This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 05 December 2014, At: 18:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of College Readingand LearningPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucrl20

The Relationship betweenSelf-Efficacy and theFunctions of WritingLia MaimonPublished online: 08 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Lia Maimon (2002) The Relationship between Self-Efficacyand the Functions of Writing, Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33:1,32-45, DOI: 10.1080/10790195.2002.10850135

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10790195.2002.10850135

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly

or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

LiaMaimonThe RelationshipBetween Self­Efficacy and theFunctions ofWriting

The purpose ofthis study was to explorethe relationship between expectationsof success or failure in community college students and the functions ofwriting. TIvo questions were addressed. First, do high, medium, and lowself-efficacy writers differ in terms ofthe range ofthe possible functions andusage? Second, do high, medium, and low self-efficacy writers differ in termsof reported writing activities performed in school as opposed to nonschoolcontexts?The quantitative analysis demonstrated a direct correlation betweenthe degrees of self-efficacy and the dimensions measured. The qualitativeanalysis further confirmed the hypothesis that states that students whoconsider fewer functions ofwriting have lower self-efficacy. These findingsare important because based both on Bandura's social cognitive theory andthe attribution theory, students who consider fewer functions of writinghave lower expectations for success.

Te purpose of this study was toexplore the relationship between expectations of success or failure incommunity college students and the functions of writing. The literaturesuggests that there is a strong connection between self-efficacy andlearning success (Bandura, 1986; Jones, 1979; Licht & Dweck, 1984;Pajares, 1996). A person's self-efficacy is part of a person's self-schema.Self-schema is not a single monolithic entity, but "rather a system ofsalient identities of self-schemas" (Markus & Murius, 1987) that lendstructure to relevant experiences. Those schemas derive from one's

Lia Maimon is an Assistant Professor at the University ofBridgeport. She teachesgraduate levelliteracy education and ESL methods courses and focuses her researchon developmental reading and writing, ESL and literacy theories.

32 Self-Efficacy and Functions of Writing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Self-Efficacy and Functions of Writing 33

place in the social past and present. Thus, an individual can be at thesame time an independent person, a good writer, a poor math student,have a good sense of humor, etc. While there is overlap among theseschemas, each set is likely to differ from the others. Those schemasare self-defining elements. They are not only a bridge between people'spast and present, but also determine some extent of future behaviorsin specific domains (Stryker, 1987).

Self-Belief TheoriesOne theoretical framework that explains how individuals link their pastand future selves can be found in Bandura's (1986, 1993, 1996) socialcognitive theory. The social cognitive theory states that how individualsinterpret the results of their performance affects and alters their self­beliefs which in turn inform and alter subsequent performances. Theseself-evaluations are based on perceptions of self-efficacy, which are"beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of actionrequired to manage prospective situations" (Bandura, 1986). Thesebeliefs influence the choices people make and the courses of actionthey pursue (Pajares, 1996). People are more ready to engage in tasksin which they feel competent and confident and avoid those in whichthey are not. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how much effort peoplewill expend on an activity and how long they will persevere whenconfronting obstacles. It will also affect people'S thought patterns andemotional reaching (James, 1985). Pajares (1996) stresses the fact thatpeople with low self-efficacy may believe that things are tougher thanthey really are, a belief that fosters stress, depression and a narrowvision of how to best solve a problem. High self-efficacy, on the otherhand, helps to create feelings of serenity in approaching difficult tasksand activities. As a result of these influences, self-efficacy beliefs arestrong determinants and predictors of the levels of accomplishmentsthat individuals attain.

The role that self-beliefs play in motivating individuals is the primaryfocus of other theoretical perspectives too. Of particular interest is theattribution theory because it further sheds light on how self-efficacyrelated to expectations links past and future behaviors. Attributiontheory has its origin in the "learned helplessness" approach, whichclaims that exposure to uncontrollable events and unsolvable problemscauses passivity and lack of motivation to take action. According to theclassical attribution theory (Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale, 1978;Weiner, 1979), the nature of the helplessness effect depends on theattribution of causality that people make when they are confronted byan outcome that is conceived as uncontrollable. Individuals who

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

34 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33 (1), Fall 2002

perceive events to be within their control are more motivated in futuretasks than those individuals who perceive the causes of events to berelated to events over which they have no control. When individualsbelieve that their ability and efforts are the source of their failure, theyare internal attributers. External attributors perceive that somecharacteristics of the situation, such as task difficulty or luck, are thesource of their failure. Attributions to internal factors are characterizedby loss of self-esteem (Abramson, Garber & Seligman, 1980), whileattributions to external factors are not (Silver & Wortman, 1980).Consequently, for internal attributors, failure has more negative impact.

Internal attributions of failure are consistent with Bandura's (1986)conceptual distinction between self-efficacy and outcome expectancies.Both the social-cognitive and the attribution theory suggest that beliefsof self-efficacy and of confidence affect motivation and persistence atenacting new tasks. Thus, according to both motivational theories thereis a strong connection between self-efficacy and performance.

More recently, domain specific studies suggest that particularjudgments of capability are even better predictors of related outcomesthan are more generalized self-beliefs (Pajares, 1996). Consequently,researchers investigated the relationship between self-efficacy anddifferent academic domains, including writing. They haveoperationalized writing self-efficacy as the score of student confidenceto accomplish writing tasks ofvarying difficulty. The tasks were relatedto essay writing, grammar, usage and mechanical skills (Pajares &Johnson, 1994; 1996; Pajares &Valiante, 1996; Shell, Colvin & Bruning,1995; Shell, Murphy & Bruning, 1989). Pajares and Johnson investigatedthe influence of writing self-efficacy, self-concept and writingapprehension on high school students' essay writing. They reportedthat self-efficacy perception had a direct effect on the students' writingperformance. Pajares and Valiante reported similar relationships with3rd grade writers.

The Functions of WritingThere is another body of literature, which is particularly important tothis study that deals with the functions of writing. Researchers havemade many attempts to understand the various purposes ofwriting. Atraditional approach explores the different types of discourse. Forexample, Moffett (1968) has classified the different types of discourseas follows: (1) recording the drama of what is happening; (2) reportingthe narrative ofwhat happened; (3) generalizing the exposition of whathappens; and (4) theorizing: the argumentation of what will happen.

Smith (1994) has proposed another elaborate system for classifying

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Self-Efficacy and Functions of Writing 35

writing in terms of the functions of both oral and written languagesystems based on Halliday's (1978) language functions. Smith suggests(p.12) that language can be used: (1) to get our material needs met, (2)to change the behavior or beliefs of others, (3) to establish or reflectpersonal relationships with others, (4) to express our perceptions ofourselves, (5) to seek new knowledge, (6) to exercise the imagination,(7) to describe and criticize situations or ideas, (8) for fun, (9) to establishagreement or expectations, and (10) to record the past.

Scribner (1986) used the term "metaphor" to categorize literacy.Scribner's metaphors include literacy as adaptation, literacy as power,and literacy as a state of grace.

Britton (1978) has proposed a classification based on three maincategories: (1) transactional, which can be informative or connotative,(2) expressive, and (3) poetic. Applebee (1981) has used some of Britton'scategories but he has added several more and he made them morerelevant to functions ofwriting. His categories are: (1) mechanical (e.g.,multiple choice questions, copying, etc.), (2) informational (includingnote taking, recording, reporting, summary analysis, theory, andpersuasive uses of writing), (3) personal (including journals, diaries,and personal letters or notes), and (4) imaginative (stories, poems, playscripts).

All classifications, regardless of the criteria used, seem to imply thatwriting has various goal-related functions. Researchers, like Goswamiand Odell (1981) have stressed the importance of goals and the senseof purpose in nonacademic writing. They state that in everyday lifesituations, one uses writing for different purposes. According to theU.S. Department of Labor (1992) real life writing tasks based on jobdemands are characterized by the "need to communicate ideas,information and messages in writing; and [creating] documents suchas letters directions, manuals reports, graphs and flow charts (p. XVIII).The Department of Labor report also states that more than 42% of on­the-job writing requires filling out forms, over 22 % requiresmemorandum or letter writing, and 25% requires rewriting orsummarizing complete work. Finn and Gerber (1998) also report thatworkers must be able to communicate thoughts accurately andsuccinctly, record information in several clear steps, as well assummarize and use language appropriate for different audiences.

Researchers (Applebee, Langer, Mullis, Latham & Gentile, 1994) reportthat despite some attempts at change, most school writing was stilllimited to five types of writing, none ofwhich are considered importantfor real life tasks. They found that the most used types were: narrative(90 %), summaries (88%) and analyses (78 %). Also teachers required

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

36 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33 (1), Fall 2002

journals (64%) and persuasive essays (66%). Finn and Gerber (1998)found that teachers did not instruct students in types of writing thatwere considered important for out of school literacy.

Flower and Hayes (1981) further analyzed the limited nature of schoolwriting. They observed that in many school settings, the students were:(a) exposed to only the formal descriptive categories of rhetoric, suchas modes of argument-definition, cause and effect, etc., and modes ofdiscourse-description, persuasion, etc.; (b) offered good examples,usually professional ones, and bad examples, usually their own; and(c) encouraged to "absorb the features ofa socially approved style, withemphasis on grammar and usage... Within the classroom, writingappeared to be a set of rules and models for the direct arrangement ofpre-existent ideas." They believed that the situation described abovecould cause many students to have a repertoire limited to: 1)prescription (how the textbooks pretend people do it) and 2) inspiration(the infinitely mysterious way people really do it). If none of the twoalternatives worked, writers usually got "writer's block."

As mentioned above, current research suggests that beliefs about self­efficacy are strong predictors of achievement in specific domains.Despite the fact that writing has been observed to "touch every part ofour lives" (Smith, 1994, p. 7), little has been done to correlate self­efficacy with a multitude of writing functions that could define thedomain of writing, both inside and outside of school contexts.

ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to examine the relationship betweenfunctions of writing and expectations of success or failure of both in­school and nonschool writing. The hypothesis is that if students areaware of the broader range of functions of writing, the higher theirexpectations of success in writing will be and they will be more likelyto engage in writing. 1b address this issue the following questions wereasked:

a) Do high, medium, and low self-efficacy writers differ in theirviews regarding the range of the possible writing functions?

b) Do high, medium, and low self-efficacy writers differ in terms ofreported writing activities performed in school as opposed tononschool contexts?

MethodsParticipantsThe participants were 48 college students enrolled in three freshmanwriting courses in a central New Yorkjunior college. The students met

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

self-Efficacy and Functions of Writing 37

for 36 hours during a 12-week semester. There were 26 females and 22males ranging in age from 18 to 47 (M =25.6). Sixty-eight percent ofthe students were required to complete a basic writing course beforeenrolling in the freshman English course. The participants werestudents enrolled in three intact freshman English courses taught bythe same instructor.

InstrumentsSelf-efficacy was measured by using a paper-and-pencil self-reportinstrument. The instrument used was modeled on instruments usedby Bandura (1986) to assess self-efficacy with respect to other sorts oftasks. These were modified by Spaulding (1989) to adjust them to writingtasks. The first section required the participants to answer whether ornot they believed they could complete essays, proficiency level A, B,or C. For all "yes" responses, the participants had to rate their degree ofconfidence from a confidence scale of 10-100. This provided anindication of the students' perceptions of competence with respect tothe general types ofwriting they encountered in the course. In addition,they were asked to rate their competence with respect to specific topicsabout which they were asked to write. Although the instrument madedistinctions between the student's reported efficacy levels for topicsand topic independent levels, the score used was an average of all thestudent's responses on the instrument. A second instrument, whichconsisted ofa free writing answer to the question "How do you perceiveyourself as a writer?" was used to measure self-efficacy. 'TWo raters,independently using a holistic score, rated the written responses. Thedegree of agreement between the raters was 94%.

Functions ofwriting were assessed by using a four-point questionnaireranging from "not at all" to "very much" on the following threedimensions: (1) reported usage ofwriting across specific functions, suchas organizing, communicating, clarifying, creating something beautifulwith words; and usage of different genres, such as letters, personaljournals, poetry, fiction, notes and texts; (2) the degree ofreported likeor dislike of school writing; and (3) the amount of reported nonschoolwriting.

In addition, students' perceptions about functions of writing wereassessed by a free writing sample on the topic: "What is writing?" Theresponses were coded using a combination of Smith's (1994), Britton's(1978) and Applebee's (1981) categories of functions of writing. Thosewere related to Flower and Hayes' (1981) distinction between school­based writing as opposed to nonschool writing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

38 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33 (1), Fall 2002

ProceduresThe data for this study were collected in three sessions. In the firstsession, the participants completed the free-writing assignment, whichconsisted of the two prompts: "How do you perceive yourself as awriter?" and "What is writing?" The instructor administered theassignments as part of the course at the beginning of the semester.They were given 30 minutes to answer both questions. The free writingassignments were administered first in order to avoid possible bias basedon the questionnaires. By answering the free writing samples beforefilling out the questionnaires, the students were not influenced by thetopics addressed in those questionnaires. A week later, in the secondsession, the participants filled out the self-efficacy questionnaire. Theresearcher informed them that they would participate in a study. Thisinformation was their only incentive. The students were eager toparticipate. In the third session, the participants filled out anotherquestionnaire, which tested their perceptions about school and outside­school writing. The students were given 15 minutes for filling out eachquestionnaire. The procedure and the results of the last two sessionswill be discussed first, followed by the analysis of the first session. Thequestionnaires provided the quantitative data and the free writingprompts provided the qualitative data.

Results and DiscussionBased on self-efficacy, the participants were divided into three groups:high self-efficacy, medium self-efficacy, and low self-efficacy. Theaverage self-efficacy scores for the three groups were 65.23; 54.45; and39.52, and the standard deviations were 4.81, 4.49, 8.3, respectively.The following scores were calculated: usage of writing across specificfunctions, the degree of reported like or dislike of school writing, andthe amount of reported nonschool writing. The results are presentedin Table 1.

The high self-efficacy group scored the highest average score (3.08)on the degree ofself-reported usage of writing across specific functionsfollowed by the medium self-efficacy group with the score of 2.30 andlow self-efficacy groups with an average score of 2.25. The scores ofthe medium self-efficacy group and low self-efficacy group were close.

One possible explanation for the similarity of scores of the two lowerself-efficacy groups could be related to the fact that all participantsscored relatively low in self-efficacy: 39.52; 54.45; and 65.23. Pearsoncorrelations were calculated and positive correlations were found foreach group. The correlation for the low self-efficacy group was .33; themedium self-efficacy group, .39, and the high self-efficacy group was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

5elfEfficacy and Functions of Writing 39

.35.The fact that for a high percentage ofstudents this was their secondwriting course following a mandatory basic level course seems to havecaused apprehension about writing in general in addition to specialdifficulties related to functions of writing.

Tahle 1. Means and Standard Deviation for High, Medium, and LowSelf-Efficacy Groups and Perceptions of Writing

Usage of Writing Self-EfficacyHigh Medium LoweN =16) (N =16) (N =16)

Writingacross all functionsM 3.08 2.30 2.25

SD 0.48 0.25 0.43

SchoolWritingM 2.78

SD 0.35

2.41

0.42

2.24

0.34

Amount of Nonschoo1 WritingM 2.86 2.40 2.18

SD 0.30 0.36 0.24

The results were consistent in the remaining two dimensions thatwere measured. The high self-efficacy group scored 2.78 on the degreeof reported like or dislike of school writing followed by the mediumself-efficacy group with an average score of 2.41. The low self-efficacygroup had an average score of2.24. The correlations were, respectively,.52, .61, .35. The high efficacy group scored the highest average score(2.86) on the amount of reported nonschool writing followed by themedium efficacy group with an average score of 2.40. The low efficacygroup had an average score of 2.18. The correlations were .52, .42, .25,respectively.

More specifically, these results show that the students who saw alarger range of writing functions and usage also scored higher in self­efficacy and those who were considered to have a more limited rangeof writing functions and usage had a lower score on the self-efficacyscale. In addition, there was a positive correlation between the self­efficacy of the students and their school and nonschool usage andfunctions ofwriting. Self-efficacy was used to support Bandura's (1986)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

40 Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33 (1), Fall 2002

social cognitive theory and as a measure of perceived attributions ofsuccess and failure.

In summary, the study revealed a direct correlation between self­efficacy on every one of the three dimensions measured as predicted.The first hypothesis that high, medium and low self-efficacy writerswrite for different reasons, and in different contexts, was confirmed.In addition, the findings also confirmed the second hypothesis. High,medium, and low self-efficacy writers differ in terms ofreported writingactivities performed in school and nonschool contexts. There was,however, a need to further explore the differences that emerged inhigh, medium, and low self-efficacy writers in terms ofschool activitiesas they relate to different writing functions. To do this, I now turn tothe free-writing samples.

1b understand the students' views on the functions of writing, theopen-ended question "What is writing?" was asked. The responses wereas follows: 5% of the participants mentioned five functions of writing,18% mentioned four functions, 12% mentioned three functions, 33%mentioned two functions, and 32% mentioned only one function ofwriting.

Below are three typical answers of low self-efficacy writers whoconsidered only one function ofwriting. Self-efficacy was decided basedon the student's answer to the prompt "how do you perceive yourselfas writer?"

As the second column shows, all the students belonged to the lowself-efficacy group. The first two low self-efficacy writers consideredonly the personal function of writing, while the third one consideredonly the informative function. Several participants in the low self­efficacy group only considered the academic, or school writing asdescribed by Flower and Hayes (1981). See next page for some examples.

All the participants who considered academic writing as their onlyalternative belonged to the low self-efficacy group. Participants, whoconsidered only one kind of writing, but not the academic writing,belonged to all groups though most of them belonged to the lowergroups. Below are examples from students who considered one functionof writing and belonged to the medium self-efficacy group.

The first student considered the imaginative function ofwriting andthe second one considered the informational function of writing. Thenext example is from a student who belonged to the high self-efficacygroup and who considered only one function of writing.

In defining writing, this student mentions only the personal functionofwriting. In the answer related to perceptions ofself-efficacy, however,the student mentions an additional function, the informational function

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

SelfEfficacy and Functions of Writing 41

Student A

Student B

Student C

Student D

Student E

Functions of Writing"I think writing is a way ofexpressing yourself on acertain topic of interest."

"I think writing is a way ofexpressing oneself. Writingtakes a special talent that noteveryone has."

"I think writing is a way tocommunicate withouttalking."

"I think writing is anything aperson writes that has atopic, a main idea, and acertain writing pattern."

"Writing is the ability torespond with good grammarskills, punctuation marks,commas, etc."

Self-efficacyI do not perceive myself as agood writer simply because Ido not enjoy it. I perceivemyself as a poor writer. Inever know where to start orhow to end. I don't considermyself a writer."

"I think I am a bad writerbecause I can't get my wordsdown on paper well and Idon't like to write. I cancommunicate well throughspeech. When I try to write,it either comes out how I talkor else it comes out notmaking any sense."

"I perceive myself as a poorwriter. My writing skillsaren't as well developed asthey should be. I havetrouble using specific detailsto develop my main idea. Ialso have trouble trying tofind ways of developing mymain idea"

"How do I perceive myself asa writer? Horrible. I cameback to school to improve mywriting and reading. Maybeone day I can writesomething without someonecorrecting it. This will makemy day."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

42 Journal of CollegeReading and Learning, 33 (1), Fall 2002

Student F

Student G

Student H

Functions of Writing"Writing to me is an art, an artof expression."

"Writing is to be able to putyour thoughts about a topicon paper."

"Writing is a way in whichpeople tend to expressthemselves. What somepeople may not say orallyusually comes out when theywrite."

Self-efficacy"Asa writer 1 perceive myselfas a roller coaster writer. 1feel that it really depends onthe mood I'm in and how 1feel that day. Some days 1can get a piece of paper andpen and automatically startexpressing my feelings."

"I perceive myself as anaverage writer. 1 understandwhen 1 write an essay or ashort passage, 1 always try toget my point across to thereaders."

"As a writer, 1 perceivemyself to be a pretty decentwriter. 1 can articulate mythoughts quite well. 1 findwriting a way to relax and letloose of my thoughts."

and reiterates the personal function mentioned in her definition ofwriting.

In summary, both the quantitative and qualitative data show thatthere is a relationship between the writers' perceptions ofthe differentfunctions of writing as they relate to their perceptions as writers. Theresults confirm the fact that purposes of writing have an impact, notonly in nonschool settings as addressed by Goswami and Odell (1981),but also in school settings. More specifically, the study confirms thehypothesis that states that students who consider fewer functions ofwriting have lower self-efficacy. Based on Bandura's social-cognitivetheory, these students are less likely to engage in writing. Moreover,according to the attribution theory, students who consider fewerfunctions of writing have lower expectations for success in schoolsettings.

This research has several limitations. The distinction of in-schooland out-of-school was based simply on what writing was done in schoolversus that done outside of school despite, the fact that some writing,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Self-Efficacy and Functions of Writing 43

such as letters or journals, for example, can be done at either place.Despite this overlap most of the functions can be separated.

Also, students with low self-efficacy are more reluctant to engage ina task such as writing. They would be expected to give the briefestanswers possible, both because they have learned to write less in orderto avoid negative evaluation and because they do not enjoy writing.Indeed their answers were shorter than that of their peers with higherself-efficacy, but the differences were not significant. Potentially, theinformation if elicited orally, could have been different. Though thisstudy includes a qualitative section, it didn't address these issues.

In addition, the results of this study are based on two different sources:correlational data based on questionnaires and qualitative data basedon free writing to prompts. Though both sources led to similar results,one has to be cautious in interpreting them because as in allcorrelational studies, no causal links can be determined.

Despite these limitations, one can conclude that students, especiallythose who have low self-efficacy, might very well benefit fromheightened awareness about the various functions ofwriting. Anotherquestion that could be further inquired is: would the results besignificantly changed if actual success and failure were measured inaddition to perceived success and failure? Further, one could inquirewhether there were differences between the students who took thebasic writing course and those who didn't. Thus, in light of currentinterest in writing for different purposes, this kind of study meritsfurther in depth inquiry.

The significance of this paper is that it calls attention to the connectionbetween affective and cognitive domains in learning to write well. Morespecifically, improving the students' writing self-efficacy by educatingthem about the different functions of writing can become a powerfulmotivation for writing success. As an anonymous reviewer of this studywrote, "This is an important issue which will dominate higher educationin the next decades. As we continue to work with at-risk students withinour colleges and universities, faculty members must learn how efficacybeliefs work in an effort to empower our students to believe inthemselves."

ReferencesAbramson, L. Y., Garber, J. & Seligman. M.E.P. (1980). Attribution analysis of helplessness.

Human Helplessness. In Garber, J. & Seligman, M.E.P. (Eds.), pp. 1-35. New York:

Academic Press.

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman. M. P. & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in

humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal ofAbnonnal Psychology, 87:(49-74).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

44 Journal ofCollegeReading and Learning, 33 (1), Fall 2002

Applebee A. N. (1981). Writing in the secondary school. Urbana, IL: National Council of

Thachers of English.

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Mullis 1. V. S.. Latham, A. S., & Gentile, C. A. (1994).

NAEP 1992 Writing Report. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148

Bandura, A. (1996). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman

Britton, J. (1978). The functions of writing. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.). Research on

composing (pp. 13-28). Urbana, IL: National Council of English.

Finn, J. D. & Gerber S. B. (1998). Work, school, and literacy. In M. C. Smith (Ed) Literacy

for the 21st century: Research, policy, practice and the National Adult Literacy Survey.

Westport CT. Greenwood Press.

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. CollegeComposition

and Communication, 32, 365-387.

Goswami, D. & Odell, L. (1981). Writing in non-academic setting. (Grant No. NIE-78-Q­

0224). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic. The social interpretation oflanguage

and meaning. London: Longman.

James, W. (1985). Psychology: The briefer course. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre

Dame Press.

Jones. R. (1979). Self-fulfilling prophecies: Social psychological and physiological effects of

expectancy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Licht. B. G. & Dweck, C. S. (1984). Determinants ofacademic achievement orientations

with skill area. Developmental Psychology, 20, 628-636.

Markus, H. & Murius, D. (1987). Possible selves: The interface between motivation and

self-concept. Self and identity: Psychological perspectives. Yardley & Honess (eds.) New

York: Wiley

Moffet. J., (1968). 'leaching the universe ofdiscourse, Boston: Houghton Muffin.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review ofEducational Research

(543-578).

Pajares, F.,& Johnson. M. J. (1994). Confidence and competence in writing: The role of

self-efficacy, outcome expectancy,. and apprehension, Research in the 'leaching of

English, 28, 316-334,

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., & Valiante, G. (1996). Predictive and mediational roles of the self-efficacy

beliefs of upper elementary school students. Journal ofEducational Research, 89, 225­

231.

Scribner, S. (1984). Literacy in three metaphors. In N. 1. Stein (Ed) Literacy in American

schools: Learning to read and write (pp 7-22). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014

Self-Efficacy and Functions of Writing 45

Shell, D. E, Colvin C. & Bruning, R. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, attributions, and outcome

expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and

achievement-level differences. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 87, 386-398.

Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy, attributions, and

outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievements. Iournal of

Educational Psychology, 81, 91-100.

Silver. R.& Wortman., C. (1980). Coping with undesirable life events. Human helplessness.

In Garber, J. & Seligman, M.E.P. (Eds.). New York: Academic Press.

Smith, E (1994). Writing and the writer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Spaulding A. (1989). The effects of ownership opportunities and instructional support

on high school students writing task engagement. Research in the Teaching ofEnglish,

23, 316-334.

Stryker, S., (1987). Identity theory: Development and extensions. Self and Identity:

Psychological perspectives. Yardley & Honess (eds), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

United States Department of Labor (1992). Skills and tasks for jobs: ASCANS Report for

America 2000. Washington DC:The Secretary Commission Achieving Necessary Skills.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. journol of

Educational Psychology, 71, 3-25.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated

learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. [oumal

ofEducational Psychology, 82, 51-59.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

18:

21 0

5 D

ecem

ber

2014