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, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
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.
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.
Alexander, P. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Reearcher, 32(8), 10–14.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.
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.
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.
Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 60, 237–263.
Kellogg, R. (1987). Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort of writing processes. Memory & Cognition, 15, 256–266.
Lavale, E., Smith, J., & O’Ryan, L. (2002). The writing approaches of secondary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 399–418.
McCutchen, D. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in children’s writing: A problem of metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5, 306–324.
McCuthchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431–444.
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.
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.
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.
Olinghouse, N., Graham, S., & Gillespie, A. (2015). The relationship of discourse and topic knowledge to writing performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 391–406.
Page, E. B., & Petersen, N. S. (1995). The computer moves into essay grading: Updating the ancient test. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 561–566.
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.
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.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York: MacMillan.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9836-7