Relationship Between Writing Apprehension and Writing Proficiency Among L2 Learners of Applied Linguistic Department at GCUF

1
Relationship between Writing Apprehension and Writing Proficiency among L2
learners of Applied Linguistic Department at GCUF
Zunaira Tariq
Roll no 210106
2
2. Literature Review
2.1 Writing Apprehension
Anxiety about writing clouds a person's image of himself as a writer and his potential
pleasure in the act of writing; it cramps his academic and career choices; and it taints the
quality of his writing style. Writing apprehension is the general avoidance of writing and
situations perceived by the individuals to potentially require some amount of writing
accompanied by the potential for evaluation of that writing (Daly, 1979, p. 37) researchers
called it “writing anxiety” or “writing block” as cited in Onwuegbuzie, (1997). The
characteristics of writing anxiety and its effects upon students' attitudes, behavior and writing
style will be discussed in the essay.
The term writing apprehension was coined by Daly and Miller (1975). It refers to a
situation and subject specific individual difference associated with a person's tendencies to
approach or avoid situations perceived to potentially require writing accompanied by some
amount of perceived evaluation. The cause of writing apprehension can be lack of
motivation, procrastination, fear of critical comments, time restriction (like thinking
limitations of time during test), peer competition, subject, required specific format, fear of
evaluation, lack of linguistics knowledge. Moreover, many researchers relate apprehension
with sex differences, traits, age, test anxiety, various subject specific attitudes, self-esteem
and other personality traits.
Apprehensive can be divided into high, low and moderate. As (Daly, 1979) explain
that highly apprehensive writer is less likely to achieve in a variety of academic subjects than
their low-apprehensive counterparts. Also, highly apprehensive individuals prefer and choose
occupations and academic which not to require much writing. In contrast, low apprehensive
people select jobs and academic concern traditions they judge to demand comparatively more
writing
Writing apprehension may related to sex differences. As some studies on sex

differences provides significant relation between sex differences ad writing and claim that
women have more positive attitude towards writing than males. Dales and Miller (1975)
hypothesize that to the extent that writing apprehension mostly cause because of negative
responses to ones writing, so males are more apprehensive because they are rewarded less
while females are more appreciated. However, some researchers found no sex differences in
3
writing and some researchers found opposite effect of apprehension on sex where female are
more anxious than men
Traits and test anxiety may also cause apprehension. As Thompson (1981) found
positive relation between writing anxiety and general anxiety while Dales (1975) did not find
any correlation between them. Subject specific attitudes and self-esteem can also be studied
by many researchers. While some studies claim that general self-esteem are moderately
related to writing apprehension while esteem specific to writing is strongly relates. The
results suggest that writing apprehension and general self-esteem are inversely related to one
another.
Writing apprehension also caused by academic procrastination. There are many

reasons of procrastination which include demotivation, fear of failure, critical comments, peer
pressure, lack of reading associated with high apprehension about writing. As Onwuegbuzie
and Collins (2001) studied and claim that that graduate students' apprehension about writing
appears to be related to academic procrastination stemming from fear of failure and
unpleasant tasks.
Some people are apprehensive in writing because they misinterpret the composing
process. misunderstanding of the composing process that good writer gets it right on the first
draft which cause anxiety to many people. Other reason includes not enough points to write,
no to be able to presents points logically and if they do, they may lack correct expressions to
put their points across.
The major cause of writing apprehension is writing anxiety. writing anxiety has
different reasons including critical comments, lack of linguistic knowledge, lack of reading,
low self-esteem, peer pressure, and even some individual differences like sex, age,
personality traits, test anxiety schooling, various subject specific attitudes and demographics
etc. Perhaps all people experience apprehensive to some extent. But to overcome this felling a
learner should try his best to read more, learn better expression and improve his linguistic
knowledge which may overcome the writing anxiety to great extent.
It can be concluded that the ability to effectively express ideas clearly and
appropriately is a critical communication skill needed by all nurses. Nursing students, nurse
educators, staff nurses, and nurse administrators must write at some point in their careers.
Therefore, raising awareness about writing apprehension and offering strategies to overcome
this writing problem can be an effective way to advance nursing.
4
2.1.1 Importance of Investigating Learner’s Writing Apprehension
Writing is a productive skill that is necessary for academic success and career
development for both native and foreign speakers of a language. Learners’ strength in writing
skills leads to success in academic life. Conversely, absence of good writing skills leads to
failure. Research has also found that there is a significant relationship between apprehension
and low-quality writing scripts. Daly (1978) has demonstrated that apprehensive writers tend
to have short and low-quality papers containing less developed language and sentence
structure.
Is important to investigate its all factors and causes to understand the issue of
apprehension and this will help instructors, learners and linguists to adopt different strategies
in order to tackle this problem. May researchers are done to find the causes of writing
apprehension as well its correlation with different factors. The common components of
writing apprehension are lack of motivation, procrastination, fear of critical comments, time
restriction (like thinking limitations of time during test), peer competition, subject, required
specific format, fear of evaluation, lack of linguistics knowledge. Moreover, many
researchers relate apprehension with sex differences, traits, age, test anxiety, various subject
specific attitudes, self-esteem and other personality traits.
The other importance to understand this problem is also to find that which type of
learners of people may get this anxiety or which not. Like mostly it is misconception that
undergraduate is more effective with this problem that postgraduate. However, it will not b
ultimately true as many researches find that postgraduate students can also face this problem.
Because they didn’t get notice due to of English language proficiency than undergraduate and
high school students, and possess more linguistic knowledge other necessary writing related
skills, they might be supposed and viewed by many to record a lower level of or no
apprehension when writing in English.
For example, Muhammad Qadir et al.(2021) studied concluded on EFl postgraduate

student that even postgraduate student have moderate apprehension regarding writing. Also,
they identify that rage, gender and other socioeconomic factors have no significantly effect of
writing apprehension anyone regardless of their age, gender, academic level, and
socioeconomic status is prone to writing apprehension.
In the field of Applied linguistics, understanding the importance of WA will help

linguist to make different tool to identify learners writing apprehension and their level of
5
anxiety and introduce different techniques that may follow by instructors and learners in
future. For example Zimmerman and Bandura’s (1994) introduce the tool to measure self-
efficacy which is Writing Self-Regulatory Efficacy Scale of 25 items primarily relating to the
self-regulation of writing projects and processes.
Writing apprehension has been deemed as a critical issue that teachers have to learn
how to address. Writing anxiety was defined as a fear of the writing process which outweighs
the projected gain from the ability to write. Bloom (1985) used the term “writing anxiety” to
describe people who exhibit one or a combination of feelings, beliefs or behaviours that
interfere with a person`s ability to start or work on or finish a given writing task that he or she
is intellectually capable of doing. As a naturally occurring phenomenon, anxiety pervades
every corner of human life, let alone a skill such as writing. Moreover, Chamot (2004)
maintains that explicit strategy instruction essentially involves the development of students’
awareness of the strategies they use and teacher modelling of strategic thinking. Further,
student practice with new strategies, student self-evaluation of strategies used and practice in
transferring strategies to new tasks are involved as well. A study investigated the
relationships among self-confidence about writing, expected outcomes, writing apprehension,
general self-confidence, and writing performance in 30 undergraduate pre-service teachers
over one semester (Pajares & Johnson, 1994). Results supported social cognitive theory and
prior findings reporting a relationship between confidences in one's writing abilities and
subsequent writing performance. A regression model consisting of the variables noted above
and a pre-performance measure accounted for 68% of the variance in writing performance.
Students' beliefs about their own composition skills and the pre-performance measure were
the only significant predictors. Writing apprehension was negatively correlated with writing
self-confidence but was not predictive of writing performance. General self-confidence was
correlated with writing self-confidence, expected outcomes, apprehension, and performance
but was not predictive of writing performance in the regression model. Results and
implications are discussed, especially as they relate to the need for context-specific
assessments of confidence in one's own capabilities and to pedagogical obligations.
To conclude English as a Foreign Language (EFL) setting like the other educational
settings is experiencing the problem of anxiety in foreign language in different domains of
language. In this respect, Tsui (1996) believes that learning to write in a foreign language
involves as much anxiety as learning the other skills. Since writing is predominantly product-
6
oriented, it requires individual work that is students are deprived of help, support and
encouragement.
2.1.2 Factors Causing Writing Apprehension Among Language Learners
Writing apprehension is a term that has been introduced by Daly and Miller (1975).
They defined writing apprehension as “A subjective complex of attitudinal, emotional, and
behavioral interaction which reinforces each other". Researchers have used many terms to
refer to writing apprehension such as anxiety and blocking. They consider writing
apprehension as a complex term because of the complexity of writing. Writing apprehension
is a serious problem that can hinder the performance of both native and non-native learners.
The most common cause of writing apprehension can be lack of motivation,

procrastination, fear of critical comments, time restriction (like thinking limitations of time
during test), peer competition, subject, required specific format, fear of evaluation, lack of
linguistics knowledge. Moreover, many researchers relate apprehension with sex differences,
traits, age, test anxiety, various subject specific attitudes, self-esteem and other personality
traits. However, these causes also dependent upon situations, learners and
teachers/instructors.
The causes on the behalf of learners are negative attitude because of lack of
motivation and fear of evaluation, Negative Writing Experience in the Past Less practice in
writing, memorizing also cause apprehension. These factors may block writer mind for ideas
and due to lack of ideas earner avoid writing. As the research by Al-Shboul Huwari (2015)
indicate that these factors cause writing apprehension in language learners. Lack of linguistic
knowledge is one of the common reasons that cause apprehension. Linguistic knowledge
includes grammar, vocabulary, coherence and cohesion of ideas, organization text structure.
The people who lack this knowledge may avoid writing tasks. As In one study by Krashen
and Lee (1997) also indicate the reason of apprehension in their article that people with lack
of linguistic code (knowledge and misunderstanding of composing process) are highly
apprehensive.
However, on the behalf of teacher there are also some causes that cause anxiety in
learners which include negative comments, no feedback, negative evaluation, subject
required specific format, not paying attention to students who face anxiety. Other situational
factors that cause apprehension are peer competition, test anxiety, time restriction and
requirement for writing can also cause apprehension.
7
Moreover, their different factors like age, gender and innateness of writing skill are
these factors are mostly misunderstood as cause of writing apprehension however, many
researchers studied them and proves that they don’t have any effect of writing apprehension.
For example, A. Faris et al. (1999) did not find any of these variable effect on accounting
student writing apprehension. They conclude that these factors have no effect of writing
anxiety using Writing Apprehension Test (WAT), developed by Daly and Miller (1975) to
measure writing anxiety which include 26 items to measure age and gender.
All these causes can trigger writing anxiety. Although learner should keep in mind
that these causes vary from learner to learner and on different situation, so the cause of
apprehension on one learner may not be cause of apprehension on other learner therefore,
learner should avoid there restricting behavior when they have to do any writing tasks
because extensive reading and continuous writing practice may help them to overcome this
writing anxiety.
In summary, researchers consider writing apprehension to be a complex term and a

critical problem which may be faced by both native and non-native English learners. It will
eventually impact the student’s learning process. Researchers have also considered writing
apprehension as synonymous with writing anxiety or blocks while others have categorized it
into two main levels called high apprehensive writers and low apprehensive writers.
2.1.3 Overcome Writing Apprehension
structure. According to Reeves (1997), learners who are apprehensive have more difficulties
with producing new ideas in writing and score lower in terms of syntactic development.
An individual's self-efficacy comes from four major areas: mastery experiences,

where an individual experiences success; vicarious experiences, where a person witnesses
someone else's success; verbal persuasion, where an individual is confident in one's own
capabilities; and physiological and affective states, where an individual's mind-set and
outlook focus on confidence. Writing apprehension is associated with many kinds of
8
experiences. First, it refers to a behavior of resistance by an individual writer in a situation

when he/she cannot begin to write or is being interrupted in the writing process owing largely
to writing avoidance. Second, it is used to describe a writer who negatively judges a
particular writing project’s value or any writing project’s value; in other words, the avoidance
stems from the writer’s negative attitude.
Moreover, to overcome writing apprehension realize that not everyone will love your
writing and so you may need to remove your ego from writing. Remember that harsh or
negative reviews are not a reflection of who you are as a person. Do not take these bad
reviews personally and don't let them damage your confidence. Use the feedback provided by
others to improve your work. Other strategies for overcoming writing apprehension involve
completing prewriting activities to develop ideas. Brainstorming, free writing, concept
mapping, or outlining your work can assist you to produce ideas and facilitate your writing.
Prewriting activities will decrease writing apprehension by creating a more structured plan to
guide the writer in developing an assignment or manuscript.
To conclude, dismiss myths about writing. One writing myth involves a person's
natural affinity or skill with writing. Writing is not innate; it does not come naturally for
some people. It is hard work, but like most skills can be developed. To become an expert
writer, practice is required. All writers must spend time drafting and editing before final
products are polished quality products.
2.1.4 Quantitative Measures/Instruments Used for Measuring Writing Apprehension in

Studies
An approach involving the use of numeric-based information that can be measured,

compared, and analyzed statistically. This methodology is primarily used as a way to quantify
achievement of outcomes as a result of participation in a program. Data are collected through
a standardized instrument (i.e., test, survey, and behavior or skill observation checklist). Data
are statistically analyzed and results are presented in a numerical format. The advantage of
quantitative methodology is that it measures the reactions of a great many people to a limited
set of questions, thus facilitating comparison and aggregation of data. Therefore, findings can
be generalized.
A study was done which involved ninety-eight undergraduate students enrolled in the
basic educational psychology course and the basic communication course at West Virginia
University during the summer term, 1974, participated in this research. They completed the
9
Writing Apprehension Measure (WAT) which is composed of 26 items dealing with

tendencies to avoid writing, attitudes towards written communication, and feelings
experienced during writing. Similarly, to assess their writing apprehension, students were
administered the Writing Apprehension Scale developed by Dally and Miller (1975)
(Appendix I) as pre and post-test. Students took approximate 30 min to complete the scale
each time. The Writing Apprehension Scale is a 26-Item-Likert scale instrument that has been
extensively proven to be a reliable instrument which measures writing anxiety. To assess the
students’ writing apprehension, the study used the English Writing Apprehension Scale
(EWAS), which is an adapted 12-item measure (see Appendix A). The author used the
adapted EWAS in response to the empirical findings.
2.1.5 Instrument for Writing Apprehension
Instrument is the tool which can help researcher to measure variables. The common
nature of instrument can be self-administered, adapted or adopted. These types of instruments
are further divided into structured, unstructured and semi structured items. The nature of
instruments also depends upon other factor like it depends upon the need of the researcher as
how the researcher wants to measure the variable, requirements of research, nature of
participants, validity or reliability and demographics etc. Previous researches show that for
measuring writing apprehension most commonly type of instrument use are adopted or
adapted by slightly changing. However, some researchers also used self-developed
instrument to measure WA variable.
2.1.5.1 Administered Without any Change/ Adopted.
The instrument commonly used to measure writing apprehension is developed Daly and
Miller writing apprehension Test in 1975. Besides this instrument is so convenient that in
many past research it was administered without any change. It includes 26 structured items
following lickert scale. The validity and reliability of this instrument is already measure by
Daly and Miller and it is adopted many time so researcher don’t mention these factors and not
even try to measure it again. However the situations and objectives of each research is
different and the use of adopted instrument is also makes it unique.
As Ayres and Hopf (2009) adopted the writing apprehension measurement by Daly &
miller 1975 in their quantitative experimental research. Although these items were cover the
10
construct which is writing apprehension. However, these items were belonged to different
aspect which were labeled as ease in writing, enjoyment of writing, and rewards in writing by
Burgoon and Hale. These items were categories into these aspect through confirmatory factor
analysis but not any data is given.
Similarly, Daly and Shamo (1978) also adopts the Writing Apprehension test (WAT
Daly & Miller, 1975c),. He measures writing apprehension and competence to see the
correlation between high or low apprehensive with respect to writing competency. As
research measure apprehension to distinguish high apprehensive and low apprehensive people
using WAT fulfil the one part of construct.
Fox (2013) also adopt the writing apprehension test by Daly and Milletr. Which cover
the aspect of writing apprehension as well The items of tests categorize to different aspects
which refer by different theorist in research as level of students writing apprehension (Daly
and Miller), The Voice of Authority" and feel the threat of "The Superior Intellect"(Kally,
1975), student-centered methods of teaching composition ((Macrorie, 1976; Moffett, 1976),
hesitations (Pianko), "self-actualization (Masllows, 1954) and methods of teaching writing.
This is experimental research including two group experimental and control group. The
independent variable of this research is three instructors and two methods of teaching writing.
while three dependent variables included 1 ) level of students' writing apprehension, 2)
number of words per essay in students' writing, and 3) overall quality of students' writing.
Daly (2014) again adopt his own instrument WAT in another correlational study. The
hypothesis of this research is the individuals with low apprehension of writing would perform
significantly better than those with high apprehension on a test of writing skills. The
researcher using his own developed measure which successfully fulfil the one part of
construct. However, no categories of apprehension items are mention. Britt et al.’s (2017)also
adopt WAT. The research is experimental which see effect of mindful breathing on writing
apprehension.
2.1.5.1.1 Validity and Reliability of Instruments. Instrumentation is one the validity threats
that makes result ambiguous. So, the validity and reliability of instruments should be check
before applying it. To make the instrument valid and reliable the researchers perform number
of statistical operations to overcome the threats. The advantage of using develop instruments
is that the instrument developers already check the validity and reliability of the instrument.
Yet, when a researcher adopts the developed instrument without changing it, he will not be
11
restricted to measure the validity and reliability again unless the instrument still have issues.
However, it is still recommended to make some measure to check reliability and validity of
instrument with respect to particular research or mentions the measurements of already check
reliability and validity. As Ayres and Hopf (2009) adopt the instrument without changing it
so they did not measure the validity of instrument however overall scale reliability is mention
which was .91 with the individual subscales' reliabilities being .80, .89, and .66 respectively.
Similarly, Daly and Shamo (1978) also adopts the WAT. Yet the researchers did not
mention any validity data or is they measure the validity of instrument or not but overall
reliability value of instrument is mention which was .94 which measured by Cronbach's
alpha. Furthermore, John A. Daly in 2014 again adopt his own instrument WAT there he did
not mention validity measures, however inter rater reliability is mention which Cronbach's
alpha coefficient was selected as a measure of internal consistency. the results shows that
coefficient for the writing apprehension measure was .89. Britt et al.’s (2017) also adopt
WAT.
They mention concurrent validity by describing Daly and Miller report on WAT
instrument. As Daly and Miller argues the instrument’s concurrent validity is supported by
positive correlations with such norm-referenced instruments as the SAT and ACT tests.
similarly, Internal consistency and test-retest reliability is reported from pervious statement of
Daly and Miller that internal consistency and test-retest reliability coefficients greater
than .90.
2.1.5.1.2 Demographics and Sampling. Research objective specify about what type of
participants researcher wanted for their research. While adopting the same instrument by
many researchers it clarifies that their construct has one same element which is writing
apprehension. However, partisans can be vary on nationality or on age group. However, the
one similarity that share by all of them that these participants surely belong to educational
institute where variable writing apprehension is common. Ayres and Hopf (2009) in Their
research include 480 undergraduates (sophomores) students. However, their average age and
nationality is not mention in the research.in other research by Daly and Shamo (1978) The
researcher include 181 undergraduate students large midwestern university, however
nationality and average age of these participants is not mention. Fox (2013) in his study six
intact classes (n=106) of freshman male and female students enrolled in English Composition
at the University of Missouri-Columbia. These students belong from large urban areas of St.
12
Louis or Kansas City, or from smaller rural areas around Missouri. Their either age of the
majority of students were between 18 and 19 years of age.
However, specifically no sampling technique is mention but as it is experimental

research so there may be random sampling is done. Daly in 2014 conduct research using
WAT and selects total of 3ooo undergraduate students at a large midwestern university by
conducting competency questionnaire at the start of the semester. Virtually every respondent
was a first-semester undergraduates. Britt et al.’s (2017) while adopting WAT select 277
participated by random sampling. They are undergraduates mainly freshmen and sophomores
of southeastern community/technical college. randomly assigned six sections of English
Composition 101 at a to the experimental group and other six classes belong to control group.
The age of experimental group is 21 years (3.8) while control group age is 23years American.
2.1.5.1.3 Results. The common adopted instrument is WAT by Daly and Miller to measure
apprehension. therefore, results based on two variable from which one is writing
apprehension and other are vary on different researches.in the research by Ayres and Hopf
(2009). They do experiment to see the effect of visualization on writing apprehension
variable. The researcher conducts WAT in pretest and posttest. The result shows after the
WAT conducted in post-test that experimental group performs better.it is because
experimental group undergoes treatment of visualization for writing assignment and result
shows that visualization is an effective intervention for some aspects of writing apprehension
but not others. Therefore, the results validate visualization theory. Also The research indicate
that X negatively related to Y which means that independent variable visualization is related
to writing apprehension. The relationship value between them Is [F(1,27) = 122.81; p
< .0001, w2 = .52].
While conducting research by Fox (2013) on apprehension variable groups are

measure using WAT. After experiment both experimental and control groups showed a
significant decrease in writing apprehension. However, the experimental group was lower in
writing apprehension. This is because due to student-centered experimental treatment. This
validate the theory that fear and avoidance of writing and of having their writing evaluated
can be significantly reduced using either method investigated. Second, the sequential and
largely student-centered experimental treatment significantly reduced writing apprehension at
a faster rate than conventional instruction. Third, the experimental treatment produced
writing at least as proficient in overall quality as the writing produced by conventional
13
composition instruction. This research has writing apprehension and quality are as dependent
variable so just in case of apprehension the independent variable x which is method of
teaching and instructors. SO, some method of teaching and instructors are positively related
to writing apprehension in some case However, on the base of other method which is
conventional teaching method is negatively related to writing apprehension. The significant
value between two groups .056. the researcher justified that the experimental treatment
produced writing at least as proficient in overall quality as the writing produced by
conventional composition instruction. However, there are some unexpected results to some
extent which justifies by reporting that Experimental students' reduction of writing
apprehension and their comparable overall quality of writing constitute yet another piece of
empirical support for structured, student-centered methods of teaching writing. Also, there
were no interactions between instructors and treatment.
In 2014 Daly in his correlational research between high or low apprehensive with
respect to writing competency adopt his own developed instrument WAT to measure
apprehension. Daly Conduct WAT to differentiate between low and high apprehensive
students which then both compared on variable competence and indicate that low
apprehensive student performs better and this validate the hypothesis. This shows that writing
apprehension is negatively related to writing competency and their relation value is (p < .05)
that justify the relationship of individuals with low apprehension of writing would perform
significantly better than those with high apprehension on a test of writing skills ad that was
confirmed for both overall test scores and the majority of subtests incorporated within the
test.
Britt et al., (2017) compared groups on writing apprehension and experimental group
perform better after mindful breathing treatment. Therefore, this experiment validates the
mindful breathing technique. Also, groups are also compares on writing performance.
However, the result show no significant change in writing performance. Although, the
intervention did, however, produce a statistically significant difference in writing errors this
is because group was undergoing the treatment (mindful breathing). However, it will not
significantly validate the theory.
Daly and Shamo 1978 also adopts the WAT by Daly & Miller, 1975. They
hypothesize that highly apprehensive people find writing unrewarding or even punishing of
writing requirement. The research divided witting apprehension variable is divided into two
14
group low apprehensive and high apprehensive writing by conducting WAT. The final result
indicate that group of high apprehensive writing finds more avoidance toward writing
requirement than those who have low apprehension. This validates the hypothesis. The
researcher states that “Highly apprehensive people find writing unrewarding or even
punishing. As a consequence, they seek to avoid situations where it is required. Low
apprehensive are the opposite. They find situations which require writing rewarding and thus
should seek them out”. The concluded that high Writings apprehension is negatively related
to writing performance as perceived desirability is insignificant for the highly apprehensive
respondents with the relationship value of (t[28]=.579, p>.10). The researcher justifies this
relationship by saying that highly apprehensive people find writing unrewarding or even
punishing.
2.1.5.2 Self-developed Instrument. For conducting the research, researchers also developed
their own instrument. The self-developed instrumentation is considered when the objective of
study is not fulfilled by already existing instruments. For measuring writing apprehension in
research in previous studies the self-develop instrument are less common. However, the
common self-administered instrument is by Daly and Miller writing apprehension test (1975)
which is adopted or adapted by many other researchers.
The researcher Daly and Miller (1975) developed test to measure writing
apprehension. Their research is quantitative and their objective is to develop an instrument to
measure writing apprehensions. Initially the instrument consists of 63 items. These items are
structured. These items were composed into Likert-type scale format, each with five possible
responses. The instrument covers the construct of the research which is writing apprehension.
The researchers subdivided items into number of categories. These categories included items
that dealt with anxiety about writing in general, teacher evaluation of writing, peer evaluation
of writing, as well as professional (e.g., publishers and magazine editors) evaluations.
Additionally we sought to provide items concerning letter writing, environments for writing
(e.g., at home or in the classroom) , writing in tests (e.g., success on objective tests compared
to success on essay type tests) and self-evaluation of writing and its worth.
The items were categories through factor analysis and these divided into positive and
negative statement items. However, some items were dropped when researcher submitted the
Data to principle components factor analysis with orthogonal rotation as determined by
15
Kaiser's varimax criterion. Then there only 26 items were retained which are finalized by
researchers.
Items were modeled after those presently in use in the measurement of

communication apprehension (McCroskey, 1970), unwillingness to communicate (Heston &
Paterline, 1974), receiver apprehension (Wheeless, 1974), and general public speaking
apprehension (McCroskey, 1970). Items were constructed so that they dealt with some form
of apprehension about writing. However apart from Daly and Miller no other theorist mention
on any of these categories.
2.1.5.2.1 Demographics and Sampling. The initial 63 item Were instrument is piloted on 164
undergraduates’ students they are from west Virginia university. The age and sampling
strategy in not mention by researchers. However, Participation was entirely voluntary
perform in the research.
2.1.5.2.2 Validity and Reliability. Different types of validates are concerned by the research.
The researcher mentions the face validity by claiming that item seem to represent the
construct and also face validity is describe by mentioned the reports by Daly and McCroskey
(1975). The researchers also mention the predictive validity by reporting the study by Daly
and McCroskey (1975). However, other types of validity like concurrent validity, content
validity and construct validity are not clearly mention.
Similarly, the reliability of overall instrument is measure using split half technique.
Then the obtained reliability was .940. after finalizing the instrument, the reliability
coefficient was .921. However, component validity is not mention.
2.1.5.2.3Results. The present research is quantitative design has only one group the aim of
this research is to develop an instrument of writing apprehension and they check the
reliability and validity of instrument by conducted on single group of participants.
2.1.5.3 Adapted instrument. To continue the discussion about the instrument’s nature, our
next category of discussion is adapted instruments. The instrument, WAT by Daly and Miller,
sometime used with slightly changes according to required criteria of the certain research.
While doing this action, it would be able to provide valid and reliability results overall.
Kelly and Gaytan (2019) had adapted Unidimensional Measurement Model was used
which include 4 questionnaires include Autman and Kelly’s (2017) revised writing
apprehension, Chesebro and McCroskey’s (2001) Teacher Clarity Short Inventory, Kelly et
16
al.’s (2015) perceived immediacy measure and Richmond et al.’s (1987) nonverbal
instructional immediate behaviors measure was used. There are overall 35 items, immediate
behaviors measure has 10-item, perceived immediacy measure has 9-item, Teacher Clarity
Short Inventory has 10-item and revised writing apprehension have 6-item. Confirmatory
factor analyses (CFAs) are used to measure the construct of the questionnaire while dropping
the items, 29/35, here 29 were retained while 35 were dropped. The change of the instrument
by doing CFA items were removed Nonverbal immediate behaviors lost one item, Perceived
immediacy lost two, Clarity lost two items and Writing apprehension lost one item Overall,
all 4 aspects (Nonverbal immediate behaviors, Perceived immediacy, Clarity and Writing
apprehension) has been covered in the questionnaire.
Furthermore, Riffel and Stacks (2015) adapted the instrument for the research "
student Characteristics and Writing Apprehension”. The instrument called as MCWAM
(Mass Communication Writing Apprehension Measure) which original source is Daly and
Miller's (1975) writing apprehension test (WAT into a Business Writing Apprehension
Measure (BWAM) into (Mass Communication Writing Apprehension Measure) MCWAM.
There are over 56 Items for MCWAM, almost 43 items were added in the instrument by
factor analysis items. The changes occur when they combined the 38 items defining the
MCWAM with 18 new mass communication items however after factor analysis 43 items
were retained”. In total 13 items were dropped through the procedure. All items are structured
and covered all the aspects (MCWAM and examination of student characteristics) of
research.
Similarly, Sanders-Reio et al.’s (2014) conduct the research in which they used
adapted multiple instruments for their research such as WSI (wafer-scale integration), Daly
and Miller’s (1975) Writing Apprehension Test (WAT), Writing Beliefs Inventory (BWS,
best worst scale). The original source of the instrument is writing self-efficacy index was
based on Zimmerman and Bandura’s (1994), Daly and Miller (WAT) and BWS expansion
of White and Bruning’s (2005)". The total number of items are 104 to evaluate the variables,
there are in divided in that way as WSI (wafer-scale integration) with 12/25 items (coefficient
was below .30), Daly and Miller’s (1975) Writing Apprehension Test (WAT) with 29 items
and Writing Beliefs Inventory (BWS, best worst scale) with 50 items. Other scales’ dropping
was not mentioned. The Modified Writing Apprehension Test (added three items to the
WAT) is changed according to the requirements. All aspects such as (Writing self-efficacy,
17
Beliefs about writing, writing development, writing apprehension, Transaction and

Transmission) have covered in construct of instruments.
Autman and Kelly (2017) were also adapted the instruments for study 1 and study 2
study deals with to evaluate the validity of WAT by Daly and Miller. For this study
instruments used such as Self-efficacy was measured using Schwarzer and Jerusalem’s
(1995) general self-efficacy measure with the composition of 10 Likert scale item(structured),
Immediate behaviors were assessed using (McCroskey al., 1995) instructional immediacy
measure which has nine Likert-type items(structured) and the last one was Writing
apprehension was measured using Daly and Miller’s (1975) measure had 20 Likert-type
items(structured). By applying CFA, writing apprehension lost 14 items, self-efficacy lost 3
items, and immediate behaviors lost 2 items.in the study 2, researcher goal was to find out the
reliability of WAT by Daly and miller. Over here they only used 6 items test and the other
procedure was similar. All the aspects (self-efficacy, immediate behavior, writing
apprehension) of the research were covered in construct of instruments.
Riffe and Stacks (2015) also adapted the instrument called "Daly and Miller's (1975)
writing apprehension test (WAT into a Business Writing Apprehension Measure (BWAM)
into (Mass Communication Writing Apprehension Measure) MCWAM" with some changes
on it like as to put on 10 new mass communication writing items; and 26 new items designed
to enhance the "pre-writing planning" and "luck" dimensions suggested in the BWAM
studies. Then all the aspects like as general affect, blank page paralysis, mechanical skill
competence, career and essential skills, task avoidance, facts vs. ideas and evaluation
apprehension of the research were covered. 87 structured items originally were combined but
after removal 57 items were finalized. No statistical procedure was mentioned for dropping
was mentioned by the researcher.
Correspondingly, Limpo (2018) adapted the instrument as well for his research. The
instrument called as Writing apprehension by Daly and Miller. Originally Writing
Apprehension scale (WAS) Scale has 26 items but Exploratory factor analyses (EFA)
followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was reduced into 12/25. All the aspects
such as Writing apprehension, Implicit theories of writing, self-efficacy, Achievement goals,
writing performance, Aspect and concern of construct were noticed in instrument making.
Moreover, in Kostie- Bobanovie (2016 ) also adapted the instrument called writing
apprehension test (WAT)by Daly and miller the instrument was adapted in that way
18
translated into cortian language then into English for accuracy measures. Translations ere
compared and necessary changes were made. They added the phrase "in English" to make it
clear that researcher need answer in English not in Croatian otherwise the Test was adopted
as it is. The original source of instrument is WAT (writing apprehension test) by Daly and
miller. There were 26 structured items in the instruments. All aspects such as anxiety about
writing in general, teacher evaluation of writing, peer evaluation of writing, as well as
professional (e.g., publishers and magazine editors) evaluations were covered during
construction the instrument.
Likewise, Olivier and Oliver (2016) adapted the instrument writing apprehension
test by Daly and Miller as well. The researchers were translated the instrument into Afrikaans
language as long as respondents were all Afrikaans-speaking students. Other than this Test
was adopted as it is. The instrument was structured (MCQS) had with 26 items but no
statistical procedures were found for dropping the items likewise no dropping of items were
mentioned by the researches. The researcher made sure these aspects positivity towards
writing, negativity towards writing, evaluation apprehension and self-efficacy and writing
fulfill the requirement of the construct.
2.1.5.3.1 Demographic and Sampling. Kelly and Gaytan (2019) " 278 undergraduates
including s, 119 were male, 158 were female, and 1 student chose not to identify his or her
gender of AACSB-accredited university in the Southeast United State. There were 5
freshmen, 136 sophomores, 104 juniors, 32 seniors, and 1 student who chose not to identify
class rank. The average age of participants was 20.49 (SD = 3.25). the nationality of the
students is not mentioned by the researchers.
Riffe and Stacks (2015) took the sample of 621 mass communication undergraduates
at two Southern universities, with the sample including freshman-through-senior advertising,
public relations, broadcasting, journalism and "undecided" majors. Methodology of the
sampling was not mentioned. Nationality and age of the students were also not mentioned.
Sanders-Reioet al.’s(2014) had the sampling frame of 738 participants having no

strategy of sampling. They all were undergraduate south Floridian students.
Autman and Kelly (2017) also performed 2 studies in their research. In study 1 the
researchers had their 260 participants with convenience sampling under the average age of
23.89 undergraduated student with American nationality. Likewise in study 2 they had 223
19
students under the average age of 22 undergraduated but their nationality and the procedure
of sampling also not mentioned
Riffe and Stacks (2015) The sample included 708 undergraduate students enrolled in
introductory mass communication (n=532) and introductory media writing courses (11476).
(51 percent freshmen, 33 percent sophomores, 14 percent juniors and 2 percent seniors; 41
percent advertising and public relations majors, 21 percent broadcasting, 12 percent
journalism and 26 percent “other” or undecided majors; 63 percent females; and 92 percent
white). The age was anticipated and according to the nationality they were American. No
methodology of sampling was mentioned
Limpo (2018) had done the research in the form of two studies. 194 Portuguese
speaking students are considered as main sample and 220 Portuguese speaking students are
considered as independent sample. The average age of Study 1: 20.19 years and study 2:
21.77 years They were all under graduated student and nothing mentioned about their
nationality except their language.
Kostie- Bobanovie (2016) took the sample of 183 undergraduate (third year, first
year) students under the age of 19 at the beginning. All are Croatian- speakers’ English
learners. The methodology of sampling and students’ nationality were not mentioned. Olivier
and Oliver (2016) took the sampling frame of 545 undergraduate (first year) students but the
age of the students was not mentioned. Methodology of the sampling was convenience
sample of students enrolled in an Afrikaans linguistics" of Afrikaans speaking students but
their nationality was not mentioned by the researcher.
2.1.5.3.2 Reliability and Validity. Kelly and Gaytan (2019) the reliability and validity of the
instruments were taken by their developers but the researchers did not retest them again The
developers tested, construct, face, convergent and content validity. no, specifically not any
instrument reliability is mention but convergent validity is mention by two instruments such
as Teacher Clarity Short Inventory (Chesebro and McCroskey, 2001) and revised writing
apprehension (Autman and Kelly, 2017) the developer of both instrument reported
convergent validity .
In 2018 Teresa Limpo mentioned construct validity a calibration-validation design

(EFA&CFA) was used and also mentioned the concurrent validity by checking Correlations
between writing apprehension sub-scales and self-efficacy, implicit theories of writing, and
achievement goals variables. But the content validity and face validity of the instrument was
20
not mentioned. Original instrument reliability is with a split-half reliability of 0.94 (Daly &
Miller, 1975b), but after adapting reliability is not mention clearly"
Autman and Kelly (2017) had done the research on writing apprehension
measurement by testifying them by their research, research show convergent validity. "The
correlation between self-efficacy and writing apprehension was r = −.24 (p < .05).
Researchers also mentioned the content validity, they measure it by CFA. The researchers
mentioned the reliability but did not mention any statistics.
Kostie- Bobanovie (2016) did not mentioned the content validity, construct validity
and face validity but researcher mentioned another research reference about convergent and
predictive validity and also mentioned the satisfactory internal consistency of reliability.
Olivier and Oliver (2016) mentioned the construct validity which is measured by Kaiser’s
measure of sample adequacy (MSA), the value is very satisfactory at 0.94 and can be
described as ‘meritorious’ as it is above 0.8 but did not mention other categories of validity.
As the same time the reliability was also examined through the value has been satisfactory
with Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.60, which is acceptable for exploratory research.
Riffe and W. stacks (2015) was only mentioned about the reliability and validity
partially but not completely. They did not mention about categories about validity and
reliability and they also did not mention about statistical formula and values for validity and
reliability. Daniel riffe and W. stacks (2015) had done the other research in the same year.
First, the identity matrix (1.0 correlation coefficients on the diagonal and 0.0 between
variables) null hypothesis was tested and rejected (Bartlett's sphericity test = 20090.57,
p<0.00001). Second, a value of 0.888 was computed on the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA
(measure of sampling adequacy), a magnitude comparison of observed correlation.
Sanders-Reio (2014) that they mentioned the construct validity via a sequential
exploratory factor analysis (EFA)-confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Using the SPSS 20.0
random data-splitting protocol but not mentioned other categories of validity. The reliability
was found Cronbach's alpha coefficient was selected to measure overall reliability"1: The
Cronbach’s alphas of the Beliefs About Writing Survey subscales ranged from .65 to .85. 2:
The Cronbach’s alphas of the Writing Self-Efficacy Index subscales ranged from .94 to .98 3:
the modified WAT Arranged from .87 to .92”.
2.1.5.3.3 Results. Kelly and Gaytan (2019) performed the study in which they study about a
model in which instructors’ immediate behaviors and clarity indirectly influenced students’
21
writing apprehension through the mediation of perceived immediacy. Variables are

Instructional nonverbal immediate behaviors, clarity which hypothesize that these variables
are indirectly related to WA and directly and positively related to perceived immediacy and
also related negatively. The statistical expressions are r = −.22, p < .05. The research
hypothesize that perceived immediacy variable is directly but negatively related to WA. This
finding reemphasizes the need for student feedback, so that faculty know if their
communication is being perceived as intended.
Limpo (2018) Study 1 tested the validity of a reduced version of the 26-item Writing
Apprehension Scale (WAS; N = 194). Exploratory factor analyses revealed a 12-item scale
(WAS-12) with two factors (affect and concern), cross-validated in an independent sample (N
= 220). Further supporting WAS-12 validity and reliability, results revealed good reliability
coefficients, along with correlations with external correlates and association with writing
performance in the expected direction. Study 1 tested and proposed the two-factor WAS-12.
Results showed that this is as a valid and reliable tool to measure writing apprehension in
undergraduates. Affect is positive and concern is negative. affect was positively associated
with mastery goals (r = 0.23) and performance goals (r = 0.21), concern was negatively
associated with self-efficacy (r = −0.32), performance goals (r = −0. 16) r = −0.26), and it
was positively associated with avoidance goals. Study 2 tested the association of the affect
and concern WAS-12 dimensions with writing frequency, process, and performance (N = 62).
Results showed unique contributions of affect to writing frequency and revising occurrences
as well as of concern to planning occurrences, translating occurrences, and writing fluency.
Notably, despite there was no association of writing apprehension with writing performance,
mediation analysis showed that concern hampered text quality by reducing writing fluency.
Study 2 also showed that affect was related to writing frequency and revising, and that
concern were related to planning and translating occurrences as well as to writing fluency.
Affect and concern were negatively related with each other (r = −0.40). study 2 has statistical
expression (rs < |0.19|, p > .14).
Autman and Kelly (2017) stated that This article contains two measurement
development studies on writing apprehension. Study 1 reexamines the validity of the writing
apprehension measure based on the finding from prior research that a second false factor was
embedded. The findings from Study 1 support the validity of a reduced measure with 6 items
versus the original 20-item measure. However, this shorter measure had poor reliability.
Therefore, Study 2 sought to correct the reliability issue by updating the wording of items so
22
it was applicable to broader platforms of writing. The final measure had excellent reliability
and validity statistics. The self-efficacy negatively related to the immediate behaviour. The
statistical expression of self-efficacy: r = −.24 (p < .05) immediate behaviour = −.19 (p < .05)
by checking correlational value.
Kostie- Bobanovie (2016) The purpose of this research is to investigate Croatian

University students’ English as a foreign language writing apprehension. For the purpose to
determine if the variables of students’ gender and academic level (age) play a role in their
writing apprehension, we adapted WAT (Writing Apprehension Test) so this would be
tailored to our study population. A longitudinal study was conducted among the students who
were studying at the University of Juraj Dobrila, Pula. The participants were tested twice: in
the first and in the third year. The results of the study indicated that, in contrary to
respondents’ gender, academic level was significant variable in their estimates of writing
apprehension. The results of research on gender differences are not conclusive. Some studies
confirmed the existence of gender differences in favor of one of the genders whereas others
asserted that gender plays no role in writing apprehension. The first hypothesis is refuted
since no statistically significant differences occurred between male and female students’
estimates of writing apprehension. T-value indicates that a statistically significant difference
occurred between first and third year students in their estimates of writing apprehension: F
(124) = -2,58, p < 0,05)
Olivier and Oliver (2016) stated that the DM-WAT was conducted with two groups
of first-year students. An exploratory factor analysis was administered and this led to the
identification of four distinct factors which are also associated with related aspects in the
literature: positivity towards writing, negativity towards writing, evaluation apprehension and
self-efficacy and writing. It is evident that in the context of this study, the chosen instrument
could not be used to measure writing apprehension, rather the four identified factors. The
chosen instrument could be used to gauge the identified factors. Writing in compulsory
academic literacy modules should be taught through individualized student-centered methods,
affective support and reflective instruction, positive personal feedback, with additional
support through counselling as well as effective modelled writing behaviour from lecturers.
In contrast to this factor, negative attitudes towards writing were also evident from the DM-
WAT. The negativity towards writing factor relates to anxiety when writing, inability to
write, experiences of poor evaluations as well as doubts in writing abilities and standards.
Compulsory versus selected, essays and four factors, gender "the respondents from the
23
academic literacy module showed a greater tendency towards apprehension in terms of the
four identified factors links up with the literature. the relationship is bi-directional;
apprehension and performance probably reinforce one another’, no practical significant
difference was noted when the genders were compared in terms of the four identified
factors."one is greater than other.
Riffe and W. stacks (2015) stated that he total MCWAM must be retested with
different samples in order to verify, first, its multidimensionality, and, second, the nature of
those dimensions. In particular, additional items need to be incorporated in order to determine
whether the mass communication dimension is "real." The study also suggests, in a
preliminary way, that some differences among mass communication students in attitudes
toward writing could be related to individual characteristics (i.e., gender), as well as to
educational or structural characteristics (major, class standing). Differences by major and
class standing suggest that a refined MCWAM may eventually earn a place beside aptitude
testing in career or program advising. But despite the many caveats repeated throughout this
study, it has achieved its purpose of beginning the exploration of writing apprehension and
attitude toward writing among mass communication students.
Riffe and W.stacks (2015)stated that Mass Communication Writing Apprehension

Measure (MCWAM)’ was a first step in the development of such a tool. This study refines
the MCWAM and examines its relationship to student characteristics. MCWAM study also
found that female students’ writing attitudes were more pro-writing than males. this study has
provided both replication and extension. It replicated multidimensionality and individual-
subject differences, but extended by showing that MCWAM discriminates between mass
communication students and non-mass communication students, as well as among mass
communication students. Mass communication students were generally less apprehensive
across the array of dimensions and on mass communication specific items.
Sanders-Reio (2014) That the Beliefs About Writing Survey, the Writing Self-
Efficacy Index, and the modified Writing Apprehension Test were administered to 738
undergraduates to predict their grade on a class paper, beliefs about writing predicted
variance in writing scores beyond that accounted for by writing self-efficacy and
apprehension. Audience Orientation, a new belief associated with expert practice, was the
strongest positive predictor of the students’ grade. Transmission, a belief in relying on
material published by authorities, was the leading negative predictor. Writing self-efficacy
24
predicted performance, albeit modestly. The traditional measure of writing apprehension

(Anxiety about being critiqued) was not significant, but Apprehension About Grammar, a
new construct, significantly and negatively predicted performance correlations between the
beliefs about writing and writing performance are modest. "1) writing self-efficacy subscales
would each negatively predict Dislike Writing and Apprehension About Grammar, and
positively predict Enjoy Writing. 2)Apprehension About Grammar negatively predicted
writing performance. The effect sizes associated with most of the regression results ranged
from moderate (.06 and .24) to large (0.25) the wide disparity between the grade the
participants predicted they would earn and the grade they actually received (r ¼ .13) indicates
that their self-efficacy judgments may not have been well calibrated. result varies to different
beliefs" Beliefs about writing are culturally constructed may change as they work with new
genres or media, or as teachers develop new methods of writing instruction.
2.2: Writing Proficiency:
The earliest writing self-efficacy scales emphasized mechanical writing skills (e.g.,
Meier et al., 1984). Subsequent measures also addressed substantive writing skills (e.g.,
Pajares & Valiante, 1999) and writing self-regulation (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). This
investigation examines all three types of writing self-efficacy. Daly and Miller (1975)
operationalized writing apprehension as avoidance of writing and the expectation of negative
evaluations of one’s written work. In the Pajares group’s (e.g., Pajares & Valiante, 1997) path
analyses, writing self-efficacy directly and positively predicted writing performance, and
indirectly contributed to students’ writing scores by reducing and even nullifying writing
apprehension as defined by Daly and Miller (1975). However, Smith, Cheville, and Hillocks
(2006) suggested that there may be another type of writing apprehension, a fear of making
mechanical errors such as spelling and grammar mistakes.
Although researchers agree that beliefs in one's academic capabilities are related to
and predict academic performance (see Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991, for meta-analysis),
few have explored the relationships of these beliefs to writing. Those who have generally
agree that the two variables are related. Shell, Murphy, and Bruning (1989), for example,
constructed instruments for assessing writing self-efficacy and outcome expectations in order
to study the relationship among beliefs about one's writing capabilities, expected outcomes
for writing, and writing performance. The self-efficacy instrument consisted of two scales
(see Appendix). The first attempted to assess students' confidence in their ability to
25
successfully perform certain writing skills; the second sought to discover their confidence to
successfully complete specific writing tasks. Each scale measures very different beliefs;
implications of differing findings related to them are conceptually important and will be
discussed later. The measure of writing outcome expectations asked students to rate the
importance of writing for achieving various life goals such as getting a job, being financially
secure. (Other researchers have more accurately labeled this type of assessment perceived
usefulness or perceived value.) Both measures were administered to undergraduates, and
writing samples in the form of 20-minute essays were obtained and evaluated using holistic
assessment methods. Shell and his colleagues reported a significant relationship between the
students' confidence in their writing skills and their subsequent essay scores (.32) but not
between these scores and either their confidence to complete writing tasks (.17) or their
outcome expectations (i.e., their perceived usefulness of writing [.13]).
McCarthy, Meier, and Rinderer (1985), after defining writing selfefficacy to be

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

create an inaccurate reflection of the writer’s cognitive awareness. Simply stated, highly
apprehensive individuals’ written products may make them appear less clever than they are.
Faigley, Daly, and Witte’s (1981) study of 110 undergraduate college students indicated
higher apprehension was inversely proportional to writing quality.
Further studies show when these highly anxious writers compose, their products have
fewer words, less idea development, less sentence pattern variety, less sentence structure
complexity, and more usage and mechanics errors (Daly, 1978; Faigley et al., 1981; Hays,
26
1981). Some anxiety-ridden writers will even avoid submitting work to save themselves from
“self-exposure, criticism, ridicule, failure” (Reeves, 1997, p. 38). Particularly when a high
writing apprehension writer is limited by time constraints, his/her writing quality suffers
(Kean, Glynn, & Britton, 1987).
2.2.1 Effects of Writing Apprehension on Writing Proficiency
structure.
Writing is an essential language skill that is vital to academic success. Since it is an

active, productive skill, students learning to write in a foreign language (FL) face multiple
challenges. The complexity of writing in FL as a task tends to heighten anxiety levels in
students who are taking writing courses. This anxiety can often lead to discouragement, and
thus may result in negative attitudes towards writing. Most students, low and high achievers
alike, find writing difficult and view it as something they just have to persevere through in
order to pass certain exams. Lindemann (2001) defined writing as “a process of
communication that uses a conventional graphic system to convey a message to a reader”.
Writing involves a deliberate, creative, and complex cognitive process on the part of the
writer. As such, Flower and Hayes (1981) hypothesized that the cause of writing anxiety
stems from inefficient strategy use.
Writing apprehension has been deemed as a critical issue that teachers have to learn
how to address. Writing anxiety was defined as a fear of the writing process which outweighs
the projected gain from the ability to write. Bloom (1985) used the term “writing anxiety” to
describe people who exhibit one or a combination of feelings, beliefs or behaviours that
interfere with a person`s ability to start or work on or finish a given writing task that he or she
is intellectually capable of doing. As a naturally occurring phenomenon, anxiety pervades
every corner of human life, let alone a skill such as writing. Writing apprehension is
associated with many kinds of experiences. First, it refers to a behavior of resistance by an
individual writer in a situation when he/she cannot begin to write or is being interrupted in
27
the writing process owing largely to writing avoidance. Second, it is used to describe a writer
who negatively judges a particular writing project’s value or any writing project’s value; in
other words, the avoidance stems from the writer’s negative attitude
Anxiety about writing clouds a person's image of himself as a writer and his potential
pleasure in the act of writing; it cramps his academic and career choices; and it taints the
quality of his writing style. Writing apprehension is the general avoidance of writing and
situations perceived by the individuals to potentially require some amount of writing
accompanied by the potential for evaluation of that writing (Daly, 1979, p. 37). researchers
called it “writing anxiety” or “writing block” as cited in Onwuegbuzie, (1997). The
characteristics of writing anxiety and its effects upon students' attitudes, behavior and writing
style will be discussed in the essay.
Writing apprehension is associated with many kinds of experiences. First, it refers to a

behavior of resistance by an individual writer in a situation when he/she cannot begin to write
or is being interrupted in the writing process owing largely to writing avoidance. Second, it is
used to describe a writer who negatively judges a particular writing project’s value or any
writing project’s value; in other words, the avoidance stems from the writer’s negative
attitude. Writers with a low self-efficacy would question their ability to write, would lack
experience, lack mentors in writing, and view writing as a stressor, ultimately generating
obstacles in writing success. The complexity of writing in FL as a task tends to heighten
anxiety levels in students who are taking writing courses. This anxiety can often lead to
discouragement, and thus may result in negative attitudes towards writing. Most students, low
and high achievers alike, find writing difficult and view it as something they just have to
persevere through in order to pass certain exams. Lindemann (2001) defined writing as “a
process of communication that uses a conventional graphic system to convey a message to a
reader”.
28
structure. According to Reeves (1997), learners who are apprehensive have more difficulties
with producing new ideas in writing and score lower in terms of syntactic development.
In essence, it seems that there is a general agreement among many researchers that
writing apprehension or anxiety affects writing performance negatively, and hinders students’
academic achievement. However, there is no consensus on how writing apprehension affects
writing performance; and what best strategies or ways can reduce writing apprehension. It is
important to maintain that English writing skill is still necessary and highly demanded for the
students’ success in education and business fields. Therefore, writing teachers or instructors
should try to help their students to control their writing fears so that they are able to produce
good pieces of writings.
In summary, researchers consider writing apprehension to be a complex term and a

critical problem which may be faced by both native and non-native English learners. It will
eventually impact the student’s learning process. Researchers have also considered writing
apprehension as synonymous with writing anxiety or blocks while others have categorized it
into two main levels called high apprehensive writers and low apprehensive writers.
2.2.2 Categories of Writing Assessment Test:
Writing Assessment tests are divided into two categories which are direct and indirect
test. The direct test is the type of test in which writing is being tested by making students to
write whereas in indirect testing other means are used like close testing and MCQs.
The researchers (Daly, 1978; Limpo, 2018) used direct way of assessment for
measuring writing proficiency. The direct test also involves two types among which one is
face to face being conducted in regular classes. Comparatively, online tests were also taken
and time bound essays were given to students based on the topic of writing anxiety and
participants were asked to express their views about the topic.
Moreover, some researchers (Rob, 2011; Reio, 2014) used assignments as a form of
direct test which is time unbound and students were given long duration of time to complete
this assignment. There was difference among essays and assignments and the first and
foremost difference is of time bound and unbound.
The researchers (Ayres & Hopf, 2009) used story writing as a source of direct test and
ask participants to write stories so that their writing proficiency can be checked. Indirect test
29
was also used by some researchers but it is not a reliable method of testing writing
proficiency.
It can be concluded that researchers used direct and indirect test and among direct
tests they further used time bound and unbound tests for the assessment of writing
proficiency and for this different forms of writing were used which includes; essays,
paragraph, story etc.
2.2.3 Rubrics used for Writing Assessment:

There are two types of rubrics that can be used by the researchers which includes
standardized rubrics by standard testing organizations or self-developed rubrics which can be
developed by the researcher but then the researcher has to validate its reliability and validity
so that it can be measured in a standard way.
In the assessment of writing apprehension all the researchers used to standardize
rubrics which were developed by testing organizations. The researchers did so, so that they
can save time and can evaluate the writing samples according to the standards. Some
researchers used holistic rubrics which only contain levels as defined in TOEFL rubrics.
While on the other hand some researchers used analytical rubrics like the rubrics used by the
IELTS testing organization.
The analytical rubrics have aspects and levels and by combining these overall scores
are given. Among each level there can be different aspects and by evaluating the essay on
these aspects over all sports is given to the students. The analytic rubrics can also contain
weighted and un-weighted aspects which mean that different aspects can carry different
scores or carry the same scores respectively. These different types of rubrics were used for
the assessment of writing proficiency among different participants. J. Joanne Sanders-Reio,
Patricia A. Alexander Thomas G. Reio, Jr. aIsadore Newman a-Reio (14 Feb 2014) used
holistic rubric for the assessment of student writing. This rubric was weighted and has three
levels.
It can be concluded that different types of rubrics were used by the researchers for the
evaluation for assessment of writing by the participants in order to measure their writing
proficiency which is second variable in this research.
2.2.4 Evaluator’s Information:
Evaluators are the people who assess the writing with the help of rubrics and rate the
writing according to the levels and aspects given in the writing.
30
The researchers mostly used 1 rater and some used 2 raters (Reio, 2014) and most of
them are qualified professors with doctoral degrees in their respective fields. The researchers
used 2 or more evaluators so that the rater reliability can be good and the evaluation will be
standard. The inter-rater reliability was also reported by the researchers but the value was not
mentioned. Some researchers provide training to the raters while some did not provide
training opportunities to the researchers.
Moreover, the statistical way of measuring the inter-rater reliability was also not
mentioned by the researcher but it was mentioned that the reliability was calculated. The
researchers mostly focused on the qualification of the raters but not their proper training as
they considered that qualification is more important.
In conclusion it can be seen that inter-rater reliability was mentioned but was not
given much importance by the researchers during the assessment of the writing proficiency of
the participants of the research.
2.2.5 Comparison of Groups Based on Writing Apprehension:
The comparison of groups based on writing apprehension was also done by the
researchers and these comparisons were on the basis of gender, education level and
experience.
The researcher (Zaid, 2011) compared the groups on the basis of multimedia concept
mapping and face to face concept mapping. Both groups were compared on writing
apprehension by using these techniques so that their writing anxiety can be measured. It was
found that this increase in the students’ apprehension levels may be attributed to the pressure
such techniques put on them, especially the multimedia concept mapping, which was done
using special software that was highly demanding and sophisticated.
Moreover, other researchers (Daly, 1976; Novie, 2014) compared groups on the basis
of gender to compare the writing apprehension on the basis of gender in order to determine
the anxiety level difference between male and female and the cause of such difference.
Furthermore, the groups were also compared on the basis of writing proficiency and theories
were validated by the researchers that the higher the anxiety level the lower will be the
proficiency of writer and it was also observed that there were no significant differences were
found between the results of male and female based on the writing apprehension and writing
proficiency.
31
In the end it can be concluded that the researchers compared the groups on both
variables and drew the conclusions in order to see the impact of writing apprehension on
writing proficiency and the researchers also devise some solutions and tested them in order to
decrease anxiety.
2.2.6 Nature of Relation between Writing Apprehension and Proficiency:
The researchers observed the inverse relation between writing apprehension and
proficiency which seems that as the writing apprehension increases the writing proficiency of
the participant decreases.
Among the three types of relation that are positive, negative and curvilinear the
researchers (Daly, 1976; Novie, 2014; Zaid, 2011) observed negative relation among these
two variables. It was found that (Zaid, 2011) that when multimodal model is used students’
apprehension decreased up to certain level because they feel themselves free from various
types of pressure which includes peer pressure, evaluation pressure and they also got the
benefit of anonymity. The researcher observed different techniques to decline the writing
apprehension and observed that as the writing apprehension decreased the writing proficiency
showed positive trend and showed an increase.
Moreover, other researchers also found the same kind of relation which showed the
inverse relation between these two variables and the reason for such type of relation is that
the individuals with high apprehension about writing utilized significantly less intense
language than those low in writing apprehension and the individuals with low apprehension
of writing would perform significantly better than those with high apprehension on a test of
writing skills was confirmed for both overall test scores and the majority of subtests
incorporated within the test.
In short it can be concluded that empirical evidences showed that the relationship
between writing apprehension and writing proficiency is negative and the rise in one can
cause the fall in other and effect the other in an adverse way.
Previous research has demonstrated a clear and consistent 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 grammatical skills demanded for successful
message encoding represent necessary prerequisites for adequate writing performance. Since high
32
apprehensives tend to avoid situations requiring writing, thus substantially reducing their
opportunities for practice and feedback crucial to the successful development of writing skills, they
should perform significantly less well on skill-type tests than low apprehensives.
Empirical evidence lends some support to this expectation. Daly and Miller (9), for example,
noted a significant inverse correlation between the apprehension and selfreported 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.
3. Reference List
Autman, H., & Kelly, S. (2017) Reexamining the Writing Apprehension Measure. Business
and Professional Communication Quarterly, 80(4), 1-14.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2329490617691968
Britt, M., Pribesh, S., Hinton-Johnson, K., & Gupta, A. (2017). Effect of a Mindful Breathing
Intervention on Community College Students’ Writing Apprehension and Writing
Performance. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(10), 693-707.
DOI: 10.1080/10668926.2017.1352545
Daly, J. A, & Miller, M.D. (1975). The Empirical Development of an Instrument to Measure
Writing Apprehension. NCTE, 9(3), 242-249.
URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/40170632 .
Daly, J. A, & Miller, M.D. (2010). Apprehension of Writing as a Predictor of Message

Intensity. TJOPIAA, 89(2),175-177. URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20
Daly, J. A. (2014). Writing Apprehension and Writing Competency. The journal of

educational research, 72(1), 10-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1978.10885110
33
Daly, J. A, & Miller, M.D. (2014). The Empirical Development of an Instrument to Measure
Writing Apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9(3), 242-249.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40170632
Daly, J. A., & Shamo, W. (1978). Academic Decisions as a Function of Writing

Apprehension Research in the Teaching English, 12(2), 1 to 9. DOI:
10.2307/40170688
Fox, R. F., (2013). Treatment of Writing Apprehension and Its Effects on Composition.
Research in the Teaching of English, 14(1),39-49. URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171027
Joe, A., & Tim,. H. (2009). Coping With Writing Apprehension. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 19(3),186-196. DOI: 10.1080/00909889109365
Kelly. S & Gaytan. J (2019). The Effect of Instructors’ Immediate Behaviors and Clarity on
Student Writing Apprehension. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly,
83(1), 1-14. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2329490619868822
Kostie, Bobanovie,. M (2016). Investigation of University Students' EFL Writing

Apprehension: A longitudinal Study in Croatia. Review of Innovation and
Competitiveness, 2(1), 5-18. DOI 10.32728/ric.2016.21/1
Lan, G. Lucas. K., & Sun. Y (2019). Does L2 writing proficiency influence noun phrase
complexity? A case analysis of argumentative essays written by Chinese students in a
first-year composition course. System, 85, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.
Limpo, T., (2018). Development of a Short Measure of Writing Apprehension: Validity

Evidence and Association with Writing Frequency, Process, and Performance.
Learning and Instruction, 58, 115-125.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959475218301415?via
%3Dihub
Olivier, L., & Oliver, J. (2016). Investigation of University Students’ EFL Writing
Apprehension: A Longitudinal Study in Croatia. Review of Innovation and
Competitiveness, 2(1), 5-18. DOI: 10.32728/ric.2016.21/1
Podsen, I. J. (1991). Apprehension and Effective Writing in the Principalship. NASSP

Bulletin, 75(532), 89-95. DOI: 10.1177/019263659107553211
34
Reio, J. S., Alexander, P. A, Reio, T.G, Jr., & Newman, I (2014). Do students’ beliefs about
writing relate to their writing self-efficacy, apprehension, and performance? Learning
and Instruction, 33, 1-11. www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc
Riffe, D., & Stacks, D.W. (2015a). Student Characteristics and Writing Apprehension.
Journalism And Mass Communication and Educator, 47(2), 39-42.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/107769589204700206
Riffe, D., & Stacks, D.W. (2015b). Dimensions of Writing Apprehension Among Mass
Communication Students. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 65(2), 384-
391. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107769908806500218?
journalCode=jmqb
Schoonen, R., Gelderen. A.V, Stoel. R. D., Hulstijn, J., & Glopper, K. D. (2011). Modeling
the Development of L1 and EFL Writing Proficiency of Secondary School Students.
Language Learning, 61(1), 31-79. http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
Abdel Latif, Muhammad. (2015). Sources of L2 writing apprehension: A study of Egyptian

university students. Journal of Research in Reading. 38. 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01549. x.
Al-Ahmad, S. (2003). The impact of collaborative learning on L1 and L2 college students'

apprehension about and attitudes toward writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University of Pennsylvania, USA.
Badrasawi, K. J. I., Zubairi, A., & Idrus, F. (2016). Exploring the Relationship between Writing
Apprehension and Writing Performance: A Qualitative Study. International Education
Studies, 9(8), 134. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n8p134
Cope, J. A. (1978). Writing Apprehension. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the

Western College Reading Association, 11(1), 53–57.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24699365.1978.11669668
Craig Wynne, Yuh-Jen Guo, Shu-Ching Wang. (2014) Writing Anxiety Groups: A Creative

Approach for Graduate Students. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health 9:3, pages 366-379.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975a). Apprehension of writing as a predictor of message

intensity. The Journal of Psychology, 89(2), 175-177.
Daly, J. A. (1978). Writing apprehension and writing competency. The Journal of Educational
Research, 72(1), 10-14.
35
Erkan, D. Y., & Saban, A. I. (2011). Writing Performance Relative to Writing Apprehension,
Self-Efficacy in Writing, and Attitudes towards Writing: A Correlational Study in Turkish
Tertiary-Level EFL. Asian EFL journal, 5(4), 164-192.
Gere, A. R. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory and implications. Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Ismail, N., Elias, S., Albakri, I. S. M. A., Perumal, P. D., & Muthusamy, I. (2010). Exploring
ESL students’ apprehension level and attitude towards academic writing. International
Journal of Learning, 17(6), 475–484. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/cgp/v17i06/45609.
Jean A. Dobos. (1996) Collaborative learning: Effects of student expectations and

communication apprehension on student motivation. Communication Education 45:2, pages
118-134.
Judee K. Burgoon, Jerold L. Hale. (1983) Dimensions of communication reticence and their

impact on verbal encoding. Communication Quarterly 31:4, pages 302-312.
Michael D. Miller, Rodney A. Reynolds, Ronald E. Cambra. (1987) The influence of gender

and culture on language intensity. Communication Monographs 54:1, pages 101-105.
Myers, D. G. (1975). Discussion-Induced Attitude Polarization. Human Relations, 28(8), 699–

714. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677502800802
Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1994). Confidence and Competence in Writing: The Role of
Self-Efficacy, Outcome Expectancy, and Apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English,
28(3), 313–331. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171341
Riffe, D., & Stacks, D. W. (1992). Student Characteristics and Writing Apprehension. The
Journalism Educator, 47(2), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769589204700206
Smith, M. W. (1984). Reducing Writing Apprehension. Urbana, IL: NCTE. University of

Pennsylvania, USA.
Yavuz, D., & Genc, A. B. (1998). Flexibility of setting up a writing unit at YADIM.
Unpublished
Zaid, Mohammed. (2011). Effects of web-based pre-writing activities on college EFL students'
writing performance and their writing apprehension of King Saud University. Journal of King
Saud University - Languages and Translation. 23. 77–85. 10.1016/j.jksult.2011.04.003.
36
Byrd, D., 2010. Framing, reflecting on and attending to a rationale of teaching of writing in the
second language classroom via journaling: a case study. System 38, 200–210.
Arnold, N., 2007. Reducing foreign language communication apprehension with compute
mediated communication: a preliminary study. System 35, 469–486.

Relationship Between Writing Apprehension and Writing Proficiency Among L2 Learners of Applied Linguistic Department at GCUF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Relationship Between Writing Apprehension and Writing Proficiency Among L2 Learners of Applied Linguistic Department at GCUF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Relationship between Writing Apprehension and Writing Proficiency among L2

learners of Applied Linguistic Department at GCUF

2.1 Writing Apprehension

Writing apprehension may related to sex differences. As some studies on sex

Writing apprehension also caused by academic procrastination. There are many

2.1.1 Importance of Investigating Learner’s Writing Apprehension

For example, Muhammad Qadir et al.(2021) studied concluded on EFl postgraduate

In the field of Applied linguistics, understanding the importance of WA will help

2.1.2 Factors Causing Writing Apprehension Among Language Learners

The most common cause of writing apprehension can be lack of motivation,

In summary, researchers consider writing apprehension to be a complex term and a

2.1.3 Overcome Writing Apprehension

An individual's self-efficacy comes from four major areas: mastery experiences,

experiences. First, it refers to a behavior of resistance by an individual writer in a situation

2.1.4 Quantitative Measures/Instruments Used for Measuring Writing Apprehension in

An approach involving the use of numeric-based information that can be measured,

Writing Apprehension Measure (WAT) which is composed of 26 items dealing with

2.1.5 Instrument for Writing Apprehension

2.1.5.1 Administered Without any Change/ Adopted.

However, specifically no sampling technique is mention but as it is experimental

While conducting research by Fox (2013) on apprehension variable groups are

Items were modeled after those presently in use in the measurement of

Beliefs about writing, writing development, writing apprehension, Transaction and

Sanders-Reioet al.’s(2014) had the sampling frame of 738 participants having no

In 2018 Teresa Limpo mentioned construct validity a calibration-validation design

writing apprehension through the mediation of perceived immediacy. Variables are

Kostie- Bobanovie (2016) The purpose of this research is to investigate Croatian

Riffe and W.stacks (2015)stated that Mass Communication Writing Apprehension

predicted performance, albeit modestly. The traditional measure of writing apprehension

2.2: Writing Proficiency:

McCarthy, Meier, and Rinderer (1985), after defining writing selfefficacy to be

Elevated writing apprehension may impact a writing performance in such a way as to

2.2.1 Effects of Writing Apprehension on Writing Proficiency

Writing is an essential language skill that is vital to academic success. Since it is an

Writing apprehension is associated with many kinds of experiences. First, it refers to a

In summary, researchers consider writing apprehension to be a complex term and a

2.2.2 Categories of Writing Assessment Test:

2.2.3 Rubrics used for Writing Assessment:

2.2.6 Nature of Relation between Writing Apprehension and Proficiency:

Daly, J. A, & Miller, M.D. (2010). Apprehension of Writing as a Predictor of Message

Daly, J. A. (2014). Writing Apprehension and Writing Competency. The journal of

Daly, J. A., & Shamo, W. (1978). Academic Decisions as a Function of Writing

Kostie, Bobanovie,. M (2016). Investigation of University Students' EFL Writing

Limpo, T., (2018). Development of a Short Measure of Writing Apprehension: Validity

Podsen, I. J. (1991). Apprehension and Effective Writing in the Principalship. NASSP

Abdel Latif, Muhammad. (2015). Sources of L2 writing apprehension: A study of Egyptian

Al-Ahmad, S. (2003). The impact of collaborative learning on L1 and L2 college students'

Cope, J. A. (1978). Writing Apprehension. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the

Craig Wynne, Yuh-Jen Guo, Shu-Ching Wang. (2014) Writing Anxiety Groups: A Creative

Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975a). Apprehension of writing as a predictor of message

Jean A. Dobos. (1996) Collaborative learning: Effects of student expectations and

Judee K. Burgoon, Jerold L. Hale. (1983) Dimensions of communication reticence and their

Michael D. Miller, Rodney A. Reynolds, Ronald E. Cambra. (1987) The influence of gender

Myers, D. G. (1975). Discussion-Induced Attitude Polarization. Human Relations, 28(8), 699–

Smith, M. W. (1984). Reducing Writing Apprehension. Urbana, IL: NCTE. University of

mediated communication: a preliminary study. System 35, 469–486.

You might also like