Confidence and Competence in Writing

Confidence and Competence in Writing: The Role of Self-Efficacy, Outcome Expectancy, andApprehensionAuthor(s): Frank Pajares and Margaret J. JohnsonSource: Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Oct., 1994), pp. 313-331Published by: National Council of Teachers of EnglishStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171341 .Accessed: 31/08/2014 10:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toResearch in the Teaching of English.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.220.71.24 on Sun, 31 Aug 2014 10:37:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Confidence and Competence in Writing: The Role of Self -Efficacy,

Outcome Expectancy, and Apprehension

Frank Pajares Emory University

Margaret J. Johnson Texas Tech University

This study investigated the relationships among self-confidence about writing, expected outcomes, writing apprehension, general self-confidence, and writing performance in 30 undergraduate preservice teachers over one semester. Results supported social cognitive theory and prior findings reporting a relationship between confidence in one's writing abilities and subsequent writing performance. A regression model consisting of the variables noted above and a pre-performance measure accounted for 68% of the variance in writing performance. Students' beliefs about their own composition skills and the pre-performance measure were the only significant predictors. Writing apprehension was negatively correlated with writing self-confidence but was not predictive of writing performance. Gen- eral self-confidence was correlated with writing self-confidence, expected outcomes, apprehension, and performance but was not predictive of writing performance in the regression model. Results and implications are discussed, especially as they relate to the need for context-specific assessments of confidence in one's own capabilities and to pedagogical obligations.

In Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Bandura (1986) argued that the beliefs people hold about their abilities and about the outcome of their efforts powerfully influence the ways in which they will behave. Of all beliefs, self -efficacy, "people's judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances" (p. 391), is regarded by Bandura's social cognitive theory as the most influential arbiter in human agency and helps explain why people's behavior may differ markedly even when they have similar knowledge and skills. That is, what people do is often better predicted by their beliefs about their capabilities than by measures of what they are actually capable of accomplishing.

Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 28, No. 3, October 1994 313


314 Research in the Teaching of English, 28, October 1994

Individuals' beliefs about their capabilities differ from the outcomes they expect their actions will have. Bandura (1986) called these outcome expectations, "judgments] of the likely consequence [that] behavior will produce" (p. 391). According to social cognitive theory, these expected outcomes are related to self-efficacy beliefs precisely because these beliefs in part determine the expectations. Thus, individuals who possess strong confidence that they can accomplish a particular enterprise anticipate successful outcomes, whereas those with low confidence are more likely to anticipate failure.

Because the outcomes people expect reflect their own judgments of what they can accomplish, Bandura (1986) argued that, under normal circumstances, expected outcomes are less likely to predict behavior than are judgments of self-confidence. This interplay may well be more complex and deserves further scrutiny, but it is consistent with the view of researchers who argue that the potent affective, evaluative, and episodic nature of beliefs make them a filter through which new phenomena are interpreted (Goodman, 1988; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992, 1993; Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982; Rokeach, 1968).

This is not to argue that efficacy beliefs are the only, or sometimes even the primary, source of human motivation. Bandura (1984) wrote that efficacy is one of many mechanisms that influence behavior and that one "need not fear that perceived self-efficacy will usurp the lion's share of the variance in human conduct" (p. 252). Hence, "although people's perceptions of their efficacy touch, at least to some extent, most everything they do" (p. 251), human behavior is the result of various influences. Individuals develop their self-efficacy beliefs from a variety of sources, including their prior achievements, their comparisons of their achievements with those of others, and the verbal persuasions they receive from other people, particularly those people whose judgments they value and respect. In turn, self-efficacy beliefs do not simply "cause" subsequent behavior. Rather, they affect behavior by influencing the choices people make, the effort they expend, the perseverance they exert in the face of challenges and difficulties, and their thought patterns and emotional reactions. For these reasons, Bandura (1984, 1986) described self-efficacy as a mediating mechanism of personal agency - mediating between the sources of its creation and its subsequent effects.

Theoretical Framework

Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Writing Performance Although researchers agree that beliefs in one's academic capabilities are related to and predict academic performance (see Multon, Brown, & Lent,


Writing Efficacy 315

1991, for meta-analysis), few have explored the relationships of these beliefs to writing. Those who have generally agree that the two variables are related. Shell, Murphy, and Bruning (1989), for example, constructed instruments for assessing writing self-efficacy and outcome expectations in order to study the relationship among beliefs about one's writing capabilities, expected outcomes for writing, and writing performance. The self-efficacy instrument consisted of two scales (see Appendix). The first attempted to assess students' confidence in their ability to successfully perform certain writing skills; the second sought to discover their confidence to successfully complete specific writing tasks. Each scale measures very different beliefs; implications of differing findings related to them are conceptually important and will be discussed later. The measure of writing outcome expectations asked students to rate the importance of writing for achieving various life goals such as getting a job, being financially secure. (Other researchers have more accurately labeled this type of assessment perceived usefulness or perceived value.) Both measures were administered to undergraduates, and writing samples in the form of 20-minute essays were obtained and evaluated using holistic assessment methods. Shell and his colleagues reported a significant relationship between the students' confidence in their writing skills and their subsequent essay scores (.32) but not between these scores and either their confidence to complete writing tasks (.17) or their outcome expectations (i.e., their perceived usefulness of writing [.13]).

McCarthy, Meier, and Rinderer (1985), after defining writing self- efficacy to be students' evaluation of their own writing skills, constructed an instrument that identified and defined 19 writing skills and asked students whether they could demonstrate them (e.g., "Can you write sentences in which the subjects and verbs are in agreement?"). They administered this instrument and three others: an anxiety measure, a questionnaire to assess locus of control orientation, and a cognitive proc- essing inventory. Expert raters used student essays to assess writing performance. Two studies were conducted with the same students, and the researchers found that only writing self-efficacy - the confidence that students had in their writing skills - was related to their essay scores on the first study; both self-efficacy and writing anxiety correlated with essay scores on the second. The relationship between self-efficacy and essay scores was a moderate .33, a correlation in line with the findings of Shell's study (1989).

Writing Apprehension and Writing Performance McLeod (1987) argued that because writing is as much an emotional as a cognitive activity, affective components strongly influence all phases of



the writing process. She urged researchers to explore writing apprehension and other affective measures with an eye toward developing a "theory of affect" to help students understand how their affective processes may inform their writing. Writing apprehension, a construct created by Daly and Miller (1975a) to describe a form of writing anxiety, has already received much attention (see, for example, Daly, 1978; Daly & Miller, 1975a, 1975b; Daly & Wilson, 1983).

After constructing a Writing Apprehension Test, Daly and Miller (1975b) used it to discover the relationship between apprehension and measures such as verbal aptitude (SAT scores), writing self-efficacy (defined as "perceived likelihood of success in writing"), willingness to take writing courses, and reported success in previous writing courses. Sig- nificant correlations were found between writing apprehension and SAT verbal scores (.19), writing self-efficacy (.59), and willingness to take additional writing courses (.57). They also found that males were significantly more apprehensive than were females and that apprehension was related to self-reported previous success in writing courses.

Findings on the relationship between writing apprehension and writing performance are inconsistent, with correlations ranging from nonsig- nificance to p < .001. Faigley, Daly, and Witte (1981) found that the relationship was significant when performance was measured using a standardized test but not necessarily when an essay was used (only one of two samples was significant). McCarthy's 1985 study failed to find a relationship between writing apprehension and either writing self- efficacy or performance.

The Present Study

Because the scant findings related to writing self-efficacy have not been consistent, the purpose of our study was to test Bandura's (1986) social cognitive theory by exploring students' self-efficacy beliefs about writing in ways that would clarify theoretical concerns. Specifically, we investigated the relationship between three key variables - writing self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and writing apprehension - and the writing performance of adult skilled writers (college undergraduates), as well as the relationships among the variables. We also measured change in self- beliefs, apprehension, and performance over a semester. Finally, for reasons we will explain, we explored the relationship between students' confidence in their general abilities and the other variables in the study.

We alert the reader to the correlational nature of our analyses. As we discussed earlier, Bandura (1986) argued that self-efficacy beliefs "influence" behavior by affecting choices, effort, and perseverance. The study



of the influence of self-efficacy beliefs on writing is still in its infancy, and no researcher has yet conducted an investigation whose design or analyses would permit causal inferences (although this has been accomplished in studies of mathematics self-efficacy - see Pajares & Miller, 1994). Our efforts in the present study were to establish a clear relationship between writing self-efficacy, appropriately defined and assessed, and writing performance (with other key variables controlled). This choice was guided by our belief that once this relationship has been clearly and cleanly established, future studies with more complex analyses and causal implications could be undertaken.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Thirty undergraduate teacher candidates (25 female, 5 male) enrolled in a teacher preparation class, "Language Arts in the Elementary School," at a large southern university took part in this study. The teacher educator instructing the class granted the researchers permission to observe class sessions, administer instruments, and conduct the investigation. She also apprised us of class goals, objectives, and procedures. Writing self-efficacy, apprehension, and performance measures were administered twice during the 16- week term, on the first and last weeks.

A brief explanation of our rationale for selecting the class noted above is in order. Self-efficacy theorists argue that the development of self-confidence in academic areas is partly a result of teacher feedback and social comparisons, consisting of students' peer feedback about each other's work (see Schunk, 1991, for a discussion of the relationship between feedback and development of self-efficacy). The instructor of the class in which our participants were enrolled did not focus on improving students' specific writing skills (as we have defined and assessed them). Rather, her primary purpose was to increase the number of different writing tasks the students could accomplish with the skills they already possessed. To this end, students were asked to write journal entries, diaries, lesson plans, children's stories, reviews of children's books, brief articles, and critiques. They received regular feedback and encouragement from both the instructor and from their own classmates regarding their ability to accomplish those tasks. The instructor provided feedback and encouragement by regularly writing comments on the students' work during the draft and revision process and by critiquing and grading the finished products. The instructor also met individually and in groups with students to provide more personal feedback and encouragement. Because students were asked to rewrite and resubmit their work after



receiving the feedback, final grades on the writing tasks were generally high. Students also shared the finished products with each other and were encouraged to provide constructive criticism. Students received little feedback on their specific writing skills, and they were not graded on them.

As discussed earlier, Shell's (1989) study constructed two measures of self-efficacy - one measuring confidence to accomplish varying writing tasks and another assessing confidence in specific writing skills. The study did not, however, identify the conditions under which one assessment of confidence is more appropriate than another. The instructor's methods in the class we chose presented us with an opportunity to address that question. Recall that both Shell's (1989) and McCarthy's (1985) studies defined "writing skills" in terms of grammar, usage, composition, and mechanical skills such as correct usage of parts of speech, spelling and punctuation, and sentence and paragraph organization (see Appendix). The term was so defined and used in the present study.

Social cognitive theory would hold that, for students in the class under investigation, confidence to accomplish the writing tasks should increase, whereas confidence in specific writing skills, as defined and measured in this and similar studies, should not (Bandura, 1986). Consequently, we should not expect an increase in writing competence when this is also defined and measured in terms of specific writing skills (although a slight increase would not surprise us given the fact that the class was writing- related and students were engaged in various writing tasks). Regarding writing apprehension, social cognitive theory suggests that, as confidence increases, apprehension should decrease.

Analyses We first obtained Pearson Product-Moment correlations to assess the relationship among the variables. To assess the "influence" of the independent variables on the outcome measure, we performed simultaneous multiple regression analyses (using scores from essays administered at the beginning of the term to control for pre-existing differences in writing performance). We used two-tailed t-tests, with critical values adjusted using the Dunn procedure to enable five comparisons, to determine if a change took place in the students' self-efficacy in their writing skills and writing tasks, writing apprehension, and writing performance from beginning to end of term.

At this point it is important to again remind the reader of the old axiom that "correlation is not causation." Although multiple regression analyses lend themselves to discussions in which terms such as "influence" are used, they are correlational in nature, and no causation may be inferred.



As were those of prior researchers exploring writing self-efficacy, our efforts in this study were geared at exploring relationships among variables to see if these relationships were consistent with the tenets of social cognitive theory. If so the findings can pave the way for subsequent studies and analyses better suited to demonstrate causative factors.

Measurement of Variables

Writing performance. Perhaps the most salient limitation of any study of writing involves the nature of the outcome variable, writing performance. Assessing an individual's writing is not an objective task. It involves an inference by the reader about the quality of a written work, and this inference carries with it a host of possible biases and interpretations that can make the assessment an unreliable evaluation of actual competence. Researchers in the field of composition believe that although a timed, in-class writing sample is an imperfect reflection of writing ability, it well may be the most reliable measure available (Foster, 1983). We asked students to write two 30-minute essays, one during the first week of the term and another during the last. The topic was the same used by Shell and his colleagues (1989), "What do you believe to be the qualities of a successful teacher?" Consistent with procedures used by Shell et al. (1989), both essays were scored by the authors using a holistic scoring method. It should be carefully noted that writing performance was assessed in terms of students' demonstration of writing skills as we have previously defined them (i.e., grammar, usage, composition, and mechanical skills). These were the same skills assessed by the writing skills self-efficacy subscale.

Given the obvious limitations of personal interpretation and subtle biases, holistic scoring by expert readers provides a reasonable means to assess writing performance; is subject to interrater reliability checks; and, when standardized procedures are followed, provides consistent results (Hillocks, 1986). Interrater reliability scores were above .85 for both samples; final agreement on scores was reached by consensus (see Wolcott, 1989). The researchers were at all times unaware of student identities. Both researchers have spent a sizeable portion of their professional lives as teachers of English composition.

The writing self-efficacy instruments that we administered were developed by Shell et al. (1989) and consisted of the two scales earlier described: The first measured students' confidence that they possessed various composition, grammar, usage, and mechanical skills; the second measured judgments of their ability to write different writing tasks (see Appendix). Students could provide any score from 0 to 100 as a measure of their self-efficacy for each skill or task. Shell's study reported reliability



scores of .95 for the skills scale and .92 for the tasks scale. Factor analysis showed positive and above .40 correlations between items and subscale scores. The researchers have continued to use the instruments in as yet unpublished studies and have refined them in light of continued analysis and with an eye to greater clarity (Bruning, 1992, personal communication).

Writing outcome expectations were opera tionalized by Shell et al. (1989) as individuals' judgments of the importance of writing for successfully accomplishing various academic and life endeavors (a definition some- what inconsistent with Bandura's description but that we followed for purposes of comparing findings). The instrument used to assess this construct was also developed by Shell et al. (1989) and consisted of 20 items using a 7-point Likert scale. Their study reported reliability scores of .93 (positive) and above .40 correlations for all items.

Writing apprehension describes "a person's tendencies to approach or avoid situations perceived to potentially require writing accompanied by some amount of perceived evaluation" (Daly & Wilson, 1983, p. 327). This study used the Writing Apprehension Test (Daly & Miller, 1975b), a 26- item inventory (Cronbach's alpha .89) that has been used extensively and has been proven to be a reliable instrument for measuring writing anxiety. In a recent examination of its reliability, Reed, Burton, and Vandett (1988) found the instrument reliable but suggested that the 5-point Likert scale be reduced to four points by removing the uncertain response. We made that adjustment for this study.

Personal Self-Efficacy. Because of the task- and context-specific nature of self-efficacy, Bandura (1986) argued that measures of global self- effi- cacy - individuals' confidence in their general abilities - should tell us little about their academic performance and even less about a specific academic performance in an area such as writing. In other words, an individual may describe herself as generally confident, but this "global" confidence may not extend itself to her confidence as a student, even less to her confidence as an essay writer, and she may have no confidence whatsoever in her ability to write a novel. However, Daly and Wilson (1983) administered the writing apprehension test to 172 undergraduates and reported a relationship between writing apprehension and what they called general self -concept (-.31), a construct that includes elements of general self-confidence. In addition, many researchers have reported a significant relationship between self-concept and academic achievement.

With these findings in mind, the authors were curious as to whether general self-confidence might be related to writing performance and to the other constructs under investigation. Consequently, all students were administered the Self-Efficacy Scale (SES), a 23-item, 6-point Likert scale



instrument created by Sherer and his colleagues (1982). The SES asks students to report their general and social confidence in various contexts (e.g., "I give up easily/' "I do not handle myself well in social gather- ings"). Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients of .86 for the general subscale and .71 for the social subscale were reported, and factor analysis revealed positive and significant correlations for all items.

Results

The first issue under consideration was the relationship among the variables. While results supported earlier research and social cognitive theory, they were also surprising. As expected, full-scale writing self-efficacy (a composite of both the skills and tasks scales) was significantly related with writing performance on both administrations; outcome expectations was related with performance only on the post administration. Correla- tions were similar to those reported by McCarthy et al. (1985) and Shell et al. (1989). Writing apprehension, however, was unrelated with performance, though its relationship with writing self-efficacy was strong. Results support previous findings by McCarthy et al. (1985), but the lack of relationship between apprehension and performance contradicts earlier findings by Daly and others (Daly & Miller, 1975b; Daly, 1978; Faigley et al., 1981). The surprising finding was the significant relationship between personal self-efficacy, or general self-confidence, and all related variables, with the singular exception of the skills self- efficacy scale, which measured confidence in specific writing skills.

Table 1

Pearson Product Moment Correlations for Post- Administration Measures

12 3 4 5 6 7

8 1. Writing Performance .38* .11 .53** .55*** -.12 .41* .57*** 2. Writing Self-Efficacy .84*** .87*** .28 -.50** .48** .16 3. Writing Tasks Subscale .47** .23 -.57*** .50** .03 4. Writing Skills Subscale .24 -.29 .33 .23 5. Writing Outcome Expectations -.23 .51** .27 6. Writing Apprehension -.66*** -.03 7. Personal Self-Efficacy .07 8. Writing Performance (pre) Note: Personal Self-Efficacy was assessed only at beginning of term. *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001



Multiple regression analyses revealed that a model comprising confidence in one's writing skills (writing skills self-efficacy), confidence in one's ability to accomplish writing tasks (writing tasks self-efficacy), expected outcomes (outcome expectations), writing apprehension, general self-confidence (personal self-efficacy), and writing performance at beginning of term predicted performance at end of term [F (6,23) = 8.17, p < .0001] and accounted for 68% of the variance in the model. The magnitude of R2 is especially notable in light of the modest sample size. However, only confidence in writing skills, t = 3.09, p < .01, and pre-performance, t = 3.11, p < .01, were significant. Writing apprehension accounted for only 1% of the variance. As predicted by social cognitive theory, confidence to accomplish writing tasks, outcome expectations, and general self-confidence were nonsignificant.

Five comparisons were made to gauge whether students' writing confidence, apprehension, or performance changed from the beginning to the end of the term. Using the Dunn procedure to permit five comparisons at the p < .01 level, we found significant increases in writing tasks self-efficacy and in writing performance. That is, students reported increasing confidence in their capability to accomplish various writing tasks, and their writing also improved. No change took place in their confidence in their composition, grammar, usage, and mechanical skills. This prevented the full-scale self-efficacy measure from reaching significance. Students experienced no significant change in their writing apprehension during the course of the term.

Discussion

The one clear finding to emerge from this study was the significant relationship between writing skills self-efficacy and a writing perform-

Table 2

Full Model Multiple Regression Values for Independent Variables Dependent Variable: Writing Performance at end of term

Parameter Standard Variable Estimate Error t p > Itl

Writing Performance (pre) .39 .12 3.11 .005* Writing Skills Self-Efficacy .02 .01 3.09 .005* Writing Tasks Self-Efficacy -.01 .01 -1.53 .140 Writing Outcome Expectations .23 .13 1.80 .086 Writing Apprehension .01 .01 0.84 .410 Personal Self-Efficacy .01 .01 1.74 .095

R2 = .68



ance assessed in terms of those skills. As predicted, it was the students' confidence in their writing skills that accounted for the correspondence between writing beliefs and writing performance, and not their confidence that they could accomplish various writing tasks. This finding supports Bandura's (1986) contention that the predictive power of self -efficacy is dependent on the similarity between the confidence assessment and the criterial task.

As expected, the students' confidence in their writing skills did not change over the semester, whereas their confidence to accomplish various writing tasks increased. These findings are not surprising. Recall that throughout the study students were enrolled in a course on language arts in the elementary school. This was not a composition class and there was little effort to improve students' writing skills per se; rather, the instructor worked to instill in her students an appreciation for what they could do with the skills they possessed in the hope that this same appreciation would later be passed on to their own students. Students were not graded for the types of composition skills that were a part of the self-efficacy skills scale, and they could not make use of that feedback to change their perceptions of their growing ability as writers. They did, however, receive regular and positive feedback and encouragement regarding their ability to accomplish varied writing tasks (journal entries, lesson plans, brief articles, critiques), and they shared these with their classmates. It is no surprise, then, that students' confidence to accomplish writing tasks increased, while their confidence in their specific writing skills did not.

The surprise is that in the absence of students' perceived improvement in their writing skills, results of the posttest essay scores showed that these skills did improve over the semester. That is, the confidence of our participants in their usage, grammar, composition, and mechanical skills did not increase, but, as judged by their essays, the skills themselves did improve. Again, although neither the instructor nor classmates provided

Table 3

Pre- and Post-Test Means and Mean Differences for Writing Self-Efficacy and Its Two Subscales, Writing Apprehension

and Writing Performance Pre-test Post-test Mean Difference

Writing Self-Efficacy 151.70 161.50 9.80 Writing Tasks Subscale 67.67 77.20 9.53* Writing Skills Subscale 84.03 84.30 0.27

Writing Apprehension 63.77 60.90 -2.87 Writing Performance 3.07 3.50 0.43* *p


direct feedback, instruction, or evaluation of writing skills, such skills nevertheless improved over the term.

Two questions arise. The first is why writing skills increased in the absence of attention, instruction, or feedback; the second is why students' confidence in their skills did not. Regarding the improvement, it may be that the students' own raised expectations of their potential to accomplish more writing tasks and their practice in accomplishing these tasks naturally improved their writing skills. It seems plausible that as students attempt and complete new writing tasks, requisite skills may increase even if these skills are not receiving feedback or being graded. Regarding the disjoint between confidence and competence, one might argue that students' beliefs about their growing skills are slow to change in the absence of direct feedback and peer comparisons, which the class did not provide, even when the skills themselves may be improving (see Pajares, 1992 on the perseverance phenomenon; Schunk, 1991).

There remains the important question of why students' self-efficacy about their writing skills was predictive of their essay scores while their self-efficacy about accomplishing writing tasks was not. Shell et al. (1989) argued that a complete accounting of writing self-efficacy must include both writing skills and writing tasks assessments. When performance measures are assessed in terms of the composition skills evident in the task, however, it is natural that skills perceived and skills assessed will be in closer correspondence. This will obviously be the case when holistic scoring of students' essays has these skills as criteria. Our results are consistent with Shell's study (1989) reporting that students' confidence in their composition skills was more predictive of their writing performance than was their confidence in their ability to accomplish varied writing tasks. It is likely, however, that, when performance is measured in terms of a specific task, then the confidence to accomplish that task would more closely correspond with performance. Students' decisions to pursue additional writing courses, for example, will more accurately be predicted by their confidence to succeed in such courses than by their perceived composition skills. This is part of the context-specific nature of self-efficacy about which Bandura (1986) offers stern warnings, and it has important implications for future research.

One other result bears noting. Wood and Locke (1987) found that when academic self-efficacy was measured two months prior to performance, their relationship was nonsignificant. This, too, would have occurred in our study had we compared writing self-efficacy at the beginning of the term with performance at the end. This strengthens Bandura's advice that self-efficacy and performance should be assessed in as close a temporal interval as possible. When researchers allow time to pass between assess-



merits of confidence and competence, they fail to take into account the confidence change that may take place during the interval.

We also found no correspondence between students' writing self- efficacy and their outcome expectations, and these expectations did not change as a result of increases in performance and tasks' self-efficacy. Students' perceived usefulness of writing was unrelated to their writing confidence, and these perceptions remained stable in spite of their growing confidence to accomplish writing tasks. Outcome expectations were significantly correlated with end-of-term essay scores but were not predictive of them in the regression model. Results of the multiple regression analysis suggest that the relationship between outcome expectations and performance is mediated by writing self-efficacy, a result supportive of social cognitive theory. Recall that Bandura (1986) argued that expected outcomes are largely a result of one's confidence, and hence expected outcomes should not contribute much to the prediction of performance.

The role of writing apprehension was equally telling. We found no correspondence between students' writing anxiety and their performance, either linear or quadratic, though apprehension was negatively related to self-efficacy beliefs, a finding supported by previous research on writing and by researchers exploring other academic areas (see Alex- ander & Martray, 1989; Hackeft & Betz, 1989; Pajares & Miller, 1994). Moreover, writing apprehension accounted for negligible variance in the multiple regression model, and students' writing anxiety remained unchanged even as they grew in confidence and competence. In related research, Siegel, Galassi, and Ware (1985) studied the math self-efficacy and anxiety of undergraduates and found that, although math self- efficacy accounted for a significant portion of the variance in performance, anxiety did not. The writing apprehension of our participants proved resilient and remained unchanged over the term, a puzzling finding considering the increase in their confidence to accomplish more writing tasks. One would think that, as confidence to successfully accomplish more writing tasks increases, a decrease in writing anxiety would logically follow. Recall, however, that students' confidence in their composition skills was also unchanged; hence a possible explanation is that perceptions of these abilities may be the stronger source of writing anxiety.

Little can be said of the findings related to general confidence beyond noting them and conjecturing. This global construct, about which Ban- dura (1986) suggested "it is no more informative to speak of ... than to speak of nonspecific social behavior" (p. 411), correlated with self-confidence in writing, expected outcomes, writing performance, and especially the apprehension students felt about their writing. Researchers



have argued that individuals take deeply held beliefs very seriously and fuse them with their own identity, so that it can often be difficult to separate "self" from belief (see Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rokeach, 1968). We are, in very real fashion, what we believe. For this reason, our self can become fused with beliefs that form the core of who we are: Writers' beliefs about their writing or athletes' confidence about their abilities in their sport are, in essence, beliefs about their core, personal, "global" self. Most college students perceive themselves, to greater or lesser degree, as competent writers. To that same degree, beliefs about their writing ability are at the core of both their self and their general self-assessment. To criticize the writing of someone who prides himself as a competent writer can be akin to criticizing the person (which is why we are often so cautious in our criticisms). As such, it should not be unusual for students' beliefs about certain academic capabilities to be strongly related to their more personal and general beliefs about themselves as individuals, or for these personal beliefs to correspond with their anxiety and related performances. Results of the multiple regression analysis, however, revealed that personal self-efficacy was not associated with writing performance. As with other variables, it is likely that this association is also mediated by the more context-specific writing self- efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986).

Conclusions

As our study demonstrates, academic performance in an area such as writing can be informed by exploring the confidence individuals bring to this performance. We would be remiss, however, if we did not emphasize again the limitations of our study and make appropriate recommendations for future research directions. As we have already noted, our analyses were correlational, and no causation should be inferred from our findings. Also, as we noted in our description of and rationale for the performance measure - a 30-minute impromptu essay - the nature of the writing task used as a dependent measure is critical to any study of writing, and to any interpretations that can be made from the findings. Consequently, other forms of writing assessments under different conditions would clarify the role of writing self-efficacy on such assessments. Recall that Faigley et al. (1981) found that the type of writing measure determined the significance of the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Additionally, our study should be replicated using a larger sample more evenly divided by gender. Indeed, the relationship between gender and writing self-efficacy merits investigation, not only at the college level but especially at lower school levels where beliefs about capabilities begin to be formed. Finally, findings from our study are



limited to the type of writing prompt the students received, and their essay scores need not represent their general writing performance.

Promising inroads utilizing powerful statistical path analyses to develop causal models have already been made in related areas such as mathematics (see Hackett, 1985), and it would be valuable to examine writing constructs with these same tools. Also, Schunk (1991) noted that, although quantitative methods have typically been used in studying self-efficacy, qualitative methods such as case studies or oral histories are needed to gain additional insights. And Munby (1984) suggested that qualitative research methodology is especially relevant and appropriate to the study of beliefs.

An important pedagogical implication to emerge from our findings foregrounds the responsibility of teacher educators as this responsibility relates to the development of their students' self-efficacy. Social cognitive theorists argue that one important source of students' self-confidence lies in the feedback that students receive from their teachers. Because she did not consider this an important function in her course, the teacher educator in our study did not provide students with feedback regarding their writing skills. Her concern was specifically that students attempt and complete writing tasks - only in this area did she provide feedback and only in this area did their confidence increase. Consequently, students were unable to make use of information regarding their writing skills to alter their perceptions of their growing competence in those skills, and their confidence in these skills did not increase. If social cognitive theorists are correct, certain choices these students will make, and their subsequent effort, persistence, and level of anxiety regarding their writing skills, will result from these unaltered self-perceptions. Clearly, what this suggests is that, when teachers perceive growth or decline in writing ability, they have an obligation to let their students know. In this way, teachers may help students build competence not only through formal instruction but through appropriate strategies aimed at the development of the students' own self-confidence (see Pajares, in press).

Some self-efficacy researchers have suggested that teachers would be well served by paying as much attention to students' perceptions of competence as to actual competence (see Hackett & Betz, 1989). This strikes us as an overstatement, but assessing students' self-efficacy can provide teachers with important insights. For example, Bandura (1986) argued that some overestimation of capability is useful because it increases effort and persistence. Some students in our study, however, underestimated their competence. Students who lack confidence in skills they possess are not likely to engage in tasks where those skills are required; they will more quickly give up in the face of difficulty. Mathe- matics researchers have demonstrated that self-efficacy strongly influ-



ences college students' choice of majors and career decisions (see Hackett, 1985). In many cases, inaccurate perceptions of mathematics ability, and not lack of skill, are responsible for avoidance of math-related courses and careers. The same phenomenon may be at work with writing. If so, efforts to identify and alter inaccurate judgments should prove beneficial. And, if self-efficacy beliefs mediate the influence of variables such as writing apprehension on writing performance, then interventions de- signed to improve writing may be useful to the degree that they increase students' confidence in their writing ability.

It is not within the scope of this investigation to outline the ways that self-efficacy can be enhanced. Instead, the reader is directed to the work of self-efficacy theorists, who provide insights as to how this can be best accomplished (see Schunk, 1991). However, we warn that increasing students' self-confidence in an academic endeavor is no panacea for the development of competence. Moreover, it may hardly be realistic to arti- ficially build confidence when it has no basis in competence or aptitude. The development of confidence is clearly warranted, however, when perceptions of competence or potential are inaccurate or when skills and abilities are first being mastered. For example, students' confidence about their writing capabilities often have their roots in elementary or middle school and become pronounced by high school. If self-efficacy assessments were to begin early in a student's academic career, inaccurate perceptions could be identified early and appropriate interventions undertaken. Indeed, one of self-efficacy theory's greatest contributions may well be that it has alerted educators to the possibility of building students' competence partly by increasing their confidence in that competence and in their potential.

References

Alexander, L., & Martray, C. (1989). The development of an abbreviated version of the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Coun- seling and Development, 22, 143-150.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive Theory and Research, 8, 231-255.

Bruning, R. H. (1992). Personal communication, October 27. Daly, J. A., (1978). Writing apprehension and writing competency. Journal of Edu-

cational Research, 72, 10-14. Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975a). The empirical development of an instrument

to measure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 272-289. Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975b). Further studies in writing apprehension: SAT

scores, success expectations, willingness to take advanced courses, and sex differences. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 250-256.



Daly, J. A., & Wilson, D. A. (1983). Writing apprehension, self-esteem, and person- ality. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 327-341.

Faigley, L., Daly, J. A., & Witte, S. P. (1981). The effects of writing apprehension on writing performance and competence. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 16- 21.

Foster, D. (1983). A primer for writing teachers. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton-Cook. Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of

preservice teachers' professional perspectives. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4, 121-137.

Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 47-56.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-efficacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journal for Research in Mathe- matics Education, 20, 261-273.

Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition. Urbana, IL: ERIC/NCTE. McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing. College

Composition and Communication, 36, 465-471. McLeod, S. (1987). Some thoughts about feelings: The affective domain and the

writing process. College Composition and Communication, 38, 426-435. Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs

to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.

Munby, H. (1984). A qualitative approach to the study of a teacher's beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 27-38.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curricu- lum Studies, 19, 317-328.

Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

Pajares, F. (1993). Preservice teachers' beliefs: A focus for teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 25(2), 45-54.

Pajares, F. (1994). Inviting self-efficacy: The role of invitations in the development of confidence and competence in writing. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 3, 13-24.

Pajares, F, & Miller, M. D. (1994). The role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs on mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 86, 193-203.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W, & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommoda- tion of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.

Reed, W. M., Burton, J. K., & Vandett, N. M. (1988). Daly and Miller's writing apprehension test and Hunt's t-unit analyses: Two measurement precautions in writing research. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 22(2), 1-8.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psycholo- gist, 26, 207-231.



Shell, D. E, Murphy, C. C, & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 81, 91-100.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Ro- gers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psycho- logical Reports, 51, 663-671.

Siegel, R. G., Galassi, J. P., & Ware, W. B. (1985). A comparison of two models for predicting mathematics performance: Social learning versus math aptitude- anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 531-538.

Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 1013- 1024.

Wolcott, W. (1989). Perspectives on holistic scoring: The impact of monitoring on written evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida.

APPENDIX: Writing Self-Efficacy Scales (Shell, Murphy, & Bruning; 1989) Directions: On a scale from 0 (no chance) to 100 (completely certain), how confident are you of being able to successfully communicate, in writing, what you want to say in each of the following writing tasks. You may select any number between 0 and 100. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 No chance completely certain

1. Write a letter to a friend or family member.

2. Use instructions for how to play a card game.

3. Compose a will or other legal document.

4. Fill out an insurance application.

5. Write an instruction manual for operating a stereo.

6. Prepare a resume describing your employment history and skills.

7. Write a one or two sentence answer to a specific test question.

8. Compose a one or two page essay in answer to a test question.

9. Write a term paper of 15 to 20 pages.

10. Author a scholarly article for publication in a professional journal in your field.

11. Write a letter to the editor of the daily newspaper.

12. Compose an article for a popular magazine such as Newsweek.

13. Author a short fiction story.

14. Author a novel.

15. Compose an essay expressing your view on a controversial topic.

16. Write useful class notes.



17. Author a children's book.

18. Prepare lesson plans for an elementary class studying the process of writing.

19. Write a brief autobiography.

20. Compose a two-page essay on your philosophy of education.

Directions: On a scale from 0 (no chance) to 100 (completely certain), how confident are you that you can perform each of the following writing skills? You may use any number between 0 and 100.

1. Correctly spell all words in a one page passage.

2. Correctly punctuate a one page passage.

3. Correctly use parts of speech (i.e., nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.)

4. Write a simple sentence with proper punctuation and grammatical structure.

5. Correctly use plurals, verb tenses, prefixes, and suffixes.

6. Write compound and complex sentences with proper punctuation and grammatical structure.

7. Organize sentences into a paragraph so as to clearly express a theme.

8. Write a paper with good overall organization (e.g., ideas in order, effective transitions, etc.)

The SLATE Steering Committee invites submission of Starter Sheets on sociopolitical aspects of education. Samples of past topics - tracking and grouping, the English Only movement, equal access to computers, and censorship. SLATE Starter Sheets are intended as action-oriented information sources for English and language arts professionals. The format for a Starter Sheet should include, but is not limited to, the following: (1) presentation and background of the issue/topic; (2) general discussion, usually including NCTE positions; (3) recommendations for action or further examination; and (4) brief list of references and/or core resources. Starter Sheets manuscripts will undergo blind review by at least two outside referees who have expertise in the area. Submissions are re- viewed quarterly. The next two deadlines are November 15, 1994 and February 15, 1995. Please submit four copies of the manuscript, typewrit- ten and double-spaced on 8 1/2" x 11" paper with one-inch margins. Use your name and affiliation on a title page only. Manuscripts should be between 2,000 and 4,000 words in length. Send manuscripts to: Jean E. Brown, 5075 Clydesdale Lane, Saginaw, MI 48603.


Article Contentsp. 313p. 314p. 315p. 316p. 317p. 318p. 319p. 320p. 321p. 322p. 323p. 324p. 325p. 326p. 327p. 328p. 329p. 330p. 331

Issue Table of ContentsResearch in the Teaching of English, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Oct., 1994), pp. 228-334Front MatterFrom the Editor [pp. 228-230]Correction: Constructing the Perspective of Teacher-as-Reader: A Framework for Studying Response to Student Writing [p. 230-230]Why Don't They "Just Speak?" Attempting Literature Discussion with More and Less Able Readers [pp. 231-258]Evaluation of a Tiered Model for Staff Development in Writing [pp. 259-285]The Importance of Classroom Context: Literacy Development of Children Prenatally Exposed to Crack/Cocaine: Year Two [pp. 286-312]Confidence and Competence in Writing: The Role of Self-Efficacy, Outcome Expectancy, and Apprehension [pp. 313-331]Back Matter

Documents

Confidence and Competence in Writing