Writing Self-Efficacy in Postsecondary Students: a Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this review, we examine studies of writing self-efficacy conducted with postsecondary students published between 1984 and 2021. We aimed to inventory the methodological choices, writing contexts, and types of pedagogies explored in studies of writing self-efficacy with postsecondary students, and summarize the practical implications noted across the included studies. A total of 50 studies met eligibility criteria. All studies used quantitative methods, were conducted in English language settings, focused on undergraduate or graduate students, and included at least one writing self-efficacy measure. Across the 50 studies, the two variables most commonly appearing alongside writing self-efficacy were writing performance and writing apprehension. Many studies also assessed change in writing self-efficacy over time. Writing contexts and measures of writing self-efficacy varied across the included studies. Common practical implications noted across studies included students’ tendency to overinflate their writing self-efficacy, recognition of the developmental nature of writing ability, the importance of teacher attitudes and instructional climate, the influence of feedback on writing self-efficacy, and approaches to teaching and guiding writing. Based on this review, we see several directions for future research including a need for longitudinal studies, consideration of situated approaches, identification of diversity impacts, and attention to consistent use of strong multidimensional measures of writing self-efficacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it