This article reviews research on motivation in the academic domain of writing situated within a social cognitive perspective. First we summarize major findings related to 4 theorized components of human motivation—self-efficacy beliefs or perceived competence, mastery and performance goal orientations, task interest and value, and attributions for success and failure. For each component we also offer general instructional recommendations gleaned from the literature. Next we discuss how these components play a role in writing motivation, with particular emphasis on self-efficacy for writing skills versus writing tasks. Then we present findings from studies that have examined the motivational characteristics of individuals who struggle with writing, including those with disabilities, and interventions designed to enhance motivation to write. Finally, we offer suggestions for future research in writing motivation.

Relatively little is known about the potential of web-based programs to support and scaffold the writing performance of students with disabilities. In this study, an experimental and control group of students planned and organized their ideas in order to write expository papers about self-selected topics. The experimental group used a web-based environment that scaffolded performance by prompting attention to the topical organization and structure of ideas while students were in the situated act of composing their papers. Control students used similar writing tools, but in traditional paper-and-pencil print formats. The results of the quasi-experimental study revealed that the students in the web-based scaffolding condition produced lengthier pieces and received significantly higher ratings on the primary traits associated with writing quality. The greatest effects were evident in terms of experimental students' abilities to produce topic sentences and to generate more topically coherent pieces overall. These findings suggest the web-based software can be designed to offer universally available supports to improve the performance of struggling writers.

This study charts the terrain of research on writing during the 6-year period from 1999 to 2004, asking “What are current trends and foci in research on writing?” In examining a cross-section of writing research, the authors focus on four issues: (a) What are the general problems being investigated by contemporary writing researchers? Which of the various problems dominate recent writing research, and which are not as prominent? (b) What population age groups are prominent in recent writing research? (c) What is the relationship between population age groups and problems under investigation? and (d) What methodologies are being used in research on writing? Based on a body of refereed journal articles (n = 1,502) reporting studies about writing and composition instruction that were located using three databases, the authors characterize various lines of inquiry currently undertaken. Social context and writing practices, bi- or multi-lingualism and writing, and writing instruction are the most actively studied problems during this period, whereas writing and technologies, writing assessment and evaluation, and relationships among literacy modalities are the least studied problems. Undergraduate, adult, and other postsecondary populations are the most prominently studied population age group, whereas preschool-aged children and middle and high school students are least studied. Research on instruction within the preschool through 12th grade (P-12) age group is prominent, whereas research on genre, assessment, and bi- or multilingualism is scarce within this population. The majority of articles employ interpretive methods. This indicator of current writing research should be useful to researchers, policymakers, and funding agencies, as well as to writing teachers and teacher educators.

Nonstandard grammatical forms are often present in the writing of deaf students that are rarely, if ever, seen in the writing of hearing students. With the implementation of Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI) in previous studies, students have demonstrated significant gains in high-level writing skills (e.g., text structure) but have also made gains with English grammar skills. This 1-year study expands on prior research by longitudinally examining the written language growth (i.e., writing length, sentence complexity, sentence awareness, and function words) of 29 deaf middle-school students. A repeated-measures analysis of variance with a between-subjects variable for literacy achievement level was used to examine gains over time and the intervention's efficacy when used with students of various literacy levels. Students, whether high or low achieving, demonstrated statistically significant gains with writing length, sentence complexity, and sentence awareness. Subordinate clauses were found to be an area of difficulty, and follow up strategies are suggested. An analysis of function word data, specifically prepositions and articles, revealed different patterns of written language growth by language group (e.g., American Sign Language users, oral students, users of English-based sign).

This article reports the findings of balanced and interactive writing instruction used with 16 deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Although the instruction has been used previously, this was the first time it had been modified to suit the specific needs of deaf children and the first time it had been implemented with this subpopulation of students. The intervention took place in two elementary classrooms (N = 8) and one middle school classroom (N = 8) for a total of 21 days. A comparison of pre- and posttest scores on both writing and reading measures evidenced that students made significant gains with use of genre-specific traits, use of contextual language, editing/revising skills, and word identification. Students showed neither gains nor losses with conventions and total word count. In addition, a one-way multiple analysis of variance was used to detect any school-level effects. Elementary students made significantly greater gains with respect to conventions and word identification, and middle school students made significantly greater gains with editing and revising tasks.