Differences in correlation between Writing self ...

Differences in correlation between Writing self-efficacy and Writing Performance: Implications for addressing diversity among learners

Ilyana Jalaluddin Shamala A/P Paramasivam English Department, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Malaysia

Abstract Self-efficacy beliefs has been found to affect what the students do by influencing the choices they make, the effort they expend, the persistence and perseverance they exert in the face of adversity, and anxiety they experience (Pajares & Valiante, 2008). Bandura’s (1997) concept of triadic reciprocity behaviour has also portrayed self-efficacy as one of the components that predict and change human behaviour. This study thus aimed to explore the relationship between writing skills and writing self-efficacy (WSE) level between two groups of higher institution learners namely high self-efficacy writers and low self-efficacy writers. Following that, this study also sought to answer the differences in correlation between WSE and Writing skills among these two groups. Basically, it was a case study where 33 UPM students majoring in Literature and Language studies were involved in a research for four months. Two instruments were used to collect data namely WSE questionnaire and written assignments produced by the learners. Specifically, learners’ self-efficacy level was evaluated using a writing self-efficacy (WSE) scale adapted from Bottomley, Henk, & Melnick (1997), while learners’ writing skills was evaluated based on four written assignments throughout the semester. Here, the analysis of the four written assignment was done from the perspective of Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey (1981) and adapted by Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1992). In order to map out the relationship, a Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was performed and it was found that there was a weak relationship between self-efficacy and writing skills performances. In order to test the correlation differences, a Fisher’s ZTransformation was carried out. It was found that the difference between these [SYLWAN., 159(4)]. ISI Indexed

261

correlations was statistically significant. This result will bring to discussion on implications in relation to teaching and learning within the Malaysian tertiary setting. Key words: Writing performance, writing self-efficacy, tertiary learners

Introduction Writing is not an easy task as it is a highly complex and demanding task that requires a number of skills to be performed. It is a complex cognitive activity involving attention at multiple levels: thematic, paragraph, sentence, grammatical and lexical (Lavelle, Smith & O’Ryan, 2002). There are many features that set aside writing skils from reading, speaking and listening skills. Writers for instance are different from readers in which they cannot just consume and utilize text but they have to generate a text that may require them to relate to their knowledge and other inputs. In addition to that, writers may not receive an immediate and direct feedback from the social environment and thus complicate the process of transforming the thought to written communication. Although writing is teachable, the transformation of thought into written communication is a difficult activity that requires many other levels of complementary skills. Some of the necessary skills contributing to the complexity of writing were described by Montague and Leavell (1994) as cited in Scott and Vitale (2003:220): Writing requires co-ordination and integration of multiple processes, including planning, production, editing, and revision. Composing requires prior knowledge of topic, genre, conventions, and rules as well as the ability to access, use and organise that knowledge when writing.

In view of this intricacy in writing, it is not a surprise that learners especially the L2 learners struggle to acquire writing skills and face variety of flaws in writing. Scott and Vitale (2003:221) identified that learners’ writing problems range “from lower level mechanical problems such as spelling, capitalisation, and punctuation, to higher order cognitive and metacognitive problems such as planning and revision”. These type of writing skills deficits may overwhelm the learners or perhaps may even shun away learners from attempting.

[SYLWAN., 159(4)]. ISI Indexed

262

In Malaysia, the 2005 School Certificate Examination Report on English Language 2 revealed that the majority of the candidates had yet to master writing skills in English at the required level (Samuel & Zaitun Bakar, 2008). Previous researches have shown that despite having learnt English for eleven years in schools, there are still many learners who are unable to produce even short and comprehensible writing. This is especially so in the case among L2 learners in rural area. A lot of effort and suggestions have been put forward to attract learners from rural areas to learn and master the English language. One of the government programmes is the First Step Program which emphasises on reading and writing to help rural learners improve their command of English. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the programme and perhaps the teaching itself in rural area schools are still seems beyond the questions. This is because “the command of English language in rural schools, in Teluk Intan specifically, is still poor” (Anon, 2008) and in fact, Chitravelu et al (2005) noted that Malaysian learners still see writing as a difficult task and there are very few social uses for writing in English in schools. Given the obstacles and difficulties faced by the learners, it is timely to review what is needed to help learners to be able to express their ideas competently via written communication. One of the main elements that can help leaners to write is by starting to understand ‘the learners’ innerself’ and move on to the external factors such as support or guidance from the social environment. ‘Innerself’ here can be referred to self-beliefs, personal experience, and learners’ level of background knowledge. As Hidi and Pietro (2008) have pointed out that “nurturing learners’ positive beliefs about writing, fostering authentic writing goals and contexts, providing learners with a supportive context for writing, and creating a positive emotional classroom environment are the conditions that determine learners’ motivation to write” (MacArthur, Graham & Fitzgerald, 2008:145). Recently, teachers’ roles have been given prominence in the Malaysian education field as this is the factor that poses great influence on the development of learners, both intellectually and emotionally (Mok Soon Sang, 2008). In the area of writing, teachers’ role is important in developing learners’ self-efficacy and skills. Self-efficacy is defined as “cognitive construct that represents individuals’ beliefs and personal judgments about their ability to perform at a certain level and affects choice of activities, effort, and

[SYLWAN., 159(4)]. ISI Indexed

263

performance” (Hidi & Pietro 2008:148).

Mok Soon Sang (2008) described the

relationship between physical factor, social and self-efficacy as in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1 The inter-relationship of social, and emotional factors with effective classroom management in the learning environment. Source: Mok Soon Sang 2008 Figure 1 shows that a teacher needs to help learners to develop writing skills by giving feedback or assistance in writing compositions. The teacher’s feedback or assistance received by the learners will indirectly influence the learners’ confidence in writing (i.e. their writing self-efficacy). Effective assistance allows learners to believe that they can carry out the writing tasks, whereas negative comments or less assistance from the teacher reduces learners’ self-efficacy (Rahil Mahyuddin et al., 2006). This means that when positive comments are given, it will heighten learners’ self-efficacy level and thus making them feel competent and confident to get involve in the activities. On the other hand, low self-efficacy will not be able to keep the learners persevere when encountering challenges. As the learners work on their composition, it also gives them the impression of how capable they are in writing and thus affects the confidence to persevere and perform. This performance in the way will tell the teachers what kind of assistance or to what extent the teacher should provide assistance to the learners to complete the task. Based on the argument above, learners obviously need support from teachers in developing positive self-beliefs in writing which finally can help in improving their writing skills. Self-belief, or more specifically ‘self-efficacy’, is also important here because it seems to inspire the course of action and efforts that the learners put in the face of adversity. In other words, one’s self-efficacy can affect how one behaves, thoughts and emotional reactions in achievement settings. With teacher’s assistance, it might help to [SYLWAN., 159(4)]. ISI Indexed

264

boost writers’ self-efficacy and finally to fine tune skills in writing. This is because “selfefficacious individuals are more willing to participate, to work harder, and persist longer in tasks and have less adverse reactions when encountering difficulties than those who doubt their capabilities” (Hidi & Pietro 2008:148). The role of self-efficacy has received extensive support from a growing body of findings from diverse fields in the United States for meta-analysis of research on the relationship between self-efficacy and academic outcomes. Nevertheless, one academic area that has received little attention from self-efficacy researchers is written composition. The few researchers (Pajares & Johnson 1995; Linnenbrink & Pintrich 2003; Ergul 2004; Pajares 2003; Rahil Mahyuddin et al. 2006; Schunk & Zimmerman 2007) who have investigated self-efficacy beliefs and essay writing agree that the two are related. In Malaysia, many studies have focused on the correlation between learners’ self-efficacy and various variables, such as learners’ English achievement (i.e. overall result), locus of control, motivations, counselling skills, science and mathematics achievement, and teacher’s efficacy, but few have focused on writing self-efficacy. In Malaysian institutions of higher learning, there are more self-efficacy studies in counselling and education (Kee 1999; Zuraidah 2003; Tien 2004), mathematics (Fok 2001; Kua 2002; Wong 2004), business study (Lee 1991; Abeer A.H. Rashid 2004; Abdul Halim 2005; Ting 2006; Yang 2007), physical education (Yuhanis Adnan 1998), teacher’s selfefficacy (Chew 2000; Shanti Parajasingam 1999), sciences (Zuraidah 1999), English achievement (Intan Aidura 2006; Noorlizawati 2007). Postgraduate studies which have been conducted by Malaysian university learners can be summarised in Table 1 below: Table 1 Researches on self-efficacy done in the Malaysian context.

Researcher

Area of study

Rosna Awang The effects of state and trait worry, selfHashim (1999) efficacy, and effort on statistics achievement of Malay and Chinese undergraduates in Malaysia

[SYLWAN., 159(4)]. ISI Indexed

Conclusion Learners with high trait self-efficacy remained high state efficacious during the exam, expended greater effort and had less worry and, thus performed better in statistics achievement.

265

Mary Siew Lian Wong (2001)

Relationship between secondary school Learners’ self-efficacy were learners’ self-regulated learning strategies influenced by information conveyed and self-efficacy in learning sciences enactively, vicariously, persuasively or physiologically

Mohamed Abdirahman (2004)

Relationship between the learners’ goal A strong correlation between selforientations, value for academic learning, efficacy and self-regulated learning self-efficacy beliefs, and use of self- strategies regulated learning strategies

Abdul Majid (2005)

Relationship between self-esteem, self- The three variables related to each efficacy, and preferences for pay systems other criteria among business lecturers

Khalid Ismail Mustafa (2005)

Relationship between Internet usage, self- Master learners scored significantly efficacy and attitudes among postgraduate higher results in general Internet learners of IIUM usage, affection toward the Internet, and advanced Internet self-efficacy

Rashid Mohammed Salim Al-Hajri (2007)

A comparative study between Oman and Revealed a high self-efficacy belief Malaysia teachers’ beliefs and self- among teachers from Malaysia efficacy in computer technology integration for teaching and learning

Overall, a review of various local sources of records of research in Table 1 shows that there is hardly any documented study on writing self-efficacy of rural area school learners in a Malaysian context. Most of the studies (e.g. Pajares & Johnson 1995; Linnenbrink & Pintrich 2003; Pajares 2003; Ergul 2004: Schunk & Zimmerman 2007) have been conducted abroad which provides different cultural and educational context. In investigations of self-efficacy in Western settings, there are many examples of optimism and over-confidence to complete academic tasks (e.g. Pajares 1996; Bandura 1997; Pajares 2006). Nevertheless, according to Klassen (2002:221), “a person’s efficacy beliefs are differentially influenced depending on their cultural orientation and the nature of the training offered”. Klassen (2002:224) added that: Efficacy beliefs operate differently in non-Western cultures than they do in Western cultures. In almost all of the studies that included direct comparisons of levels of efficacy beliefs, whether the studies compared pairs of cultural groups (e.g. Pastorelli et al, 2001) or a large number of cultural groups (e.g. Scholz et al, 2002), self-efficacy beliefs were

[SYLWAN., 159(4)]. ISI Indexed

266

typically higher for participants from Western than for the participants from Asian. Thus, it is important to investigate self-efficacy beliefs in a Malaysian setting where the culture and learning environment are different. In addition, this study inquires into learners’ self-efficacy in a particular domain that is writing self-efficacy. In comparison to previous local research (such as Rosna Awang Hashim 1999; Wong 2001; Mohamed Abdirahman 2004; Intan Aidura 2006), it can be seen that most of the self-efficacy studies conducted have focused on one general theme that is academic as whole. Meanwhile, international research (such as Pajares & Johnson 1995; Pajares 1996; Pajares 2006) have been correlational in Western context.

Theoretical perspective The theoretical framework that underpinned this study is Bandura’s sociocognitive theory. Socio-cognitive theory pointed out that behavioural, personal and environment are the aspects that are important in learning. Based on this theory, there are three important elements identified for the specific framework of this study. They are affective factor (self-efficacy), social factor (teacher) and physical factor (written work). These three components are related and affect one another. In this framework, selfefficacy component acts as a filter which means that it indirectly affects learners’ performance whether in terms of behaviour (how they act) or their written product (how they perform). Meanwhile social/culture component refers to the teacher and all the activities that take place in the learning process. Teacher’s element includes the assistance given and through the assistance and interaction, the learners are able to gain some input that they understand so far. Based on the input they gained, the learners might feel confident (high self-efficacy) to engage in the task which further improve their written work. With the confident and language that they have, the learners are able to form a complete ideas (output) to be put on a paper or present it to the audiences. This element turn back to the society/culture element as the learners will get feedback from the audiences and the monitoring process continues to help improve the learners’ output. This may affect the learners’ self-efficacy as feedback may affect their perception of their own skill in writing. These concepts can be illustrated in the following conceptual framework; [SYLWAN., 159(4)]. ISI Indexed

267

Diagram 1 Conceptual framework of this study

Overall, Bandura’s framework portrayed that the three factors which are environment, personal factors and behaviour constantly influence one another. The environment involves activities and interaction with the society. This interaction can affect learners’ behaviour which can be looked in terms of their willingness to participate, persistence and awareness in language abilities. Finally, it may lead to the modification of personal development such as how they think and writing self-efficacy. “With respect to the link between personal factors and behaviour, learners’ self-efficacy beliefs influence achievement behaviour such as choice of tasks, effort, persistence, and achievement” (Schunk, 2003:160). This implies that when the learners have high selfefficacy in writing, they are probably more optimistic and confident in completing their writing tasks. Conversely, learners’ behaviours can also alter efficacy beliefs. For example, as they work on their writing tasks, they notice their progress and capabilities in writing. This goal progress and accomplishment will convey to the learners that they are capable of performing well. As a consequence, it enhances self-efficacy for continued writing. As noted by Pajares and Valiante (2008:159), “learners’ academic accomplishments can often be better predicted by their self-efficacy beliefs than by their previous attainments, knowledge, or skills”. In short, it can be seen that learners’ behaviours and classroom environments from the triadic concept are also related in the writing process. For example, when the teacher [SYLWAN., 159(4)]. ISI Indexed

268

models a writing process and directs the learners to write a paragraph, the learners will direct their attention and effort to the writing process by copying the teacher’s model. Here, environmental influence on behaviour occurs when learners direct their attention without conscious deliberation (Pajares & Schunk, 2001). Conversely, learners’ behaviour can also alter their environment in the writing process. For example, when the learners answer questions incorrectly, the teacher may reteach the lesson differently rather than continuing with the original material. Next, personal and environmental factors also affect one another in the writing process. For example, learners with high efficacy may view a writing task as a challenge and work diligently to master it, therefore creating a productive classroom environment. On the other hand, those with low writing selfefficacy may attempt to avoid the task, which can disrupt the classroom. This is perhaps how beliefs can affect the environment. Conversely, the environment can also influence the personal factor. For example, when the teacher (environment) gives feedback (e.g. “That’s right, you are really good at this.”), it in turn may raise learners’ writing selfefficacy and sustain motivation for learning to write (Schunk 2003). The discussion above implies that behaviour in the triadic model is not simply the result of the environment and the personal factors, just as the environment is not simply the result of the personal and behaviour, but they reciprocally affect one another in the writing process. This is because the environment perhaps provides models for learners’ behaviour capability largely through observational learning. Observational learning is when a person watches the actions of another person or the reinforcements that the person receives (Bandura, 1997). Meanwhile, behaviour capability means that if a person is to perform a writing task, he must know what process is involved and have the skills to perform it (Ewen, 2003). Bandura (1986) noted that people do indeed acquire many forms of behaviour through observing others and also learn from this experience. Here, Bandura called attention to the fact that many cognitive factors also play a role as human beings do not respond passively or automatically to external conditions. Instead, “they plan, form expectancies, set goals, imagine possible outcomes” (Baron, 1998:489). In other words, it can be said that Bandura (1997) saw human mind as generative, creative, proactive, and reflective, and not just reactive. It can be concluded that learners actually explore, manipulate and influence the environment that counts. Through this, “they regulate their motivation and activities, produce the experience that finally form the functional [SYLWAN., 159(4)]. ISI Indexed

269

neurobiological substrate of symbolic, social, psychomotor, and other skills necessary” (Bandura, 2001:4). Thus, it is the interest of this paper to present and discuss the relationship between writing skills and writing self-efficacy in the context of L2 tertiary learning.

Materials and methods Objectives of the study The objective of this study was to explore the relationship between writing skills (WS) and writing self-efficacy (WSE) level between two groups of higher institution learners namely high self-efficacy writers and low self-efficacy writers. These groups were determined based on the writing self-efficacy scores obtained via the writing self-efficacy scale adapted from Bottomley, Henk and Melnick (1998). Apart from the relationship between WS and WSE, this study sought to answer the differences in correlation between WSE and Writing skills among these two groups. The relationship between WS and WSE was calculated using a Pearson product-moment correlation analysis, while a Fisher’s ZTransformation was carried out to find the discrepancy between the correlations of the two predictors. Participant One class consisted of 33 students from final year of BA (English) class was asked to conduct a self-appraisal for their writing self-efficacy at the beginning of the semester. There were 13 boys and 20 girls. Instruments were group administered in the individual classes. Prior to the administration of the questionnaire on writing self-efficacy, the learners then were categorized according to their level of writing self-efficacy for the purpose of data analysis. During the study as well, the learners were required to write four written assignments throughout the semester. Instrument This study aims to explore the relationship between writing skills and writing selfefficacy (WSE) level between two groups of higher institution learners namely high self[SYLWAN., 159(4)]. ISI Indexed

270

efficacy writers and low self-efficacy writers. It is also seeks to answer the differences in correlation between WSE and Writing skills among these two groups. Based on the relationship identified, the researcher tries to discuss the implication to teaching and learning in writing. In responding to these aims, two instruments were used to collect data namely WSE questionnaire and written assignments produced by the learners. First, learners’ self-efficacy level was evaluated using a writing self-efficacy (WSE) scale adapted from Bottomley, Henk, & Melnick (1997). The 37 items on the writing selfefficacy scale measure how confident the students feel about their writing abilities; the aspects of writing for self-evaluation on the scale include ideas and content, organization, paragraph formatting, voice and tone, word choice, sentence fluency and conventions. This instrument measures the students’ confidence level on the Likert scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree. Second, learners’ writing skills was evaluated based on four written assignments throughout the semester. The analysis of the four written assignment was done from the perspective of Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey (1981) and adapted by Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1992) in evaluating ESL composition. This ESL composition profile focuses on content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanics. Analysis procedure There were two stages involved in analysing the data. Firstly, a Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was performed in order to map out the relationship between writing self-efficacy and writing skills for these two group namely high self-efficacy writers and low self-efficacy writers. In the next stage, correlation discrepancy was analysed to test for potential differences between correlations. A Fisher’s Z-Transformation was carried out to see whether there is a difference between the correlations that the two predictors writing self-efficacy (high and low) have with the criterion variable writing scores.

Finding A Pearson product-moment correlation was firstly run to determine the relationship between writing self-efficacy level and writing performance for the two groups of learners [SYLWAN., 159(4)]. ISI Indexed

271

namely the high-self-efficacy writers and low self-efficacy writers. The magnitude of the Pearson correlation coefficient to determine the strength of the correlation was based on the guidelines provided by Cohen (1988) in Table 2 below; Table 2 Correlation Guidelines (Cohen, 1988) Coefficient Value

Strength of Association

r =.10 to .29 or r = -.10 to -.29

Small correlation

r = .30 to .49 or r = -.30 to -.49

Medium/moderate correlation

r = .50 to 1.0 or r = -.50 to -1.0

Large/strong correlation

Meanwhile, the significance level (p-value) in the correlational analysis was determined at the 95% level of confidence (0.05). If the significance level was relatively small (less than .05) then the correlation was significant and the two variables were linearly related. If the significance level was relatively large (higher than .05) then the correlation was not significant and the two variables were not linearly related. The data showed no violation of normality, linearity or homoscedasticity. Findings showed that there was a weak negative correlation between writing performance and writing self-efficacy level for high self-efficacy writers, r (98)=-.101, p