Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language & Linguistics 9 (2007) 57-82

The Factors Accounting for the Egyptian EFL University Students Negative Writing Affect Muhammad Abdel Latif 1

Abstract This study attempts to identify the factors that account for the Egyptian English majors negative writing affect, i.e. their high English writing apprehension and low English writing self-efficacy. The subjects were administered two scales measuring their writing apprehension and writing self-efficacy, then those students with scores falling into the extremes of the two scales were interviewed about their writing experience and background. To supplement the qualitative data obtained from the interviews, the subjects scores on three linguistic tests used for measuring their English grammar and vocabulary knowledge were compared to their scores on the two scales. Analysing both types of data showed that there are six causes of the subjects high English writing apprehension and four causes of their low English writing self-efficacy. Based on the results reached, the study presents some recommendations for writing instruction and suggestions for further research.

1 Introduction

Affective factors cannot be ignored when talking about writing because they may be a source of writing difficulties. Writers affect falls within some other terms such as writers perceptions and beliefs and writers personal knowledge. Daly (1985: 65-73) classifies writers perceptions and beliefs into two main categories: the first category includes the dispositional perceptions and beliefs which endure in a relatively consistent fashion over time and across situations such as beliefs held about the writing process and about ones writing, and affective dispositions and attitudes towards writing; and the second category includes the situational perceptions and feelings which are temporary and closely tied to a particular situation or task such as perceptions of the writing contexts and responses to the writing situations. The present study has explored the factors that shape two affective constructs falling into the first category: writing apprehension and writing self-efficacy. Results of this study may help writing teachers become aware of these factors and address

Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex, UK; email: mmmabd@essex.ac.uk

57

them in their classrooms so as to enable their students to avoid their potential detrimental effects.

2 Background of the Problem2

Writing apprehension may be the most frequently investigated aspect of writers affect. This construct was first introduced by Daly and Miller (1975) and since that time it has been the focus of considerable research particularly in L1 writing. Writing apprehension mirrors the individuals general tendency to avoid or approach writing situations (Daly & Shamo, 1978: 120). Though the term writing apprehension has been used interchangeably in the literature with writing anxiety, it may be argued that the two terms are different. While writing apprehension is a dispositional aspect of writers affect, writing anxiety seems to be a situational one. Thus, writing anxiety can be used to refer to the feelings of uneasiness writers experience while performing the task. In light of this, the present study views writing apprehension as the individuals general predisposition that determines how s/he responds to the situation in or through which s/he may be involved in performing writing tasks or in which her/his writing may be evaluated.

One of the other motivational constructs of writing is self-efficacy which has received less and later attention than writing apprehension. According to Bandura (1997), the beliefs the individual holds about her/his learning capabilities can determine what s/he does with the knowledge and skills s/he has. Self-efficacy beliefs influence ones behaviour by determining her/his achievement goals, how much effort s/he will devote to performing the task, the perseverance s/he exerts when facing difficulties and challenges, and her/his thought patterns and emotional responses (Pajeres & Johnson, 1994: 314). Writing selfefficacy has been viewed as the individuals evaluation of her/his writing skills (McCarthy et al., 1985), or the writers confidence in her/his ability to successfully perform writing tasks at a given level (Shell et al., 1989: 91). In light of these definitions and the

One of the anonymous reviewers suggested shortening this section; however the author felt that this would be disadvantageous to the article.

58

instrument used in the study to measure the construct, the researcher defines the writing self-efficacy as the individuals evaluation of her/his writing ability as a whole and of her/his specific writing skills.

Interest in writers affect began in the mid-1970s when Daly and Miller (1975) developed their well-known scale for measuring writing apprehension. Since that time, increasing research has been conducted on writers affect. Though the Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test (WAT) was the first systematic attempt to assess writers affect and it has been the most well-known and frequently used instrument for measuring writing apprehension, some questions have been raised regarding its construct validity. For example, Cheng et al.s (1999) principal component analysis of an L2 version of the WAT (SLWAT) has shown that it has three main components: low self-confidence in English writing , i.e. English writing self-efficacy, (12 items), aversiveness to writing in English (7 items), and writing evaluation apprehension (6 items). These findings are also supported by the earlier observation that Richmond and Dickson-Markman (1985: 295) made about the possibility of using the WAT as a measure of writing self-confidence rather than writing apprehension, and by the call made by Gungle and Taylor (1989), who used the SLWAT, for developing a more accurate measure of writing apprehension. It is worth mentioning that the vast majority of the studies referred to below have used the WAT or the SLWAT to measure writing apprehension. Thus, it may be concluded that the writing self-efficacy construct was included in all of those studies due to their use of either instrument.

Previous studies on writing apprehension and writing self-efficacy have shown that they correlate with some aspects of the L1 and L2/FL writing process and product. At the process level, research has revealed that high apprehensive writers pause more while composing (Hayes, 1981) and are less concerned with planning the overall structure of their essays (Selfe, 1984) than the low apprehensive ones. It has also been argued that low selfefficacy hinders writers effective implementation of the metacognitive strategies (Cava, 1999). At the product level, research has revealed that writing apprehension correlates negatively with some aspects of students written texts such as the total number of t-units (Hadaway, 1988) and the language-related dimensions (i.e. vocabulary and language use)

59

(Duad et al., 2005), and with writing achievement and competence (Cheng, 2002; Hassan, 2001). Likewise, research has reported consistent findings about the positive relationship of writing self-efficacy with the quality of students texts (Pajares, 2003: 144). These results suggest that the two constructs seem to exert influence on students writing performance, given that the language proficiency variable was controlled in some of these studies. Accordingly, it is important to explore the factors that account for higher levels of writing apprehension and lower levels of writing-self efficacy so as to help students avoid their potential negative effects.

Research on L1 Writing apprehension has shown that it may be developed and maintained as a result of lack of appropriate writing skills, writers poor self-confidence level, the nature of writing assignments (Daly, 1979), negative feedback received from the others (Daly & Wilson, 1983: 329) and history of poor writing performance (Wittman, 1992). L1 writing research has also indicated that the writer develops judgements of his writing ability and skills depending on some factors such as prior assessment and past writing success (Washholz & Etheridge, 1995). L2/FL writing studies, which have supported some of these findings, reported some other different factors. These few studies have found that L2/FL writing apprehension correlates with foreign language classroom anxiety (Cheng, 2002) and speaking anxiety (Cheng, 2002), perceived writing self-efficacy (Cheng, 2002; RankinBrown, 2006), language proficiency self-esteem (Hassan, 2001), writing expertise (Cornwell & McKay, 1999), free reading activities, i.e. the students who read more had less writing apprehension (Lee, 2005), and L1 writing apprehension (Hadaway, 1988).

Regarding the methodology and the context of the above few L2/FL studies, the researcher has observed the following: a) all the studies have used the WAT or SLWAT for measuring the writing apprehension of their subjects; b) while two of these studies (Hadaway, 1988; Rankin-Brown; 2006) reported using the interview to identify the factors shaping writing affect, the other studies depended mainly on the closed self-reported instruments, i.e scales or questionnaire; c) while some studies (e.g. Hadaway, 1988; Rankin-Brown, 2006) reported involving subjects of varied L1 backgrounds, other studies reported involving subjects of the same L1; the L1s of those homogenous samples which participated in these

60

studies were Arabic, Chinese, Japanese and Malay; d) English was the target L2/FL in all these studies; and e) Hassans (2001) study is the only one that was conducted in the Egyptian EFL context. The findings reported by these studies need to be documented by further research that could make use of both quantitative and qualitative data in identifying the factors accounting for L2/FL writers affect and that could use, congruent with Gungle and Taylors (1989) call, a more accurate measure of writing apprehension. In addition to this, there is a need for investigating these factors in specific L2/FL contexts such as that of the Arabic EFL learners one.

This study has attempted to fill in this gap by investigating the target issue in the Egyptian EFL context, by using both quantitative and qualitative data, and by using separate scales for measuring English writing apprehension and writing self-efficacy. Accordingly, the present study has addressed the following question: what are the factors that account for the Egyptian EFL university students negative English writing affect, i.e. cause their high English writing apprehension and low English writing self-efficacy levels? Answering this question may help writing teachers become aware of these factors and, in turn, address them so as to enhance their student writers positive affect.

3 The Study

3.1 Participants of the Study

The participants in this study were from the fourth year English Department students at the Faculty of Education, Al-Azhar University in Egypt. They can be described as prospective teachers or student teachers who were receiving pre-service English language teacher education at the time of conducting the study. They were all Egyptian male students whose native language is Arabic. They have received English writing instruction at the University in the lecture mode. In each academic year, they take an English essay writing module in either the autumn or winter term. The total number of the subjects who took part in the study was 67 students, all the 67 students completed the instruments referred to in 3.2.1,

61

3.2.2 but only 57 of them completed all the instruments referred to in 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 while the students who were chosen for the interview (3.2.3) were 31 in number.

3.2 Instruments of the Study

The study used the following instruments:

3.2.1 The English Writing Apprehension Scale (EWAS)

A 12-item scale was used for measuring the subjects writing apprehension. The items of this scale, all of which are consistent with the adopted definition of writing apprehension, were selected and adapted from three different measures: Gungle and Taylors (1989) ESL version of the Daly-Miller WAT, Chengs (2004) Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) (avoidance behaviour subscale) and Graham et al.s (1993) Attitudes Toward Writing Scale. A five-point Likert-type scale, (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) uncertain, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree, was adopted for the synthesized scale. Scores on the scale may range from 12 (the minimal score) to 60 (the maximal score). Because items 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are negatively worded, they were reverse scored. The final administration of the EWAS showed that it had an Alpha Cronbach reliability coefficient of 0.852.

3.2.2 The English Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (EWSS)

A two-part 18-item scale was used for measuring the subjects English writing self-efficacy. Part one of the scale has 8 items and measures students confidence in and judgement of their general writing ability. The items of this part were taken from Gungle and Taylors (1989) ESL version of the Daly-Miller WAT, and Graham et al.s (1993) Writing SelfEfficacy Scale. Part two of the scale has 10 items that measure the students confidence in having specific writing skills (mechanical, usage, grammar, and composition skills). Eight items of part two of the scale were adopted from Shell et al.s (1989) Writing Self-efficacy Scale (writing component skill subscale), one item was taken from Pajares and Valiantes 62

(1999) Writing Skills Self-efficacy Scale, and another item was developed by the researcher. A five-point Likert-type scale, (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) uncertain, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree, was used in part one, while a 1-5 (1 = very unconfident, 5 = very confident) scale was adopted for the second part. Scores on the scale may range from 18 (the minimal score) to 90 (the maximal score). Because items 1, 3, 4, and 7 in part one of the scale are negatively worded, they were reverse scored. The final administration of the EWSS showed that its two parts as a whole had an Alpha Cronbach reliability coefficient of 0.868. The validity of both of the EWAS and the EWSS was verified by the researchers supervisor and the scales were piloted at the University of Essex and the Colchester English Study Centre, UK, where they was administered to some Arab students who were attending pre-sessional programmes.

3.2.3 A Semi-Structured Interview

A 12-question semi-structured interview was used to get information about the subjects writing affect and the factors that may influence it. The main questions of the interview did not ask the subjects directly about the causes of having positive or negative writing affect but they focused on the previous English writing instruction the subjects have received, the feedback obtained from the others on their English writing, the degree of their success in English writing, their attitude towards writing and their perceptions of their English writing skills. These questions were developed in light of the purpose of the study and based on reviewing the previous literature.

3.2.4 The Linguistic Tests

The study also used three linguistic tests to examine any correlation between the subjects linguistic knowledge and their English writing affect. The tests used were Allans (1992) Oxford Placement Test 2 (the Grammar Test) to measure the subjects English grammar knowledge, and Laufer and Nations (1999) Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (Version C) and Schmitts (2001) Receptive Vocabulary Levels Test (Version 2) to measure their English vocabulary knowledge. 63

3.3 Procedures of Collecting and Analyzing the Data

Administering the instruments of the study took place in March and April, 2006. The two scales and three linguistic tests were administered to the subjects in two collective sessions. In the first session, 67 subjects were given the EWAS and the EWSS to complete. The two scales were given to the subjects in English and the researcher was there for any questions raised by the subjects about the meaning of any items. The subjects were allowed to take any time completing the two scales; all of them finished completing the scales in less than 30 minutes. Then, they were given the Oxford Placement Test (the Grammar Test) and the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test and they were allowed an hour as a maximal time to complete each test. The 57 subjects who attended the second session were given the Receptive Vocabulary Levels Test and they were allowed an hour to complete it. Responses of the 66 subjects to the two scales were marked and analysed. The results showed that the EWAS had a mean of 32.32 and a standard deviation of 8.480, and that the EWSS had a mean of 55.1 and a standard deviation of 9.86. Adopting a cutting score formula used in a previous study (Hassan, 2001), the subjects with negative writing affect (NWA) and positive writing affect (PWA) were identified as those whose scores on the two scales fell a half standard deviation below and above the mean. Accordingly, two groups were identified: a) subjects with NWA: those whose scores on the EWAS were equal or greater than 37 and on the EWSS were equal or less than 49; and b) subjects with PWA: those whose scores on the EWAS were equal or less 28 than and on the EWSS were equal or greater than 61. It is worth mentioning, however, that of the 31 subjects interviewed, 28 had a score that fell a standard deviation or near it (i.e. less than one point) below and above the mean of the EWAS, 23 subjects had score that fell a standard deviation or near it below and above the mean of the EWSS, and 20 subjects had a score that fell a standard deviation or near it below and above the means of the two scales. Sixteen subjects with NWA and 15 ones with PWA were interviewed individually for 15-20 minutes about their writing experience and background 3 . The interviews were conducted in Arabic but two of the
3

The writing background interview was the third and last part of a whole session in which the subjects thought aloud while writing an argumentative essay in English and then were interviewed about their writing

64

subjects chose to be interviewed in English. Their interviews were then transcribed and analyzed. In addition, the researcher compared the scores of the 67 subjects on the EWAS and EWSS, on the one hand, the scores of the 57 subjects who completed the three linguistic tests to their scores on the two scales, on the other hand, to determine any correlation between the affective constructs and between the two constructs and linguistic knowledge, respectively.

4 Results of the Study

Based on comparing the scores of the 57 subjects on the two scales and the three linguistic tests, and the scores of the whole sample on the two affective scales, and on analyzing the interview protocols, three categories of factors accounting for the target populations English writing negative affect were identified, these were: a) factors accounting for both of high English writing apprehension and low English writing self-efficacy; b) factors accounting for high English writing apprehension only; and c) factors accounting for low English writing self-efficacy only. Identifying these factors was guided by reviewing the findings of the previous related studies.

4.1 Factors Accounting for both of High English Writing Apprehension and Low English Writing Self-Efficacy (Negative English Writing Affect) 4.1.1 Lack of Linguistic Knowledge

The Pearsons product moment correlation was used to determine any correlation between the scores of the subjects on the two scales used for measuring their English writing apprehension and self-efficacy and their scores on the three linguistic tests used for measuring their grammar and vocabulary knowledge.

process. The think-aloud and interview protocol data about the subjects writing process is beyond the scope of this article.

65

Table 1: Pearsons product moment correlation coefficients between the subjects scores on the affective scales and their scores on the linguistic tests Oxford Productive Receptive Placement Vocabulary Vocabulary Test Test Test English Writing Apprehension Scale -.577** -.631** -.582** English Writing Self-efficacy Scale .657** .694** .621** ** p < 0.001

The results of analyzing the subjects scores on the two scales and the three linguistic tests are given in table 1 4. As the table illustrates, both the subjects English writing apprehension and writing self-efficacy correlate significantly with their scores on the three linguistic tests. Some observations can be made about the table above: a) while the subjects scores on the three linguistic tests correlate negatively with their scores on the EWAS, they correlate positively with their scores on the EWSS, i.e. the higher the subjects scores on the three linguistic tests, the lower they are on the EWAS and the higher they are on the EWSS; b) the correlation between the subjects scores on the EWSS and the three linguistic tests (r = +0.657, +0.694, and +0.621 for the Oxford Placement Test, the

Productive Vocabulary Test and the Receptive Vocabulary Test, respectively, p < 0.001, 2-tailed) is higher than the correlation between their scores on the EWAS and the three linguistic tests (r = -0.577, -0.631, and -0.582 for the Oxford Placement Test, the Productive Vocabulary Test and the Receptive Vocabulary Test, respectively; p < 0.001, 2-tailed); c) the correlation between the subjects scores on the two scales and their scores on the Productive Vocabulary Test (r = -0.631 and +0.694 for the EWAS and the EWSS, respectively) is higher than the correlation with their scores on the Oxford Placement Test (r = -0.577 and +0.657 for the EWAS and the EWSS, respectively) and the Receptive Vocabulary Test (r = -0.582 and +0.621 for the EWAS and the EWSS, respectively), this seems to make sense if we take into account the productive nature of the writing skill; and d) the correlation between the two scales and the three linguistic tests can be generally4 described as moderate. In light of these results, it can be argued that the subjects low linguistic knowledge has caused their negative English writing affect and not vice versa, i.e.
4

Although it was suggested by one of the anonymous reviewers that a graph should be included to illustrate the data in the table, it was felt that the graph was not necessary here as correlation coefficients do not usually require graphs.

66

its a cause and not a consequence. This seems to be consistent with the Deficit theory which states that students with low language skill proficiency are more likely to have negative affect, i.e. their negative affect is caused by lack of knowledge and skills (Duad et al., 2005). The discussion about the subjects low language competence self-esteem in the next sub-section may support this view.

4.1.2 Low Foreign Language Competence Self-Esteem

Relevant to the previous factor is the subjects self-beliefs about their English language competence or proficiency. If the subjects performance on the three linguistic tests referred to above can be used as an indicator to identify their actual English linguistic knowledge level, their self-esteem of their English language competence or proficiency, which may or may not be consistent with that actual performance, is another factor that may contribute to their writing affect. The point becomes clearer when we take into consideration that some students may have unrealistic self-perceptions about their foreign language proficiency level which may, in turn, exert some influence on their writing affect. Some excerpts from the interviews of the subjects with NWA may help illustrate this5:

(1) Wael: I dont have confidence in my writing because I know in advance that who reads my writing will comment on my grammar or vocabulary. (2) Fouad: I encounter the problem of how to say Arabic sentences in English and I don't have much vocabulary as well my grammar is so bad I write depending on intuition. (3) Bahaa: When I know that we'll study essay writing in a specific term, I realize that this will be the most difficult subject in that term. I can say this is because of lack of self-confidence, writing essay needs self-confidence because of the language. The interviews also showed that of the 16 subjects with NWA, 8 rated vocabulary as the main writing skill they need to improve, 6 reported grammar, 1 mentioned spelling, and another rated organizing the essay. This fits the higher correlation, reported in the above

All the names given to the subjects in this article are pseudonymous.

67

sub-section, of writing affect with vocabulary knowledge than with grammar knowledge. On the other hand, 7 of the 15 subjects with PWA interviewed reported improving their writing skills at the ideational or organizational levels, i.e. generating the ideas or organizing the essay, as their primary need, 4 mentioned grammar or specific grammatical skills, 3 reported vocabulary, and 1 rated writing different genres. Consequently, the number of the subjects who reported improving the language-related writing skills as their main need is more in the group of the interviewees with NWA (n = 15 out of 16) than in the group of the interviewees with PWA (n = 7 out of 15). It can be argued, then, that this is due to the beliefs held by the students with NWA about their English competence; thus these beliefs may have exerted influence on their English writing affect.

4.1.3 Poor History of Writing Achievement and Perceived Writing Performance Improvement The subjects writing affect appears to have been influenced by their English writing achievement as well. What is meant by the achievement here is the grades the subjects reported they have obtained on the final English essay exams in their previous university academic years. When comparing the grades reported by both of the subjects with NWA and those with PWA (see table 2), it turned out that the interviewees with PWA got higher grades than those with NWA on the final English essay exams they have sat for in their previous academic years. For example, while three subjects with PWA reported getting Distinction on one or two of their previous final English essay exams, none of the subjects with NWA reported obtaining that grade. Moreover, two of the subjects with NWA reported failing one of these final exams, but none of the students with PWA reported having such a frustrating experience. Though some interviewees could not remember some of or all their grades on their previous essay exams, the researcher have observed that while two groups were almost similar in their the number of the Good grades reported (n = 16 and 13 for the students with NWA and students with PWA, respectively), the students with NWA outnumbered those with PWA in the Pass grades (n= 19 and 6 for the students with NWA and students with PWA, respectively) but the latter had more Very Good grades (n = 5 and 12 for the students with NWA and students with PWA, respectively). 68

Table 2: the subjects reported English essay exam grades in their previous three university years No of No of subjects subjects reported No of Pass No of Good No of Very reported getting grades grades Good grades failing the Distinction reported reported reported essay exams grades Subjects 2 0 19 16 5 with NWA Subjects 0 3 6 13 12 with PWA Also, the interview protocols revealed that the students with NWA differed from their peers with PWA in their perceptions about how their writing has been improved during their university study. While all the students with PWA believed that their writing performance has improved or has improved greatly, some of the students with NWA reported little improvement in their writing performance while some others said they didnt feel any improvement in it. It has been also be observed that some of those students with NWA reported some improvement in their writing performance have experienced a comparison deficiency, i. e. the writers continuous belief that his writing is deficient when compared to what he wants it to be (Daly, 1985: 63). The following excerpts from the interviews of two subjects with NWA show this:

(4) Hamzah: If I compare myself with them (to his peers), I can say that I'm good ... But if I compare my level to what it is supposed to be, it is not good. (5) Bahaa: Compared to my peers I feel I'm good, but compared to other students at other universities I know that my level is not good at all. On the contrary, none of the students with PWA reported experiencing this comparison deficiency. The following is an example of how a student with PWA describes the way his writing has improved at both the product and process levels:

(6) Alaa: Yes, my present writing level has differed greatly from my first year level, my punctuation has become better, I knew how to develop my essay and write good paragraphs, my vocabulary and grammar are more accurate now, and unlike my first

69

year I knew what to write in advance because I plan my essay and write more than a draft of it. Based on the above, it can be argued that both poor writing achievement and poor perceived writing performance improvement seem to have caused the subjects high writing apprehension as a result of the frustrating experiences they had and also to have influenced their perceived low level of writing self-efficacy due to the writing history they take into account when evaluating their writing ability and skills.

4.2 Other Factors Accounting for High English Writing Apprehension

4.2.1 Low English Writing Self-Efficacy:

Using the Pearsons product moment correlation, the 67 subjects scores on the EWAS and the EWSS were analysed to examine any correlation between the two constructs. The analysis shows that there is a negative strong correlation between the two constructs (r = 0.764, p < 0.001, 2-tailed), a stronger correlation than any of those reported above in 4.1.1. This indicates that the more apprehensive the student writers are, the lower self-efficacy level they have about their English writing and vice versa. But the question here is: which construct leads to the other, i.e. does the lower level of English writing self-efficacy cause a higher level of writing apprehension or does the lower level of writing self-efficacy result from a higher level of writing apprehension? Given that the subjects writing self-efficacy correlates higher than writing apprehension with their linguistic knowledge and that the subjects language competence self-esteem was found to have contributed to the different levels of both constructs (subsections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2), it seems then that the affirmative answer to the former question is more likely to be true. It may be concluded that when students do not have high self-confidence in their writing ability, they avoid any situation in which they may be required to write or their writing may be tested due to the detrimental experience they expect to have.

70

4.2.2 Instructional Practices of English Writing

The kind of essay writing instruction the subjects have received seems to be a main cause of writing apprehension for some of them. Thirteen of the 16 interviewees with high English writing apprehension reported their dissatisfaction with the English writing instruction they have received. More specifically, these subjects criticized three main aspects of the English writing instruction they have received, these are:

- Teachers focus on teaching the theoretical concepts of writing and negligence of the practical aspects of writing instruction and of training them in using a variety of writing strategies:

(7) Bahaa: We what have studied is theoretical concepts about essay writing When I know that we'll study essay writing in a specific term I really feel perplexed. (8) Hytham: In the previous years, I didn't like attending the essay lectures because I didn't feel they are useful. - Lack of teachers feedback on the essays they write:

(9) Ahmad: I have been taught how to write English essays theoretically not practically; the teachers have explained to us how to write an introduction and a conclusion to the essay but havent done anything more than this like giving us feedback on the essays we have submitted to them. So Im not sure of what I write: is it good or bad, right or wrong? - Teachers overuse of criticism when commenting on the essays presented in the lectures6:

(10) Tarek: Even if we have a teacher who motivates us to write, we find him criticizing us inappropriately before our peers. When I find him doing this, I hate writing essays.
6

Though this detrimental aspect of English writing instructional practices appears to be related to sub-section 4.2.3 where the subjects fear of criticism is discussed in detail, it is worth pointing out that the two aspects are different. While overuse of criticism is an external or teacher-related variable that causes writing apprehension, the subjects fear of their teachers or/and peers criticism or evaluation discussed in 4.2.3 is an internal or learner-related variable that seems to stem from their communication apprehension rather than their teachers overuse of criticism.

71

It is worth mentioning here that 4 of the low apprehensive writers reported their dissatisfaction with some of the instructional practices as well, but the degree of their dissatisfaction seems to be less than that of the high apprehensive ones. Moreover, some low apprehensive writers showed some aspects of autonomous learning when they reported their dependence on other sources other than the university writing instruction in developing their writing skills, an example of this:

(11) Farid: Actually, the kind of writing instruction we receive here is theoretical, we dont practise writing with the teachers Practising essay writing depends on me not the teacher When I began learning how to write English essays, I realized that it is not merely writing in itself but it needs reading and thats what Ive been doing. Since joining the faculty, I have kept in my mind that I need to develop my language, so I tried to read more, translate more and write more.

4.2.3 Fear of Criticism

Another factor that was found to have contributed to the subjects high writing apprehension is their worry about being criticized by their teachers, on the one hand, and by their peers on the other. The interview protocols revealed that the students with high writing apprehension have experienced fear of both kinds of criticism. The following examples of the experiences reported by some high apprehensive writers illustrate this:

(12) Hossam: Sometimes I give my essays to my peers but they criticize me; this is one of the reasons that makes me dislike writing I mean criticism to my writing. (13) Naser: I feel afraid of or I don't like writing thats because I find difficulty in generating ideas and I don't like anyone to see what I have written because I don't like to be in a testing or evaluation situation I write English essays only if the teacher assigns us a topic, but dont submit it to the teacher Even if I write my ideas I keep in mind not to show it to anyone because of criticism. (14) Bahaa: I don't like to show my essays to anyone else I avoid doing this. I'm worried of being criticized for not writing in the good way I'm supposed to write in. On the other hand, almost none of the low apprehensive writers reported their fear of peers criticism. However, two students of them reported their fear of their teachers rather than

72

peers criticism. It is worth mentioning also that three of the high apprehensive writers interviewed reported that they have experienced speaking apprehension due to such fear of criticism as well:

(15) Hossam: I'm good at listening. I speak better than I write but even in speaking sometimes I feel too shy to talk because of being afraid of making mistakes. (16) Ahmad: No, I dont like writing in English This is the case also in English conversation classes; once the conversation teacher asked us to prepare for a certain topic in a conversation class and I did, but I wasnt able to participate because of my worry of being criticized. As the above interview excerpts show, it seems both of writing apprehension and speaking apprehension are two related constructs that might have resulted from those students fear of criticism to the mistakes they may make. It can be argued, therefore, that the subjects with high writing apprehension have experienced communication apprehension due to having such fear of criticism.

4.3 Other Factors Accounting for Low English Writing Self-Efficacy

4.3.1 Others Evaluation of the Students Writing

In addition to the three factors mentioned in section 4.1 that may have contributed to the subjects English writing low self-efficacy level, the subjects with low self-efficacy seem to have judged their own writing ability in light of the writing evaluation they receive from others. The kind of evaluation discussed here is different from the one discussed in 4.1.3 (writing achievement) in being a formative feedback given formally or informally to the student by teachers, peers or others, while the latter is a formal summative evaluation given to the student by the university based on his performance on the final essay exam. This evaluation is also different from fear of criticism (4.2.3) in that it does not necessarily include any kind of criticism that makes students worried or apprehensive. The interviews have shown that some of the subjects have received comments on English writing performance from their peers or their teachers or from others from outside the University

73

with more writing expertise than them. While most of the subjects with high writing selfefficacy have reported that they sought feedback on their writing mainly from their peers or/and their university teachers, most of the subjects with low self-efficacy were found to have sought feedback, or help, primarily from others who dont belong to the University, such as teachers of English in their neighbourhoods, and/or their peers. Regarding how positive or negative the comments the two categories of the subjects received from the feedback source were, the interviews indicated that the subjects with high English writing self-efficacy have received more positive feedback on their writing performance than their peers with low self-efficacy. The following interview excerpts for two of the subjects with low writing self-efficacy show this:

(17) Ahmad: I dont ask my peers to read my essays. However, Im used to asking a teacher of English in my village to read the English essays I write because I feel his evaluation is helpful He usually advises me to pay more attention to the grammar and to focus on connecting my ideas because Im not good at this. Sometimes I move to some point in my essay without talking completely about the previous one. (18) Hossam: Sometimes I show my essays to my peers but they criticize me In most cases they criticize my vocabulary. On the other hand, the following excerpts from the interviews of two subjects of high writing self-efficacy show the positive feedback they have received:

(19) Mohsen: I usually show my essays to my friends, they comment on them positively. I think they like them. (20) Maher: Yes, I have a colleague in the hostel with whom I exchange reading and evaluating each others essays. Generally he likes my writing. Sometimes I present my essays in the lectures; my teachers may criticize the expressions I use. In general, they say my writing is good.

5 Discussion of the Results

The data analysis has revealed that the factors accounting for the differences in the writing apprehension and writing self-efficacy levels of the subjects can be classified into three

74

categories: a) three factors accounting for both constructs: linguistic knowledge, perceived linguistic knowledge or language competence, and the history of writing achievement and perceived writing performance improvement; b) three factors accounting for English

writing apprehension only: English writing self-efficacy, instructional practices of English writing and fear of criticism; and c) a factor accounting English writing self-efficacy only: others evaluation of the students writing. It is worth mentioning that three subjects reported two other factors that might have caused their high writing apprehension. The first one of these two factors is L1 writing apprehension. Of the five students who talked about their L1 writing experience in the interviews, only one reported his apprehension about his Arabic writing while the other four were found to have a very positive attitude to it. This does not seem to be compatible with Hadaways (1988) conclusion that L1 and L2 writing perceptions may be strongly related. The second factor was a personal one, i.e. students laziness or lack of motivation. Only two high apprehensive interviewees reported their avoidance of writing essays because of being lazy.

Given that the vast majority of the previous studies on writing apprehension have used the multi-dimensional Dally-Miller (1975) WAT that has been viewed by many researchers, e.g Dickson-Markman (1985) and Cheng et al.s (1999), to measure the two constructs investigated in the present study, it can be concluded that the results reached by this study about the factors that have contributed to differences in the subjects English writing apprehension and writing self-efficacy levels support those reached by some other previous L1 and L2 writing studies. They seem to be congruent with those of Cheng (2002) and Rankin-Brown (2006) about the role of perceived English writing proficiency, English writing achievement and classroom anxiety in accounting for the variance in EFL writing apprehension. The results shown by the present study about the correlation between the subjects English writing apprehension and writing self-efficacy and their linguistic knowledge and language competence self-esteem may be consistent with Duad et al.s (2005) view that the lack of language-related writing skills causes writing apprehension and vice-versa. Moreover, the results reached about how writing apprehension and/or writing self-efficacy can be shaped by writers previous history of writing performance and assessment are consistent with those of some L1 writing studies (e.g. Daly & Wilson, 1983;

75

Wittman, 1992; Washholz & Etheridge, 1995). What distinguishes the results of the present study from those of the previous ones is that they have highlighted two important factors that seem to account more than others for both constructs, i.e. linguistic knowledge and writing instructional practices. Generally speaking, the results of the present study support Chengs (2002: 653) view that that there seems to be also a much stronger relationship between different types of affective experiences one has across different modes of communication within one language than across different languages.

The results of the present study emphasize the need for addressing the factors accounting for negative writers affect. The subjects dissatisfaction with the lecture teaching mode calls for replacing it with the normal classroom mode based on which the target population students can be divided into small groups so as to have some level of teacher and peer interaction. To help these students develop a more positive writing affect, the teachers need to use an integrated mode of the process and product approaches to teaching writing. While the former will help the students overcome the problem of communication apprehension and become more motivated in their writing via using teacher-student and student-student interactions, the latter could enhance their language skills. The teachers can also help the students develop their linguistic knowledge by using reading-to-write tasks and having them use English rather than Arabic when discussing or talking about their writing. When responding to students writing, teachers feedback should be constructive, so they need to be cautions about the amount of praise and criticism given and about the timing, early/final drafts or beginning/end of the course, and focus, content/form, of their comments. When criticising students writing, they could mitigate their criticism by using strategies such as paired act pattern (combining criticism with praise or suggestions or both), hedges, personal attribution (commenting on the text as an ordinary reader rather than as an expert), and interrogative syntax (Hyland & Hyland, 2001). Important also is training students in how to respond to their peers writing appropriately. In addition, writers with low self-efficacy need to be provided with self-regulation training. Finally, providing those students with a computer-based teaching of writing may foster the writing classroom supportive environment that could exert a positive influence on their writing affect.

76

6 Conclusion

The results of the present study emphasize the integrative nature of the L2/FL writing skill. The students with low English linguistic knowledge were found to have higher writing apprehension and lower writing self-efficacy due to their low language ability self-esteem, communication apprehension and poor writing achievement history. The instructional practices those students have been exposed to should not be ignored as well. Teachers need to help those students overcome their negative English writing affect by adopting a comprehensive approach to teaching writing that could meet their strategic, linguistic and psychological needs.

Further research is needed to document those results reached by the present study and other previous ones on the factors that may cause students to have NWA and to investigate how dominant these factors are in different L2/FL writing contexts. More specifically, such further research needs to explore some of the issues on which previous studies reported inconsistent results such as gender differences in writing affect and the relationship between both of L2/FL and L1 writing affect. Needed also is research that examines how students with different levels of writing affect differ in their writing process and product, and what relative influence writing affect exerts on writing performance when compared to other explanatory variables such as language proficiency . Finally, intervention techniques and approaches proposed for helping student writers to have more positive writing affect need to be tested to determine their effectiveness. The findings of these future studies, along with those of previous ones, will help writing teachers and writing instruction theorists have a more comprehensive picture of how writing affect is shaped and how it influences students writing process, approaches and texts.

Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Mr Phil Scholfield for his valuable comments on the article and for helping me in verifying the psychometric characteristics of the instruments of my study.

77

References Allan, D. (1992) Oxford Placement Test 2 (the Grammar Test). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: the Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman. Cava, M.T. (1999) Second Language Learner Strategies and the Unsuccessful Second Language Writer. DAI-A, 60/5A, 1530. Cheng, Y.-S. (2002) Factors Associated With Foreign Language Writing Anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 647656. Cheng, Y.-S. (2004) A Measure of Second Language Writing Anxiety: Scale Development and Preliminary Validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13/4, 313-335. Cheng, Y.-S.; Horwitz, E. K. and Schallert, D. (1999) Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49, 417446. Cornwell, S. and McKay, T. (1999) Measuring Writing Apprehension in Japan. ERIC Document, ED433712. Daly, J. A. (1979) Teacher Explanations for Writing Apprehension. Unpublished Manuscript. Daly, J. A. (1985) Writing apprehension. In M. Rose (Ed.) When a Writer Cant Write: Studies in Writers Block and Other Composing-Process Problems. London, New York, the Guilford Press, 43-82. Daly, J. A. and Miller, M. D. (1975) The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 242-249. Daly, J. A. and Shamo, W. (1978). Academic Decisions as a Function of Writing Apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 12 (2): 119-26. Daly, J. A. and Wilson, D. A. (1983) Writing Apprehension, Self-Esteem, and Personality. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 327341. Daud, N. S. M.; Daud, N. M. and Abu Kassim, N. L. (2005) Second Language writing Anxiety: Cause or Effect. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research (MELTA). Graham, S., Schwartz, S., and MacArthur, C. (1993) Learning Disabled And Normally Achieving Students Knowledge of Writing And The Composing Process, Attitude toward Writing, And Self-Efficacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237-249.

78

Gungle, B. W. and Taylor, V. (1989) Writing apprehension and second language writers. In D. M. Johnson and D. H. Roen (Eds.) Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students. New York: Longman, Inc., 235-248. Hadaway, N. L. (1987) Writing Apprehension among Second Language Learners. DAI-A, 49/4: 712. Hassan, B. A. (2001) The Relationship of Writing Apprehension and Self-Esteem to the Writing Quality and Quantity of ESL University Students. ERIC Document, ED451671. Hayes, C. G. (1981) Exploring Apprehension: Composing Processes of Apprehensive and Non-apprehensive Intermediate Freshman Writers. ERIC Document, ED210678. Hyland, F., and Hyland, K. (2001) Sugaring the Pill: Praise and Criticism in Written Feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212. Laufer, P. and Nation. B. (1999) A Vocabulary-size Test of Controlled Productive Ability. Language Testing, 16/1, 3351. Lee, S. (2005) Facilitating and Inhibiting Factors in English as a Foreign Language Writing Performance: A Model Testing With Structural Equation Modeling. Language Learning, 55/2: 335-374. McCarthy, P.; Meier, S. and Rinderer, R. (1985) Self-efficacy and Writing: A Different View of Self-Evaluation. College Composition and Communication, 36, 465-471. Pajares, F. (2003) Self-Efficacy Beliefs, Motivation, and Achievement in Writing: a Review of the Literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158. Pajares, F. and Johnson, M. J. (1994) Confidence and Competence in Writing: The Role of Writing Self-Efficacy, Outcome Expectance, and Apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 313331. Pajares, F. and Valiante, G (1999) Grade Level and Gender Differences inthe Writing Selfbeliefs of Middle School Students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 390-405. Rankin-Brown, M.S. (2006) Addressing Writing Apprehension in Adult English Language Learners. Proceedings of CATESOL State Conference. Schmitt, N.; Schmitt, D. and Clapham, C. (2001) Developing and Exploring the Behaviour of Two New Versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18/1, 5588. Selfe, C., L. (1984) The Predrafting Processes of Four High- and Four Low-Apprehensive Writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 18/1: 45-64.

79

Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., and Bruning, R. H. (1989) Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy Mechanisms in Reading and Writing Achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 91100. Washholz, P. B. and Etheridge C. P. (1995) Speaking for Themselves: Writing SelfEfficacy Beliefs of High and Low Apprehensive Writers. ERIC Document, ED403563. Wittman, E. M. (1992) Situational Factors Influencing Writing Apprehension In The Community College Composition Classroom. DAI-A 52, 12: 4250.

Appendix 1: The English Writing Apprehension Scale Directions: Below are some statements about your writing in English. There are no right or wrong answers to these statements. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by ticking whether you (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) are uncertain, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree with the statement. While some of the statements may seem repetitious, just take your time and try to be as honest as possible.

Uncertain

Statement

1. I usually do my best to avoid writing English essays. 2. I am afraid of writing essays in English when I know they will be evaluated. 3. Whenever possible, I would use English to write essays. 4. I usually seek every possible chance to write English essays outside of class. 5. I like writing in English. 6. I have no fear of my English writing being evaluated. 7. I do not like English writing classes. 8. I like discussing my English writing with others. 9. I would rather read than write in English. 10. I usually do my best to avoid situations in which I have to write in English. 11. I do not like my English essays to be evaluated. 12. Unless I have no choice, I would not use English to write essays.

80

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Appendix 2: The English Writing Self-Efficacy Scale Part one Directions: Below are some statements about your English writing. There are no right or wrong answers to these statements. Please indicate the degree to which each statement applies to you by ticking whether you (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) are uncertain, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree with the statement. Try to be as honest as possible.

Uncertain

Disagree

Statement

1. I am not good at writing in English. 2. It is easy for me to write good essays in English. 3. When I hand in an English essay I know I am going to do poorly. 4. I expect to do poorly in English writing classes even before I enter them. 5. I feel confident in my ability to clearly express my ideas when writing in English. 6. People seem to like what I write in English. 7. I do not think I write in English as well as my classmates. 8. When my class is asked to write an essay, mine is one of the best.

Strongly Disagree 81

Strongly Agree

Agree

Part two On a scale from 1 (very unconfident) to 5 (very confident), how confident are you that you can perform each of the following English writing skills? 1 2 3 4 5 Very Unconfident Neither Confident Very Unconfident Confident nor Confident Unconfident Neither Confident nor Unconfident

Very Unconfident

Unconfident

Skill

1. Correctly spell all the words in a one page essay. 2. Correctly punctuate a one page essay. 3. Correctly use parts of speech (i.e. nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.). 4. Write simple sentences with proper punctuation and grammatical structure. 5. Correctly use plurals, verb tenses, prefixes, and suffixes. 6. Write an essay with appropriate vocabulary. 7. Write compound and complex sentences with proper punctuation and grammatical structure. 8. Write a strong paragraph that has a good topic sentence or main idea. 9. Organize sentences into a paragraph so as to clearly express theme. 10. Write an essay with a good overall organization (i. e. ideas in order, effective transition, etc.).

82

Confident

Very Confident