writing
performance, respectively. As expected, reading and writing self-efficacy beliefs did
indeed play a larger role in reading and writing performance for students with
discrepant rather than consistent reading and writing performance. The contribution
of writing self-efficacy beliefs to writing performance was larger for weaker
readers/stronger writers than for the stronger readers/weaker writers. Also the
contribution of reading self-efficacy beliefs was stronger for the stronger
readers/weaker writers than for the weaker readers/stronger writers. In an analysis of
the interchangeability of reading and writing self-efficacy measures on reading and
writing performance, this research showed that for most groups reading self-efficacy
beliefs may do a better job at predicting both reading as well as writing performance.
However, this finding should be interpreted with caution as an examination of the
difference between students' Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills
scores revealed significant mean differences. This suggests that using the two
measures together by subtracting one from the other, instead of one or the other, may
help educators to determine whether a student is exhibiting discrepant reading and
writing self-efficacy beliefs. This can be a great opportunity to improve the student's
weaker area.
137
A number of reading and writing self-efficacy interventions, including
modeling, goal setting, and progress feedback were recommended for all students;
however, it was highlighted that an understanding of implementing these
interventions in both reading and writing domainswith an awareness that they
sometimes utilize different skillscan be particularly useful. Students with
discrepant performance would likely benefit from understanding how their self-
efficacy beliefs and performance may differ in these two related but different
domains.
As this was the first study of students who are stronger writers than readers,
future research should be directed at better understanding these students and the
potential roles that gender, ESL experience and help-seeking may play in the
performance discrepancy. It would also be useful to examine how students' school
experiences influence the development of their reading and writing self-efficacy
beliefs and the relationship of their beliefs to performance. Of import would be to
determine if different self-efficacy interventions are more effective for stronger
readers/weaker writers in improving their writing self-efficacy and performance or for
weaker readers/stronger writers in improving their reading self-efficacy and
performance.
138
REFERENCES
139
Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of
Literacy Research, 34, 189-208.
Alvermann, D. E., Hinchman, K. A., Moore, D. W., Phelps, S. F., & Waff, D. R.
(Eds.) (1998). Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents' lives. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS 5.0. Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing
societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-45).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 51(2), 269-290.
Bandura, A. (2006a). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F.
Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1-44).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Bandura, A. (2006b). Guide for creating self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan
(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-338). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99.
140
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and
intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.
Baron, R. M, & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bol, L., Hacker, D. J., O'Shea, P., & Allen, D. (2005). The influence of overt
practice, achievement level, and explanatory style on calibration accuracy and
performance. The Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 269-290.
Bong, M. (2002). Predictive utility of subject-, task-, and problem-specific self-
efficacy judgments for immediate and delayed academic performances.
Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 133-162.
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. 287-306). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Brandt, D. (1986). Social foundations of reading and writing. In B. T. Peterson (Ed.),
Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing (pp. 115-126). Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Burton, N. W., Lewis, C, & Robertson, N. (1988). Sex differences in SAT scores.
(College Board Research Report No. 1988-9). New York: The College Board.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. C, Kuh, G. D., Kennedy, J. M., & Ouimet, J. A. (2003).
College student responses to web and paper surveys: Does mode matter?
Research in Higher Education, 44, 1-19.
Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2003). Reading difficulties, reading-related self-
perceptions, and strategies for overcoming negative self-beliefs. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 19, 5-24.
Clifford, G. J. (1989). A Sisyphean task: Historical perspectives on writing and
reading instruction. In A. H. Dyson (Ed.), Collaboration through reading and
writing (pp. 25-83). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
141
College Board. (2006). Understanding 2006 PSAT/NMSQTscores. Retrieved
November 28, 2006, from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/testing/psat/coordinate/downloads
Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in motivational beliefs of Asian
American and non-Asian American students. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 433^140.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C, Wigfield, A., Buchanan, D. R., Flanagan, C, & Mac Iver,
D. (1993). The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents'
experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-101.
Engelhard, G., Gordon, B., Siddle Walker, E., Gabrielson, S. (1994). The influence of
writing tasks and gender on quality of writing for Black and White students.
Journal of Educational Research, 87, 197-209.
Escamilla, K. (2006). Semilingualism applied to the literacy behaviors of Spanish-
speaking emerging bilinguals: Bi-illiteracy or emerging biliteracy? Teachers
College Record, 11, 2329-2353.
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their
development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39-50.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Graham, S'., & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 63-
84). New York: Macmillan.
Graves, D., & Hansen, J. (1983). The author's chair. Language Arts, 60(2), 176-183.
Gushue, G. V., & Whitson, M. L. (2006). The relationship of ethnic identity and
gender role attitudes to the development of career choice goals among Black
and Latina girls. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 379-385.
Holm, A., & Dodd, B. (1996). The effect of first written language on the acquisition
of English literacy. Cognition, 59, 119147.
Honeycutt, R. L. (2002). Good readers/poor writers: An investigation of the
strategies, understanding, and meaning that good readers who are poor
writers ascribe to writing narrative text on-demand. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
142
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R.
H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling; Concepts, issues, and
applications (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53-69.
Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes
in children's self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences
across grades one through twelve. Child Development, 73, 509-527.
Jetton, T. L., & Dole, J. A. (Eds.). (2004). Adolescent literacy research and practice.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Jinks, J., & Lorsbach, A. (2003). Introduction: Motivation and self-efficacy belief.
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 113-118.
Jinks, J., & Morgan, V. (1999). Children's perceived academic self-efficacy: An
inventory scale. The Clearing House, 72, 224-230.
Jordan, E. C. (1986). The comprehending and composing processes of good writers
who are good readers and poor writers who are good readers. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 47 (08), 2972A. (UMI No. 8627468)
Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (1999). Research methodology: Taming the cyber
frontier-techniques for improving online surveys. Social Science Computer
Review, 77,323-337.
Klassen, R. M. (2002). Writing in early adolescence: A review of the role of self-
efficacy beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 14,173-203.
Klassen, R. M. (2004). Optimism and realism: A review of self-efficacy from a cross-
cultural perspective. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 39, 205-230.
Klassen, R. M. (2006). Too much confidence: The self-efficacy of adolescents with
learning disabilities. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents (pp. 181-200). Greewich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Kobrin, J. L., Sathy, V., & Shaw, E. J. (2006). An historical view of subgroup
performance differences on the SAT Reasoning Test (College Board Research
Report No. 2006-5). New York: The College Board.
143
Kucer, S. B. (1985). The making of meaning: Reading and writing as parallel
processes. Written Communication, 2, 317-336.
Kucer, S. B. (1987). The cognitive base of reading and writing. In J. Squire (Ed.), The
dynamics of language learning: Research in the language arts (pp. 27-51).
Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English and ERIC
Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.
Kucer, S. B. (2005). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading
and writing in school settings (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Langer, J. A. (1986a). Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Langer, J. A. (1986b). Reading, writing, and understanding: An analysis of the
construction of meaning. Written Communication, 5(2), 219-267.
Langer, J. A., & Allington, R. (1992). Curriculum research in reading and writing. In
P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 687-725).
New York: Macmillan.
Langer, J. A., & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and reading relationships: Constructive
tasks. In R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research,
theory, and practice (pp. 112-139). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in
student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 19, 119-137.
Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University.
McDonald, R. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2001). Applying regression & correlation: A guide for
students and researchers. London: Sage.
144
Milewski, G. B., Johnsen, D., Glazer, N., & Kubota, M.. (2005). A survey to evaluate
the alignment of the new SAT writing and critical reading sections to
curricula and instructional practices (College Board Research Report No.
2005-1). New York: The College Board.
Mosenthal, P. (1983). [Review of the book Relating reading and writing: Developing
a transactional theory of the writing process]. Journal of Reading Behavior,
15, 75-77.
National Council of Teachers of English Task Force on SAT and ACT Writing Tests.
(2005). The impact of the SAT and ACT timed writing tests. Retrieved
October 15,2007, from
http://www.ncte.org/library/files/About_NCTE/Press_Center/SAT/SAT-ACT-
tf-report.pdf
Nelson, N. (1998). Reading and writing contextualized. In N. Nelson & R. C. Calfee
(Eds.), The reading-writing connection: Ninety-seventh yearbook of the
national society for the study of education. Chicago: National Society for the
Study of Education.
Nelson, N., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). The reading-writing connection viewed
historically. InN. Nelson & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The reading-writing
connection: Ninety-seventh yearbook of the national society for the study of
education (pp. 1-52). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Nicaise, M., & Gettinger, M. (1995). Fostering reading comprehension in college
students. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 16, 283-337.
Noeth, R. J., & Kobrin, J. K. (2007). Writing changes in the nation's K-12 education
system (RN-34). New York: The College Board.
Oettingen, G. (1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on self-efficacy. In A. Bandura
(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 149-176). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Oettingen, G., & Zosuls, K. M. (2006). Culture and self-efficacy in adolescents. In F.
Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 245-266).
Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the
writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning
problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 230-240.
145
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1-49).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A
review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.
Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response formats in writing self-
efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 214-221.
Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in the writing of high
school students: A path analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 163-175.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in
mathematical problem-solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 193-203.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics
performances: The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counseling
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.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Self and self-beliefs in psychology and
education: A historical perspective. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic
achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 3-21). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). The influence of self-efficacy on elementary
students' writing. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353-360.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing
self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational
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.
146
Palmer, W. S. (1986, March). Good readers/poor writers: Some implications for
classroom practices. Paper presented at the National Council of Teachers of
English Spring Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (1986). Children's reading strategies, metacognition, and
motivation. Developmental Review, 6, 25-56.
Petersen, B. T. (1986). Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing. Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Pike, K., Compain, R., & Mumper, J. (1994). New connections: An integrated
approach to literacy. New York: Harper Collins.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Merrill.
Pressley, M. (2004). The need for research on secondary literacy education. In T. L.
Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp.
415-432). New York: The Guilford Press.
Pressley, M., Mohan, L., Raphael, L. M., & Fingeret, L. (2007). How does Bennett
Woods Elementary School produce such high reading and writing
achievement?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 221-240.
Powers, D.E., & Fowles, M.E. (1999). Testtakers' judgments of essay prompts:
Perceptions and performance. Educational Assessment, 6, 3-22.
Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In M. R.
Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th
ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is "easy" and print is "tough": The differential
investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and
attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647-658.
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., Lee, J. J., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2003). Using web surveys
to reach community college students: An analysis of response rates and
response bias. Association of Institutional Research. Miami, FL.
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling,
goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 159
172.
147
Schunk, D. H., & Lilly, M. W. (1984). Sex differences in self-efficacy and
attributions: Influence of performance feedback. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 4, 205-213.
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. In
F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71-96).
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy in education revisited: Empirical
and applied evidence. In D. M. Mclnerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories
revisited(pp. 115-138). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2004). Self-efficacy in education revisited: Empirical
and applied evidence. In D. M. Mclnerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories
revisited (pp. 115-138). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects
on self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial
reading services. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 257-276.
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-
efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18,
337-354.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children's self-efficacy and
self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 23, 7-25.
Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory
multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 466-477.
Shanahan, T. (1987). The shared knowledge of reading and writing. Reading
Psychology: An International Quarterly, 8, 93-102.
Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical
models of the reading-writing relationship. Journal of Educational
Shell, D. F., Colvin, C, & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and
outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-
level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology,
87, 386-398.
148
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C, & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 91-100.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,
360-407.
Stotsky, S. (1983). Research on reading/writing relationships: A synthesis and
suggested directions. Language Arts, 60(5), 627-642.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Thacker, P. R. (1990). Effects of text organization on reading in ninth-grade good and
poor readers and writers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51 (06),
1971A. (UMI No. 9032467)
Thacker, P. R. (1991). Text organization in reading: What ninth grade good and poor
readers and writers know. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research
and Improvement.
The National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2003).
The neglected "R ": The need for a writing revolution. New York: College
Board.
Tierney, R. J. (1983, December). Analyzing composing behavior: Planning, aligning,
revising. Paper presented at the 33rd annual National Reading Conference,
Austin, TX.
Tierney, R. J., & Leys, M. (1986). What is the value of connecting reading and
writing? In B. T. Peterson (Ed.), Convergences: Transactions in reading and
writing (pp. 15-29). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship:
Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 246-280). New York:
Longman.
Valiante, G. (2001). Writing self-efficacy and gender orientation: A developmental
perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Emory University, Atlanta,
GA.
149
Vogt, P. V. (1999). Dictionary of statistics & methodology: A nontechnical guide for
the social sciences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walker, B. J. (2003). The cultivation of student self-efficacy in reading and writing.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 173-187.
Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social and academic motivation in middle school: Concurrent
and long-term relations to academic effort. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16,
390^106.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). Development between the ages of
11 and 25. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 148-185). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children's
motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. The
Journal of Educational Research, 97, 299-309.
Wilder, G., & Powell, K. (1989). Sex differences in test performance: A survey of the
literature (College Board Research Report No. 1989-3). New York: The
College Board.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura
(Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on
writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4),
845-862.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents' development of personal
agency: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill. In F. Pajares
& T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 45-70).
150
APPENDIX A
Instruments
151
Items used from the 2006 SAT Questionnaire
1. Indicate the total number of years of high school courses (in grades 9 through 12)
you have taken or plan to take in each of the subjects listed below. If you have not
taken any course in a subject and do not plan to take one in high school, fill in the
oval in the "None" column. If you repeat a course, count it only once. If one (or
more) of the courses is an advanced placement, accelerated, or honors course, fill in
the oval in the "AP/Honors" column.
Subject of interest for this item: English (for example, composition, grammar, or
literature)
2. Enter the average grade for all courses you have already taken in each subject.
A or excellent (usually 90-100)
B or good (usually 80-89)
C or fair (usually 70-79)
D or passing (usually 60-69)
E or F or failing (usually 59 or below)
Subject of interest for this item: English
3. Indicate your cumulative grade point average for all academic subjects in high
school.
A+(97-100) C+(77-79)
A (93-96) C (73-76)
A-(90-92) C-(70-72)
B+(87-89) D+(67-69)
B (83-86) D (60-66)
B-(80-82) E or F (59 or below)
4. What is your most recent high school class rank? (For example, if you are 15
th
in a
class of 100, you are in the second tenth.) If you do not know your rank, check with
your high school counselor. If rank is not used in your school, give your best
estimate.
a. Highest tenth 1
I n t h e
b. Second tenth J r-
ft
,
c. Second fifth
d. Middle fifth
e. Fourth fifth
f. Lowest fifth
152
5. Provide information about the content of some of the high school courses that you
have taken or plan to take, and related activities. (You may mark more than one in
each subject area.)
Subject of interest: English course work or experience
a. American Literature
b. British Literature
c. Composition
d. Grammar
e. Literature of a country other than the United States or Britain
f. Literature of different historical periods
g. Speaking and listening skills
h. English as a second language
6. What is the highest level of education you plan to complete beyond high school?
(Mark only one.)
a. Specialized training or certificate program
b. Two-year associate of arts or sciences degree (such as AA, AAS, or
AS)
c. Bachelor's degree (such as BA or BS)
d. Master's degree (such as MA, MBA, or MS)
e. Doctoral or related degree (such as PhD, JD, MD, DVM)
f. Other
g. Undecided
7. How do you describe yourself? (Mark only one.)
a. American Indian or Alaskan Native
b. Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander
c. Black or African American
d. Mexican or Mexican American
e. Puerto Rican
f. Other Hispanic, Latino, or Latin American
g. White
h. Other
8. Answer both questions below about your language background.
a. What language did you learn to speak first?
1. English only
2. English and another language about the same
3. Another language
b. What language do you know best?
1. English only
2. English and another language about the same
3. Another language
153
9. How do you think you compare with other people your own age in the following
three areas of ability? For each area, fill in the appropriate response.
Subject of interest for this item: Writing ability
Among the highest 10 percent in this area of ability
Above average in this area
Average in this area
Below average in this area
10. Indicate the highest level of education completed by your father (or male
guardian) and your mother (or female guardian) by filling in the appropriate oval in
each column. (Mark only one.)
a. Grade school
b. Some high school
c. High school diploma or equivalent
d. Business or trade school
e. Some college
f. Associate or two-year degree
g. Bachelor's or four-year degree
h. Some graduate or professional school
i. Graduate or professional degree
11. What was the approximate combined income of your parents before taxes last
year? Include taxable and nontaxable income from all sources.
a. Less than $10,000
b. About $10,000 to $15,000
c. About $15,000 to $20,000
d. About $20,000 to $25,000
e. About $25,000 to $30,000
f. About $30,000 to $35,000
g. About $35,000 to $40,000
h. About $40,000 to $50,000
i. About $50,000 to $60,000
j . About $60,000 to $70,000
k. About $70,000 to $80,000
1. About $80,000 to $100,000
m. More than $100,000
n. I don't know
o. I prefer not to answer
154
Reading Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (Adapted from Shell, Murphy, &
Bruning, 1989)
Directions: On a scale of 0 (no confidence at all) to 100 (completely confident), how
confident are you that you can successfully read each of the following items?
You may select any number between 0 and 100.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Not at all confident Completely
Confident
1. A letter from a friend or family member
2. A recipe for cooking a meal
3. A rental contract for leasing an apartment
4. An automobile insurance contract
5. An employment application
6. An instruction manual for operating a computer
7. An employee manual describing job duties and company procedures
8. The questions on a multiple choice test in a high school class
9. A high school textbook in your best subject
10. A college level textbook in your best subject
11. A technical article in a publication related to your best subject
12. The daily newspaper
13. An article in Time or Newsweek
14. A short fiction story
15. A 400 page novel
16. A play by Shakespeare
17. A book of poetry
18. A philosophical essay
confident are you that you can read and apply the following skills? You may
select any number between 0 and 100.
1. Recognize letters
2. Pronounce individual words
3. Recognize parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.)
4. Recognize grammatically correct sentence structure
5. Understand the meaning of plurals, verb tenses, prefixes, and suffixes
6. Underst and short and long sentences
7. Phonetically "sound out" new words
8. Recognize the "main points" or themes in a passage or short story
9. Use previous knowledge to help understand new material
10. Compare and contrast ideas in a passage
11. Make inferences about the author's views
155
Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs Instrument (Adapted from Shell, Murphy, & Bruning,
1989)
confident are you that you can successfully communicate, in writing, what you
want to say in each of the following writing tasks? You may select any number
between 0 and 100.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Not at all confident Completely
Confident
1. Write a letter to a friend or family member
2. List instructions to play a card game
3. Write an instruction manual for operating a computer
4. Prepare a resume describing your employment history and skills
5. Write a one or two sentence answer to a specific test question
6. Compose a one or two page essay in answer to a test question
7. Write a term paper of 15 to 20 pages
8. State your opinion on a topic using strong examples to support your
point
9. Author a technical article related to your best subject for publication
10. Write a letter to the editor of a daily newspaper
11. Compose an article for a popular magazine such as Newsweek
12. Author a short fiction story
13. Author a 100 page novel
14. Compose a poem on the topic of your choice
15. Write useful class notes
16. Write a critical analysis of another author's work
confident are you that you can write and apply each of the following writing
skills? You may select any number between 0 and 100.
1. Correctly spell all words in a one page passage
2. Correctly punctuate a one page passage
3. Correctly use parts of speech (i.e. nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.)
4. Write a simple sentence with proper punctuation and grammatical
structure
5. Correctly use plurals, verb t enses, prefixes, and suffixes
6. Write compound and complex sentences with proper punctuation and
grammatical structure
7. Organize sentences into a paragraph so as to clearly express a theme
8. Write a paper with good overall organization (e.g. ideas in order,
effective transitions, etc.)
9. Use clear examples to support your point(s)
156
APPENDIX B
Correspondence with Participants
157
College Board E-mail
Dear Student,
In the next few days you will be contacted by a College Board researcher, Emily
Shaw, who is examining the relationship between reading and writing for her doctoral
dissertation. Please understand that participation in this study, which entails
answering two surveys about your reading and writing knowledge and skills, is
entirely voluntary. Choosing not to participate in the study will not harm your
relationship with the College Board in any way. The College Board is not sponsoring
or funding this research. We are only sending this letter on Emily's behalf in case you
find her project of interest.
Thank you,
The College Board
158
Researcher's E-mail with Link to Instruments
Dear Student,
My name is Emily Shaw and I am currently a doctoral student in the Educational
Psychology Program at Fordham University in New York. I am also a researcher at
the College Board. Currently, I am doing research for my dissertation on the
relationship between reading and writing. In order to investigate this reading-writing
relationship, I am contacting students like yourself who have taken the SAT and
requesting that you fill out a survey on your reading and writing skills and
knowledge. It should take about 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Here is the link to the
online survey: INSERT LINK HERE. All of the information you provide will be
treated confidentially. Results of the study will be reported in group terms, never as
single responses from any individual.
There are no feasible risks involved in participating in this study. Though I would
greatly appreciate your participation, please be aware that you have the right not to
participate and/or the right to discontinue you participation at any time. As a reward
for your participation in the study, you will be automatically entered in a drawing to
win one of two iPod nanos for taking the time to participate in the study.
If you have any further questions about participating in the study, please feel free to
contact me at emshaw@fordham.edu or (212) 713-8172, my sponsoring faculty
member, Dr. Akane Zusho at (212) 636-6460, or Dr. Lee Badger, Chair of the
Institutional Review Board at Fordham University at (212) 636-7946. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Emily J. Shaw, MSEd
PhD Candidate, Fordham University
159
Informed Consent Letter
[Note: this will be the first piece of information on the online survey after clicking on
the link.]
I have been invited to participate in a research project investigating the relationship
between reading and writing. If I choose to participate in the project, I will be asked
to complete two questionnaires that will take a total of 15 to 20 minutes to complete.
I understand that the questionnaires will ask for information about my confidence in
completing tasks or possessing skills in reading and writing.
I understand that my answers to the questions asked will be entered into a summary.
My own personal answers will be kept completely confidential. My name will be
removed from the materials I submit and I will thereafter be referred to by a code
number assigned by the researcher. The summary results will be included in Emily
Shaw's doctoral dissertation. Emily Shaw will have access to the data which will be
maintained at the College Board for the next three years. There are no foreseeable
risks involved in participating in the study. The benefits of participating in this
research include that it will assist literacy educators and researchers in better
understanding the relationship between reading and writing and the role played by
reading and writing self beliefs in this relationship.
I realize that my participation is completely voluntary and that I may withdraw from
participation at any point. I also realize that I have the right not to answer any
questions. If I agree to participate I "check off the box below that indicates my
agreement to the study coordinator. Finally, I understand that I will be automatically
entered in a drawing that will award two iPod nanos, one to each student, as a "thank
you" for my participation upon the researcher's receipt of my completed online
questionnaires.
I am aware that this project was reviewed and approved by Fordham's Institutional
Review Board (IRB), and that if I have concerns or questions about my rights as a
participant, I can contact Dr. Lee Badger, Chairperson of Fordham's IRB at
irb@fordham.edu. Should I have questions about the particulars of the research, I can
contact Emily Shaw at emshaw@fordham.edu or Dr. Akane Zusho at
zusho@fordham.edu .
D I AGREE TO PARTICIPATE in this study and have read the above Informed
Consent letter.
I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE in this study.
160
ABSTRACT
161
THE READING AND WRITING SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS OF STUDENTS
WITH DISCREPANT READING AND WRITING
PERFORMANCE
Emily Jennifer Shaw, PhD
Fordham University, New York, 2007
Mentor: Akane Zusho, PhD
The goal of this study was to examine the role of reading and writing self-
efficacy beliefs in the reading and writing performance of high school students. Of
particular interest was whether self-efficacy beliefs represented greater contributions
to the prediction of performance for students with discrepant reading and writing
performance on the SAT. Furthermore, recognizing the conditions under which
reading self-efficacy beliefs generalize to writing activities and writing self-efficacy
beliefs generalize to reading activities, informs the self-efficacy literature as to the
interchangeability of writing and reading self-efficacy. A practical goal of this study
was to describe the differences between students identified as stronger at reading than
writing, and stronger at writing than reading.
Participants included 619 students identified as strong readers/strong writers,
stronger readers/weaker writers, weaker readers/stronger writers, and weak
readers/weak writers based on their standardized scores on the SAT Critical Reading
and Writing tests. Correlation, multiple regression, path analysis, t-test and chi-
162
square procedures were used to analyze responses to the Reading Self-Efficacy
Beliefs Instrument and Writing Self-Efficacy Beliefs, PSAT/NMSQT and SAT
scores, and selected items from the SAT Questionnaire.
Results indicated that reading self-efficacy beliefs significantly mediated the
effects of high school English GPA and parental income, but not gender, on reading
performance. The same results held true for writing self-efficacy beliefs and
performance. Regression analyses showed that reading and writing self-efficacy
beliefs did indeed play a larger role in reading and writing performance for students
with discrepant, rather than consistent, reading and writing performance. An analysis
of the interchangeability of reading and writing self-efficacy measures showed that by
subtracting students' Reading and Writing Self-Efficacy BeliefsSkills scores from
each other, significant mean differences in the subtracted values were found. This
suggests that using the two measures together, and not interchangeably, can help
educators determine whether students hold discrepant reading and writing self-
efficacy beliefs. A comparison of the two discrepant groups showed that weaker
readers/stronger writers had significantly more females, more ESL experience, and
were more likely to desire help in both reading and writing than stronger
readers/weaker writers.
163
VITA
VITA
EMILY JENNIFER SHAW
Date of Birth
Place of Birth
High School
Bachelor of Science
Human Development
Master of Science in Education
Counseling & Personnel Services
Current Position
June 12, 1979
Bethpage, New York
East Meadow High School
East Meadow, New York
Graduated June 1997
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Conferred May 2001
Fordham University
New York, New York
Conferred May 2003
Project Manager /
Assistant Research Scientist
Higher Education Outcomes Services
The College Board
New York, New York
August 2006 - present

Writing Skills1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writing Skills1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE READING AND WRITING SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS OF STUDENTS

WITH DISCREPANT READING AND WRITING

You might also like