Skip to main content

The roles of writing knowledge, motivation, strategic behaviors, and skills in predicting elementary students’ persuasive writing from source material

Abstract

A core tenet of the model of domain learning is that learning is shaped by cognitive and motivational forces. In writing, these catalysts include learners’ knowledge, motivation, strategic behaviors, and skills. This study tested this proposition at two time points (Fall and Spring) with 179 fifth-grade students (52% were girls), examining if writing knowledge, motivation, strategic behavior, and skills each made a statistically significant and unique contribution to predicting writing quality and output on social studies persuasive writing tasks, after variance due to the other catalysts and reading comprehension were first controlled. Three of the four catalysts (writing knowledge, strategic behaviors, and skills) each accounted for statistically significant and unique variance in predicting writing quality, number of words, or both at each assessment point. These findings provided partial support for the model of domain learning as applied to writing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Alexander, P. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivational achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213–250). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. (1998). The nature of disciplinary and domain learning: The knowledge, interest, and strategic dimensions of learning from subject-matter text. In C. Hynd (Ed.), Learning from text across conceptual domains (pp. 55–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Reearcher, 32(8), 10–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (2016). What do sociocultural studies of writing tell us about learning to write? In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (Vol. 2, pp. 11–23). Guilford, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C., Berninger, V., Brandt, D., Graham, S., Langer, J., Murphy, S., et al. (in press). The lifespan development of writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of English.

  • Berninger, V. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., & Winn, W. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96–114). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards: National Governors Association and Council of Chief School Officers. (2010). Downloaded from http://www.corestandards.org/.

  • Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (in press). A writer(s) within community model of writing. In C. Bazerman, V. Berninger, D. Brandt, S. Graham, J. Langer, S. Murphy, P. Matsuda, D. Rowe, & M. Schleppegrell (Eds.), The lifespan development of writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of English.

  • Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in young children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 516–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). It is more than just the message: Analysis of presentation effects in scoring writing. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(4), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., Harris, K.R., & Fishman, E. (2017). The relationship between strategic behavior, motivation, and writing performance with young, developing writers. Elementary School Journal, 118, 82–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., McKeown, D., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Wijekumar, K., Harris, K. R., Lei, P., Fishman, E., Ray, A., et al. (2018). The relationship between writing skills, knowledge, motivation, and strategic behavior and writing performance with developing writers. (submitted).

  • Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2016). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Policy implications of an evidence-based practice. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2018). Self-regulated strategy development: Theoretical bases, critical instructional elements, and future research. In R. Fidalgo, K. R. Harris, & Braaksma, M. (Eds.), Design principles for teaching effective writing: Theoretical and empirical grounded principles (pp. 119–151). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

  • Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 60, 237–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort of writing processes. Memory & Cognition, 15, 256–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavale, E., Smith, J., & O’Ryan, L. (2002). The writing approaches of secondary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 399–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in children’s writing: A problem of metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5, 306–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCuthchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B. K. Britton & J. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository text: A theoretical and practical handbook for analyzing explanatory text (pp. 11–64, 269–304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Wijekumar, K., Middlemiss, W., Higley, K., Lei, P., Meier, C., et al. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth- and seventh-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 62–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morphy, P., & Graham, S. (2012). Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: A meta-analysis of research findings. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 641–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olinghouse, N., & Graham, S. (2009). The relationship between the writing knowledge and the writing performance of elementary-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olinghouse, N., Graham, S., & Gillespie, A. (2015). The relationship of discourse and topic knowledge to writing performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, E. B., & Petersen, N. S. (1995). The computer moves into essay grading: Updating the ancient test. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 561–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, F., Johnson, M., & Usher, E. (2007). Sources of writing self-efficacy beliefs of elementary, middle, and high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 42, 104–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den Bergh, H., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Tillema, M., et al. (2012). Writing. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 189–227). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijekumar, K., Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Meyer, B. (2017). We-write: A teacher and technology supported persuasive writing tutor for upper elementary students. In S. Crossley & D. McNamara (Eds.), Handbook of educational technologies for literacy (pp. 184–203). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijekumar, K., Meyer, B. J. F., & Lei, P. (2012). Large-scale randomized controlled trial with 4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 987–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Graham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wijekumar, K., Graham, S., Harris, K.R. et al. The roles of writing knowledge, motivation, strategic behaviors, and skills in predicting elementary students’ persuasive writing from source material. Read Writ 32, 1431–1457 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9836-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9836-7

Keywords

  • Writing
  • Persuasive writing
  • Model of domain learning