Composition Forum 35 - Down the Rabbit Hole - Challenges and Methodological Recommendations in Researching Writing-Related Student Dispositions

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by jay

Researching writing-related dispositions is critical for understanding writing transfer and development, yet the field lacks reliable tools to measure and analyze dispositions. This article reports a failed longitudinal, mixed-methods, multi-institutional effort to code five dispositions—attribution, self-efficacy, persistence, value, and self-regulation—alongside other transferable writing factors. Findings show distinct coding challenges, driven by conceptual, cultural, psychological, and temporal complexity, including the impact of social inequity on coding.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages16

Reading Time40 min

AccessFree to download

I. Introduction

II. Dispositions, Learning, and Transfer

Current Issue From the Editors Weblog Editorial Board Editorial Policy Submissions Archives Accessibility Search Composition Forum 35, Spring 2017 Down the Rabbit Hole: Challenges and Methodological Recommendations in Researching Writing-Related Student Dispositions Dana Lynn Driscoll, Gwen Gorzelsky, Jennifer Wells, Carol Hayes, Ed Jones, and Steve Salchak Abstract: Researching writing-related dispositions is of critical concern for understanding writing transfer and writing development. However, as a field we need better tools and methods for identifying, tracking, and analyzing dispositions. This article describes a failed attempt to code for five key dispositions (attribution, selfefficacy, persistence, value, and self-regulation) in a longitudinal, mixed methods, multi-institutional study that otherwise successfully coded for other writing transfer factors. We present a “study of a study” that examines our coders’ attempts to identify and code dispositions and describes broader understandings from those findings. Our findings suggest that each disposition presents a distinct challenge for coding and that dispositions, as a group, involve not only conceptual complexity but also cultural, psychological, and temporal complexity. For example, academic literacy learning and dispositions intersect with systems of socio-economic, political, and cultural inequity and exploitation; this entwining presents substantial problems for coders. Methodological considerations for understanding the complexity of codes, effectively and accurately coding for dispositions, considering the four complexities, and understanding the interplay between the individual and the social are explored. We describe how concepts from literacy studies scholarship may help shape writing transfer scholarship concerning dispositions and transfer research more broadly. I. Introduction The question of what mechanisms facilitate writing development and students’ ability to apply, adapt, remix, or otherwise transfer writing skills, experiences, and knowledge is critical. The role of student dispositions requires further study, as previous scholarship suggests that dispositions strongly influence learning and subsequent transfer (Driscoll and Wells; Wardle; Slomp) . Despite dispositions’ potential importance, writing studies scholars have not yet developed valid, reliable methods for measuring them and their role in writing development, due to their complexity, measurement challenges, and newness as an inquiry area. As our study reveals, the nature of this complexity raises methodological challenges that require careful integration of key theoretical constructs into a reflective methodological approach that highlights the potential and limitations of empirical research on dispositions’ role in writing development. Our results suggest that dispositions offer not only conceptual complexity, but cultural, psychological, and temporal complexity as well, complexities that fundamentally alter how we define, measure, code, and ultimately understand dispositions. This article is based in our repeated attempts—and failures—over two years to code and identify dispositions in a large, multi-institutional, longitudinal dataset. These repeated failures led us “down the rabbit hole” in conducting a systematic study of what went wrong so we could better understand methodological challenges and develop strategies for studying dispositions. Following others reporting on “failed studies”(Conard-Salvo and Spartz; Kjesrud and Wislocki), we recognize that such failure supports deep learning and replicable, aggregable, data-supported research (Haswell) . We resist the narrative that good research is always successful research—rather, good research informs future studies, and in this regard, our article has much to contribute. Therefore, we address the following questions (three informed by our data, one addressed in our discussion): 1. Can we operationalize sufficie

FAQs

What are the study’s main goals regarding writing-related dispositions?

The study aims to develop sufficiently precise definitions and coding strategies for dispositions so researchers can identify and code them accurately and consistently, and to learn what coder error and accuracy patterns reveal.

Which dispositions were targeted for coding in the longitudinal, multi-institutional study?

The article focuses on coding attribution, self-efficacy, persistence, value, and self-regulation as key writing-related dispositions.

Why does the article describe coding dispositions as particularly challenging?

Each disposition presents distinct coding difficulty, and dispositions as a group involve not only conceptual complexity but also cultural, psychological, and temporal complexity that complicate how dispositions are defined, measured, and coded.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by jay