Reading & Writing - Journal of the Reading Association of South Africa
ISSN: (Online) 2308-1422, (Print) 2079-8245
Page 1 of 10
Original Research
Exploring writing apprehension amongst Afrikaansspeaking first-year students
Authors:
Louise Olivier1
Jako Olivier2
Affiliations:
1
Centre for Academic and
Professional Language
Practice, School of
Languages, North-West
University, South Africa
School of Human and Social
Sciences for Education,
North-West University,
South Africa
2
Corresponding author:
Jako Olivier,
jako.olivier@nwu.ac.za
Dates:
Received: 22 July 2015
Accepted: 19 July 2016
Published: 26 Oct. 2016
How to cite this article:
Olivier, L. & Olivier, J.,
2016, ‘Exploring writing
apprehension amongst
Afrikaans-speaking first-year
students’, Reading & Writing
7(1), a89. http://dx.doi.
org/10.4102/rw.v7i1.89
Copyright:
© 2016. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creative Commons
Attribution License.
Writing apprehension relates to a reluctance to write or even fear of writing and little
research has been done on this phenomenon in the South African context, especially in terms
of compulsory academic literacy and academic linguistic modules. This article aimed at
determining the nature of writing apprehension in these two modules in terms of the Daly
and Miller’s Writing Apprehension Test (DM-WAT), essay marks and gender at a
South African university. The DM-WAT was conducted with two groups of first-year
students. An exploratory factor analysis was administered and this led to the identification
of four distinct factors which are also associated with related aspects in the literature:
positivity towards writing, negativity towards writing, evaluation apprehension and selfefficacy and writing. It is evident that in the context of this study, the chosen instrument
could not be used to measure writing apprehension, rather the four identified factors. No
linear relationships between essay marks and the identified constructs were clear. Also a
practical significant difference between genders was found in terms of the identified
constructs. Significantly, students in the compulsory academic literacy module showed a
greater tendency towards apprehension in terms of the four identified factors than students
from the linguistics module. The chosen instrument could be used to gauge the identified
factors. Writing in compulsory academic literacy modules should be taught through
individualised student-centred methods, affective support and reflective instruction,
positive personal feedback, with additional support through counselling as well as effective
modelled writing behaviour from lecturers.
Introduction
This article explores writing apprehension amongst first-year students in a compulsory
academic literacy module and a student-selected Afrikaans linguistics module at a South
African university. Daly and Miller (1975a:244), in reference to a specific point in time, note that
‘[o]ur age demands competence in writing’. Writing is an important aspect of higher education
and success in higher education depends on the ability to write (Atkinson 2011:1; Pajares
2003:141). As attitudes towards writing vary amongst individuals (Daly & Wilson 1983:327), it
is important to consider writing apprehension as a variable in learning, teaching and assessment
of written work.
Apart from Daly and Miller’s initial work (Daly 1978; Daly & Miller 1975a, 1975b) on writing
apprehension, many other related studies have been conducted using the Daly and Miller’s
Writing Apprehension Test (DM-WAT) in different contexts and with different instruments and in
combination with various other testing instruments (cf. Atkinson 2011:3–4; Cornwell & McKay
2000; Daly & Wilson 1983; Faigley, Daly & Witte 1981; Pappalardo 2010:36–38; Todd 2003:20–22).
However, research in this regard is lacking in the South African context.
This article aims at exploring the use of the DM-WAT with two South African Afrikaans-speaking
groups of first-year students in order to determine the nature of writing apprehension in an
academic linguistics module versus an academic literacy module in terms of the DM-WAT, essay
marks and gender in a selected South African university.
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
The concept of writing apprehension is explored in this article, followed by some study background
in terms of the research population, ethical considerations and the instrument, the DM-WAT, used
in this study. The final section of this article relates to the data analysis with the focus on collection
and statistical analysis, construct validity and reliability of the measuring instrument, as well as a
discussion on the main findings and some recommendations.
http://www.rw.org.za
Open Access
Page 2 of 10
Literature review
Some individuals experience writing as a very challenging
task. Furthermore, the act of writing is often viewed as a very
daunting experience (Brennan 1995:352). According to
Teichman and Poris (1989:94), some ‘students find writing an
uncomfortable, punishing, and even fearful experience’.
Bothma and Cloete (1964:23) state that most students
experience writing essays as an artificial and not very
pleasant activity. Lecturers need to be able to make writing
desirable for students; however, Bothma and Cloete (1964:5)
are of the opinion that the methods used to teach writing
can cause some students to get an aversion to writing,
which could result in writing apprehension. Furthermore,
Daly (1978:10) states that ‘[t]he apprehension construct is
concerned with a person’s general tendencies to approach or
avoid situations perceived to demand writing accompanied
by some amount of evaluation’ (cf. Daly & Wilson 1983:327;
Faigley et al. 1981:16; Fox 1980:39).
This study falls within the theoretical framework of the
affective model (cf. Hayes 1996:11–12). It is important to note
that the concept of affect encompasses various ‘constructs
and processes’ (McLeod 1991:97) and as such emotion is but
an example of an affective state. In this regard, McLeod
(1991:99) refers to writing anxiety as ‘[o]ne of the most
studied affective states’ whilst emphasising that in such
instances the individuals with writing anxiety display ‘state
anxiety’, where they are anxious only in specific writing
circumstances. Martinez, Kock and Cass (2011:358) emphasise
that writing anxiety is a multidimensional construct. As such,
writing apprehension has often been examined in terms of
the affective model or domain and is seen as one of the many
affective factors that might influence academic writing
performance (Gustilo 2010; McLeod 1987, 1991, 1997:11; Rose
2009:2).
Apart from avoidance of writing altogether, some
typical characteristics of the nature of writing by writing
apprehensives have been identified. The writing of highly
apprehensive individuals is shorter, syntactically restricted,
has fewer qualifications, shows lower levels of language
intensity and is of poorer quality (cf. Cornwell & McKay
2000:119; Daly and Wilson 1983:328; Faigley et al. 1981:19).
An important factor influencing writing apprehension is
writing self-efficacy (cf. Martinez et al. 2011:352–353).
Bandura (1997:3) defines self-efficacy as ‘beliefs in one’s
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action
required to produce given attainments’. This self-efficacy
contributes to a student’s degree of motivation. Martinez
et al. (2011:357) found that ‘[s]tudents with higher levels of
writing anxiety reported lower levels of writing self-efficacy
than those students with low anxiety’.
The relationship between writing apprehension and
performance is evident from the literature. Daly (1978:13)
found that individuals with low writing apprehension
perform better than those with high apprehension on a test of
http://www.rw.org.za
Original Research
writing skills, whilst individuals with moderate apprehension
perform in between – forming a continuum of apprehension.
Furthermore, he notes that ‘[h]igh apprehensives not only
write differently and with lower quality than low
apprehensives, but, in addition, fail to demonstrate as strong
a working knowledge of writing skills as low apprehensives’
(cf. Pappalardo 2010:37). However, Pajares and Johnson
(1994:321, 325) did not observe a relationship between
apprehension and performance in their study.
Earlier work on the phenomenon of writing apprehension
included observational interviews by Phillips as well as the
measuring of physiological measures (e.g. galvanic skin
response and heartbeat measures) by researchers such as
Porter (cf. Daly & Miller 1975a:243). In the recent literature,
the prominence of the work of John A. Daly and Michael D.
Miller, as creators of the DM-WAT, is evident. However, Daly
and Miller were not the first individuals to use self-report
instruments to assess writing apprehension. In this regard,
Daly and Miller (1975a:243) also note the work of Friedrich,
McCroskey, Heston and Paterline, as well as Wheeless in the
1970s. Drawing from the background provided by these
authors in terms of communication, speaking and receiver
apprehension, they compiled the DM-WAT (Cornwell &
McKay 2000:118). Research that followed these initial works
focussed on the inclusion of additional variables such as field
of study and writing audience (Atkinson 2011:3–4). Recent
studies on writing apprehension even included a focus on
the role of technology and related computer apprehension
(cf. Harris & Grandgenett 1992; Todd 2003:70–73).
It is also important to note that writing apprehension may
be associated with other, more general language-related
fears. Writing apprehension is, for example, also related to
communication apprehension (cf. Atkinson 2011:2; Daly &
Miller 1975a:243–244). In this regard, Daly and Miller
(1975a:243) state that ‘[t]he highly apprehensive individual
will avoid communication situations or react in some
anxious manner if forced into them because he foresees
primarily negative consequences from such engagements’.
Despite this reaction towards writing, language teaching
requires various interactions in written and spoken
communication. It is, however, important to determine
the origin of writing apprehension and, by implication,
communication apprehension.
Gender differences have been reported in previous studies,
with boys having higher levels of ‘negative writing
satisfaction’ as well as ‘less writing enjoyment’ (Hansen
2001:2, 14, 15). Similarly, in a study with 246 university
students, Daly and Miller (1975b:255) found that ‘females
had significantly lower scores than males on the writing
apprehension measure’. Pajares (2003:148–151) also noted
stronger confidence in writing amongst females. In contrast
to the aforementioned studies, Reeves (1997:42) and Martinez
et al. (2011:356) related how higher writing apprehension was
identified amongst females. In terms of gender as a variable,
it is also important to note that this aspect is socially
Open Access
Page 3 of 10
constructed and might imply additional influences and
associations depending on the context.
Writing apprehension is not necessarily established at
university. Students’ confidence in terms of writing is already
formed at school level (Pajares & Johnson 1994:328). In this
regard Faigley et al. (1981:16) state: ‘Negative teacher
responses to early writing attempts affect later levels of
writing anxiety. Positive skill development and reinforcement
leads to less apprehension’. Hence, writing apprehension
needs to be addressed at an early stage. Fox (1980:39) agrees
and notes that writing apprehension needs to be reduced
before students can ‘overcome their inhibitions about writing
and its subsequent evaluation’. However, once students
reach university, it is important to look at how writing
apprehension can firstly be determined and then recognised
in language and academic literacy classrooms. This article is
an attempt at exploring this issue in the South African
context. Based on the literature review, the following
hypothesis is set: there is a significant relationship between
writing apprehension levels and writing performance of
Afrikaans-speaking first-year students at a South African
university.
The article also poses the following research questions:
• What is the nature of writing apprehension in an academic
linguistics module versus an academic literacy module,
offered at a South African university, as measured by the
DM-WAT?
• Is there a relationship between writing apprehension and
essay marks obtained by first-year students in an
academic linguistics module and in an academic literacy
module?
• Does gender influence writing apprehension levels in a
selected group of South African students?
Methodology
Research population
Two groups of first-year students (N = 545) were used in this
study. The research population consisted of a convenience
sample of students enrolled in an Afrikaans linguistics
module (n1 = 245) as well as an academic literacy compulsory
module (n2 = 300). The Afrikaans linguistics module consisted
of 67 male (27%) and 178 female (73%) students, whilst the
academic literacy module had 100 male (33%) and 200 female
(67%) students. These modules were relevant as both had a
strong emphasis on writing within an academic context.
Ethical considerations
Participation in the study was entirely voluntary and
informed consent was obtained from all the participants.
Furthermore, participants were allowed to withdraw from
the study at any point. As the authors of this article are also
lecturers of the selected participants, a student assistant
conducted the data collection outside the official class times.
Ethical clearance for this research was granted (ethics number
http://www.rw.org.za
Original Research
NWU-00330-14-A7) by the North-West University Research
Ethics Regulatory Committee (NWU-RERC) as part of a
project on academic literacy.
Instrument: Daly and Miller’s Writing
Apprehension Test
The phenomenon of writing apprehension has been
measured by means of observational interview approaches,
physiological measures as well as factor-based self-report
instruments (Daly & Miller 1975a:243). In this study, a selfreport instrument was chosen, because, as Daly and Miller
(1975a:244) state, with these instruments ‘[t]he expense is
small, the administration simple and quick, and the
measurement more general and oriented towards the trait
anxiety’.
Daly and Miller developed the DM-WAT to measure writing
apprehension amongst students (Daly & Miller 1975a). The
instrument involves 26 statements with a Likert-type scale
containing the following values: (1) strongly agree, (2) agree,
(3) are uncertain, (4) disagree and (5) strongly disagree. Daly
and Miller (1975a:246) propose the following formula for the
instrument: Writing Apprehension = 78 − Positive Scores +
Negative Scores. In this regard, Cornwell and McKay (2000:123)
note the misprint with the plus and minus signs in swapped
positions in the original Daly and Miller article; hence, the
corrected formula is provided above. The positive scores
relate to items that indicate a positive tendency towards
writing apprehension (such as ‘I avoid writing’ and ‘I’m
nervous about writing’), whilst the negative scores relate to a
negative tendency (such as ‘I have no fear of my writing
being evaluated’ and ‘Writing is a lot of fun’).
It is clear from the literature that the DM-WAT has shown
validity and reliability for specific research populations
(Cornwell & McKay 2000; Daly 1978; Daly & Miller 1975a,
1975b; Fox 1980; Todd 2003:84).
Although not the focus of this study, it is important to note
that DM-WAT has also been used in second language (L2)
learning contexts (cf. Cornwell & McKay 2000:115, 119–121).
In the South African context, this poses interesting possibilities
in terms of the exploration of writing apprehension in
multilingual environments.
For the purposes of this study, the DM-WAT (cf. Appendix 1)
was translated into Afrikaans as the respondents were all
Afrikaans-speaking students. Hence, the validity and
reliability (cf. ‘Construct validity and reliability of the
measuring instrument’ section) of this specific test also had
to be determined.
Data collection and analysis
Collection and analysis
The DM-WAT was completed by students at the beginning of
the semester before any intervention or feedback on writing
assignments by lecturers. The writing assignments involved
Open Access
Page 4 of 10
Original Research
essays completed by the students as part of the continuous
assessment of both modules. For the sake of comparison,
both sets of assessment criteria were similar and the raters
compared and discussed ratings of the first 10 randomly
selected essays from both groups in order to ensure that the
assessment was done in a similar manner. The data were
captured in Microsoft Excel and the incomplete questionnaires
(two in total) were removed. Statistical Analysis System
(SAS) software (2011) was used for the data analysis. A factor
analysis as well as reliability testing was conducted. As no
random sampling was done, p-values cannot be used to
interpret the data; however, for the sake of completeness,
they are reported. Because of the nature of the sampling,
Cohen’s d-values were used to draw conclusions.
The above-mentioned four factors were identified and
named according to the questionnaire contents and the
related literature (cf. Cornwell & McKay 2000:129) and are
summarised in Table 2 in terms of Kaiser’s measure of
sample adequacy (MSA).
The value of MSA in Table 2 is very satisfactory at 0.94 and
can be described as ‘meritorious’ as it is above 0.8 (cf. Hair
et al. 2014:102). The four factors explain a variance of 56.1%
in contrast to only 38% when the questions are considered
as one factor: writing apprehension (Daly & Miller 1975a,
1975b).
Furthermore, the reliability of the results of the four different
factors was also determined. Table 3 shows the Cronbach’s
alpha for each of the factors.
Construct validity and reliability of the measuring
instrument
In all four instances, the value has been satisfactory with
Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.60, which is acceptable for
exploratory research (cf. Hair et al. 2014:123).
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the 26 items
of the DM-WAT. For the sake of statistical analysis, the
directions of the questionnaire items were adapted so that
they were all negative statements. In contrast to the DM-WAT
(Daly & Miller 1975a, 1975b), where only one construct is
used, this study identified four distinct factors from the factor
analysis (Tables 1 and 2).
Comparison in terms of essay marks, gender and the type
of module
In this study, essay marks and gender were also considered
in the statistical analysis. According to Pearson’s correlation
coefficient, no linear relationships between essay marks and
any of the constructs could be identified. Furthermore, the
data grouped together under the four factors were also
compared in terms of gender and module. However, no
practical significance was determined.
TABLE 1: Factor loadings.
Questions
Factor 1
Question 10
0.84748
-
-
-
Question 15
0.83968
-
-
-
Question 17
0.83761
-
-
-
Question 19
0.71725
-
-
-
Question 9
0.63104
-
-
-
Question 3
0.52635
-
-
-
Question 5
−0.44918
-
-
0.37881
Question 1
−0.57873
-
-
-
Question 8
−0.70594
-
-
-
Question 26
-
0.81533
-
-
Question 24
-
0.8112
-
-
Question 18
-
0.71761
-
-
Question 16
-
0.69458
-
-
Question 22
-
0.67665
-
-
Question 7
-
0.53545
-
-
Question 13
-
0.53139
-
-
Question 21
-
0.50866
-
-
Question 14
-
−0.43027
-
0.34495
Question 23
-
−0.58685
-
-
Question 2
-
-
0.78232
-
Question 6
0.32439
-
0.37404
-
TABLE 3: Cronbach’s alpha for the four identified factors.
Question 25
-
0.43728
−0.53820
-
Factor
Question 4
-
-
−0.65793
-
1
0.88
Question 12
-
-
-
0.69058
2
0.89
Question 11
-
−0.46453
-
0.42391
3
0.71
Question 20
0.37081
-
-
0.4236
4
0.70
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
The respondents came from two distinct modules: an
Afrikaans language module and an Afrikaans-medium
compulsory academic literacy module. The results obtained
from the two groups of students are shown in Table 4.
Because the research population was drawn from two
distinct modules (an Afrikaans language module and an
Afrikaans-medium compulsory academic literacy module),
the groups were therefore compared. It is evident from
Table 4 that there is a statistically significant difference
between the responses from the respondents in the
Afrikaans language module and those in the Afrikaansmedium compulsory academic literacy module. Considering
Cronbach’s α
TABLE 2: Exploratory factor analysis and Kaiser’s measure of sample adequacy.
Factor
Question
Factor 1: Positivity towards writing
1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17 and 19
Factor 2: Negativity towards writing
7, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 26
Factor 3: Evaluation apprehension
2, 4, 6 and 25
Factor 4: Self-efficacy and writing
11, 12 and 20
N
MSA
Variance explained (%)
Communalities variance
545
0.94
56.1
0.33–0.62
MSA, measure of sample adequacy.
http://www.rw.org.za
Open Access
Page 5 of 10
Original Research
TABLE 4: Comparison by module.
Factor
Factor 1: Positivity towards writing
Afrikaans mean
Academic literacy mean
t-test
Degrees of freedom
p-value
d
3.89
3.25
9.34
543
< 0.001*
0.8a
Factor 2: Negativity towards writing
3.68
3.26
7.13
543
< 0.001*
0.6b
Factor 3: Evaluation apprehension
3.64
3.44
2.88
543
0.004*
0.25
Factor 4: Self-efficacy and writing
3.28
2.86
4.80
543
< 0.001*
0.41
, Practically significant according to Cohen.
b
, Medium effect in practice according to Cohen.
*, Statistically significant at 0.05 level according to t-test results for independent groups.
a
that, for the sake of statistical analysis, the statements were
all changed to the same direction (in this case negative), a
higher score would mean less agreement with the group
of statements and a lower score would mean greater
agreement (cf. Appendix 1). The respondents of the
Afrikaans linguistics module tended to have less agreement
with negative statements regarding positivity towards
writing, negativity towards writing, evaluation apprehension
and self-efficacy and writing compared to those of the
compulsory academic literacy module. However, only
positivity towards writing and negativity towards writing
displayed practical as well as statistical significance in
differences between the two groups. Hence, the respondents
from the academic literacy module showed a greater
tendency towards apprehension in terms of the four
identified factors. This finding supports the literature
(Atkinson 2011:3–4; Todd 2003:141) in that writing
apprehension is especially found amongst students in
writing intensive curriculums.
Discussion
An important result of this study is the fact that, in this
context and with this specific research population, the DMWAT cannot be interpreted as a single factor (writing
apprehension). Rather, the results obtained in this study
suggest that four distinct factors are measured with this
instrument. Hence, for this specific population, the DM-WAT
seems to be (especially in its current format) an outdated
research instrument; however, the responses of the test
could still be meaningful if a factor analysis is conducted.
Importantly, the identified factors do relate to the four factors
singled out by Cornwell and McKay (2000:129). In Table 5,
the factors identified, using the DM-WAT, in this study are
listed first, followed by the factors of Cornwell and McKay
(2000) in italics.
Although the descriptions from the two studies do not
correspond exactly in all statements from the DM-WAT, the
similarity of the factors is clear. Cornwell and McKay
(2000:130–131) ascribe the multiple factors to the following
reasons: (1) writing apprehension manifesting in a different
manner because of cultural differences, (2) writing in the L2,
(3) the test being developed in the 1970s, (4) the move from a
rhetoric-based approach to writing with the emphasis on the
product to a process approach and (5) the emphasis in the
DM-WAT on evaluation.
The four identified factors are briefly discussed in terms of
the relevant literature, followed by an overview of the
http://www.rw.org.za
TABLE 5: Factors comparison of the DM-WAT and Cornwell and McKay.
Factors
Relevant statements
Positivity towards writing
1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 19
Enjoyment of writing
1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 17
Negativity towards writing
7, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26
Negative perceptions about writing ability 7, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26
Evaluation apprehension
2, 4, 6, 5
Fear of evaluation
2, 4, 5, 25
Self-efficacy and writing
11, 12, 20
Showing my writing to others
6, 9, 12, 14, 19, 20
Source: Cornwell, S. & McKay, T., 2000, ‘Establishing a valid, reliable measure of writing
apprehension for Japanese students’, Japan Association for Language Teaching Journal 22(1),
114–139
DM-WAT, Daly and Miller’s Writing Apprehension Test.
implications of this study in terms of essay marks, gender
and the type of module.
Factor 1: Positivity towards writing
This factor relates to not only lower (or even the absence
of) writing apprehension, but also a tendency to enjoy
writing and being content in having others read what has
been written. In this regard, Brunton (2009:29) notes that
‘having a positive attitude is vital to successful learning’
(cf. Pajares 2003:146–148, 154). This aspect also relates to
the fact that, in terms of language learning, Krashen
(1981:5) believes that attitudinal and motivational factors
are of greater importance than aptitude. In contrast to this
factor, negative attitudes towards writing were also evident
from the DM-WAT.
Factor 2: Negativity towards writing
The negativity towards writing factor relates to anxiety
when writing, inability to write, experiences of poor
evaluations as well as doubts in writing abilities and
standards. As with the previous factor, attitudinal and
motivational issues are also very relevant for this factor.
Despite the fact that poor evaluation is envisaged under this
factor, a distinct factor relating to fear of evaluation was
also evident. Hence, evaluation apprehension was also
considered.
Factor 3: Evaluation apprehension
The statements grouped together under this factor focus
on four fairly similar issues: fear of being assessed, not
feeling good when handing in written work, not liking
essays being assessed and fear of writing essays when they
are intended for assessment. These statements do not relate
to fear of writing, rather to a fear activated by the possibility
Open Access
Page 6 of 10
of being evaluated or assessed. In terms of evaluation
apprehension, Daly and Miller (1975a:244) state that ‘[i]
ndividuals with high apprehension of writing would
fear evaluation of their writing, for example, feeling that
they will be negatively rated on it’. As stated earlier
(see ‘Literature review’ section), writing apprehension
often occurs based on teachers’ responses to writing, for
example.
Especially, the evaluation associated with writing would
influence self-esteem. According to Daly and Wilson
(1983:329), ‘[a] person’s apprehension about writing
develops, and is maintained, at least in part, from others’
evaluations of his or her writing’. In this regard, Pajares
and Johnson (1994:326) state that students might perceive
themselves as competent writers and that criticism of
writing might be interpreted as criticism of the students
themselves.
This factor can also potentially lead to certain attitudinal
and motivational issues concerning writing (cf. factors 1
and 2) as well as influence self-efficacy and writing as
discussed in the next section.
Factor 4: Self-efficacy and writing
The final factor involves having self-confidence in being
able to express ideas in writing, liking it when friends are
reading one’s written work and enjoying discussing one’s
writing with others. These issues also relate to students’
self-efficacy (cf. Martinez et al. 2011). Daly and Wilson
(1983:329) make the link between self-esteem and writing
apprehension and indicate that students with high writing
apprehension tend to feel less positive about themselves.
Moreover, they also state that, because self-esteem is related
to an individual’s portrayal of the self, writing ‘with its
highly intentional nature and required effort, is sometimes
directly, and almost always indirectly, an exposure of self to
others’.
People’s behaviour is influenced by their self-efficacy
or beliefs that are maintained about their capabilities
(cf. Pajares 2003:140). Pajares (2003:141) notes that ‘students’
confidence in their writing capabilities influence[s] their
writing motivation as well as various writing outcomes
in school’.
Bandura (1977:129) states that, in the process of self-regulated
writing, ‘some people are such critical self-editors that they
essentially paralyze their own writing efforts’. However,
Pajares and Johnson (1994:326) found no relationship
between writing apprehension and writing self-efficacy
(cf. Pappalardo 2010:24). Bandura (1977:80) notes that
‘[p]erceived self-efficacy not only reduces anticipatory fears
and inhibitions but, through expectations of eventual success,
it affects coping efforts once they are initiated’; therefore, the
role of self-efficacy cannot be ignored.
http://www.rw.org.za
Original Research
Moreover, Pappalardo (2010:114) notes that students with
low writing apprehension sometimes overestimate their
own writing skills. In this study, self-efficacy or at least an
aspect thereof, especially in relation to the perceptions of
writing by others, could possibly be assessed by means of
the DM-WAT.
Apart from the four factors mentioned above, essay marks,
gender and the type of module were also regarded as
important variables in this study as they are associated with
the concept of writing apprehension in the literature.
Essay marks
Despite the fact that Daly and Miller (1975a:248) noted that
‘the instrument would be predictive of classroom variables
such as success in compositions’, as stated before (cf.
‘Comparison in terms of essay marks, gender and the type of
module’ section), this result was not confirmed in this study.
According to the literature (Pajares & Johnson 1994:315),
previous studies noted correlations between essay marks
and writing apprehension. However, Pajares and Johnson
(1994:325) also found in their study that, despite an increase
in confidence and competence in completing writing tasks
amongst their research subjects, writing apprehension
remained. Faigley et al. (1981:20) concluded: ‘Writing
apprehension is not assumed causally to lead to poorer
writing nor is poorer writing assumed causally to result in
apprehension. Most likely the relationship is bi-directional;
apprehension and performance probably reinforce one
another’. Despite this fact, the presence of writing
apprehension or even negativity towards writing and
evaluation apprehension may still influence general
attitudes towards language classes and cause anxiety that
does not necessarily translate into poor marks.
Gender
The literature tends to show higher writing apprehension
amongst either females (Martinez et al. 2011; Reeves 1997) or
males (Daly & Miller 1975b; Hansen 2001; Pajares 2003).
However, in this study, no practical significant difference was
noted when the genders were compared in terms of the four
identified factors.
Modules: Compulsory versus selected
This study involved students from a compulsory academic
literacy module and a student-selected Afrikaans
linguistics module. The fact that the respondents from the
academic literacy module showed a greater tendency
towards apprehension in terms of the four identified
factors links up with the literature. In this regard, Daly
(1978:10) states that ‘[t]hose with high apprehension
about writing select academic subjects and jobs which
they perceive as having significantly lower writing
requirements’ (cf. Daly & Miller 1975b:250; Daly & Wilson
1983:328; Faigley et al. 1981:16; Pappalardo 2010:37, 42;
Reeves 1997:38).
Open Access
Page 7 of 10
Clearly, compulsory academic literacy courses that were
designed to support students with their writing may end up
alienating many students. Powers, Cook and Meyer
(1979:228) support this view as they found that compulsory
academic writing could increase writing apprehension.
Interventions, such as compulsory academic literacy courses,
often include additional writing tasks which may contribute
to negativity. According to Daly and Miller (1975b:255), ‘[n]ot
only do high apprehensives report an unwillingness to take
more course work in writing, but indeed they seem to
indicate this in their behaviors’.
The result of this study emphasises the importance
of sensitivity towards writing apprehension (and, by
implication, attitude towards writing, evaluation apprehension
and self-efficacy and writing) in compulsory academic
literacy modules. Furthermore, a subject-specific approach to
writing seems to be a better alternative for writing instruction,
at least in terms of writing apprehension. However, this
aspect needs to be researched further in other fields and
contexts.
Limitations
It is crucial to acknowledge some limitations in terms of the
research conducted. Firstly, the conclusions derived from
this study cannot be generalised as the research population
used in this study is but a selection from a larger population
at a selected South African university. In addition, the
population is limited to a specific university and to
Afrikaans language speakers. Furthermore, the conclusions
are limited in terms of the methodology where writing
apprehension was only investigated in terms of the DMWAT. In this regard, future research and follow-up studies
should include qualitative data to further examine the
reasons behind writing apprehension. However, despite the
limitations of the research population and the methodology
used, this study has led to more insights into the
phenomenon of writing apprehension amongst Afrikaansspeaking university students.
Recommendations
Based on the aforementioned exploration of writing
apprehension, and specifically attitude towards writing,
evaluation apprehension and self-efficacy and writing, a
few practical recommendations are made for language
classrooms.
Firstly, the way in which writing is integrated in teaching
and learning needs to be addressed. Fox (1980:48–49)
concludes that ‘structured, student-centered methods
of teaching writing’ can reduce writing apprehension.
Furthermore, Pappalardo (2010:148) states that ‘[t]eaching
strategies such as modeling, affective support, and reflective
instruction seemed to have a larger impact on student
attitudes concerning writing than did teaching style’.
http://www.rw.org.za
Original Research
Pajares (2003:153) emphasises the importance of nurturing
students’ self-beliefs.
Similarly, Reeves (1997) suggests a number of ways in
which writing apprehension could be countered. He notes
the importance of letting apprehensives write more, letting
apprehensives take ownership of their writing, listening to
fearful writers and talking about experiences, finding
patterns in errors and contextualizing and customizing
grammar teaching (1997:39–40). Furthermore, he also
mentions collaboration with the drafting of writing as well
as evaluation, coaching of peers for adequate responses,
encouraging positive self-talk, being aware of gender
differences, varying writing modes, monitoring attitudes,
introducing discourse communities, talking about writers,
giving and attending lectures, and sharing writing
(1997:40–44).
Apart from teaching strategies, specific individualised
instructional materials can be useful, as Faigley et al. (1981:20)
state that ‘different instructional materials and methods may
need to be used for highly apprehensive writers given their
differential performance in writing’. Despite the fact that
Daly and Miller (1975a:248) assert that forcing students to
write can reinforce the ‘punishing nature of the writing act’,
Fox (1980:48) contends that the manner in which students are
compelled to write is also important.
The nature of feedback on writing seems to be a very
important aspect. In a study on how students cope with
writing apprehension, Atkinson (2011:17) stated that ‘[a]
more effective learning and writing process may be attainable
by revisiting the application of communication theory to
remedial writing situations in higher education’ and by
employing ‘positive personal feedback’ (Atkinson 2011:16).
Pajares and Johnson (1994:327) also emphasise the importance
of lecturers and their feedback in developing students’ selfefficacy. Furthermore, Atkinson (2011:16) makes the following
comment in this regard:
In this case, the instructor’s message would be centered on their
belief in the student’s abilities and respect for the work ethic and
academic maturity displayed. The constructive criticism dealing
with writing as the practice of a craft could be sandwiched in a
message to focus the need for improvement from a skills
perspective.
Despite the merits of positive feedback, Fox (1980:48) warns
against ‘indoctrinating students with false or sugar-coated
notions about their own abilities’ and to ‘avoid leading
students to believe they were better writers than they
actually were’. Fox (1980:48) does, however, emphasise that
students must be made aware of the positive qualities in
their writing.
Additional support for writing apprehensives can also be
beneficial. According to Daly and Miller (1975a:248), ‘effective
treatments’ of writing apprehension include ‘counseling
programs where the apprehensive writer would be allowed
Open Access
Page 8 of 10
to view writing as a successful experience’, behaviour
therapies and systematic desensitisation.
The writing of lecturers or teachers themselves (as well as
their own approaches and apprehensions towards writing)
may also prove instrumental in classroom contexts (cf.
Reeves 1997:44). To increase self-efficacy, Pappalardo
(2010:115–116) suggests modelling behaviour through
teachers writing with students, facilitating a mastery
experience by letting students redo writing based on
teachers’ comments, social persuasion through praise by
teachers and students, as well as keeping psychological
conditions such as apprehension and fear in mind.
Original Research
Authors’ contributions
L.O. and J.O. were both equally responsible for the collection
and analysis of data as well as the writing of this article.
References
Atkinson, P.B., 2011, ‘Exploring correlations between writing apprehension,
academic rational beliefs, and stress and coping behaviors in college students’,
Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association, Vol. 2010,
Article 1, viewed n.d., from http://docs.rwu.edu/nyscaproceedings/vol2010/
iss1/1
Bandura, A., 1977, Social learning theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A., 1997, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, W.H. Freeman and Company,
New York.
Bothma, T.C. & Cloete, T.T., 1964, Opstelonderrig, Nasou, Kaapstad.
Brennan, M.J., 1995, ‘Essay writing in nursing: Alerting students and teachers to the
educational benefits’, Nurse Education Today 1, 351–356. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0260-6917(95)80008-5
Conclusion
Writing apprehension relates to a reluctance to write or even
fear of writing. The DM-WAT has been successfully used in
the past to investigate this construct. In this study, involving
two groups of South African Afrikaans-speaking students
enrolled in an Afrikaans linguistics module as well as an
academic literacy compulsory module, four distinct factors
were determined from the factor analysis of the collected
data. These factors were positivity towards writing, negativity
towards writing, evaluation apprehension and self-efficacy and
writing. Furthermore, students’ essay marks, gender and the
type of module were explored in terms of the four identified
factors.
In the context of this study, and with this specific research
population, it was determined that the DM-WAT can be used
to gauge specific aspects (e.g. positivity towards writing,
negativity towards writing, evaluation apprehension and
self-efficacy and writing). However, there were no linear
relationships between essay marks and the identified constructs
in this study. A comparison between writing apprehension
and module marks, as well as scores from standardised
academic literacy tests, could possibly show different results.
Furthermore, no practical significant difference in genders was
determined in terms of the identified constructs.
However, a significant amount of students in the compulsory
academic literacy module showed a greater tendency towards
writing apprehension in terms of the four identified factors.
In terms of instruction, writing apprehension must be
considered by lecturers. It is therefore important for writing,
especially in compulsory academic literacy modules, to be
taught through individualised student-centred methods,
with affective support and reflective instruction, positive
personal feedback, additional support through counselling as
well as effective modelled writing behaviour from lecturers.
Brunton, M.W.C., 2009, ‘An evaluation of students’ attitudes to the general English
and specific components of their course: A case study of hotel employees in
Chang Mai, Thailand’, ESP World 25(4), 1–82.
Cornwell, S. & McKay, T., 2000, ‘Establishing a valid, reliable measure of writing
apprehension for Japanese students’, Japan Association for Language Teaching
Journal 22(1), 114–139.
Daly, J.A., 1978, ‘Writing apprehension and writing competency’, The Journal of
Educational Research 72(1), 10–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1978.10
885110
Daly, J.A. & Miller, M.D., 1975a, ‘The empirical development of an instrument
to measure writing apprehension’, Research in the Teaching of English 9(3),
242–249.
Daly, J.A. & Miller, M.D., 1975b, ‘Further studies on writing apprehension: SAT scores,
success expectations, willingness to take advanced courses and sex differences’,
Research in the Teaching of English 9(3), 250–256.
Daly, J.A. & Wilson, D.A., 1983, ‘Writing apprehension, self-esteem, and personality’,
Research in the Teaching of English 17(4), 327–341.
Faigley, L., Daly, J.A. & Witte, S.P., 1981, ‘The role of writing apprehension in writing
performance and competence’, The Journal of Educational Research 75(1), 16–21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1981.10885348
Fox, R.F., 1980, ‘Treatment of writing apprehension and its effects on composition’,
Research in the Teaching of English 14(1), 39–49.
Gustilo, L.E., 2010, ‘“What you think, feel, and experience shape your writing”:
Cognitive, affective, and contextual processes in ESL writing’, Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher 19(2), 271–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.3860/taper.
v19i2.1596
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E., 2014, Multivariate data analysis,
Pearson, Harlow.
Hansen, C., 2001, ‘Boys and writing: Reluctance? Reticence? Or rebellion?’, paper
presented at the National NZARE Conference, viewed 22 January 2015, from
htt p : / / w w w. n za b e . a c . n z /co nfe re n c e s / 2 0 0 1 / p d f / 0 1 _ t h u rs d ay _ p m /
sallyhansenpaper.pdf
Harris, J. & Grandgenett, N., 1992, ‘Writing apprehension, computer anxiety and
telecomputing: A pilot study’, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher
Education 1(1), 101–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0962029920010107
Hayes, J., 1996, ‘A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing’,
in C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (eds.), The science of writing, pp. 1–27, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Krashen, S., 1981, Second language acquisition and learning, Pergamon, London.
Martinez, C.T., Kock, N. & Cass, J., 2011, ‘Pain and pleasure in short essay writing:
Factors predicting university students’ writing anxiety and writing self-efficacy’,
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(5), 351–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/
JAAL.54.5.5
McLeod, S., 1987, ‘Some thoughts about feelings: The affective domain and the
writing process’, College Composition and Communication 38(4), 426–435. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/357635
McLeod, S.H., 1991, ‘The affective domain and the writing process: Working
definitions’, Journal of Advanced Composition 11(1), 95–105.
McLeod, S.H., 1997, Notes on the heart: Affective issues in the writing classroom,
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL.
Pajares, F., 2003, ‘Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A
review of the literature’, Reading and Writing Quarterly 19(2), 139–158. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560308222
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal
relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them
in writing this article.
http://www.rw.org.za
Pajares, F. & Johnson, M.J., 1994, ‘Confidence and competence in writing: The role of
self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and apprehension’, Research in the Teaching of
English 28(3), 313–331.
Pappalardo, P., 2010, ‘Teacher behavior and attitude and student writing
apprehension’, PhD thesis, School of Graduate Studies and Research, Indiana
University of Pennsylvania.
Open Access
Page 9 of 10
Powers, W.G., Cook, J.A. & Meyer, R., 1979, ‘The effect of compulsory
writing on writing apprehension’, Research in the Teaching of English 13(3),
225–230.
Original Research
SAS Institute Inc., 2011, ‘The SAS System for Windows Release 9.3’, TS Level 1M0
Copyright© by SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Reeves, L.L., 1997, ‘Minimizing writing apprehension in the learner-centered
classroom’, English Journal 86(6), 38–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/820367
Teichman, M. & Poris, M., 1989, ‘Initial effects of word processing on writing quality
and writing anxiety of freshman writers’, Computers and the Humanities 23(2),
93–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00144729
Rose, M., 2009, Writer’s block: The cognitive dimension, Southern Illinois University
Press, Carbondale, IL.
Todd, V., 2003, ‘Writing and computer apprehension among mass communication
majors’, PhD dissertation, Texas Tech University.
Appendix starts on the next page →
http://www.rw.org.za
Open Access
Page 10 of 10
Original Research
APPENDIX 1
Question
Answer
Strongly agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1. I avoid writing. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
2. I have no fear of my writing being evaluated. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
3. I look forward to writing down my ideas. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
4. I am afraid of writing essays when I know they will be evaluated. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
5. Taking a composition course is a very frightening experience. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
6. Handing in a composition makes me feel good. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
7. My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on my composition. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
8. Expressing ideas through writing seems to be a waste of time. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
9. I would enjoy submitting my writing to magazines for evaluation and
publication. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
10. I like to write down my ideas. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
11. I feel confident in my ability to express my ideas clearly in writing. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
12. I like to have my friends read what I have written. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
13. I am nervous about writing. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
14. People seem to enjoy what I write. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
15. I enjoy writing. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
16. I never seem to be able to write down my ideas clearly. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
17. Writing is a lot of fun. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
18. I expect to do poorly in composition classes even before I enter them. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
19. I like seeing my thoughts on paper. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
20. Discussing my writing with others is enjoyable. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
21. I have a terrible time organising my ideas in a composition course. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
22. When I hand in a composition, I know I am going to do poorly. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
23. It is easy for me to write good compositions. (−)
1
2
3
4
5
24. I do not think I write as well as most other people do. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
25. I do not like my compositions to be evaluated. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
26. I am not good at writing. (+)
1
2
3
4
5
http://www.rw.org.za
Open Access