There has not been a validated measure of doctoral level writing knowledge nor one of doctoral writing self efficacy. In this study we developed and validated the Doctoral Writing Knowledge and Efficacy Inventory. The inventory showed validity, being correlated with writing apprehension, perceived writing self efficacy, and stage of dissertation.https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/current/1026/thumbnail.jp

Sickel, Amy

Stadtlander, Lee

English

Walden University

Walden UniversityScholarWorksCurrent/Present Programs & Posters Research Symposium2017Validation of the Doctoral Writing Knowledge andEfficacy InventoryLee StadtlanderWalden University, leann.stadtlander@waldenu.eduAmy SickelWalden University, amy.sickel@mail.waldenu.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/currentPart of the Higher Education CommonsThis Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Symposium at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Current/Present Programs & Posters by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact ScholarWorks@waldenu.edu.Recommended CitationStadtlander, Lee and Sickel, Amy, "Validation of the Doctoral Writing Knowledge and Efficacy Inventory" (2017). Current/PresentPrograms & Posters. 3.http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/current/3Validation of the Doctoral Writing Knowledge and Efficacy Inventory Lee M. Stadtlander, Ph.D. and Amy E. Sickel, Ph.D. Abstract There has not been a validated measure of doctoral level writing knowledge nor one of doctoral writing self efficacy.  In this study we developed and validated the Doctoral Writing Knowledge and Efficacy Inventory. The inventory showed validity, being correlated with writing apprehension, perceived writing self efficacy, and stage of dissertation.      Procedures Cont’d The DWKEI consists of 2 parts, a 42 question knowledge portion and a 24 self efficacy portion with 5 anchor points 1 strongly disagree; 2 disagree; 3 neutral; 4 agree; and 5 strongly agree. The DWKEI was posted in survey monkey along with the Perceived Self-Regulatory Efficacy for Writing scale (modified from Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994) Writing Apprehension Scale (modified from Daly & Miller, 1975) and the Research Appraisal Inventory (Stadtlander et al., 2013), which were used as additional indications of validity.  Doctoral students and faculty were sought through the Walden participant pool, LinkedIn, and Stadtlander's dissertation blog (http://phdrealities.blogspot.com/) to complete the validation study on survey monkey. 117 individuals started the survey, 82 completed it for a completion rate of 67%. 2 surveys with less than 10 minutes completion time were removed, resulting in a total of 80 participants in the analyses. 62 females (77.5%) and 17 males (21.3%) participated. Ages ranged between 25-73 (M = 48.9). 11 individuals had completed their Ph.D.s, 5 were faculty. Data Analysis Responses to the 42 knowledge questions on the DWKEI were scored and the total for each individual was calculated, resulting in a range of 12-41 correct (M = 31.3, SD = 5.74). Cronbach's alpha for the knowledge portion was 0.82. The 24 self efficacy questions were totaled with a range of 53-120 (120 points possible), Cronbach's alpha for the self efficacy portion was 0.94.  Research Questions 1. Does the Doctoral Writing Knowledge and Efficacy Inventory (DWKEI ) show construct validity through correlations with Perceived Self-Regulatory Efficacy for Writing scale (modified from Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994), Writing Apprehension Scale (modified from Daly & Miller, 1975), and the Research Appraisal Inventory (Stadtlander, Giles, & Sickel, 2013)?   2. Does the DWKEI show criterion validity through correlations with stage of dissertation or time in dissertation?     Purpose The purpose of the present study was to develop and validate a doctoral level survey for examining writing knowledge and writing self efficacy..      Problem There is currently not a valid measure of doctoral level writing knowledge nor one of doctoral writing self efficacy.   Relevant Literature A common element for all doctoral students, regardless of the doctoral program or institution, is the challenge of scholarly writing with their doctoral dissertation (may be called a "doctoral thesis" in some institutions; Gardner & Barnes, 2014). A doctoral dissertation refers to an original piece of empirical research done in partial fulfillment of the requirements of doctoral programs (e.g., Ed.D., Ph.D.; Cone & Foster, 2006; Walder et al., 2008).   Educational researchers (Ali & Kohun, 2007; Council of Graduate Schools, 2009; Patterson & McFadden, 2009; Sutton, 2014) report that attrition at the doctoral level is approximately 50%; Terrell et al. (2012) noted that attrition in all doctoral programs is roughly 40% to 50%, but slightly higher (10%-20%) for online doctoral programs. This attrition may result in loss of revenue for the institution; students with high student loan debt, and no degree; and loss of institutional credibility.        Social Change Implications A validated doctoral writing inventory provides a reliable method of evaluating student writing, and areas of needed improvement. While additional research is indicated with the DWKEI, it shows promise as such an instrument. Limitations Participants were recruited through an advertisement in the Walden participant pool and social media sites. Presumably only people interested in the topic were willing to participate. It had a high incompletion rate (37%), presumably due to the length of the surveys. It is possible that people with marginal writing skills became frustrated and dropped out. The inventory is Walden-centric, and may not apply to other programs. Conclusions These preliminary results indicate that the DWKEI has construct and criterion validity. Additional research is recommended using different populations. The extent to which the results apply to dissertation students outside of Walden is unknown. Findings Statistically significant correlations were found between the knowledge portion of the DWKEI and the Perceived Self-Regulatory Efficacy for Writing scale (r(80) = -.25, p = .03); thus as writing score increased so did  writing self efficacy.  A significant relationship was evident with the Writing Apprehension Scale (r(80) = .42, p = .02), whereby as writing scores increased, writing apprehension decreased. Writing score was significantly correlated with stage of dissertation (r(80) = .26, p = .02), number of terms in dissertation was not significant. This research was supported in part by funds received from a Hybrid Teaching & Learning Research Grant, which was created by the Research Office in the Academic Quality and Accreditation Unit of the Laureate Network Office to support research that investigates the impact of digital teaching and learning methods on learning outcomes. For more information on the grant or the LNO Research Office, please contact  LNOResearch@laureate.net Literature Cont’d Social cognitive theory has established the importance of self-efficacy beliefs: one’s confidence in one’s ability to perform tasks required to cope with situations and achieve specific goals. People with high self-efficacy are more likely to take on challenges, try harder, and persist longer than those with low self- efficacy (Bandura, 1989). Students with high writing efficacy tend to write better and be less apprehensive about writing than those with low writing efficacy (McCarthy et al., 1985; Pajares & Valiante, 1999). Previous research, in this area, has tended to examine the K-12 and undergraduate level of writing efficacy (Sanders-Reio et al., 2014); few studies have addressed the issue on a doctoral level.  Writing knowledge is an additional correlate with writing task completion (Bromley et al., 2016), and appears to have rarely been studied in doctoral student populations. There is currently not a validated measure of doctoral level writing knowledge or one of doctoral level writing efficacy.   Procedures To develop the Doctoral Writing and Knowledge Efficacy Inventory (DWKEI), the researchers developed a list of topics relevant to writing a dissertation based on Walden’s Dissertation Guidebook. 80 multiple choice questions were then developed based upon these topics. 5 faculty experts provided feedback and suggestions on the questions. Following approval from Walden’s IRB, A pilot study was run with 4 doctoral level students. All participants received a $10 gift card as a thank you. Findings Cont’d The self efficacy portion of the DWEKI  was correlated  with terms in dissertation (r(80) = .33, p = .01); stage of dissertation (r(80) = .23, p = .05); writing score (r(80) = .34, p = .01); Perceived Efficacy for Writing (r(80) = -.48, p = .001); writing apprehension (r(80) = .39, p = .001); and research skills (r(80) = .49, p = .001.) 

Validation of the Doctoral Writing Knowledge and Efficacy Inventory

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&amp;context=current

Validation of the Doctoral Writing Knowledge and Efficacy Inventory

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Walden University