Writing Apprehension and Writing Competency

Writing Apprehension and Writing CompetencyAuthor(s): John A. DalySource: The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Sep. - Oct., 1978), pp. 10-14Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27537168 .

Accessed: 29/08/2013 10:29

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

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

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal ofEducational Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 35.8.11.2 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:29:38 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27537168?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


10 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

7. Flanders, N. A. "Knowledge about Teacher Effectiveness."

Report A 73-17. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Edu

cational Research and Development, 1973.

8. Gall, M. D. "The Problem of * Student Achievement' in Research

on Teacher Effects." Report A 73-2. San Francisco: Far West

Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, 1973.

9. Heath, R. W., and Nielson, M. A. "The Performance Basis for

Performance-Based Teacher Education." Review of Educa

tional Research 44 (1974): 463-484.

10. Kennedy, J. J., and Bush, A. J. "Overcoming Some Impedi ments to the Study of Teacher Effectiveness." Journal of Teacher Education 27 (1976): 14-17.

11. Rosenshine, B., and F?rst, N. F. "Research in Teacher Per

formance." In Research in Teacher Education: A Symposium, edited by B. O. Smith. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971.

12. Rosenshine, B., and Stevens, R. "Specific College Teaching Behavior." Unpublished manuscript. University of Illinois, 1967.

13. Solomon, D.; Bezdek, W. E.; Rosenberg, L. "Teaching Styles and Learning." Brookline, Mass.: Center for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults, 1963. ERIC ED 026 556.

14. Stayrook, N. G.; Corno, L.; Winne, P.H. "Path Analyses Re

lating Students' Perceptions of Teacher Behavior to Student Achievement." Journal of Teacher Education, in press.

15. Tom, F. K., and Cushman, H. R., "The Cornell Diagnostic Ob

servation and Reporting System for Student Description of

College Teaching." Search Monograph, Vol. 5, No. 8. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life

Sciences, 1975.

Writing Apprehension and

Writing Competency

JOHN A. DALY

University of Texas at Austin

ABSTRACT

Writing apprehension is a situation and subject-specific individual difference concerned with people's general tendencies to approach or avoid writing. Theoretically, and on the basis of previous research, those with low apprehension about writing should perform better on tests of writing skills than highly apprehensive writers. The present study tested this prediction. As expected, low apprehensives scored significantly better on comprehensive tests of grammar, mechanics, and larger concerns in writing skills. Supplemental analyses revealed that average scores for individuals normally classified as moderates tended to fall between the average scores obtained for high and low apprehensives.

RECENTLY THERE HAVE BEEN suggestions that

people may characteristically vary in their apprehension about actively encoding written messages. Labeled writing

apprehension (8), this predisposition has been conceived of as a situation and subject-specific individual difference.

The apprehension construct is concerned with a person's

general tendencies to approach or avoid situations per ceived to demand writing accompanied by some amount

of evaluation. The highly apprehensive individual finds

writing unrewarding. Consequently, he or she will avoid, if

possible, situations where writing is perceived as required.

Further, when unavoidably placed in such situations, he or

she will experience more than normal amounts of anxiety.

Previous research with writing apprehension has evi denced a number of significant correlates and consequences.

Writing apprehension has been linked to both academic and occupational decisions. Those with high apprehension

about writing select academic subjects and jobs which they perceive as having significantly lower writing requirements. In addition, the desirability of various occupations and

majors are affected interactively by the writing demands associated with them and the subject's writing apprehen sion (11, 12). The construct, assessed by a self-report

measure, is factorially separate from a variety of other,

somewhat similar, variables such as trait anxiety, oral com

munication apprehension, and receiver anxiety. No signifi cant associations appear between the apprehension and

individual differences such as locus of control, dogmatism, machiavellianism, and achievement motivation. A slight, but significant, inverse relationship has been noted between

apprehension and the individual's tolerance for ambiguity (15). In addition, writing apprehension is inversely and sig nificantly related to various self-concept measures as well

as to ratings of self-competence (5, 14).



DALY 11

Within the classroom, apprehension about writing appears to affect satisfaction in coursework requiring writ

ing, expectations of success in future writing-oriented

classes, enrollment in advanced composition courses, and

enjoyment of out-of-class projects which ostensibly demand some writing (9,16). Classroom teachers predict highly apprehensive writers to be significantly less likely to

succeed academically; they also view poor skill develop ment and teachers' negative responses to the student's

early writing attempts as potential causes for the anxiety (6). In terms of actual writing, the construct has been found

predictive of quantitative measures such as the number of

words and statements written, the amount of qualification present in a message, and the intensity of the language selected by the writer when encoding the message. Qualita

tively, messages written by high apprehensives tend to be evaluated significantly lower in quality than those encoded

by low apprehensives (1, 4, 10). High apprehensives also tend to be less effective in the active encoding of counter attitudinal messages than low apprehensives (18).

Previous research has demonstrated a clear and consist

ent relationship between a person's apprehension and the

way he or she writes. No research, however, has directly

probed the actual skill or competency differences that

may exist between high and low apprehensive writers. Yet

competencies in the variety of compositional and gram matical skills demanded for successful message encoding

represent necessary prerequisites for adequate writing per

formance. Since high apprehensives tend to avoid situations

requiring writing, thus substantially reducing their oppor tunities for practice and feedback crucial to the successful

development of writing skills, they should perform signifi cantly less well on skill-type tests than low apprehensives.

Empirical evidence lends some support to this expecta tion. Daly and Miller (9), for example, noted a significant inverse correlation between the apprehension and self

reported SAT-Verbal test scores. In a survey of a large

group of elementary and secondary school teachers, Daly (6) found that the most common explanation for the

development and maintenance of writing apprehension was poor skill development. Taken together, the theory and research available on writing apprehension suggest the

hypothesis that low apprehensives will perform significantly better on a comprehensive test of writing skills than will

high apprehensives.

Method

A total of 3,602 undergraduate students enrolled in a

mandatory basic composition course at a large midwestern

university completed the writing apprehension measure (8) and a writing competency questionnaire at the start of the semester. Virtually every respondent was a first-semester

undergraduate. The two instruments were completed on

different days. In some cases, respondents failed to com

plete some measure. Scores relevant to these subjects were

treated as missing data when appropriate. Consequently, the actual sample sizes used in different parts of this research varied. All samples were, however, over 3,000.

Writing apprehension was assessed by subjects' responses to the 26-item version of the measure devised by Daly and

Miller (8). The instrument has been found highly reliable across diverse samples of respondents.

A 68-item, multiple-choice test of writing competency (skill) was also administered. It was constructed from a

larger skills test originally devised to accompany a text book used in the course.2 Different versions of the test had been used for a two-year period prior to the adminis tration particularly relevant to this report. The present form encompassed 12 main skills. The skills selected were

those most often identified by a set of experienced com

position instructors (N= 10) as most relevant to "good" or

"competent" writing. They represented three general areas: mechanics, grammar, and larger elements involved

in composition. More specifically, these included the stu dent's ability to properly use case, punctuation, capitali

zation, agreement, adjectives and adverbs, diction, subor

dination, and parallelism as well as the ability to recognize faulty references or pronouns, misspellings, sentence frag

ments, and misplaced parts. Items were included in the test on three bases. First,

previous work with the items and the overall test provided some indications of which items best tapped the different skills. Second, items were retained which encompassed, as

much as possible, the various dimensions inherent in each of the 12 specific skill areas. Third, a group of experienced writing teachers (mean years of experience

= 4.5) selected

those items with the best face validity (i.e., "The ones that look like they would best tap the particular area of skill").

The sample size used insured an adequate level of statisti cal power (2) to detect differences.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

The initial analysis was an assessment of the reliability of both instruments. Cronbach's alpha coefficient (3) was selected as a measure of internal consistency. The obtained coefficient for the writing apprehension measure was .89 and the coefficient for the skills test was .81. Both values

were deemed sufficiently high to justify further analyses. Respondents were classified as high, moderate, or low in

writing apprehension on the basis of their responses to the instrument. Responses were summed for each person so

that a high score always indicated high apprehension. Indi viduals scoring one

standard^deviation above or below the

group apprehension score (X =

75.59, SD = 13.35) were

operationally defined as high and low, respectively, in

apprehension. Respondents whose scores fell within one

standard deviation of the mean were classified as moder ates. A one-way analysis of variance with three levels of

apprehension was computed on the apprehension scores to insure that the group differences expected were present (19).

A significant overall effect was observed, F(2,3599) =

4464.15,p < .00001. Follow-up analyses using the con servative Scheffe procedure for multiple comparisons indi cated that each group mean was significantly different

(p < .05) from every other one^ For the primary tests of the hypotheses only the high (X

= 96.50, SD =

5.79) and low (X

= 55.45, SD =

5.31) grougs were used. For the sup plemental analyses, moderates (X=75.04, SD =

7.74) were

included.




Table 1.-Summary of Results for Standard Deviation Split

Dependent Measure *low^> *high^> (df= 1,1002)

Standardized

Discriminant

Coefficient

Punctuation 4.78(1.38) 4.50(1.36) 10.98 .0009 -.01

Spelling 6.05(1.40) 5.35(1.56) 55.13 .0001 .53

Capitalization 2.55 ( .87) 2.50 (.87) .67 ns -.06

Case 3.61(1.54) 3.15(1.58) 21.64 .0001 .23

Adjectives-Adverbs 4.78(1.26) 4.17(1.59) 45.54 .0001 .47

Sentence Fragments 9.23(1.12) 8.87(1.34) 20.85 .0001 .13

Agreement 3.31(1.43) 3.01(1.49) 11.09 .0001 -.10

Faulty References/Pronouns 2.53(1.24) 2.27(1.22) 11.33 .0001 .02

Misplaced Parts 1.77 ( .99) 1.70 ( .99) 1.39 ns -.01

Diction 1.74 ( .97) 1.50 ( .95) 15.24 .0001 .25

Subordination 3.13 ( .91) 3.13 ( .86) .00 ns -.16

Parallelism 4.08(1.24) 3.71(1.39) 20.56 .0001 .10

Primary Analyses

The major test of the hypothesis was computed via a

one-way analysis of variance with two levels of writing

apprehension (high and low), using the overall score on the

competency test as a dependent measure. The higher the test score the better the individual's^performance. As

hypothesized, high apprehensives (A>43.87, SD = 1.98)

performed significantly poorer [F(l, 1002) =

61.54, p < .00001] on the competency test than low apprehen sives (X

= 47.62, SD =

1.10). A second way of examining this finding is through

analyses of the 12 subtests which were combined to form the overall test. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance

was computed with the 12 subtests serving as dependent measures and the two levels of writing apprehension as the

independent variable (17). The overall multivariate effect was significant, F(12,991)

= 8.16, p<. 00001, X = .91.

Two follow-up procedures were completed to probe the effect (13). First, a standardized discriminant function was

computed. It revealed that the major contributors to the multivariate effect were spelling competency and adjective adverb use. Second, a series of univariate analyses of vari

ances were computed. Significant differences (p < .001) were noted for all dependent measures except capitaliza

tion, misplaced parts, and subordination. Table 1 sum

marizes the important numerical information. It should be noted that in every case, the direction of means was in

accord with the hypothesis.

Supplemental Analyses

In most recent research on writing apprehension, the

normal procedure has been to analyze differences between individuals classified as high and low in the anxiety. Indi

viduals who score as moderates are typically discarded

prior to data analysis. Such a procedure is entirely appro

priate if the interest is in gross differences among extreme

groups. Indeed, when the desire is to demonstrate a signifi cant effect, this technique may be the optimal solution.

On the other hand, the inclusion of moderates in an analy sis may allow for a better understanding of the overall rela

tionship between apprehension and some dependent measure of interest. While not hypothesized directly, the data collected for the present study allowed a supplemental analysis of the relationship between competency and three levels of apprehension : high, moderate, and low. The

expectation was that the moderately apprehensive group would fall between the high and low groups on competency.

A one-way analysis of variance with three levels of

apprehension using the overall test scores on the compe tency test as a dependent measure supported the expecta tion that there would be a significant effect among group

means. And, as expected, the means fell in the direction

posited. Follow-up analyses using Scheffe's multiple com

parison procedure revealed that every difference among the three means reached statistical significance. The magni tude of the mean differences varied however. Table 2 pro vides a summary of the important statistical information.

As in the primary analysis, a second data analysis pro cedure was completed using the 12 subtests as dependent

measures and the three levels of apprehension as an inde

pendent factor. The multivariate analysis of variance

revealed two significant roots. The first [(F(24,6676) = 5.26,p < .00001, X =

.96], according to the standardized discriminant coefficients, was primarily associated with

spelling and adjective-adverb use. The second root

[(F(ll,3388.5) =

1.98,p<.03,X =

.99] had, as large con

tributors, recognition of sentence fragments and parallelism. In the univariate analyses which followed, significant dif ferences emerged for all subtests except capitalization, mis

placed parts, and subordination. The direction of means, in

virtually every case, was as expected. Table 2 contains the

important summative information.



DALY 13

Table 2.-Summary of Results for Three-Level Analysis

_ _ _ F Standardized

Dependent Variable Ilnw(5D) Y . (SD) Xh. h (SD) (df= 2,3349) p Coefficients tow mea nign root j root 2

Punctuation

Spelling

Capitalization

Case

Adj ectives-Adverb s

Sentence Fragments

Agreement

Faulty References/Pronouns

Misplaced Parts

Diction

Subordination

Parallelism

Total

4.78 (1.38)a 4.59 (1.39)b

6.05(1.40)a 5.76(1.54)b

2.55 ( .87)a 2.52 ( .88)a

3.61(1.54)a 3.40(1.56)b

4.78(1.26)a 4.62(1.43)b

9.23(1.12)a 9.18(1.18)a

3.31 (1.43)a 3.27 (1.39)a

2.53 (1.24)a 2.37 (1.21)b

1.77 ( .99)a 1.76 ( .98)a

1.74 ( .97)a 1.61 ( .95)b

3.13 ( .91)a 3.14 ( .89)a

4.08(1.24)a 3.84(1.30)b

47.62 (7.10)a 46.08 (7.42)b

4.50(1.36)b 5.80

5.35 (1.56)c 26.97

2.50 ( .87)a .33

3.15 (1.58)c 10.95

4.17 (1.59)c 26.84

8.87 (1.34)b 15.38

3.01 (1.48)b 8.32

2.27 (1.22)b 5.91

1.70 ( .99)a .99

1.50 ( .95)b 7.78

3.13 ( .86)a .03

3.71(1.39)b 11.03

43.87 (7.98)c 32.53

.003 -.07 -.40

.0001 .52 -.11

ns -.09 -.05

.0001 .20 -.16

.0001 .50 .30

.0001 .26 .54

.0002 -.00 .43

.003 -.05 -.30

.115 -.01 .20

.0004 .21 -.26

ns -.15 .09

.0001 .06 -.56

.0001

NOTE: Differences among groups for each dependent variable were tested via Scheffe's procedure. Means with different subscripts are significantly different from one another (p < .05).

Discussion

The hypothesis that individuals with low apprehension of writing would perform significantly better than those with high apprehension on a test of writing skills was con firmed for both overall test scores and the majority of sub tests incorporated within the test. Supplemental analyses revealed that those with moderate apprehension fell between high and low apprehensives in terms of test per formance , suggesting the accuracy of a continuum ranging

from low to high apprehension. The present research demonstrates an important corre

late of writing apprehension. Discovering differences in

competency, as assessed by an objective test, provides addi

tional behavioral evidence for the importance of the con struct. High apprehensives not only write differently and

with lower quality than low apprehensives, but, in addi

tion, fail to demonstrate as strong a working knowledge of

writing skills as low apprehensives. One might note the amount of variance accounted for

by the effect (9 percent) and conclude that while the dif ferences were statistically significant, they were not too

meaningful. Yet, one wouldn't expect much more variance

to be accounted for by the effect. The suggestion has never

been made that attitude and performance should be, or are,

highly related. Indeed, the overriding emphasis has always been that attitude (as partially represented by the appre hension construct) and aptitude or performance represent

relatively separate domains in the area of writing (7). They should be related, but not at a magnitude much greater than that obtained in the present study.

The findings also lend support to one of the key con

ceptual links in the theoretical underpinnings of the appre hension construct. An individual who fails to exhibit the

appropriate and necessary writing skills is unlikely to find much success in writing activities. This should maintain the

apprehension which, in turn, may maintain the avoidance

of practice and evaluative feedback. However, the direc

tionality of the effect was not probed in the current inves

tigation. Whether apprehension or skills weaknesses develop first, or alternatively emerge simultaneously and interac

tively, remains an unanswered question.

Some important cautions need to be stated in terms of the present research. First, the term "competency" or

"skill" is used in a very limited sense throughout this

report. Many of the most important competencies and skills which contribute to writing (e.g., the ideas) are not, and indeed probably could not, be assessed through an

objective testing procedure. The present research is

restricted to the relatively clear-cut "rights and wrongs" of

composition. Second, a variety of other techniques used to assess writing skills need to be related to writing appre hension prior to positing any firm knowledge claims. Essay tests, different standardized tests, and teacher evaluations

are all important in gaining a thorough understanding of the




potentially intricate relationships between performance and

apprehension. Finally, the relative roles of writing appre hension and writing aptitude in determining a student's actual writing performance need to be carefully probed. Just how important each is to overall writing success is not known.

The present study indicates that high writing apprehen sives perform differently than low writing apprehensives on standardized writing tests, suggesting important skills dif ferences may be associated with the apprehension. This

study provides evidence for both the role and importance of writing apprehension in the actual encoding of written

messages.

NOTES

1. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual

convention of the Southwestern Educational Research Association

at Austin, Texas, in January 1978.

2. Copies of both tests are available from the author. Descrip tions of the specific skills tested are available in basic composition texts. The original test was developed to accompany Prentice-Hall texts.

REFERENCES

1. Book, V. "Some Effects of Apprehension on Writing Perform

ance." Paper presented at the annual convention of the Western

Speech Communication Association, San Francisco, November

1976. 2. Cohen, J. A. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sci

ences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

3. Cronbach, L. J. "Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure

of Tests." Psychometrika 16 (1951): 297-334.

4. Daly, J. A. "The Effects of Writing Apprehension on Message

Encoding." Journalism Quarterly 54 (1977): 566-572.

5. Daly, J. A. "Writing Apprehension: Theory, Research and

Measurement." Paper presented to the annual convention of

the College Composition and Communication Association,

Denver, April 1978.

6. Daly, J. A. "Writing Apprehension in the Classroom: Teacher

Role Perceptions of the Apprehensive Writer." Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Communication

Association, Chicago, April 1978.

7. Daly, J. A. "Attitudes in Composition: Theory and Assessment."

Paper presented at the annual convention of the College Com

position and Communication Association, Denver, April 1978.

8. Daly, J. A., and Miller, M. D. "The Development of a Measure

of Writing Apprehension." Research in the Teaching of English

9(1975): 242-249.

9. Daly, J. A., and Miller, M. D. "Further Studies in Writing

Apprehension: SAT Scores, Success Expectations, Willingness to Take Advanced Courses and Sex Differences." Research in

the Teaching of English 9 (1975): 250-256.

10. Daly, J. A., and Miller, M. D. "Apprehension of Writing as a

Predictor of Message Intensity." Journal of Psychology 89

(1975): 175-177.

11. Daly, J. A., and Shamo, W. "Writing Apprehension and Occu

pational Choice." Journal of Occupational Psychology 49

(1976): 55-56.

12. Daly, J. A., and Shamo, W. "Academic Decisions as a Function

of Writing Apprehension." Research in the Teaching of English

(in press). 13. Hummel, T. J., and Sligo, J. R. "Empirical Comparison of Uni

variate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance Procedures." Psy

chological Bulletin 76 (1971): 49-57.

14. McCroskey, J. C; Daly, J. A.; Richmond, V. P.; Falcione, R. L.

"Studies of the Relationship between Communication Appre hension and Self-Esteem." Human Communication Research

3(1977): 269-277.

15. Miller, M. D., and Daly, J. A. "The Empirical Development of a

Measure of Writing Apprehension." Paper presented at the

annual convention of the International Communication Asso

ciation, Chicago, April 1975.

16. Scott, M. D., and Wheeless, L. R. "Communication Apprehen sion, Student Attitudes and Levels of Satisfaction." Western

Journal of Speech Communication 41 (1977): 188-197. 17. Timm, N. H. Multivariate Analysis with Applications in Edu

cation and Psychology. Monterey: Brooks/Cole, 1975.

18. Toth, D. "The Effects of Writing Apprehension on Attitude

Change in the Counter-Attitudinal Paradigm." Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Asso

ciation, Houston, December 1975.

19. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

MOVING? To make sure you don't miss an issue,

please let us know your new address as

soon as possible.

Six weeks' notice will assure your

journal's arrival without the costly and

annoying delay of forwarding or remailing.

Name

Journal

OLD ADDRESS

Street

City State Zip Code

NEW ADDRESS

Street

City State Zip Code

Please send to the journal c/o Heldref

Publications, 4000 Albemarle St. N.W., Suite 504, Washington, D.C. 20016.



Documents

Writing Apprehension and Writing Competency