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

Apprehension
Author(s): Frank Pajares and Margaret J. Johnson
Source: Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Oct., 1994), pp. 313-331
Published by: National Council of Teachers of English
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171341 .
Accessed: 16/07/2014 13:46

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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All 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
TexasTechUniversity

This study investigated the relationships among self-confidenceabout writing,

expected outcomes, writing apprehension, general self-confidence, and writing
performancein 30 undergraduatepreservice teachers over one semester. Results
supported social cognitive theory and prior findings reporting a relationshipbe-
tween confidencein one's writing abilities and subsequentwriting 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-performancemeasure were
the only significant predictors. Writing apprehensionwas negatively correlated
with writing self-confidencebut was not predictiveof writing performance.Gen-
eral self-confidencewas correlatedwith writing self-confidence,expectedoutcomes,
apprehension,and performancebut was not predictiveof writing performancein
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
capabilitiesand to pedagogicalobligations.

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

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
314 Researchin the Teachingof English,28, October1994

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 relatedto self-efficacybeliefs preciselybecause 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 anticipatefailure.
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 predictbehaviorthan
are judgments of self-confidence.This interplay may well be more com-
plex and deserves further scrutiny,but it is consistent with the view of
researcherswho 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 efficacybeliefs are the only,or sometimes even
the primary, source of human motivation. Bandura (1984) wrote that
efficacyis one of many mechanismsthat influence behavior and that one
"need not fear that perceived self-efficacywill usurp the lion's share of
the variancein human conduct"(p. 252). Hence, "althoughpeople's per-
ceptions 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-efficacybeliefs from a variety of sources,
including their prior achievements, their comparisons of their achieve-
ments with those of others, and the verbal persuasions they receive from
other people, particularlythose 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 perseverancethey 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 mediatingmechanism of personal agency- mediating between the
sources of its creationand its subsequent effects.

Theoretical Framework

Self-EfficacyBeliefs and Writing Performance

Although researchersagree that beliefs in one's academiccapabilitiesare
relatedto and predictacademicperformance(see Multon,Brown,& Lent,

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WritingEfficacy 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
instrumentsfor assessing writing self-efficacyand outcome expectations
in order to study the relationship among beliefs about one's writing
capabilities, expected outcomes for writing, and writing performance.
The self-efficacyinstrumentconsisted of two scales (see Appendix). The
first attempted to assess students' confidence in their ability to success-
fully perform certain writingskills;the second sought to discover their
confidence to successfully complete specific writing tasks. Each scale
measures very differentbeliefs; implicationsof differing findings related
to them are conceptually important and will be discussed later. The
measure of writing outcome expectations asked students to rate the im-
portanceof writing for achieving various life goals such as getting a job,
being financiallysecure. (Otherresearchershave more accuratelylabeled
this type of assessment perceivedusefulness or perceivedvalue.) Both meas-
ures 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 reporteda significantrela-
tionship between the students' confidencein their writing skills and their
subsequent essay scores (.32) but not between these scores and either
their confidenceto complete writing tasks (.17)or their outcome expecta-
tions (i.e., their perceived usefulness of writing [.13]).
McCarthy,Meier, and Rinderer (1985), after defining writing self-
efficacyto 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
questionnaireto assess locus of controlorientation,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 researchersfound 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 correlationin line with the findings of
Shell's study (1989).

Writing Apprehensionand Writing Performance

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

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
316 Researchin the Teachingof English,28, October1994

the writing process. She urged researchersto explore writing apprehen-

sion and other affective measures with an eye toward developing a "the-
ory of affect"to help students understand how their affective processes
may inform their writing. Writingapprehension, a constructcreated 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 (SATscores), writing self-efficacy(de-
fined as "perceivedlikelihood of success in writing"),willingness to take
writing courses, and reported success in previous writing courses. Sig-
nificant correlationswere found between writing apprehensionand SAT
verbal scores (.19), writing self-efficacy (.59), and willingness to take
additional writing courses (.57).They also found that males were signifi-
cantly more apprehensive than were females and that apprehensionwas
related to self-reportedprevious success in writing courses.
Findings on the relationshipbetween writing apprehensionand writ-
ing performanceare inconsistent,with correlationsranging from nonsig-
nificance to p < .001. Faigley, Daly, and Witte (1981) found that the
relationship was significant when performance was measured using a
standardizedtest but not necessarily when an essay was used (only one
of two samples was significant). McCarthy's1985 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-efficacyhave not been
consistent, the purpose of our study was to test Bandura's(1986) social
cognitive theory by exploring students' self-efficacybeliefs about writing
in ways that would clarify theoreticalconcerns. Specifically,we investi-
gated the relationshipbetween three key variables- writing self-efficacy,
outcome expectations, and writing apprehension- and the writing per-
formanceof adult skilled writers (college undergraduates),as well as the
relationships among the variables. We also measured change in self-
beliefs, apprehension,and performanceover a semester.Finally,for rea-
sons we will explain, we explored the relationship between students'
confidence in their general abilities and the other variablesin the study.
We alert the reader to the correlationalnature of our analyses. As we
discussed earlier,Bandura(1986) argued that self-efficacybeliefs "influ-
ence" behavior by affecting choices, effort, and perseverance.The study

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WritingEfficacy 317

of the influence of self-efficacybeliefs on writing is still in its infancy,and

no researcherhas yet conducted an investigation whose design or analy-
ses would permit causal inferences(although this has been accomplished
in studies of mathematicsself-efficacy- see Pajares& Miller,1994).Our
effortsin the present study were to establish a clear relationshipbetween
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 implicationscould be undertaken.

Method

Participantsand Procedures
Thirtyundergraduateteacher candidates (25 female, 5 male) enrolled in
a teacherpreparationclass, "LanguageArts in the ElementarySchool,"at
a large southern university took part in this study. The teacher educator
instructingthe class granted the researcherspermission to observe class
sessions, administerinstruments,and conduct the investigation.She also
apprised us of class goals, objectives, and procedures. Writingself-effi-
cacy,apprehension,and performancemeasures were administeredtwice
during the 16-week term, on the first and last weeks.
A brief explanationof our rationalefor selecting the class noted above
is in order.Self-efficacytheorists argue that the development of self-con-
fidence in academicareas is partly a result of teacherfeedbackand social
comparisons, consisting of students' peer feedback about each other's
work (see Schunk, 1991, for a discussion of the relationship between
feedbackand development of self-efficacy).The instructorof the class in
which our participantswere enrolled did not focus on improving stu-
dents' 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'sstories, reviews of children'sbooks, brief
articles, and critiques. They received regular feedback and encourage-
ment from both the instructorand from their own classmates regarding
their ability to accomplish those tasks. The instructorprovided feedback
and encouragement by regularly writing comments on the students'
work during the draftand revision process and by critiquingand grading
the finished products.The instructoralso 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

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
318 Researchin the Teachingof English,28, October1994

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 constructedtwo 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 assess-
ment 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 "writingskills" in terms of grammar,usage, com-
position, and mechanical skills such as correctusage of parts of speech,
spelling and punctuation,and sentence and paragraphorganization(see
Appendix). The term was so defined and used in the present study.
Socialcognitive theory would hold that, for students in the class under
investigation,confidenceto accomplishthe writing tasks should increase,
whereas confidence in specific writing skills, as defined and measuredin
this and similar studies, should not (Bandura,1986). Consequently,we
should not expect an increase in writing competence when this is also
defined and measuredin terms of specific writing skills (althougha 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 confi-
dence increases,apprehensionshould decrease.

Analyses
We first obtained Pearson Product-Momentcorrelations to assess the
relationship among the variables. To assess the "influence"of the inde-
pendent variableson the outcome measure, we performedsimultaneous
multiple regression analyses (using scores from essays administered at
the beginning of the term to controlfor pre-existingdifferencesin 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-efficacyin their writing skills and
writing tasks, writing apprehension, and writing performancefrom be-
ginning to end of term.
At this point it is importantto again remind the readerof the old axiom
that "correlationis not causation."Although multiple regressionanalyses
lend themselves to discussions in which terms such as "influence"are
used, they are correlationalin nature, and no causation may be inferred.

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WritingEfficacy 319

As were those of prior researchersexploring writing self-efficacy,our

efforts in this study were geared at exploring relationshipsamong vari-
ables to see if these relationshipswere consistent with the tenets of social
cognitive theory. If so the findings can pave the way for subsequent
studies and analyses better suited to demonstratecausative factors.

Measurementof Variables
Writingperformance.Perhapsthe most salient limitation of any study of
writing involves the nature of the outcome variable, writing perform-
ance. Assessing an individual's writing is not an objective task. It in-
volves an inferenceby the readerabout the quality of a written work, and
this inferencecarrieswith it a host of possible biases and interpretations
that can make the assessment an unreliableevaluation of actual compe-
tence. Researchersin the field of composition believe that although a
timed, in-classwriting sample is an imperfectreflectionof 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), "Whatdo you believe to be the qualities
of a successful teacher?"Consistent with proceduresused by Shell et al.
(1989),both essays were scored by the authors using a holistic scoring
method. It should be carefully noted that writing performancewas as-
sessed in terms of students' demonstrationof writing skills as we have
previously defined them (i.e., grammar,usage, composition, and me-
chanicalskills). These were the same skills assessed by the writing skills
self-efficacysubscale.
Given the obvious limitations of personal interpretationand subtle
biases, holistic scoring by expert readersprovides a reasonablemeans to
assess writing performance;is subjectto interraterreliabilitychecks;and,
when standardizedproceduresare followed, provides consistent results
(Hillocks,1986).Interraterreliabilityscores were above .85 for both sam-
ples; final agreement on scores was reached by consensus (see Wolcott,
1989). The researcherswere at all times unaware of student identities.
Both researchershave spent a sizeable portion of their professionallives
as teachersof English composition.
The writingself-efficacy instrumentsthat we administeredwere devel-
oped by Shell et al. (1989) and consisted of the two scales earlier de-
scribed: The first measured students' confidence that they possessed
various composition, grammar,usage, and mechanicalskills;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 theirself-efficacyfor each skill or task.Shell's study reportedreliability

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
320 Researchin the Teachingof English,28, October1994

scores of .95 for the skills scale and .92 for the tasks scale. Factoranalysis
showed positive and above .40 correlationsbetween items and subscale
scores. The researchershave continued to use the instrumentsin as yet
unpublished studies and have refined them in light of continued analysis
and with an eye to greater clarity (Bruning,1992, personal communica-
tion).
Writingoutcomeexpectationswere operationalized by Shell et al. (1989)
as individuals' judgments of the importanceof writing for successfully
accomplishing various academic and life endeavors (a definition some-
what inconsistent with Bandura'sdescription 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 Likertscale. Their study reported reliabilityscores
of .93 (positive) and above .40 correlationsfor all items.
Writingapprehension describes "a person's tendencies to approach or
avoid situations perceived to potentiallyrequirewriting accompaniedby
some amount of perceived evaluation"(Daly & Wilson,1983,p. 327).This
study used the WritingApprehension Test (Daly & Miller,1975b),a 26-
item inventory (Cronbach'salpha .89) that has been used extensively and
has been proven to be a reliable instrumentfor measuring writing anxi-
ety. In a recent examination of its reliability,Reed, Burton,and Vandett
(1988)found the instrumentreliablebut suggested that the 5-point Likert
scale be reduced to four points by removing the uncertainresponse. We
made that adjustmentfor this study.
PersonalSelf-Efficacy.Becauseof the task-and context-specificnatureof
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 performanceand 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)administeredthe writing apprehensiontest to 172 undergraduates
and reporteda relationshipbetween writing apprehensionand what they
called general self-concept (-.31), a construct that includes elements of
general self-confidence. In addition, many researchershave reported a
significantrelationshipbetween self-conceptand academicachievement.
With these findings in mind, the authors were curious as to whether
general self-confidence might be related to writing performanceand to
the other constructsunder investigation.Consequently,all students were
administeredthe Self-EfficacyScale (SES),a 23-item, 6-point Likertscale

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WritingEfficacy 321

instrument created by Sherer and his colleagues (1982). The SES asks
students to reporttheir 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
subscaleand .71 for the social subscale were reported,and factoranalysis
revealed positive and significantcorrelationsfor all items.

Results

The first issue under considerationwas the relationshipamong the vari-

ables. While results supported earlier researchand social cognitive the-
ory,they were also surprising.As expected, full-scalewriting self-efficacy
(a composite of both the skills and tasks scales) was significantlyrelated
with writing performanceon both administrations;outcome expectations
was related with performanceonly on the post administration.Correla-
tions were similar to those reported by McCarthyet al. (1985)and Shell
et al. (1989). Writing apprehension, however, was unrelated with per-
formance, though its relationship with writing self-efficacywas strong.
Results support previous findings by McCarthyet al. (1985),but the lack
of relationshipbetween apprehension and performancecontradictsear-
lier findings by Daly and others (Daly & Miller,1975b;Daly,1978;Faigley
et al., 1981). The surprising finding was the significant relationship be-
tween 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.

Table1
PearsonProductMoment Correlationsfor
Post-AdministrationMeasures
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. WritingOutcome Expectations -.23 .51** .27
6. Writing Apprehension -.66*** -.03
7. Personal Self-Efficacy .07
8. Writing Performance (pre)

Note:PersonalSelf-Efficacywas assessed only at beginningof term.

** ***
*p < .05; p < .01; p < .001

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
322 Researchin the Teachingof English,28, October1994

Multiple regression analyses revealed that a model comprising confi-

dence 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,gen-
eral self-confidence (personal self-efficacy),and writing performanceat
beginning of term predicted performanceat end of term [F (6,23) = 8.17,
p < .0001] and accounted for 68% of the variance in the model. The
magnitude of R2is especially notable in light of the modest sample size.
However, only confidence in writing skills, t = 3.09, p < .01, and pre-per-
formance, t = 3.11, p < .01, were significant. Writing apprehension ac-
counted for only 1% of the variance. As predicted by social cognitive
theory, confidence to accomplish writing tasks, outcome expectations,
and general self-confidencewere nonsignificant.
Five comparisonswere made to gauge whether students' writing con-
fidence, apprehension, or performancechanged from the beginning to
the end of the term. Using the Dunn procedure to permit five compari-
sons at the p < .01 level, we found significant increases in writing tasks
self-efficacy and in writing performance.That is, students reported in-
creasing 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 mechanicalskills.
This prevented the full-scale self-efficacymeasure from reachingsignifi-
cance. Students experiencedno significantchange in their writing appre-
hension 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-

Table2
Full Model Multiple RegressionValues for IndependentVariables
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

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WritingEfficacy 323

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 confi-
dence that they could accomplish various writing tasks. This finding
supports Bandura's(1986)contentionthat the predictivepower of self-ef-
ficacy is dependent on the similaritybetween the confidence assessment
and the criterialtask.
As expected, the students' confidence in their writing skills did not
change over the semester, whereas their confidence to accomplish vari-
ous writing tasks increased.These findings are not surprising.Recallthat
throughoutthe study students were enrolled in a course on language arts
in the elementaryschool. This was not a composition class and there was
little effortto improve students' writing skills perse;rather,the instructor
worked to instill in her students an appreciationfor what they could do
with the skills they possessed in the hope that this same appreciation
would laterbe passed on to theirown students. Studentswere 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 feedbackto change their
perceptions of their growing ability as writers. They did, however, re-
ceive regular and positive feedback and encouragementregarding their
ability to accomplish varied writing tasks (journalentries, 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 surpriseis that in the absenceof 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
participantsin their usage, grammar,composition, and mechanicalskills
did not increase,but, as judged by their essays, the skills themselves did
improve. Again, although neither the instructornor classmatesprovided

Table3
Pre- and Post-TestMeans and Mean Differencesfor
WritingSelf-Efficacyand Its Two Subscales,WritingApprehension
and WritingPerformance
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<.01

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
324 Researchin the Teachingof English,28, October1994

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
absenceof attention,instruction,or feedback;the second is why students'
confidence in their skills did not. Regardingthe improvement,it may be
that the students' own raised expectations of their potential to accom-
plish more writing tasks and their practicein accomplishingthese tasks
naturallyimproved theirwriting skills. It seems plausible that as students
attempt and complete new writing tasks, requisite skills may increase
even if these skills are not receiving feedbackor being graded. Regarding
the disjoint between confidence and competence, one might argue that
students' beliefsabout their growing skills are slow to change in the
absence of direct feedbackand peer comparisons,which the class did not
provide, even when the skills themselves may be improving (see Pajares,
1992 on the perseverancephenomenon;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-efficacyabout accomplishingwriting tasks was not. Shell et al. (1989)
argued that a complete accounting of writing self-efficacymust 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 naturalthat skillsperceivedand skillsassessedwill 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)reportingthat students' confidencein
their composition skills was more predictiveof theirwriting performance
than was their confidence in their ability to accomplish varied writing
tasks. It is likely,however, that, when performanceis measured in terms
of a specific task, then the confidenceto accomplishthat task would more
closely correspond with performance.Students' decisions to pursue ad-
ditional writing courses, for example, will more accuratelybe predicted
by their confidence to succeed in such courses than by their perceived
composition skills. This is part of the context-specificnature of self-effi-
cacy about which Bandura(1986)offers stern warnings, and it has impor-
tant implicationsfor future research.
One other resultbears noting. Woodand Locke(1987)found that when
academic self-efficacywas measured two months prior to performance,
their relationshipwas nonsignificant.This, too, would have occurredin
our study had we compared writing self-efficacyat the beginning of the
term with performanceat the end. This strengthensBandura'sadvice that
self-efficacyand performanceshould be assessed in as close a temporal
intervalas possible. When researchersallow time to pass between assess-

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WritingEfficacy 325

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 perceptionsremainedstable in spite of their grow-
ing confidence to accomplish writing tasks. Outcome expectations were
significantly correlatedwith end-of-termessay scores but were not pre-
dictive of them in the regressionmodel. Resultsof the multiple regression
analysis suggest that the relationshipbetween outcome expectationsand
performanceis 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 contributemuch to the predictionof performance.
The role of writing apprehension was equally telling. We found no
correspondence between students' writing anxiety and their perform-
ance, either linear or quadratic, though apprehension was negatively
related to self-efficacybeliefs, a finding supported by previous research
on writing and by researchersexploring 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 perform-
ance, 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 accom-
plish 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.
Littlecan 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), correlatedwith self-confi-
dence in writing, expected outcomes, writing performance, and espe-
cially the apprehension students felt about their writing. Researchers

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
326 Researchin the Teachingof English,28, October1994

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 de-
gree, as competent writers. To that same degree, beliefs about their writ-
ing 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 criticizingthe 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 them-
selves as individuals, or for these personal beliefs to correspond with
their anxiety and relatedperformances.Resultsof the multiple regression
analysis, however, revealed that personal self-efficacywas not associated
with writing performance.As with other variables, it is likely that this
association is also mediatedby the more context-specific writing self-
efficacybeliefs (Bandura,1986).

Conclusions
As our study demonstrates, academic performancein an area such as
writing can be informedby exploring the confidenceindividuals bring to
this performance.Wewould be remiss, however, if we did not emphasize
again the limitations of our study and make appropriaterecommenda-
tions for future researchdirections.As we have alreadynoted, our analy-
ses were correlational,and no causation should be inferred from our
findings. Also, as we noted in our description of and rationale for the
performancemeasure- a 30-minuteimpromptuessay- the natureof the
writing task used as a dependent measure is critical to any study of
writing, and to any interpretationsthat can be made from the findings.
Consequently,other forms of writing assessments under differentcondi-
tions would clarify the role of writing self-efficacyon such assessments.
Recall that Faigley et al. (1981) found that the type of writing measure
determined the significanceof the relationshipbetween self-efficacyand
performance.Additionally,our study should be replicatedusing a larger
sample more evenly divided by gender.Indeed, the relationshipbetween
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

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WritingEfficacy 327

limited to the type of writing prompt the students received, and their
essay scores need not representtheir general writing performance.
Promising inroads utilizing powerful statistical path analyses to de-
velop causal models have already been made in related areas such as
mathematics (see Hackett, 1985), and it would be valuable to examine
writing constructswith these same tools. Also, Schunk (1991)noted that,
although quantitative methods have typically been used in studying
self-efficacy,qualitativemethods such as case studies or oral histories are
needed to gain additional insights. And Munby (1984) suggested that
qualitative researchmethodology is especially relevant and appropriate
to the study of beliefs.
An important pedagogical implication to emerge from our findings
foregroundsthe responsibilityof teachereducators as this responsibility
relatesto the development of their students' self-efficacy.Socialcognitive
theoristsargue that one importantsource of students' self-confidencelies
in the feedbackthat students receive from their teachers.Becauseshe did
not consider this an importantfunction in her course, the teachereduca-
tor in our study did not provide students with feedback regardingtheir
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 informationregardingtheir 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 theo-
rists are correct,certainchoices these students will make, and their sub-
sequent effort, persistence, and level of anxiety regarding their writing
skills, will result from these unalteredself-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
instructionbut through appropriatestrategiesaimed at the development
of the students' own self-confidence(see Pajares,in press).
Some self-efficacyresearchershave 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 in-
creases effort and persistence. Some students in our study, however,
underestimatedtheir 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 researchershave demonstrated that self-efficacy strongly influ-

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
328 Researchin the Teachingof English,28, October1994

ences college students' choice of majorsand careerdecisions (see Hackett,

1985). In many cases, inaccurateperceptions of mathematicsability,and
not lack of skill, are responsible for avoidance of math-relatedcourses
and careers.The same phenomenon may be at work with writing. If so,
effortsto identify and alterinaccuratejudgmentsshould 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-efficacycan be enhanced. Instead, the readeris directed to the work
of self-efficacytheorists, who provide insights as to how this can be best
accomplished (see Schunk, 1991).However, we warn that increasingstu-
dents' self-confidence in an academic endeavor is no panacea for the
development of competence. Moreover,it may hardly be realisticto arti-
ficially build confidence when it has no basis in competence or aptitude.
The development of confidence is clearly warranted, however, when
perceptionsof competence or potential are inaccurateor when skills and
abilitiesare firstbeing mastered.Forexample, students' confidenceabout
their writing capabilitiesoften have their roots in elementary or middle
school and become pronounced by high school. If self-efficacy assess-
ments were to begin early in a student's academic career, inaccurate
perceptions could be identified early and appropriateinterventionsun-
dertaken.Indeed, one of self-efficacytheory's greatestcontributionsmay
well be that it has alerted educators to the possibility of building stu-
dents' competence partly by increasing their confidence in that compe-
tence and in their potential.

References
Alexander, L., & Martray, C. (1989). The development of an abbreviated version
of the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale. Measurementand Evaluation in Coun-
seling and Development,22, 143-150.
Bandura, A. (1986). Socialfoundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive
Theoryand Research,8, 231-255.
Bruning, R. H. (1992). Personal communication, October 27.
Daly, J. A., (1978). Writing apprehension and writing competency. Journalof Edu-
cational Research,72, 10-14.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975a). The empirical development of an instrument
to measure writing apprehension. Researchin the Teachingof 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. Researchin the Teachingof English, 9, 250-256.

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WritingEfficacy 329

Daly, J. A., & Wilson, D. A. (1983). Writing apprehension, self-esteem, and person-
ality. Researchin the Teachingof 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 EducationalResearch,75, 16-
21.
Foster, D. (1983). A primerfor writing teachers.Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton-Cook.
Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of
preservice teachers' professional perspectives. Teaching& TeacherEducation,4,
121-137.
Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-re-
lated majors of college women and men: A path analysis. Journalof Counseling
Psychology,32, 47-56.
Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1989). An exploration of the mathematics self-effi-
cacy/mathematics performance correspondence. Journalfor Researchin Mathe-
matics Education,20, 261-273.
Hillocks, G. (1986). Researchon written composition.Urbana, IL: ERIC/NCTE.
McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing. College
Compositionand Communication,36, 465-471.
McLeod, S. (1987). Some thoughts about feelings: The affective domain and the
writing process. College Compositionand 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.
Journalof Researchin Science Teaching,21, 27-38.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journalof Curricu-
lum Studies, 19, 317-328.
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference:Strategies and shortcomingsof social
judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of EducationalResearch,62, 307-332.
Pajares, F. (1993). Preservice teachers' beliefs: A focus for teacher education.
Action in TeacherEducation, 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. Journalof EducationalPsy-
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. Journalof Researchand Developmentin Education,22(2), 1-8.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs,attitudes, and values: A theoryof organizationand change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. EducationalPsycholo-
gist, 26, 207-231.

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
330 Research in the Teaching of English, 28, October1994

Shell, D. E, Murphy,C. C, & Bruning,R. H. (1989). Self-efficacyand outcome

expectancymechanismsin readingand writing achievement.Journalof 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-efficacyscale:Constructionand validation.Psycho-
logical Reports,51, 663-671.
Siegel, R. G., Galassi,J. P.,& Ware,W. B. (1985).A comparisonof two models for
predicting mathematicsperformance:Social learning versus math aptitude-
anxiety. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 32, 531-538.
Wood,R. E., & Locke,E. A. (1987).The relationof self-efficacyand grade goals to
academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 1013-
1024.
Wolcott, W. (1989). Perspectives on holistic scoring: The impact of monitoring on
writtenevaluation.Unpublished doctoraldissertation.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 confi-
dent 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. Writea letter to a friend or family member.
2. Use instructionsfor how to play a card game.
3. Compose a will or other legal document.
4. Fill out an insuranceapplication.
5. Writean instructionmanual for operatinga stereo.
6. Preparea resume describingyour employment history and skills.
7. Writea 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. Writea term paper of 15 to 20 pages.
10. Author a scholarlyarticlefor publicationin a professionaljournalin
your field.
11. Writea letter to the editor of the daily newspaper.
12. Compose an articlefor a popular magazine such as Newsweek.
13. Author a short fiction story.
14. Author a novel.
15. Compose an essay expressingyour view on a controversialtopic.
16. Writeuseful class notes.

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WritingEfficacy 331

17. Author a children'sbook.

18. Preparelesson plans for an elementaryclass studying the process of
writing.
19. Writea 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 confi-
dent are you that you can performeach of the following writingskills?You may
use any numberbetween 0 and 100.
1. Correctlyspell all words in a one page passage.
2. Correctlypunctuatea one page passage.
3. Correctlyuse parts of speech (i.e., nouns, verbs, adjectives,etc.)
4. Write a simple sentence with proper punctuation and grammatical
structure.
5. Correctlyuse plurals,verb tenses, prefixes,and suffixes.
6. Write compound and complex sentences with proper punctuation
and grammaticalstructure.
7. Organizesentences into a paragraphso as to clearlyexpress 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- trackingand
grouping, the English Only movement, equal access to computers, and
censorship. SLATEStarterSheets are intended as action-orientedinfor-
mation sources for English and language arts professionals. The format
for a StarterSheet should include, but is not limited to, the following: (1)
presentationand background of the issue/topic; (2) general discussion,
usually including NCTE positions; (3) recommendations for action or
furtherexamination;and (4) brief list of referencesand/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
February15, 1995. Please submit four copies of the manuscript,typewrit-
ten and double-spacedon 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.

This content downloaded from 82.235.53.89 on Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:46:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions