empirical research and writing

• Politics & Social Sciences
• Politics & Government

Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime Try Prime and start saving today with fast, free delivery

Amazon Prime includes:

Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.

• Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
• Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
• Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
• A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
• Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
• Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access

Important:  Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.

Buy new: $40.49 $40.49 FREE delivery: Thursday, April 18 Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com

Return this item for free.

Free returns are available for the shipping address you chose. You can return the item for any reason in new and unused condition: no shipping charges

• Go to your orders and start the return
• Select the return method

Buy used: $26.40

Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) is a service we offer sellers that lets them store their products in Amazon's fulfillment centers, and we directly pack, ship, and provide customer service for these products. Something we hope you'll especially enjoy: FBA items qualify for FREE Shipping and Amazon Prime.

If you're a seller, Fulfillment by Amazon can help you grow your business. Learn more about the program.

Other Sellers on Amazon

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Empirical Research and Writing: A Political Science Student's Practical Guide 1st Edition

Purchase options and add-ons.

• ISBN-10 9781483369631
• ISBN-13 978-1483369631
• Edition 1st
• Publisher CQ Press
• Publication date November 21, 2014
• Language English
• Dimensions 6 x 0.73 x 9 inches
• Print length 320 pages
• See all details

Frequently bought together

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

Editorial Reviews

About the author, product details.

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ 1483369633
• Publisher ‏ : ‎ CQ Press; 1st edition (November 21, 2014)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 320 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 9781483369631
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1483369631
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.01 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6 x 0.73 x 9 inches
• #169 in International Relations (Books)
• #4,709 in International & World Politics (Books)
• #19,656 in Unknown

About the author

Leanne c. powner.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Start Selling with Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Host an Amazon Hub
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

• Ask a Librarian

Research: Overview & Approaches

• Getting Started with Undergraduate Research
• Planning & Getting Started
• Building Your Knowledge Base
• Locating Sources
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Creating a Literature Review
• Productivity & Organizing Research
• Scholarly and Professional Relationships

Introduction to Empirical Research

Databases for finding empirical research, guided search, google scholar, examples of empirical research, sources and further reading.

• Interpretive Research
• Action-Based Research
• Creative & Experimental Approaches

Your Librarian

• Introductory Video This video covers what empirical research is, what kinds of questions and methods empirical researchers use, and some tips for finding empirical research articles in your discipline.

• Guided Search: Finding Empirical Research Articles This is a hands-on tutorial that will allow you to use your own search terms to find resources.

• Study on radiation transfer in human skin for cosmetics
• Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Vestibular Schwannoma: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study
• Emissions Impacts and Benefits of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Vehicle-to-Grid Services
• Review of design considerations and technological challenges for successful development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
• Endocrine disrupters and human health: could oestrogenic chemicals in body care cosmetics adversely affect breast cancer incidence in women?

• << Previous: Scholarly and Professional Relationships
• Next: Interpretive Research >>
• Last Updated: Apr 5, 2024 9:55 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.purdue.edu/research_approaches

• Facts and Figures
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• Non-traditional Admissions
• Pay Deposit
• Undergraduate Majors
• Graduate Programs
• Honors College
• Study Abroad
• Professional & Continuing
• Online Programs
• Career Planning
• Living on Campus
• Clubs & Organizations
• Spirit & Traditions
• About Harrisonburg
• Pay Your Deposit
• Office of Financial Aid
• Freshman Scholarships

• James Madison University -->
• University Writing Center
• Schedule an Appointment
• Meet the UWC Team
• Locations and Hours
• UWC Mission, Vision, and Values
• UWC Advisory Board
• Writing Guides and Handouts
• Faculty and Staff Resources
• Undergraduate Writing Consultants
• Course-Embedded Consultants
• Graduate Assistants
• Internships
• Faculty Associates
• UWC Consultant Field Manual
• Presentations & Publications
• Hall of Fame
• JMU Learning Centers

Empirical research papers (or articles) allow researchers to share the findings of original studies or projects. Such projects observe, measure, record, and analyze data for the purpose of exploring, describing, or explaining behaviors or phenomena in humans, animals, or the natural world.

Undergraduate students may conduct research and write empirical research papers as part of a research methods class or a capstone project in their discipline. Masters and doctoral students may condense their thesis or dissertation research into one or more empirical research articles, with the hope of publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Faculty members in an array of disciplines regularly publish empirical research articles in scholarly journals, thus advancing knowledge in their fields.

While every discipline has unique writing conventions, most empirical research papers and articles follow a set structure. There are also stylistic features and content that tend to be similar across disciplines. Focusing on these commonalities, the University Writing Center has created the suite of resources below to guide writers through the process of writing an empirical research paper.

• Overview of Empirical Research Papers
• Overview of Abstracts
• Annotated Abstract
• Overview of Introduction/Literature Review section(s)
• Annotated Introduction/Literature Review
• Overview of Methods section
• Annotated Methods section
• Overview of Findings/Results section
• Annotated Findings/Results section
• Overview of Discussion/Conclusion sections
• Annotated Discussion/Conclusion sections  

Back to Top

• Expenditures
• Accessibility
• Social Media

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 

Empirical research relies on gathering and studying real, observable data. The term ’empirical’ comes from the Greek word ’empeirikos,’ meaning ‘experienced’ or ‘based on experience.’ So, what is empirical research? Instead of using theories or opinions, empirical research depends on real data obtained through direct observation or experimentation. 

Why Empirical Research?

Empirical research plays a key role in checking or improving current theories, providing a systematic way to grow knowledge across different areas. By focusing on objectivity, it makes research findings more trustworthy, which is critical in research fields like medicine, psychology, economics, and public policy. In the end, the strengths of empirical research lie in deepening our awareness of the world and improving our capacity to tackle problems wisely. 1,2  

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

There are two main types of empirical research methods – qualitative and quantitative. 3,4 Qualitative research delves into intricate phenomena using non-numerical data, such as interviews or observations, to offer in-depth insights into human experiences. In contrast, quantitative research analyzes numerical data to spot patterns and relationships, aiming for objectivity and the ability to apply findings to a wider context. 

Steps for Conducting Empirical Research

When it comes to conducting research, there are some simple steps that researchers can follow. 5,6  

• Create Research Hypothesis:  Clearly state the specific question you want to answer or the hypothesis you want to explore in your study. 
• Examine Existing Research:  Read and study existing research on your topic. Understand what’s already known, identify existing gaps in knowledge, and create a framework for your own study based on what you learn. 
• Plan Your Study:  Decide how you’ll conduct your research—whether through qualitative methods, quantitative methods, or a mix of both. Choose suitable techniques like surveys, experiments, interviews, or observations based on your research question. 
• Develop Research Instruments:  Create reliable research collection tools, such as surveys or questionnaires, to help you collate data. Ensure these tools are well-designed and effective. 
• Collect Data:  Systematically gather the information you need for your research according to your study design and protocols using the chosen research methods. 
• Data Analysis:  Analyze the collected data using suitable statistical or qualitative methods that align with your research question and objectives. 
• Interpret Results:  Understand and explain the significance of your analysis results in the context of your research question or hypothesis. 
• Draw Conclusions:  Summarize your findings and draw conclusions based on the evidence. Acknowledge any study limitations and propose areas for future research. 

Advantages of Empirical Research

Empirical research is valuable because it stays objective by relying on observable data, lessening the impact of personal biases. This objectivity boosts the trustworthiness of research findings. Also, using precise quantitative methods helps in accurate measurement and statistical analysis. This precision ensures researchers can draw reliable conclusions from numerical data, strengthening our understanding of the studied phenomena. 4  

Disadvantages of Empirical Research

While empirical research has notable strengths, researchers must also be aware of its limitations when deciding on the right research method for their study.4 One significant drawback of empirical research is the risk of oversimplifying complex phenomena, especially when relying solely on quantitative methods. These methods may struggle to capture the richness and nuances present in certain social, cultural, or psychological contexts. Another challenge is the potential for confounding variables or biases during data collection, impacting result accuracy.  

Tips for Empirical Writing

In empirical research, the writing is usually done in research papers, articles, or reports. The empirical writing follows a set structure, and each section has a specific role. Here are some tips for your empirical writing. 7   

• Define Your Objectives:  When you write about your research, start by making your goals clear. Explain what you want to find out or prove in a simple and direct way. This helps guide your research and lets others know what you have set out to achieve. 
• Be Specific in Your Literature Review:  In the part where you talk about what others have studied before you, focus on research that directly relates to your research question. Keep it short and pick studies that help explain why your research is important. This part sets the stage for your work. 
• Explain Your Methods Clearly : When you talk about how you did your research (Methods), explain it in detail. Be clear about your research plan, who took part, and what you did; this helps others understand and trust your study. Also, be honest about any rules you follow to make sure your study is ethical and reproducible. 
• Share Your Results Clearly : After doing your empirical research, share what you found in a simple way. Use tables or graphs to make it easier for your audience to understand your research. Also, talk about any numbers you found and clearly state if they are important or not. Ensure that others can see why your research findings matter. 
• Talk About What Your Findings Mean:  In the part where you discuss your research results, explain what they mean. Discuss why your findings are important and if they connect to what others have found before. Be honest about any problems with your study and suggest ideas for more research in the future. 
• Wrap It Up Clearly:  Finally, end your empirical research paper by summarizing what you found and why it’s important. Remind everyone why your study matters. Keep your writing clear and fix any mistakes before you share it. Ask someone you trust to read it and give you feedback before you finish. 

References:  

• Empirical Research in the Social Sciences and Education, Penn State University Libraries. Available online at  https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/emp  
• How to conduct empirical research, Emerald Publishing. Available online at  https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/how-to/research-methods/conduct-empirical-research  
• Empirical Research: Quantitative & Qualitative, Arrendale Library, Piedmont University. Available online at  https://library.piedmont.edu/empirical-research  
• Bouchrika, I.  What Is Empirical Research? Definition, Types & Samples  in 2024. Research.com, January 2024. Available online at  https://research.com/research/what-is-empirical-research  
• Quantitative and Empirical Research vs. Other Types of Research. California State University, April 2023. Available online at  https://libguides.csusb.edu/quantitative  
• Empirical Research, Definitions, Methods, Types and Examples, Studocu.com website. Available online at  https://www.studocu.com/row/document/uganda-christian-university/it-research-methods/emperical-research-definitions-methods-types-and-examples/55333816  
• Writing an Empirical Paper in APA Style. Psychology Writing Center, University of Washington. Available online at  https://psych.uw.edu/storage/writing_center/APApaper.pdf  

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!  

Related Reads:

• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)
• Ethical Research Practices For Research with Human Subjects

Table of Contents

Collaboration, information literacy, writing process, empirical research methods.

Alternative Article Title: Primary Research, Scientific Research , or Field Research .

• Empirical Research may be called Primary Research, Scientific Research , or Field Research . People who conduct empirical research are typically called investigators , but they may also be called knowledge workers, scientists, empiricists, or researchers.

Empirical research is a research method that investigators use to test knowledge claims and develop new knowledge .

Empirical methods focus on observation and experimentation .

Investigators observe and conduct experiments in systematic ways

is largely determined by their rhetorical contexts. Different workplace contexts and academic disciplines have developed unique tools and techniques for gathering and interpreting information .

professions and business organizations—i.e., discourse communities , especially methodological communities.

Professions and workplaces develop unique tools and technique

Empirical research is informed by

• empiricism , a philosophy that assumes knowledge is grounded in what you can see, hear, or experience
• positivism , a philosophy that assumes the universe is an orderly place; a nonrandom order of the universe exists; events have causes and occur in regular patterns that can be determined through observation.

Investigators and discourse communities use empirical research methods

• to create new knowledge (e.g., Basic Research )
• to solve a problem at work, school, or personal life (e.g., Applied Research ).
• to conduct replication studies–i.e., repeat a study with the same methods (or with slight variations, such as changes in subjects and experimenters).

Textual research plays an important role in empirical research . Empiricists engage in some textual research in order to understand scholarly conversations around the topics that interest them. Empiricists consult archives to learn methods for conducting empirical studies. However, there are important distinctions between how scholars weight claims in textual research and how scientists weigh claims in empirical studies.

Unlike investigators who use primarily textual methods , empiricists do not consider “claims of authority, intuition, imaginative conjecture, and abstract, theoretical, or systematic reasoning as sources of reliable belief” (Duignan, Fumerton, Quinton, Quinton 2020).

Instead of relying on logical reasoning and Following Most contemporary empiricists would acknowledge that any act of observation and experimentation are somewhat subjective processes.

There are three major types of empirical research :

• e.g., numbers, mathematical equations).
• Mixed Methods (a mixture of Quantitative Methods and Qualitative Methods .

Empirical research aims to be as objective as possible by being RAD —

• (sufficient details about the research protocol is provided so the study can be repeated)
• (the results and implications of the study can be extended in future research)
• ( quantitative evidence and/or Qualitative evidence are provided to substantiate claims, results, interpretations, implications).

Key Terms: positivism ; research methods ; research methodologies .

As humans, we learn about the world from experience, observation and experimentation. Even as babies we conduct informal research: what happens when we cry and complain? If we do x , does it cause y ? Over time, we invariably learn from our experience that our actions have consequences. We sharpen our abilities to identify commons patterns (e.g., whenwe write a lot, we are more creative). Invariably, as we evolve during our lives, we come to trust our experiences, our senses, and our procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge evolves.

In work and school settings, systematic engagement at efforts of observaion are called empirical or scientific research.

Investigators conduct empirical research when the answers to research questions are not readily available from informal research or textual research , when the occasion is kairotic , when personal or financial gains are on the table. That said, most empirical research is informed by textual research: investigators review the conclusions and implications of previously published research past studies—they analyze scholarly conversations and research methods—prior to engaging in empirical studies.

Informally, as humans, we engage routinely in the intellectual strategies that inform empirical research:

• we talk with others and listen to their stories to better understand their perceptions and experiences,
• we make observations,
• we survey friends, peers, coworkers
• we cross cultures and learn about difference, and
• we make predictions about future events based on our experiences and observations.

These same intellectual strategies we use to reason from our observations and experiences also undergird empirical research methods. For example,

• a psychologist might develop a case study based on interviews
• an anthropologist or sociologist might engage in participant observation to write an ethnographic study
• a political science researcher might survey voter trends
• a stock trader may project a stock bounce based on a 30-day moving average.

The main difference between informal and formal empirical research is intentionality : Formal empirical research presupposes a Research Plan , which is sometimes referred to as as Research Protocol . When investigators want their results to be taken seriously they have to employ the research methods a methodological community has for vetting knowledge claims .

Different academic communities (e.g., Natural Sciences, Social Science, Humanities, Arts) have unique ideas about how to conduct empirical research. Professionals in the workplace — e.g., geologists, anthropologists, biologists — use entirely different tools to gather and interpret data. Being credentialed in a particular discipline or profession is tied to mastery of unique methodological practices.

Across disciplines, however, empiricists share a number of operating assumptions: Empiricists

• develop a research plan prior to engaging in research.
• seek approval from Ethics Committees when human subjects or animal testing is involved
• explain how subjects/research participants are chosen and given opportunities to opt in or opt out of studies.

Empiricists are meticulous about how they collect data because their research must be verifiable if they want other empiricists to take their work seriously. In other words, their research plan needs to be so explicit that subsequent researchers can conduct the same study.

Empirical Research is a Rhetorical Practice

Empiricists develop their research question and their research methods by considering their audience and purpose . Prior to initiating a study, researchers conduct secondary research–especially Searching as Strategic Exploration –to identify the current knowledge about a topic. As a consequence of their deep understanding of pertinent scholarly conversations on the topic, empiricists identify gaps in knowledge.

Duignan, B., Fumerton, R.,  Quinton, A. M., & Quinton, B. (2020). Empiricism. Encyclopedia Britannica.  https://www.britannica.com/topic/empiricism

Haswell, R. (2005). NCTE/CCCC’s recent war on scholarship. Written Communication, 22 (2), 198-223.

Brevity - Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence - How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow - How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity - Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style - The DNA of Powerful Writing

Suggested Edits

• Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
• Your full name
• Your email address *
• Page URL needing edits *
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Other Topics:

Citation - Definition - Introduction to Citation in Academic & Professional Writing

• Joseph M. Moxley

Explore the different ways to cite sources in academic and professional writing, including in-text (Parenthetical), numerical, and note citations.

Collaboration - What is the Role of Collaboration in Academic & Professional Writing?

Collaboration refers to the act of working with others or AI to solve problems, coauthor texts, and develop products and services. Collaboration is a highly prized workplace competency in academic...

Genre may reference a type of writing, art, or musical composition; socially-agreed upon expectations about how writers and speakers should respond to particular rhetorical situations; the cultural values; the epistemological assumptions...

Grammar refers to the rules that inform how people and discourse communities use language (e.g., written or spoken English, body language, or visual language) to communicate. Learn about the rhetorical...

Information Literacy - Discerning Quality Information from Noise

Information Literacy refers to the competencies associated with locating, evaluating, using, and archiving information. In order to thrive, much less survive in a global information economy — an economy where information functions as a...

Mindset refers to a person or community’s way of feeling, thinking, and acting about a topic. The mindsets you hold, consciously or subconsciously, shape how you feel, think, and act–and...

Rhetoric: Exploring Its Definition and Impact on Modern Communication

Learn about rhetoric and rhetorical practices (e.g., rhetorical analysis, rhetorical reasoning,  rhetorical situation, and rhetorical stance) so that you can strategically manage how you compose and subsequently produce a text...

Style, most simply, refers to how you say something as opposed to what you say. The style of your writing matters because audiences are unlikely to read your work or...

The Writing Process - Research on Composing

The writing process refers to everything you do in order to complete a writing project. Over the last six decades, researchers have studied and theorized about how writers go about...

Writing Studies

Writing studies refers to an interdisciplinary community of scholars and researchers who study writing. Writing studies also refers to an academic, interdisciplinary discipline – a subject of study. Students in...

Featured Articles

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Authority – How to Establish Credibility in Speech & Writing

Writing Motivation in School: a Systematic Review of Empirical Research in the Early Twenty-First Century

• Review Article
• Published: 19 June 2020
• Volume 33 , pages 213–247, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Ana Camacho   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5328-966X 1 ,
• Rui A. Alves   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1657-8945 1 &
• Pietro Boscolo 2  

5934 Accesses

60 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Motivation is a catalyst of writing performance in school. In this article, we report a systematic review of empirical studies on writing motivation conducted in school settings, published between 2000 and 2018 in peer-reviewed journals. We aimed to (1) examine how motivational constructs have been defined in writing research; (2) analyze group differences in writing motivation; (3) unveil effects of motivation on writing performance; (4) gather evidence on teaching practices supporting writing motivation; and (5) examine the impact of digital tools on writing motivation. Through database and hand searches, we located 82 articles that met eligibility criteria. Articles were written in English, focused on students in grades 1–12, and included at least one quantitative or qualitative measure of writing motivation. Across the 82 studies, 24 motivation-related constructs were identified. In 46% of the cases, these constructs were unclearly defined or not defined. Studies showed that overall girls were more motivated to write than boys. Most studies indicated moderate positive associations between motivation and writing performance measures. Authors also examined how students’ writing motivation was influenced by teaching practices, such as handwriting instruction, self-regulated strategy development instruction, and collaborative writing. Digital tools were found to have a positive effect on motivation. Based on this review, we suggest that to move the field forward, researchers need to accurately define motivational constructs; give further attention to understudied motivational constructs; examine both individual and contextual factors; conduct longitudinal studies; identify evidence-based practices that could inform professional development programs for teachers; and test long-term effects of digital tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Assessing Writing Motivation: a Systematic Review of K-5 Students' Self-Reports

Aline Alves-Wold, Bente Rigmor Walgermo, … Per Henning Uppstad

Writing motivation and performance in Chinese children

Pui-sze Yeung, Connie Suk-han Ho, … Kevin Kien-hoa Chung

Student, teacher and class-level correlates of Flemish late elementary school children’s writing performance

Fien De Smedt, Hilde Van Keer & Emmelien Merchie

Items were formulated in the entity version and therefore lower scores indicated more incremental beliefs.

*References with an asterisk mark were included in this review.

*Abbott, J. A. (2000). ‘Blinking out’ and ‘having the touch’: Two fifth-grade boys talk about flow experiences in writing. Written Communication, 17 (1), 53–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088300017001003 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ainley, M. (2019). Curiosity and interest: Emergence and divergence. Educational Psychology Review, Advance online publication, 31 (4), 789–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09495-z .

Alexander, P. (2018). Past as prologue: Educational psychology’s legacy and progeny. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 , 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000200 .

*Allaire, S., Thériault, P., Gagnon, V., & Lalancette, E. (2013). Elementary students’ affective variables in a networked learning environment supported by a blog: A case study. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39 (3). https://doi.org/10.21432/t2w88v .

Allen, L. K., Jacovina, M. E., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Computer-based writing instruction. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 316–329). New York: The Guilford Press.

Google Scholar  

Alves, R. A. (2019). The early steps in becoming a writer: Enabling participation in a literate world. In J. S. Horst & J. V. K. Torkildsen (Eds.), International handbook of language acquisition (pp. 567–590). London: Routledge.

Alves, R. A., & Limpo, T. (2015). Fostering the capabilities that build writing achievement. In C. M. Connor & P. McCardle (Eds.), Advances in reading intervention: Research to practice to research . Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co..

American Educational Research Association, A. P. A., & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

*Arens, A. K., & Jansen, M. (2016). Self-concepts in reading, writing, listening, and speaking: A multidimensional and hierarchical structure and its generalizability across native and foreign languages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 (5), 646–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000081 .

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: Freeman.

*Bayat, S. (2016). The effectiveness of the creative writing instruction program based on speaking activities (CWIPSA). International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8 (4), 617–628.

*Bayraktar, A. (2013). Nature of interactions during teacher-student writing conferences, revisiting the potential effects of self-efficacy beliefs. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (50), 63-85.

*Beck, N., & Fetherston, T. (2003). The effects of incorporating a word processor into a year three writing program. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2003 (1), 139–161.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boscolo, P. (2009). Engaging and motivating children to write. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 300–312). London: Sage.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Boscolo, P., & Gelati, C. (2019). Best practices in promoting motivation for writing. In S. Graham, C. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (3rd ed.). New York-London: Guilford.

Boscolo, P., & Hidi, S. (2007). The multiple meanings of motivation to write. In S. Hidi & P. Boscolo (Eds.), Writing and motivation (pp. 1–14). Oxford: Elsevier.

*Boscolo, P., Ariasi, N., Del Favero, L., & Ballarin, C. (2011). Interest in an expository text: How does it flow from reading to writing? Learning and Instruction, 21 (3), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.009 .

*Boscolo, P., Gelati, C., & Galvan, N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to play with meanings and genre. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.632730 .

*Bouchamma, Y., & Lapointe, C. (2008). Success in writing and attributions of 16-year-old French-speaking students in minority and majority environments. 54 , 194–209.

*Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van der Bergh, H. (2018). Effects of hypertext writing and observational learning on content knowledge acquisition, selfefficacy, and text quality: Two experimental studies exploring aptitude treatment interactions. Journal of Writing Research, 9 (3), 259–300. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2018.09.03.02 .

*Bradford, K. L., Newland, A. C., Rule, A. C., & Montgomery, S. E. (2016). Rubrics as a tool in writing instruction: Effects on the opinion essays of first and second graders. Early Childhood Education Journal. 44 (5), 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0727-0 .

Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35 (1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_4 .

Bruning, R., & Kauffman, D. F. (2016). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 160–173). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

*Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D. F., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029692 .

*Brunstein, J. C., & Glaser, C. (2011). Testing a path-analytic mediation model of how self-regulated writing strategies improve fourth graders’ composition skills: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (4), 922–938. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024622 .

*Bui, Y. N., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2006). The effects of a strategic writing program for students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive fifth-grade classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21 (4), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00221.x .

*Camacho, A., & Alves, R. A. (2017). Fostering parental involvement in writing: Development and testing of the program Cultivating Writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30 (2), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9672-6 .

*Chai, H. H. (2010). Adolescent girl writers: “I can be good at it, if I like it”. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 23 (1), 29–40.

*Chan, J. C. Y., & Lam, S.-f (2008). Effects of competition on students’ self-efficacy in vicarious learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 (1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907x185509 .

*Chohan, S. K. (2011). Any letter for me? Relationships between an elementary school letter writing program and student attitudes, literacy achievement, and friendship culture. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39 (1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-010-0438-5 .

*Cocuk, H. E., Yanpar Yelken, T., & Ozer, O. (2016). The relationship between writing anxiety and writing disposition among secondary school students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 63 , 335-352. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.63.19

*Collie, R. J., Martin, A. J., & Curwood, J. S. (2016). Multidimensional motivation and engagement for writing: Construct validation with a sample of boys. Educational Psychology, 36 (4), 771–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1093607 .

Conradi, K., Jang, B., & McKenna, M. (2014). Motivation terminology in reading research: A conceptual review. Educational Psychology Review, 26 (1), 127–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9245-z .

Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*Cordeiro, C., Castro, S. L., & Limpo, T. (2018). Examining potential sources of gender differences in writing: The role of handwriting fluency and self-efficacy beliefs. Written Communication , https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088318788843 .

Costa, A., & Faria, L. (2018). Implicit theories of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (829). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00829 .

Daly, J. A., & Wilson, D. A. (1983). Writing apprehension, self-esteem, and personality. Research in the Teaching of English, 17 , 327–341.

De Smedt, F. (2019). Cognitive and motivational challenges in writing: The impact of explicit instruction and peer-assisted writing in upper-elementary grades . Ghent: University of Ghent.

*De Smedt, F., Van Keer, H., & Merchie, E. (2016). Student, teacher and class-level correlates of Flemish late elementary school children’s writing performance. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29 (5), 833–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9590-z .

*De Smedt, F., Graham, S., & Van Keer, H. (2018a). The bright and dark side of writing motivation: Effects of explicit instruction and peer assistance. The Journal of Educational Research , 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1461598 .

*De Smedt, F., Merchie, E., Barendse, M., Rosseel, Y., De Naeghel, J., & Van Keer, H. (2018b). Cognitive and motivational challenges in writing: Studying the relation with writing performance across students’ gender and achievement level. Reading Research Quarterly, 53 (2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.193 .

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 , 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 .

*deFur, S. H., & Runnells, M. M. (2014). Validation of the adolescent literacy and academic behavior self-efficacy survey. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 40 (3), 255–266.

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development . Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives . San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

*Edwards, G., & Jones, J. (2018). Boys as writers: Perspectives on the learning and teaching of writing in three primary schools. Literacy, 52 (1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12122 .

*Ehm, J.-H., Lindberg, S., & Hasselhorn, M. (2014). Reading, writing, and math self-concept in elementary school children: Influence of dimensional comparison processes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29 (2), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0198-x .

Ekholm, E., Zumbrunn, S., & DeBusk-Lane, M. (2018). Clarifying an elusive construct: A systematic review of writing attitudes. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (3), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9423-5 .

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (5–12).

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 , 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.461 .

*Erdogan, T., & Erdogan, Ö. (2013). A metaphor analysis of the fifth grade students’ perceptions about writing. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22 (4), 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0014-4 .

*Gambrell, L. B., Hughes, E. M., Calvert, L., Malloy, J. A., & Igo, B. (2011). Authentic reading, writing, and discussion: An exploratory study of a pen pal project. The Elementary School Journal, 112 (2), 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1086/661523 .

*Goldenberg, L., Meade, T., Midouhas, E., & Cooperman, N. (2011). Impact of a technology-infused middle school writing program on sixth-grade students’ writing ability and engagement. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6 (2), 75–96.

Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.

Graham, S. (2018). A revised writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53 (4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406 .

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2016). A path to better writing: Evidence-based practices in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 69 (4), 359–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1432 .

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2019). Evidence-based practices in writing. In S. Graham, C. MacArthur, & M. Hebert (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 3–28). New York: The Guilford Press.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (3), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445 .

*Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink, B. (2000). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (4), 620–633. https://doi.org/10.1057//0022-0663.92.4.620 .

*Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. H. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30 , 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001 .

*Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32 (3), 516–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.01.002 .

*Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2012a). Are attitudes toward writing and reading separable constructs? A study with primary grade children. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28 (1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.632732 .

Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012b). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (4), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185 .

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Santangelo, T. (2015). Research-based writing practices and the common core: Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Elementary School Journal, 115 (4). https://doi.org/10.1086/681964 .

*Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Kiuhara, S. A., & Fishman, E. J. (2017). The relationship among strategic writing behavior, writing motivation, and writing performance with young, developing writers. Elementary School Journal, 118( 1), 82–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/693009 .

*Graham, S., Daley, S. G., Aitken, A. A., Harris, K. R., & Robinson, K. H. (2018). Do writing motivational beliefs predict middle school students’ writing performance? Journal of Research in Reading, 41 (4), 642–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12245 .

*Guay, F., Chanal, J., Ratelle, C. F., Marsh, H. W., Larose, S., & Boivin, M. (2010). Intrinsic, identified, and controlled types of motivation for school subjects in young elementary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4), 711–735. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910x499084 .

*Gunderson, E. A., Hamdan, N., Sorhagen, N. S., & D'Esterre, A. P. (2017). Who needs innate ability to succeed in math and literacy? Academic-domain-specific theories of intelligence about peers versus adults. Developmental Psychology, 53 (6), 1188–1205. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000282 .

*Hall, A. H., & Axelrod, Y. (2014). “I am kind of a good writer and kind of not”: Examining students’ writing attitudes. Journal of Research in Education, 24 (2), 34–50.

*Hamilton, E. W., Nolen, S. B., & Abbott, R. D. (2013). Developing measures of motivational orientation to read and write: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 28 , 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.007 .

Harris, K. R. (2018). Educational psychology: A future retrospective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000267 .

*Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal Summer, 43 (2), 295–340. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002295 .

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 111–127.

Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2019). Interest development and its relation to curiosity: Needed neuroscientific research. Educational Psychology Review, Advance online publication, 31 (4), 833–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09491-3 .

*Hidi, S., Berndorff, D., & Ainley, M. (2002). Children’s argument writing, interest and self-efficacy: An intervention study. Learning and Instruction, 12 (4), 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00009-3 .

*Hier, B. O., & Mahony, K. E. (2018). The contribution of mastery experiences, performance feedback, and task effort to elementary-aged students’ self-efficacy in writing. School Psychology Quarterly, 33 (3), 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000226 .

Igo, L. B. (2008). An interview with Roger Bruning. Educational Psychology Review, 20 (2), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9070-y .

*Kanala, S., Nousiainen, T., & Kankaanranta, M. (2013). Using a mobile application to support children’s writing motivation. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 10 (1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/17415651311326419 .

*Kaplan, A., Lichtinger, E., & Gorodetsky, M. (2009). Achievement goal orientations and self-regulation in writing: An integrative perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013200 .

Karchmer-Klein, R. (2019). Writing with digital tools. In S. Graham, C. A. MarArthur, & M. Hebert (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (3rd ed., pp. 185–208). New York: The Guilford Press.

*Kear, D. J., Coffman, G. A., McKenna, M. C., & Ambrosio, A. L. (2000). Measuring attitude toward writing: A new tool for teachers. 54 , 10-23. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.43.8.3 .

Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The psychology of writing . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

King, D. A. (2004). The scientific impact of nations. Nature, 430 (6997), 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1038/430311a .

Klassen, R. (2002). Writing in early adolescence: A review of the role of self-efficacy beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 14 (2), 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014626805572 .

*Korat, O., & Schiff, R. (2005). Do children who read more books know ‘what is good writing’ better than children who read less? A comparison between grade levels and SES groups. Journal of Literacy Research, 37 (3), 289–324. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3703_2 .

Kriegbaum, K., Becker, N., & Spinath, B. (2018). The relative importance of intelligence and motivation as predictors of school achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 25 , 120–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.10.001 .

*Lam, S.-F., & Law, Y.-K. (2007). The roles of instructional practices and motivation in writing performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 75 (2), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.3200/jexe.75.2.145-164 .

*Lan, Y.-F., Hung, C.-L., & Hsu, H.-J. (2011). Effects of guided writing strategies on students’ writing attitudes based on media richness theory. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10 (4), 148–164.

Latif, M. M. M. A. (2019). Unresolved issues in defining and assessing writing motivational constructs: A review of conceptualization and measurement perspectives. Assessing Writing, Advance online publication . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.100417 .

Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2015). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86 (2), 602–640. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315617832 .

*Lee, J. (2013). Can writing attitudes and learning behavior overcome gender difference in writing? Evidence from NAEP. Written Communication, 30 (2), 164–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313480313 .

*Lee, B. K., & Enciso, P. (2017). The big glamorous monster (or Lady Gaga’s adventures at sea): Improving student writing through dramatic approaches in schools. Journal of Literacy Research, 49 (2), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x17699856 .

*Leroy, C. (2000). “Why we do this is important”: An inner-city girl’s attitudes toward reading and writing in the classroom. Reading Horizons, 41 (2), 69–92.

*Li, X., Chu, S. K. W., Ki, W. W., & Woo, M. (2012). Using a wiki-based collaborative process writing pedagogy to facilitate collaborative writing among Chinese primary school students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (1), 159-181. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.889 .

*Li, X., Chu, S. K. W., & Ki, W. W. (2014). The effects of a wiki-based collaborative process writing pedagogy on writing ability and attitudes among upper primary school students in Mainland China. Computers & Education, 77 , 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.019 .

*Liao, C. C. Y., Chang, W.-C., & Chan, T.-W. (2018). The effects of participation, performance, and interest in a game-based writing environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34 (3), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12233 .

*Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2013). Modeling writing development: Contribution of transcription and self-regulation to Portuguese students’ text generation quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (2), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031391 .

*Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2014). Implicit theories of writing and their impact on students’ response to a SRSD intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (4), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12042 .

*Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2017). Relating beliefs in writing skill malleability to writing performance: The mediating role of achievement goals and self-efficacy. Journal of Writing Research, 9 (2), 97-125. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2017.09.02.01 .

*Mason, L. H., Meadan, H., Hedin, L. R., & Cramer, A. M. (2012). Avoiding the struggle: Instruction that supports students’ motivation in reading and writing about content material. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28 (1), 70–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.632734 .

*Merisuo-Storm, T. (2006). Girls and boys like to read and write different texts. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50 (2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830600576039 .

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6 (7), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 .

Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 3–53. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1019 .

*Nair, S. S., Tay, L. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2013). Students’ motivation and teachers’ teaching practices towards the use of blogs for writing of online journals. Educational Media International, 50 (2), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2013.795351 .

National Center for Education Statistics, NCES. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 . Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

*Nicolaidou, I. (2012). Can process portfolios affect students’ writing self-efficacy? International Journal of Educational Research, 56 , 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.08.002 .

*Nolen, S. B. (2007). Young children’s motivation to read and write: Development in social contexts. Cognition and Instruction, 25 (2), 219–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000701301174 .

Nolen, A. L. (2009). The content of educational psychology: An analysis of top ranked journals from 2003 through 2007. Educational Psychology Review, 21 (3), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9110-2 .

*Olinghouse, N. G., & Graham, S. (2009). The relationship between the discourse knowledge and the writing performance of elementary-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013462 .

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 .

Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19 (2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308222 .

*Pajares, F. (2007). Empirical properties of a scale to assess writing self-efficacy in school contexts. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 39 (4). https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2007.11909801 .

*Pajares, F., & Cheong, Y. F. (2003). Achievement goal orientations in writing: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 39 (4), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.008 .

*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 (3), 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1069 .

*Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (4), 406–422. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1027 .

*Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33 (4), 214–221.

*Pajares, F., Johnson, M. J., & Usher, E. L. (2007). Sources of writing self-efficacy beliefs of elementary, middle, and high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 42 (1), 104–120.

*Perry, N. E., Nordby, C. J., & VandeKamp, K. O. (2003). Promoting self-regulated reading and writing at home and school. The Elementary School Journal, 103 (4), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1086/499729 .

Peterson, E. G., & Cohen, J. (2019). A case for domain-specific curiosity in mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, Advance online publication, 31 (4), 807–832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09501-4 .

Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Continuities and discontinuities: Future directions for research in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 29 , 137–148.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

*Potter, E. F., McCormick, C. B., & Busching, B. A. (2001). Academic and life goals: Insights from adolescent writers. The High School Journal, 85 (1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2001.0018 .

Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

*Rosário, P., Högemann, J., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Oliveira, V., Fuentes S. Rodrigues, C. (2017). Writing week-journals to improve the writing quality of fourth-graders’ compositions. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30 (5), 1009–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9710-4 .

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 .

Saddler, B. (2012). Motivating writers: Theory and interventions. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.632727 .

*Sessions, L., Kang, M. O., & Womack, S. (2016). The neglected “R”: Improving writing instruction through iPad apps. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 60 (3), 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0041-8 .

*Smith, E. V., Jr., Wakely, M. B., De Kruif, R. E. L., & Swartz, C. W. (2003). Optimizing rating scales for self-efficacy (and other) research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63 (3), 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403063003002 .

Talsma, K., Schüza, B., Schwarzerc, R., & Norrisa, K. (2018). I believe, therefore I achieve (and vice versa): A meta-analytic cross-lagged panel analysis of self-efficacy and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences , (61), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.015 .

Tollefson, J. (2018). China declared world’s largest producer of scientific articles. Nature, 553 (7689), 390–390. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-00927-4 .

Troia, G. A., Shankland, R. K., & Wolbers, K. A. (2012). Motivation research in writing: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28 (1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.632729 .

*Troia, G. A., Harbaugh, A. G., Shankland, R. K., Wolbers, K. A., & Lawrence, A. M. (2013). Relationships between writing motivation, writing activity, and writing performance: Effects of grade, sex, and ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26 (1), 17–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9379-2 .

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO and education: Everyone has the right to education . Paris: UNESCO.

Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 39 (2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_3 .

*Villalón, R., Mateos, M., & Cuevas, I. (2015). High school boys’ and girls’ writing conceptions and writing self-efficacy beliefs: What is their role in writing performance? Educational Psychology, 35 (6), 653-674.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement, motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92 (4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4948-1 .

Wentzel, K., & Miele, D. (2016). Overview. In K. Wentzel & D. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 1–8). New York: Routledge.

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6 (1), 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02209024 .

*Wijekumar, K., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Lei, P.-W., Barkel, A., Aitken, A., Ray A. Houston, J. (2018). The roles of writing knowledge, motivation, strategic behaviors, and skills in predicting elementary students’ persuasive writing from source material. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 32 6, 1431, 1457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9836-7

*Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English Language Arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers & Education, 100 , 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.004 .

*Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. J. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (2), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158514 .

*Yilmaz Soylu, M., Zeleny, M. G., Zhao, R., Bruning, R. H., Dempsey, M. S., & Kauffman, D. F. (2017). Secondary students' writing achievement goals: Assessing the mediating effects of mastery and performance goals on writing self-efficacy, affect, and writing achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01406 .

*Zumbrunn, S., Marrs, S., & Mewborn, C. (2016). Toward a better understanding of student perceptions of writing feedback: A mixed methods study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29 (2), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9599-3 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Steve Graham and Hilde Van Keer for invaluable comments on earlier versions of this article. The authors thank also Mariana Silva for contributing to the study quality assessment.

This work was supported by a grant attributed to the first author from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (grant SFRH/BD/116281/2016).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen, 4200-135, Porto, Portugal

Ana Camacho & Rui A. Alves

Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

Pietro Boscolo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Camacho .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

(PDF 804 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Camacho, A., Alves, R.A. & Boscolo, P. Writing Motivation in School: a Systematic Review of Empirical Research in the Early Twenty-First Century. Educ Psychol Rev 33 , 213–247 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09530-4

Download citation

Published : 19 June 2020

Issue Date : March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09530-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Systematic review
• Teaching practices
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Are Universities Really Preparing Editors for the Real World?

The learning outcomes of university-level editing courses don’t match the skills required for technical editing jobs. How can editing programs improve?

College education keeps getting exponentially more expensive. With such a financial sacrifice, students expect their universities to prepare them for the workplace. In the field of technical editing, universities still have work to do in bridging the gap between the skills that editors are taught in the classroom and the skills that are needed in the workplace.

THE RESEARCH

Susan Lang of The Ohio State University and Laura Palmer of Kennesaw State University analyzed the discrepancies between university-level technical editing courses and job postings. Their 2017 article “ Reconceiving Technical Editing Competencies for the 21st Century: Reconciling Employer Needs with Curricular Mandates ” sought to provide advice for improving university editing programs.

Through reviewing a selection of job postings for technical editors, the researchers found that employers wanted editors who could also work with multi-media formats like audio, video, and visual design. The researchers also examined the descriptions of five technical editing courses at different universities. The courses focused more on copyediting, grammar, and editing markup than other technologies and skills that technical editing positions require. Lang and Palmer concluded that “technical editing courses require significant revision in order to meet the marketplace demands for new editing competencies” (2017, 307).

“Technical editing courses require significant revision in order to meet the marketplace demands for new editing competencies.” Susan Lang and Laura Palmer

Overall, Lang and Palmer analyzed very few sources for job postings, textbooks, and course descriptions. Their methodology section could be more specific. However, if read with those limitations in mind, their findings still give beneficial advice for educators. This study implies that there is a gap between student editor knowledge and future employer expectations, and it points toward the need for editing programs to stay current with employers’ needs.

THE IMPLICATIONS

Few universities offer dedicated editing programs, so most aspiring editors may have to major in an adjacent field like English, linguistics, or journalism. These majors may include one “editing” class that primarily teaches copyediting, substantive editing, and grammar, but “editing now encompasses more than spelling and grammar” (Lang and Palmer 2017, 307).

Instead of having a single course to teach technical editing, Lang and Palmer recommend that editing programs have at least two classes: one to teach advanced grammar and copyediting, and one to cover other aspects of editing, like how to edit for multi-media formats and genres, to give students an overview of skills necessary for magazine editing, web editing, audio editing, and more. 

As a constantly evolving and improving field, technical editing needs academia to evolve with it. By maximizing the available editing-related curricula in their programs, universities can also maximize their students’ opportunities for success after graduation.

To learn more about Lang and Palmer’s recommendations for improving editing programs, read the full article:

Lang, Susan, and Laura Palmer. “Reconceiving Technical Editing Competencies for the 21st Century: Reconciling Employer Needs with Curricular Mandates.” Technical Communication 64, no. 4 (2017): 297–309. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26464505 .

—Karlie Kelsch, Editing Research

FEATURE IMAGE BY PAVEL DANILYUK

Find more research

Take a look at this article by Hope Jones to learn more about educating future editors: “ Peer Editing to the Rescue! ”

Read Susanna Bergeson’s article “ Why Fortnite Needs Editing Too ” to explore how the field of editing is expanding to new genres.

Read Stephanie Argy’s article “ The Role of the Developmental Editor in Emerging Forms of Narrative ” to learn how editing can be applied to new forms of storytelling.

Related Posts

Think You Have the Same Expectations as Your Editor? Think Again!

Editing and Research: Beware of Burning Out

Ambiguous Syntax Structure’s Impact on Autistic Readers