Beliefs and motives behind the paper: examining relations between epistemic beliefs, achievement goals, writing strategies, and academic writing achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout university, students are required to complete complex writing tasks that involve a host of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, yet little is known about the differences in approach to the writing process.In particular, been largely overlooked.The present study aimed to address this gap by self-reported writing strategies.University students completed several questionnaires (N = 98) and participated in an interview (N = 26).Quantitative analyses revealed that constructivist beliefs, performance-approach goals, and self-reported metacognitive strategies were significant positive predictors of writing achievement; however, the amount of variance accounted for in the model was modest.Qualitative analyses indicated that students with a mastery goal activated a more constructivist epistemic stance for writing, which allowed for creativity and deep processing, but possibly jeopardized their performance on writing tasks.In contrast, students with a performance goal for writing reported a less constructivist stance for writing and instead emphasized the importance of tailoring their efforts to meet the preferences of the instructor.Findings from this research have important implications for education, such as the design of instructions and grading criteria for writing assignments.With knowledge of the relations between motivational goals, knowledge beliefs, and writing strategies, instructors may be better equipped to help students refine their writing skills.encouragement throughout my educational pursuits.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".