The writing approaches of secondary students

Research with college students has supported a model of writing approaches that defines the relationship between a writer and writing task along a deep and surface process continuum (Biggs, 1988). Based on that model, Lavelle (1993) developed the Inventory of Processes in College Composition which reflects students' motives and strategies as related to writing outcomes. It is also important to define the approaches of secondary students to better understand writing processes at that level, and development in written composition.

This study was designed to define the writing approaches of secondary students by factor analysing students' responses to items regarding writing beliefs and writing strategies, and to compare the secondary approaches to those of college students. A related goal was to explore the relationships of the secondary writing approaches to perceived self-regulatory efficacy for writing (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994), writing preferences, and writing outcomes.

The initial, factor analytic phase involved 398 junior level high school students (11th grade) enrolled in a mandatory language arts class at each of three large Midwestern high schools (USA). Then, 49 junior level students enrolled in two language arts classes participated as subjects in the second phase.

Classroom teachers administered the Inventory of Processes in College Composition (Lavelle, 1993), which contained 72 true-or-false items regarding writing beliefs and strategies, during regular class periods. Data were factor analysed and the structure compared to that of college students. In the second phase, the new inventory, Inventory of Processes in Secondary Composition, was administered in conjunction with the Perceived Self-Regulatory Efficacy for Writing Inventory (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994), and a writing preferences survey. A writing sample and grade in Language Arts classes were obtained and served as outcome variables.

The factor structure of secondary writing reflected three process dimensions. The first factor, Elaborative-Expressive, describes a writing strategy based on personal investment and audience concern. The second factor, Planful-Procedural, denotes sticking to a plan, following the rules, and 'preparing' for writing. Achieving-Competitive, the third factor, reflects a 'teacher pleasing' strategy or doing only what needs to be done to get a good grade. Two factors from the college model, Elaborative and Procedural, were replicated, and two were not, Reflective-Revision and Low Self-Efficacy. Regression analyses supported that the processes in writing under a timed condition are different from those used when writing over time, and that students' perceptions of writing self-regulatory efficacy were predictive of writing success under both conditions.