0 Conceptualizing Writing Self-Efficacy in English As A Foreign Language Contexts

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/321985627
Conceptualizing Writing Self‐Efﬁcacy in English as a Foreign Language

Contexts: Scale Validation Through Structural Equation Modeling
Article in TESOL Quarterly · December 2017

DOI: 10.1002/tesq.432
CITATIONS READS
42 1,284
3 authors:
Lin Sophie Teng Peijian Paul Sun

University of Auckland Zhejiang University
20 PUBLICATIONS 423 CITATIONS 39 PUBLICATIONS 148 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Linlin Xu
University of Auckland
16 PUBLICATIONS 159 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Applying CSE in Scenario-based Classroom Teaching and Learning (principal investigator) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Lin Sophie Teng on 27 December 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Conceptualizing Writing Self-Efficacy in
English as a Foreign Language Contexts:
Scale Validation Through Structural
Equation Modeling
LIN SOPHIE TENG
Heilongjiang University
Harbin, China
and
Auckland, New Zealand
PEIJIAN PAUL SUN
Sun Yat-sen University
Guangzhou,China
LINLIN XU
Auckland, New Zealand
This study was designed to validate a multidimensional structure of

writing self-efficacy in English as a foreign language contexts, con-
ceptualized in self-regulated learning theory and social cognitive
theory. The Second Language Writer Self-Efficacy Scale was devel-
oped and evaluated through a series of rigorous validation proce-
dures. The researchers collected data from 609 university students
in China. Confirmatory factory analyses through structural equa-
tion modeling validated the proposed three-dimensional structure
of writing self-efficacy, including linguistic self-efficacy, self-regula-
tory efficacy, and performance self-efficacy. Model comparisons con-
firmed the hypothesis that writing self-efficacy is a multidimensional
construct, in which the three factors are conceptually related. Inter-
nal and composite reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant
validity were examined, suggesting satisfactory psychometric proper-
ties of the scale. The concurrent validity and predictive validity
were checked by examining correlations of writing self-efficacy with
motivational beliefs and writing performance. Findings revealed that
the three dimensions of self-efficacy had small to moderate correla-
tions with writing performance. Significant correlations were also
found between writing self-efficacy and motivational beliefs (e.g.,
task value, intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation).
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, xxxx 2017 1

© 2017 TESOL International Association
The findings support a social cognitive view of self-efficacy that
acknowledges the interplay of behaviors, personal factors, and envi-
ronmental conditions. Theoretical and pedagogical implications are
discussed.
doi: 10.1002/tesq.432
W riting is often regarded as a complex task due to its multifaceted

and dynamic nature (Hayes, 2012; Hirvela, Hyland, & Manch
2016). Successful composing processes require not only the active use
on,
of writing knowledge but also positive self-efficacy to deploy the knowl-

edge and regulate learning behavior (Bruning, Dempsey, Kauffman,
McKim, & Zumbrunn, 2013; Graham, 2007). In the past three dec-
ades, writing research has paid much attention to writing products,
cognition, feedback, and discourse analysis (for more information, see
Hirvela et al., 2016; Zhang, 2013). However, insufficient attention has
been given to investigating how individuals’ affective factors influence
writing behavior and performance (Cumming, 2012; Kormos, 2012).
Self-efficacy, as arguably a key affective factor, plays a salient role in
influencing learners’ academic performance (Pajares & Valiante,
2006). Many scholars (for a review, see Pajares, 2003; Schunk &
Pajares, 2010) have argued that learners’ strong sense of confidence
contributes to better writing performance because positive self-efficacy
can engender greater writing interest, stronger effort, and greater per-
severance.
There is agreement that self-efficacy becomes critical when writing
tasks are demanding and motivational conditions are low, which
often happens among those who learn English as second or foreign
language (ESL/EFL; Kormos, 2012). This can be particularly true
for Chinese English learners who are situated in daunting contexts
that require sufficient English writing skills for passing high-stakes
examinations. Many Chinese students have reported less confidence
in their writing capabilities when they were required to complete
writing tasks (Li, 2013; Teng, 2016). This low self-efficacious state
has been shown to negatively affect learners’ use of writing knowl-
edge, development of writing strategies, and academic performance
(e.g., Woodrow, 2011).
From a social cognitive perspective, self-efficacy is not a fixed attri-
bute in one’s repertoire but a generative capability in which cognitive,
motivational, emotional, and behavioral skills must be effectively
orchestrated to serve diverse purposes (Bandura, 2006). Given that
self-efficacy is a dynamic construct with a multidimensional structure,
it is necessary to evaluate the multifaceted feature of self-efficacy in dif-
ferent activity domains (Bruning et al., 2013). However, empirical
2 TESOL QUARTERLY
studies in this inquiry so far have intensively investigated self-efficacy
with a focus on writing skills and tasks in either educational psychol-
ogy or first language (L1) settings (e.g., Bernacki, Nokes-Malach, &
Aleven, 2015; Pajares, 2008). There is relatively little research on
self-efficacy in second language (L2) settings, and scarce attention has
been given to exploring the multifaceted structure of self-efficacy in
L2 writing.
Influenced by the development of self-regulation theory, some
researchers (e.g., Bruning et al., 2013; Schunk & Ertmer, 2000; Zim-
merman & Bandura, 1994) began in earnest to identify characteristics
of self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (SRL) particularly in writing
contexts. They argued that a particular strength of examining self-effi-
cacy for SRL lies in its emphasis on the goal-directed learning process
and learners’ pivotal role in it. Therefore, this line of inquiry would be
especially conducive to promoting active and productive learners, as
evidenced in some empirical studies (e.g., Bruning et al., 2013; Zim-
merman & Bandura, 1994).
Having acknowledged the essential role of self-efficacy within dif-
ferent theoretical paradigms, many scholars (e.g., Bandura, 2006;
Bruning et al., 2013; Schunk & Pajares, 2010) suggest that teachers
should pay as much attention to students’ perceptions of compe-
tence as to actual competence, for it is the perceptions that may
more accurately predict students’ motivation and future academic
choices. In many cases, unwarranted low confidence rather than
lack of capability is responsible for maladaptive academic behaviors,
avoidance of courses, and diminishing school interest and achieve-
ment; therefore, “identifying challenges and altering inaccurate judg-
ments are essential to academic success and adaptive functioning”
(Pajares, 2003, pp. 153–154).
Although previous research on self-efficacy is intuitively appealing,
not much research defines self-efficacy operationally and assesses its
validity of measurement comprehensively. As Pajares (2003) posited,
“evaluating the appropriateness and adequacy of a self-efficacy mea-
sure requires making a theoretically informed and empirically sound
judgment that reflects an understanding of the domain under investi-
gation” (p. 144). Thus, the present study makes an initial attempt to
propose and validate a multidimensional structure of self-efficacy in
L2 writing by synthesizing social cognitive and self-regulation para-
digms. We postulate that developing a context-specific, theoretically
robust instrument to measure L2 writers’ self-efficacy will contribute to
providing a clearer understanding of the function of self-perception in
the learning-to-write process and offering insightful pedagogical impli-
cations for writing instruction.
WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND RELATED
LITERATURE
Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy
Social cognitive theory regards learners as agents who “draw on

their knowledge and cognitive and behavioral skills to monitor their
actions [and] enlist cognitive guides and self-incentives to produce
desired results” (Bandura, 1989, p. 1181). Within social cognitive the-
ory, self-efficacy, as a key factor, refers to “people’s judgment of their
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to
attain designated types of performance” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). The
working function of self-efficacy rests on a core belief connecting
human agency (the way we make choices and exercise control over
our lives) and efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 2006). Many researchers (e.g.,
Bruning et al., 2013; Schunk & Pajares, 2010) have argued that self-
efficacy is a dynamic construct with multidimensional facets because
the efficacy belief system is not a global trait but a differentiated set of
self-beliefs linked to distinct realms of functioning.
According to Pajares and Urdan (2006), judgments of personal effi-
cacy affect what students do by influencing the choices they make, the
effort they expend, and the persistence and perseverance they exert
when obstacles arise. Numerous empirical studies (for a review, see
Schunk & Pajares, 2010) suggest that self-efficacy is closely related to
individual variables (e.g., goal setting, motivation, attribution, learning
strategies) and social factors (e.g., culture) in a variety of learning
environments (e.g., education, psychology, L1 writing). Recent
research in this line has reported that highly perceived self-efficacy is
related to positive learning outcomes such as setting challenging goals,
having strong commitment to learning, and obtaining high academic
achievement (e.g., Bernacki et al., 2015; Locke & Johnston, 2016).
Self-Regulated Learning Theory and Self-Efficacy
SRL theory highlights learners’ own strategic efforts to manage their

achievement through specific beliefs (Zimmerman, 2013). According
to Pintrich (2000), SRL is “an active, constructive process whereby
learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, reg-
ulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided
and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the envi-
ronment” (p. 453). In the course of self-regulating processes, learners
need to effectively deploy a range of strategies to help them
4 TESOL QUARTERLY
intentionally activate, sustain, and adjust cognition, affect, and behav-
ior to achieve their learning goals (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011).
Studies both in L1 and L2 settings (e.g., Oxford, 2013; Zimmerman,
2013) have found that the effective exercise of SRL strategies produces
beneficial learning results in a range of contexts. However, a key deter-
minant of whether learners can deploy SRL strategies rests in the
beliefs they hold about their capabilities to do so (Schunk & Ertmer,
2000). This means that knowing SRL strategies is not enough to
ensure their effective use of these strategies; students must also possess
the belief that they can use them effectively.
The active functions of self-efficacy work throughout the self-regulat-
ing process, in which the self-perception belief motivates and guides
students’ learning efforts and their use of strategies to achieve differ-
ent learning goals (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). As Bandura (1991)
contended, self-efficacy, as a critical component of SRL, plays “a cen-
tral role in the exercise of personal agency by its strong impact on
thought, affect, motivation, and action” (p. 248). Many empirical stud-
ies have revealed the close connections between self-efficacy and moti-
vation beliefs, goal orientation, anxiety, and SRL strategies as well as
academic performance in diverse academic areas (e.g., Bernacki et al.,
2015; Kim, Wang, Ahn, & Bong, 2015; Usher & Pajares, 2008; Zimmer-
man & Kitsantas, 2007).
It should be noted that the measurement of self-efficacy for SRL
has been restrained to students’ confidence in using SRL strategies
(e.g., Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007).
Less attention has been given to evaluating students’ confidence in
their metacognitive control in a specific learning environment. Accord-
ing to Schunk and Ertmer (2000), self-efficacy becomes critical when
students are self-evaluating and monitoring learning tasks while setting
academic goals in the self-regulating process. They have explained that
skillful self-regulators enter learning situations with specific goals and
a strong sense of self-efficacy to monitor their performance and attain
their learning progress. Therefore, it would be of great significance to
evaluate learners’ self-efficacy beliefs in metacognitive control for
actively regulating their learning behavior and performance (e.g.,
Bruning et al., 2013).
Writing Self-Efficacy in L1 and L2 Contexts

Writing is a process of conveying a writer’s thoughts, feelings, and
messages. Writers search for ideas and language materials from long-
term memory and organize them into compositions according to their
goals. The composing process is as much an emotional as a cognitive

activity, in which affective components such as self-efficacy and motiva-
tion strongly influence all phases of the writing process (Boscolo &
Hidi, 2007). Pajares and Valiante (2006) have argued that the func-
tional effect of self-efficacy is critical during the composing process,
which requires not only students’ writing and linguistic knowledge but
also confidence in their competence to manage the anxieties and
emotions that accompany writing. A substantial body of literature indi-
cates that with positive self-efficacy beliefs, students can adapt to the
rapidly evolving demands of the writing tasks, use different strategies
to sustain their learning, increase their emotional readiness to learn,
and achieve better academic outcomes (e.g., Bruning et al., 2013;
Locke & Johnston, 2016).
A growing body of research (e.g., Bruning et al., 2013; Locke &
Johnston, 2016; Pajares, 2003, 2008; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007) has
revealed that students’ self-efficacy beliefs are correlated with anxiety,
motivational variables (e.g., perceived value of writing and writing
apprehension), social factors (e.g., gender), and students’ academic
performance. Pajares (2003), in particular, has posited that students’
confidence in their writing capabilities influences their writing motiva-
tion as well as writing outcomes in school. In addition, writing self-effi-
cacy beliefs have significant predictive effects on writing performance,
with effect sizes ranging from .32 to .42 in multiple regression models
(Pajares, 2003). In general, a high perception of writing self-efficacy is
crucial for the development of writing skill and has both predictive
and mediation effects on L1 writing outcomes (Bruning et al., 2013;
Pajares, 2008).
The role of self-efficacy becomes prominent when students write in
an L2, during which they are often faced with more cognitive, emo-
tional, and social challenges (Cumming, 2012; Hirvela et al., 2016).
Silva (1993) pointed out that “L2 writing is strategically, rhetorically,
and linguistically different in important ways from L1 writing” (p.
669). The differences between L1 and L2 may generate transfer hin-
drances and challenges for L2 learners. These challenges become
worse when L2 learners enter universities where English writing
courses (e.g., academic writing courses) have been increasingly
adopted in different disciplines for preparing students for overseas
studies, improving their writing competence, and/or increasing their
academic publication opportunities (Cheng, 2016). Due to the com-
plexity of writing processes, L2 writers encounter a range of challenges
that are rooted in a linguistic arena as well as social and psychological
factors (Kormos, 2012). Some L2 scholars (e.g., Kormos, 2012; Lee,
2016; Woodrow, 2011) have found that compared with L1 writing, L2
writing is more strongly correlated with linguistic fluency and linguistic
knowledge. Lee (2016), for instance, has summarized that linguistic
6 TESOL QUARTERLY
skills pose more challenges on L2 learners who are reported to strug-
gle with conveying their message effectively to a receiver through
proper grammatical structures and vocabulary items. Woodrow’s
(2011) study revealed that Chinese college students reported having
less confidence and experiencing more anxiety in performing their
specific writing skills (e.g., grammar, usage, composition, mechanical
skills) when completing academic writing tasks.
The bulk of research on L2 writing (for more information, see
Cumming, 2012; Manch on, 2011) has made important contributions
to building awareness and understanding that writing in an L2 is not
just an imitation and reproduction of linguistic and cultural conven-
tions but a constant and active interaction between writers and social
environments. At the tertiary level, writing courses in EFL contexts are
often language knowledge–focused and test-taking–targeted while
ignoring students’ diverse needs and their psychological challenges for
English writing (e.g., low confidence in completing a writing task, less
interest in writing). Most EFL writers complained about struggling
with regulating their learning-to-write processes and having less confi-
dence in classroom performance (Teng, 2016). It has been reported
that students’ judgment of their classroom performance determines
the value that they place on tasks and activities in the learning-to-write
process (Pajares, 2003; Pintrich, Smith, Garcıa, & McKeachie, 1991;
Schunk & Pajares, 2010). Therefore, it is necessary to help L2 learners
develop positive self-efficacy in controlling their learning behavior and
using course-related knowledge, which may contribute to better aca-
demic performance.
Several recent studies (e.g., Kim et al., 2015) have provided tenta-
tive evidence that learners who have a satisfactory level of confidence
in utilizing their cognitive knowledge and regulating their learning
behavior tended to deploy more strategies to pursue writing opportu-
nities and spend more effort in their writing process. Some L2 schol-
ars (Teng & Zhang, 2017; Zhang, 2010) have also found that L2
writers reported using a lower level of metacognitive strategies to mon-
itor and evaluate their learning performance and written products due
to low confidence in their linguistic proficiency and self-regulation
capacity.
Measuring Writing Self-Efficacy

A review of the literature has uncovered that previous studies on
measuring writing self-efficacy have intensively examined learners’ con-
fidence in specific writing skills and writing tasks (e.g., Pajares &
Valiante, 1999; Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989) and self-regulatory

control (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). More recent trends have
extended these investigations into evaluating the multiple dimensions
of self-efficacy in L1 contexts (e.g., Bruning et al., 2013).
A noteworthy study, for instance, is Shell et al. (1989), which made
an initial attempt to develop a questionnaire to measure writing self-
efficacy in composition skills (e.g., use accurate diction and syntax
knowledge) and writing tasks (e.g., a short story, an essay). In their
study, undergraduate students were asked to designate their subjective
probability of successfully performing different writing tasks and skills
on a scale ranging from 0 (no change) to 100 (complete). Regression
analysis revealed that writing skill self-efficacy significantly predicted
writing achievement whereas writing task self-efficacy did not.
In a similar vein, Pajares and Valiante (1999) devised the Writing
Skills Self-Efficacy Scale (WSES) to measure L1 writing self-efficacy.
The scale was designed to assess middle school students’ confidence
levels when performing specific writing skills regarding composition,
grammar usage, and mechanics. They reported that writing skills self-
efficacy, as a holistic factor, was the only significant predictor of writ-
ing competence in a regression model including writing self-concept,
previous apprehension, perceived value of writing, self-regulation effi-
cacy, previous writing achievement, gender, and grade level. Later,
Pajares (2007) explored the underlying structure of the WSES through
an exploratory factor analysis. His study revealed a two-factor structure
of writing self-efficacy in basic grammar skills and advanced composi-
tion skills.
Another relevant avenue of inquiry is to situate evaluating self-effi-
cacy in self-regulatory theory. Zimmerman and Bandura (1994)
devised the Writing Self-Regulatory Efficacy Scale to examine college
students’ perceived confidence in their capability to regulate writing
activities. The items in the scale were developed from a formal analysis
of the writing process and motivational regulation. Their study
revealed a single factor of self-regulatory efficacy with acceptable inter-
nal reliability (a = .91). They also reported that students who lacked
confidence in their capability to self-regulate their learning were less
likely to implement SRL strategies and tended to give up the task in
the face of difficulty.
As researchers are taking heed of assessing writing self-efficacy,
some scholars, such as Bruning et al. (2013), criticized that most writ-
ing self-efficacy measures (e.g., Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Shell et al.,
1989) “have broadly sampled writing related skills and tasks, making
them less than ideal for yielding information about writers’ self-efficacy
for specific dimensions of writing” (p. 27). They further maintained
that findings elicited from these instruments might not be directly
linked to “models of writing or to potentially writing-relevant
8 TESOL QUARTERLY
psychological and language-related processes” (Bruning et al., 2013, p.
26). With this conviction, Bruning and his colleagues conceptualized
their study based on idea translation (Hayes, 2012) and self-regulation
theory (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007) to develop the Self-Efficacy for
Writing Scale (SEWS). They examined the underlying dimensions of
self-efficacy in L1 writing contexts with data collected from middle
school students who were enrolled in eighth grade English/language
arts classes. The multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
revealed a three-factor structure of writing self-efficacy, including writ-
ing ideation (writers’ beliefs about their abilities to generate ideas tied
to semantics and schematic knowledge), writing convention (writers’
beliefs about their abilities to articulate their ideas into writing’s
forms), and writing self-regulation (writers’ beliefs about their abilities
to manage, monitor, and evaluate writing activities). They also found
that the multifactor self-efficacy had significant correlations with stu-
dents’ liking writing, self-reported writing performance, and statewide
writing assessment scores.
To sum up, encouraging as these findings of L1 writing self-efficacy
are, our current knowledge about measuring L2 writing self-efficacy is
rather limited. Given that self-efficacy is a domain-specific construct,
the nature of these existing scales and their items that were designed
for L1 contexts might be not suitable for directly transferring into L2
writing. In addition, most of these measurements (e.g., Pajares &
Valiante, 1999; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007) take an isolated view of
writing self-efficacy with a focus on writing skills or self-regulation,
respectively. Although Bruning et al.’s (2013) study provided prelimi-
nary evidence for the multidimensional features of L1 writing self-effi-
cacy, whether the proposed model is still valid to elaborate the
features of L2 writing self-efficacy is not clear. Despite the progress
made in measuring self-efficacy, what remains to be accounted for is
the development of a task-based, skill-specific, theoretically robust mea-
surement to evaluate the conceptual dimensions of writing self-efficacy
in L2 contexts. We therefore argue for a synthesized perspective to
measure L2 writing self-efficacy in relation to the use of cognitive
knowledge and self-regulation of learning behavior in classroom
environments.
Conceptualization of L2 Writing Self-Efficacy Measurement

As mentioned earlier, self-efficacy is a domain-specific construct.
This means that any instrument of self-efficacy must be designed for a
particular domain of functioning with a robust conceptual construc-
tion (Bandura, 2006). According to Pajares and Valiante (2006),

measures of self-efficacy must “reflect an understanding of both the
domain under investigation and its different features, as well as the
types of capabilities the domain requires and the range of situations in
which these capabilities might be applied” (p. 162). Grounded in a
social cognitive view of writing (Hayes, 1996; Manch on, 2011) and SRL
theory (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008), this study operationalized self-
efficacy as students’ judgments of their capability to execute various
linguistic/rhetorical knowledge as well as their confidence in learning
performance and metacognitive control. Three focal dimensions of
writing self-efficacy were proposed, reflecting learners’ linguistic,
behavioral, and self-regulative demands in the learning-to-write pro-
cess. The hypothesis of the multidimensions of self-efficacy was
informed by the challenges that L2 writers face and the features of L2
writing, as discussed in the previous sections. We also proposed that
the three dimensions of writing self-efficacy were correlated with each
other in the function of self-efficacy beliefs, given that L2 writing is a
recursive, strategic process with interactions of multidimensional
aspects (Hirvela et al., 2016; Zhang, 2013).
In our conceptualization, linguistic self-efficacy referred to learners’
judgment of their capability in cognitive and language-related aspects
of composing processes. This dimension has its roots in social cogni-
tive theory, which views the writing process as a sequence of cognitive
operations during which writers draw on their knowledge as well as
cognitive and behavioral skills to produce a written text (Hayes, 1996).
In the composing process, linguistic self-efficacy includes individuals’
self-judgment of their capability to retrieve words from their long-term
memory, to use appropriate syntax to express ideas, and to follow dis-
course requirements for the production of composing. Data collected
on this dimension are expected to help L2 scholars and practitioners
develop a better understanding of how students’ confidence in their
linguistic competence influences their cognitive development, behav-
ioral transformation, and motivational engagement in composing
processes.
A second proposed dimension was performance self-efficacy, which
referred to learners’ judgments about their abilities to accomplish a
task in classroom environments. The inclusion of this dimension was
informed by SRL and social cognitive perspectives of writing, both of
which acknowledge the essential role of social behavioral factors. From
a social cognitive perspective, performance regulation is an important
aspect of SRL theory, which reflects individuals’ attempts to control
their own overt behavior (Zimmerman, 2013). Likewise, social cogni-
tive theory regards writing as “a communicative act that requires a
social context . . . a generative activity requiring motivation, and . . .
an intellectual activity requiring cognitive processes and memory”
10 TESOL QUARTERLY
(Hayes, 1996, p. 5). As Pintrich (2004) argued, students’ confidence in
their behavior affected their mastery of the required knowledge, moti-
vation, and learning effort. Resonating with this argument, Pajares
(2008) maintained that learners’ confidence in their course perfor-
mance was closely related to their perceived value of tasks, extrinsic
motivation, and use of learning strategies, which in turn impacted
their academic outcomes. Therefore, the exploration of learners’ con-
fidence in their task-related performance in classroom environments
would provide useful information that can be used by teachers for fos-
tering independent and proactive learners during writing instruction.
The third proposed dimension was self-regulatory efficacy, which
referred to students’ perceived capability to execute metacognitive
control in the learning-to-write process (e.g., monitoring, evaluating,
goal setting). In order to make the construct of self-efficacy more
operational within the SRL framework, this study focused on two
essential aspects of SRL: metacognitive control and goal orientation.
There is a general agreement that SRL is a “metacognitive process that
requires students to explore their own thought processes so as to eval-
uate the results of their actions and plan alternative pathways to suc-
cess” (Usher & Pajares, 2008, p. 443). Given the challenges
encountered by many L2 learners, a successful learning-to-write pro-
cess requires writers to regulate their cognition to generate productive
ideas for writing, establish goals to direct their learning activities, and
use some strategies to monitor and evaluate their performance (Man-
chon, 2011; Zhang, 2013). Previous studies have found that learners’
confidence in their goal-oriented monitoring and evaluation con-
tributes to fostering self-regulatory capability and arousing positive
motivation and interest (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007). This study,
therefore, argued that the inclusion of self-regulatory efficacy would
reveal how L2 writers actively regulate their learning behavior to over-
come challenges and psychological constraints experienced in the
learning-to-write process.
As a whole, the new conceptualization of L2 writing self-efficacy
reflects the features of L2 writing processes, the challenges L2 writers
encounter, and the learning environments in which L2 writers are situ-
ated. Therefore, the levels of items developed for the new measure-
ment would be theoretically sound and domain-specific. The
composite scores collected from the multi-information measurement
of L2 writing self-efficacy in linguistic, performance, and self-regulatory
control may be useful in studies of writing-related outcomes. In addi-
tion, the results collected by the new measurement may generate more
pedagogical innovations for writing instruction while taking the char-
acteristics of L2 writers into consideration. In short, we proposed that
a multifactor portrayal of writing self-efficacy would better reveal the

internal characteristics of the construct, render more insightful evi-
dence for classroom teaching, and foster learners’ proactive engage-
ment in the learning-to-write process.
THE STUDY
This study was designed to conceptualize and validate a multidimen-

sional structure of L2 writing self-efficacy. Reconciling SRL theory and
social cognitive theory, the Second Language Writer Self-Efficacy Scale
(L2WSS) was developed and evaluated through a series of rigorous val-
idation procedures. Three research questions motivated this study:
1. Does the hypothesized three-dimensional model of writing self-
efficacy have an acceptable model fit?
2. If there is an acceptable model fit, how do the three dimensions
of writing self-efficacy predict EFL writing proficiency?
3. If there is an acceptable model fit, how do the three dimensions
of writing self-efficacy relate to motivational beliefs?
In the following sections, we describe the development and valida-
tion procedures of the L2WSS using CFA through structural equa-
tion modeling (SEM) to test the hypothesized three-dimensional
model of writing self-efficacy (Model 1). If the data were consistent
with the hypothesized model, we would compare Model 1 with two
competing models (i.e., null model [Model 2] and uncorrelated
model [Model 3]). This is because model comparison between the
plausible models is useful for providing evidence of construct validity
(Noar, 2003). We also assessed the concurrent validity and predictive
validity by examining the correlations of the three dimensions of self-
efficacy with motivational beliefs and writing performance.
Participants
A total of 609 university students were voluntarily recruited from

five medium-ranking universities in mainland China through conve-
nience sampling. Data collection consisted of two phases. In the first
phase, 15 second-year undergraduate students from one university
were invited to attend the semistructured interview for questionnaire
item generation. Then 40 undergraduate students were recruited from
the same university for initial piloting of the scale (e.g., face validity,
test-retest reliability). In the second phase, 554 undergraduate students
were recruited from another four universities. All these undergraduate
students were from the following majors: arts (n = 129, 23%),
12 TESOL QUARTERLY
economics (n = 135, 24%), electronic engineering (n = 137, 25%),
and computer science (n = 153, 28%). There were 31% freshmen (n =
172), 32% sophomores (n = 177), 23% juniors (n = 127), and 14%
seniors (n = 78). Among these respondents, 48% were females (n =
266) and the average age was 21.32 (SD = 1.09); 52% were males (n =
288) and the average age was 21.07 (SD = 1.24).
For these undergraduate students, English writing is a compulsory
course administered consecutively during the first 2 years of the 4-year
undergraduate program. In writing courses, college students in the
first year are instructed on linguistic knowledge and paragraph writing;
students in the second year are instructed on genre-based writing such
as narration, exposition, and argumentation. At the time of the study,
all respondents reported having been enrolled in at least one writing
course during their university study. Participants were invited to com-
plete a timed essay-writing test to assess their writing performance.
After that they were required to complete two sets of questionnaires to
investigate their perceived writing self-efficacy and motivational beliefs
(including intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, and
task value).
Measures
Development of the Second Language Writer Self-Efficacy
Scale. Informed by social cognitive theory and SRL theory, we
designed the L2WSS as a context-based and course-targeted instru-
ment. The scale was developed to evaluate L2 writers’ self-efficacy
beliefs in the use of linguistic knowledge, classroom performance, and
regulation of their learning process. Scale items were generated from
two sources: the established questionnaires on self-efficacy and
semistructured interviews with EFL students. To provide theoretical
validation for item construction, we first consulted established instru-
ments developed for evaluating self-efficacy beliefs in L1 contexts
(e.g., Bruning et al., 2013; Pajares & Valiante, 1999; Pintrich et al.,
1991; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). We borrowed and modified
some questions from the validated questionnaires that have been con-
firmed with good psychometric properties. This is an important proce-
dure for item generation, which can increase the validity and
reliability of the instrument (D€ ornyei, 2010). Another important
source for item generation was students’ semistructured interviews,
which were used to elicit their writing self-efficacy in linguistics, course
performance, and self-regulation. According to D€ ornyei (2010), involv-
ing learners themselves in the item-generating process improves the
quality of the item pool. In this study, 15 university students were vol-
untarily recruited to have a 20- to 30-minute interview about their

writing self-efficacy in academic environments (see Appendix A for the
interview protocol). Analysis of the transcription informed the item
generation of the new scale.
The L2WSS was designed with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me). The construct was opera-
tionalized as a list of written statements, each of which presented an
assertion about learners’ confidence in the learning-to-write process.
As recommended by Bandura (2006), each question in the scale was
worded as a “can do” statement to reflect the judgment of capability
with a behavior situation. Respondents were required to rate their con-
fidence level in using linguistic knowledge, course performance, and
self-regulation when completing writing activities. The wordings of
items was checked and modified, if necessary, to be suitable for Chi-
nese L2 writers’ learning characteristics, with clear and simple state-
ments written in plain English.
In total, the initial pool was generated with 21 items. Specifically,
linguistic self-efficacy included seven items. Four items were adapted
from Shell et al.’s (1989) questionnaire measuring component writing
skills. For example, we changed “Correctly use parts of speech (i.e.,
nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.)” to “I can correctly use parts of speech
(e.g., nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.) in writing” and “Write a simple sen-
tence with proper punctuation and grammatical structure” to “I can
write a simple sentence with grammatical structure.” Another three
items were adapted from the semistructured interviews in which the
respondents mentioned their challenges in revising their written prod-
ucts, such as “I can revise wordy or confusing sentences of my writing”
and “I can revise my composition to make it better organized.”
Self-regulatory efficacy included seven items. Informed by the previ-
ous studies on self-regulatory efficacy (Bruning et al, 2013; Zimmer-
man & Bandura, 1994) and students’ interviews, we wrote up these
questions measuring L2 writers’ confidence in their metacognitive con-
trol in the learning process. Sample items are “I can evaluate my
strength and weakness in writing,” “I can evaluate whether I achieve
my goals in the learning-to-write process,” and “I can evaluate my per-
formance in writing courses.”
Performance self-efficacy included seven items. Four items were
modified from Pintrich et al.’s (1991) questionnaire, which was
designed to elicit participants’ self-efficacy for learning and perfor-
mance in classroom environments. We modified these items to focus
on writing classrooms rather than the general tertiary context. For
example, we changed “I am confident I can understand the basic con-
cepts taught in this course” to “I can understand the basic concepts
taught in writing courses” and “I am confident that I can master the
skills being taught in this class” to “I can master the writing skills
14 TESOL QUARTERLY
taught in writing courses.” In addition, three items were developed
from the interviews regarding students’ confidence in the use of writ-
ing knowledge and skills taught in the writing course, such as “I can
use the writing knowledge taught in writing courses” and “I can use
the writing strategies/skills taught in writing courses.”
Motivational beliefs. In order to examine participants’ motivational

beliefs, we adapted a questionnaire developed by Pintrich et al. (1991)
to investigate motivational beliefs in university classroom environ-
ments. The questionnaire is a self-report instrument, with a 7-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of
me). Given the modular nature of the questionnaire, three subcate-
gories of motivational scales were included to assess students’ value
beliefs. These were extrinsic goal orientation (motivations focusing on
grades, rewards, and approval from others), intrinsic goal orientation
(motivations focusing on learning, mastery of knowledge, and curios-
ity), and task value (judgments of how interesting, useful, and impor-
tant the course content is to students). These three types of
motivational beliefs have been found to be closely connected with self-
efficacy in writing contexts (e.g., Pajares & Valiante, 2006). Data col-
lected were used to examine the correlations of motivational beliefs
with writing self-efficacy for evaluating concurrent validity of the
L2WSS.
Writing test. We adopted a given-topic writing test to evaluate stu-

dents’ writing proficiency. This was selected from International Eng-
lish Language Testing System (IELTS) Task 2. IELTS writing tasks
require an extended composition in response to a proposition or a
question. The topics or contexts of language in this standard test are
designed to avoid a bias against any group of candidates of a particu-
lar background. Examinees are asked to provide general factual
information, outline and/or present a solution, justify an opinion,
and evaluate ideas and evidence. In this study, all participants were
invited to produce a written argument on a topic in classroom envi-
ronments. They were required to write at least 250 words to address
the topic within 40 minutes. The writing scripts were marked based
on the standard IELTS Task 2 analytic scale, focusing on task
response, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, grammatical
range, and accuracy. Two evaluators who had been certificated IELTS
examiners were invited to assess these essays. The interrater agree-
ment and intrarater agreement were calculated using Pearson pro-
duct–moment correlation coefficients. The values were .88 for
interrater reliability and .92 for intrarater reliability, indicating satis-
factory results (Brown, 2001).

Evaluating Reliability and Validity of the Scale
According to D€ ornyei (2010), questionnaire validation is a critical

process for evaluating the usefulness of measures in the data collection
process. In the following sections, we present various ways to evaluate
reliability and validity of the L2WSS.
Reliability. This study adopted the repeated survey method (test-

retest reliability) and the internal consistency method to evaluate the
internal reliability. Test-retest reliability was examined in the piloting
stage (n = 32). In the main study, we computed Cronbach’s alpha on
a large sample (n = 554) as a primary criterion of reliability because it
can provide an accurate internal consistency estimate (Brown, 2001).
We also examined composite reliability (CR); a CR value higher than
.70 indicates a good result (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010).
Validity. Several procedures were applied to evaluate validity of the

measurement, including face validity (whether a survey instrument is
valid to untrained people), content validity (whether the survey con-
tent matches the theoretical content of what the survey is designed to
measure), construct validity (whether the survey can measure whatever
construct it is designed to measure), and criterion-related validity (the
extent to which the survey is related to some criterion measures;
Brown, 2001).
In this study, face validity was evaluated by inviting a group of
respondents to go through the process of answering the questions.
They were then invited to make a judgment about the degree to which
the measurement seemed valid. Formal expert review of all items was
used to examine content validity.
We used CFA to examine construct validity of hypothesis-based test-
ing instruments. This is a robust statistical method that can assist in
the development of abbreviated forms of an instrument or confirma-
tion of its possible subdomains (Mueller & Hancock, 2008). Conver-
gent validity and discriminant validity as two subtypes of construct
validity were also examined. Specifically, we checked average variance
extracted (AVE) as a strict measure of convergent validity. If the value
of AVE is larger than 0.5 and CR > AVE, then the latent factor is well
explained by its observed variables, lending support to convergent
validity (Hair et al., 2010). We examined discriminant validity with ref-
erence to the values of AVE, maximum shared variance (MSV), and
average shared variance (ASV). Values of MSV and ASV smaller than
AVE indicate that the latent factor is well explained by its own
observed variables. This means that the hypothesized latent factors are
discriminant from each other (Hair et al., 2010).
16 TESOL QUARTERLY
We reported criterion-related validity (i.e., concurrent validity and
predictive validity) through examining the correlations of writing self-
efficacy with motivational beliefs and writing performance.
RESULTS
Initial Piloting of the Questionnaire

In this stage, two experts, whose research expertise was on L2 writ-
ing or educational psychology, were invited to evaluate these items for
checking content validity. They were invited to evaluate the theoretical
rationale, wording, and consistency of construct and item relevance.
For face validity, focus group interviews with eight Chinese undergrad-
uate students were conducted to evaluate the clarity, readability, and
parsimony in scale length. As a result, two items were rephrased and
one item was deleted. Then the modified questionnaire in English
with 20 items was subjected to more statistical evaluation. We first
piloted the questionnaire to undergraduate students (n = 32) on two
administrations (2-week span) to evaluate the test-retest reliability. The
coefficient value was .87, revealing a good correlation level (Brown,
2001).
Confirmatory Factory Analysis
The questionnaire was delivered to a large sample of undergraduate

students from four Chinese universities (n = 554). CFA was applied
using SEM through the IBM SPSS AMOS computer program, Version
22 (Arbuckle, 2013). CFAs were used to examine the hypothesized
three-factor structure using maximum likelihood estimation. Assump-
tions of normality, linearity, and homogeneity of the sample were
examined, and no outlying cases were detected. Given that CFA is sen-
sitive to missing values and outliers, two cases were removed due to sys-
tematic response bias (e.g., same response for the entire
questionnaire). Three missing values were deleted listwise, meaning
that whole cases were excluded from the analysis. This is because the
total proportion of missing values was less than 1%, so the deletion
would not result in a substantial decrease (Enders, 2010).
Descriptive analyses showed that the average scores of the 20 items
ranged from 3.97 (SD = 1.46) to 5.48 (SD = 1.33). The skewness and
kurtosis indices were between the cut-off values of │3.0│ and
│8.0│separately, indicating a univariate normal distribution (Kline,
2011). Appendix B shows the descriptive analysis of the L2WSS.

Multivariate normality was examined using Mardia’s normalized multi-
variate value, which is the critical value of multivariate kurtosis in SEM
output. In this study, the normalized coefficient was 2.94, indicative of
multivariate normality (Mardia, 1974).
Informed by the theoretical understanding of self-efficacy, a zero-
order correlated model was proposed (Model 1). This model assumed
that the underlying three factors of self-efficacy were theoretically cor-
related with each other. Support for this model suggests that partici-
pants can distinguish the three dimensions of self-efficacy, but the
three factors are intercorrelated with one another.
Multiple omnibus fit statistical analyses were applied to evaluate the
model fit of CFA. First, we examined the ratio of chi-square (v2) to its
degree of freedom (df). A value for v2/df less than 2 is commonly
regarded as an acceptable fit between the hypothesized model and the
sample data (Byrne, 1991). Second, two absolute fit indices were
reported: the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with
its corresponding 90% confidence interval and the standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR). RMSEA is often used as an indicator of
model parsimony to assess the model fit while taking into account the
model’s complexity. SRMR is the square root of the discrepancy
between the sample covariance matrix and the model covariance
matrix. Values of RMSEA close to .06 and SRMR close to .08 reveal a
good model fit between the hypothesized model and the observed
data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Third, this study reported two incremental
fit indices: the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI). In the CFI analysis, the model fit is tested by examining the dis-
crepancy between the data and the hypothesized model while adjust-
ing for the issues of sample size inherent in the chi-squared test of
model fit and the normed fit index. The TLI analyzes the discrepancy
between the chi-squared value of the hypothesized model and the chi-
squared value of the null model. The recommend values of CFA and
TLI are equal to or more than .95, indicating a good model fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1999).
This study first examined the three-factor correlated model of writ-
ing self-efficacy (Model 1). CFA results revealed an acceptable model
x2
2
fit model fit (x549 ¼ 321:05 df = 167; p < .001; df ¼ 1:92; TLI = .95; CFI
= .96; RMSEA = .06 [.05, .07]; SRMR = .06). Figure 1 shows the stan-
dardized regression weights of the three-factor correlated model of
writing self-efficacy.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values of writing self-efficacy were
higher than the benchmark value (.70; linguistic self-efficacy a = .83;
self-regulatory efficacy a = .81; performance self-efficacy a = .85;
Brown, 2001). The CR values for the three factors were .88 for linguis-
tic self-efficacy, .87 for self-regulatory efficacy, and .89 for performance
18 TESOL QUARTERLY
FIGURE 1. Three-factor correlated model of writing self-efficacy. LS = linguistic self-
efficacy, SRE = self-regulatory efficacy, PS = performance self-efficacy. All item parameter
estimates and latent variables correlations were significant (p < .001).

TABLE 1
Result of Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Self-efficacy dimensions CR AVE MSV ASV

Linguistic self-efficacy 0.88 0.55 0.23 0.16
Self-regulatory efficacy 0.87 0.52 0.18 0.14
Performance self-efficacy 0.89 0.54 0.23 0.20
Note. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; MSV = maximum shared
squared variance; ASV = average shared square variance. CR > .07 revealing composite relia-
bility; CR > AVE and AVE > .05 revealing convergent validity; MSV < AVE and ASV < AVE
revealing discriminant validity.
self-efficacy. These coefficient values together revealed a robust inter-

nal reliability of the scale.
As shown in Table 1, the AVE values for the three factors of writing
self-efficacy were higher than .50 while being smaller than the CR val-
ues. In addition, the AVE values were higher than the squared correla-
tions of any other two latent variables (MSV and ASV). This means
that the convergent validity and discriminant validity were established
on the construct level. Table 1 shows the result of convergent validity
and discriminant validity of the three-factor scale.
Model Comparison
Model comparison is a highly recommended procedure to evaluate

construct validity through comparing the hypothesized model with
other plausible models (e.g., null model; Mueller & Hancock, 2008).
In this study, we compared the three-factor correlated model of writ-
ing self-efficacy (Model 1) against a null model (Model 2) and an
uncorrelated three-factor model (Model 3). Chi-square difference test
was reported by using the value of the chi-square difference with the
2
corresponding change in the degrees of freedom (xdiff =dfdiff ):
2
xdiff ¼ xs2 xl2 and dfdiff ¼ df s df l
Here, s denotes the “smaller” model with fewer parameters (parsimo-
nious/simple model) and more degrees of freedom, whereas l denotes
the “larger” model (complex model) with more parameters and there-
fore fewer degrees of freedom. If the value is significant the large/
complex model fits the data better, whereas if the value is insignificant
the parsimonious/simple model is preferred (Mueller & Hancock,
2008).
Model 2: One-factor model (null model). In this model, we

postulated that all the 20 items loaded on one overarching factor.
20 TESOL QUARTERLY
A support for this model suggests that participants perceived all
these items of self-efficacy as a unidimensional construct. However,
our CFA results showed an unacceptable model fit x549 2
¼ 789:48 df
x2
= 170; p < .001; df ¼ 4:64 CFI = .72; RMSEA = .12 [.11, .13]; SRMR
= .10.
Model 3: Three-factor uncorrelated model. This model postulated

that the three factors of writing self-efficacy were uncorrelated. A sup-
port for this model suggests that linguistic self-efficacy, performance
self-efficacy, and self-regulatory efficacy are unrelated constructs. CFA
results did not reveal a satisfactory model fit because some goodness-
of-fit indices were below the benchmark values (x549 2
¼ 407:3: df = 170;
x2
p < .001; df ¼ 2:39; TLI = .90; CFI = .89; RMSEA = .06 [.05, .07]; SRMR
= .07).
Chi-square difference comparison revealed that Model 1 had the
best fit indices as compared with Model 2 (xdiff2
= 468.43, dfdiff = 3, p <
.001) and Model 3 (xdiff = 86.33, dfdiff = 3, p < .001), lending support
2
to the construct validity of the three-dimension correlated structure of

writing self-efficacy (Model 1).
Criterion-Related Validity
This study further evaluated criterion-related validity of the ques-

tionnaire. Correlations of writing self-efficacy with students’ motiva-
tional beliefs and writing test scores were examined for checking
concurrent validity and predictive validity.
Our results showed that the three subcategories of writing self-effi-
cacy demonstrated positive, significant correlations with task value and
intrinsic goal orientation. As compared with the other two dimensions
of motivational beliefs, intrinsic goal orientation had moderate correla-
tions with the three dimensions of writing self-efficacy (linguistic
self-efficacy, r = .467, p < .01; self-regulatory efficacy, r = .398, p < .01;
performance self-efficacy, r = .460, p < .01). However, extrinsic goal
orientation was only slightly correlated with performance self-efficacy
(r = .141, p < .05).
Writing performance was also significantly correlated with the three
factors of writing self-efficacy, showing the highest correlation with lin-
guistic self-efficacy (r = .381, p < .01) and the lowest correlation with
self-regulatory efficacy (r = .117, p = .047).
Taken together, the significant correlations confirmed the concur-
rent and predictive validity of the scale. Table 2 presents a correlation
matrix of self-efficacy with motivational beliefs and writing perfor-
mance.

TABLE 2
Correlation Matrix of Writing Self-Efficacy With Motivational Beliefs and Writing Perfor-
mance
Self-efficacy Intrinsic goal Extrinsic goal Task Writing

dimensions orientation orientation value performance
Linguistic .467*** .055 .157* .381**
self-efficacy
Self-regulatory .389** .098 .372** .117*
efficacy
Performance .460*** .141* .252** .241*
self-efficacy
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
DISCUSSION
Our study aimed to conceptualize and validate a multidimensional

structure of writing self-efficacy by synthesizing self-regulated learning
theory and social cognitive theory in L2 contexts. Rigorous validation
procedures of CFA corroborated the multifaceted structure of writing
self-efficacy including linguistic self-efficacy, self-regulatory efficacy,
and performance self-efficacy with robust reliability and validity. Model
comparisons confirmed that the three dimensions of writing self-effi-
cacy were conceptually related to each other under an overarching
construct of self-efficacy.
Correlations of writing self-efficacy with motivational beliefs and
writing performance offered the evidence of criterion validity of the
scale. These findings revealed that the three dimensions of writing
self-efficacy were related to other motivation-related variables (i.e., task
value and goal orientation). These positive relationships also lent sup-
port to a social cognitive view of self-efficacy, which acknowledges the
interplay of behaviors, personal factors, and environmental conditions
(Bandura, 2006).
Multidimensional Structure of Writing Self-Efficacy and

Writing Performance
Linguistic self-efficacy. The first factor was labeled linguistic self-effi-
cacy and it was developed to evaluate students’ judgments of their
capability to execute various lexical, syntactical, rhetorical, discourse,
and mechanical skills required to write an effective essay appropriate
to their academic levels. This dimension investigated how self-efficacy
beliefs worked throughout the whole composing process (e.g., idea
generation, the utility of linguistic and rhetorical knowledge, and the
revision of written products).
22 TESOL QUARTERLY
Our study revealed that linguistic self-efficacy had a moderate corre-
lation with writing performance. This finding suggests that learners’
confidence in their use of cognitive knowledge is closely related to the
production of a written text in L2 settings. Thus, measuring self-effi-
cacy from a specific paradigm is useful to provide rich insights on the
lingual-cognitive nature of the problem solving associated with the act
of composing. This contention has also been proposed by some schol-
ars (e.g., Bruning et al., 2013; Pajares, 2007) who measured self-effi-
cacy in L1 writing.
Self-regulatory efficacy. The second factor was labeled self-regulatory

efficacy, which investigated learners’ perceived capability to execute
metacognitive control with goal orientation in the learning-to-write
process (i.e., planning, monitoring, and goal setting). From an SRL
perspective, writing activities are perceived as “self-planned, self-
initiated, and self-sustained processes” (Zimmerman & Risemberg,
1997, pp. 73–74). This means that learners’ writing performance is
under the influence of evaluating their own capability. Thus, regard-
ing self-regulatory efficacy as a dimension of self-efficacy may provide
useful information to relate learners’ control of their agency to cogni-
tive processing, behavior, and achievement.
In this study, a weak but positive correlation was revealed between
self-regulatory efficacy and EFL writing performance. This may be
attributed to the content of the items that were designed to evaluate
learners’ metacognitive control over their learning-to-write process
rather than a specific writing task or a genre. Similarly, Bruning et al.
(2013) reported a low relationship between self-regulatory self-efficacy
and statewide writing assessment (r = .206) for high school students
who enrolled in English/language arts classes. As Schunk and Ertmer
(2000) posited, a high level of self-efficacy for self-regulating was posi-
tively correlated with active engagement in learning activities, more
effort giving, and longer persistence, which in turn contributed to
improving academic performance. However, it should be noted that
the function of self-regulatory efficacy on writing performance varies
across learning contexts. In general, this study, together with previous
research on self-regulatory efficacy (e.g., Bruning et al., 2013; Schunk
& Ertmer, 2000; Usher & Pajares, 2008), revealed that self-regulatory
efficacy as an important set of proximal determinants of human self-
regulation plays an important role in affecting learners’ academic
achievement in both general learning settings and L2 writing contexts.
Performance self-efficacy. The third factor was labeled performance

self-efficacy, which assessed students’ judgments of their capability to
complete the course tasks or understand the course knowledge. The

inclusion of this dimension resonated with Bandura’s (2006) argument
that evaluating writing self-efficacy should “be linked to the behavioral
factors over which people can exercise some control” in a specific
learning context (p. 310).
Pajares and Valiante (2006) argued for the importance of increasing
learners’ beliefs about what and how they can perform as writers when
completing different writing tasks. We believe that learners’ perfor-
mance self-efficacy is a critical factor that enables writing instruction to
forge better writing products and more active writers. Thus, evaluating
performance self-efficacy in writing courses can provide useful infor-
mation for L2 practitioners to implement effective writing instruction
via maximizing learners’ own learning agency in task performance.
Although a weak correlation was reported between performance
self-efficacy and writing test scores, this study has provided preliminary
evidence that EFL students’ beliefs on their capabilities in the writing
course may influence their writing performance. Along with some pre-
vious findings (Bandura, 2006; Schunk & Pajares, 2010), this study also
reveals that self-efficacy is a domain-specific construct under the
influence of task difficulty and transferability of self-efficacy across
activities.
Writing Self-Efficacy and Motivational Beliefs

The significant correlations of writing self-efficacy with motivational
beliefs (i.e., intrinsic goal orientation and task value) revealed that the
generative attribute of self-efficacy interacted with the values of writing
activities and intrinsic goals for learning to write. This suggests that if
individual learners believe themselves capable of accomplishing a task,
it is highly probable that they will demonstrate a high level of judg-
ments of how interesting, useful, and important the course content is.
Our findings also indicate that learners’ positive confidence in their
linguistic, self-regulatory, and performance competence might gener-
ate motivational support for completing a writing task. Similar positive
correlations were reported in Schunk and Pajares’s (2010) study, show-
ing that students with good self-efficacy might also have a strong sense
of personal competence and, greater intrinsic interest in activities, set
challenging goals, and maintain a strong commitment to them.
It is worth noting that students’ intrinsic motivation had a stronger
correlation with the three dimensions of writing self-efficacy than
extrinsic goal orientation. This finding corroborates Pintrich et al.’s
(1991) contention that intrinsic goal orientation is seen as being cru-
cial for the development of competence and self-determination
because human beings naturally look for what evokes their interest
24 TESOL QUARTERLY
and attempt to overcome the challenges they encounter, which helps
to promote self-initiated or self-determined behavior.
Our study also revealed that EFL writers’ extrinsic goal orientation
was only significantly correlated with performance self-efficacy. This
means learners who are driven to learn based on external rewards may
also hold a positive attitude toward their capability to complete writing
tasks or perform better than other peers in classroom learning envi-
ronments. This is a typical case for Chinese university students whose
motivation to learn English writing has been predominantly driven by
extrinsic desires, as revealed in some previous studies (e.g., Cheng,
2016; Teng & Zhang, 2016a, 2017).
In general, our findings corroborate the argument that self-efficacy
is the foundation of human motivation and performance accomplish-
ments (Pajares & Urdan, 2006). The different correlations between
the three dimensions of self-efficacy and motivational variables lent
support to a contention that self-efficacy belief is “not as an omnibus
trait but as a differentiated set of self-beliefs linked to distinct realms
of functioning” (Bandura, 1986, p. 36). This study, as a whole, pro-
vides empirical evidence for Bruning et al.’s (2013) claim that “align-
ing measures more explicitly with psychological and linguistic features
of the writing process may provide opportunities to learn more about
both self-efficacy for writing and writing itself” (p. 25).
IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH
Our empirical evidence shows the promise of multidimensional con-

ceptualizations of self-efficacy in a specific L2 writing context. We
believe that aligning the measure of self-efficacy with the tenet of
self-regulation theory and a social cognitive view of writing processes
contributes to consolidating the theoretical foundation of exploring
writing self-efficacy. Thus, synthesizing the two theoretical disciplines is
useful to provide important insights into characteristics of writers from
psychological, linguistic, and behavioral perspectives. Results elicited
from the multidimensional self-efficacy scale can also be directly linked
to composing processes, cognitive engagement, and metacognitive
control in the learning-to-write process.
In terms of writing pedagogies, this scale will be available to class-
room practitioners for making diagnostic assessments of students’
writing efficacy from linguistic, behavioral, and self-regulation dimen-
sions. One important pedagogical implication is that writing instruc-
tors are encouraged to identify specific self-efficacy conditions of
their students. Given that the scale is constructed by taking the

means of the items that make up that factor (latent variable), the
average score can be easily calculated to reveal the levels of writing
self-efficacy. These finer grained data on writing self-efficacy levels
are useful to extend teachers’ understanding of their students’ confi-
dence level in linguistics, self-regulatory control, and course perfor-
mance. Having acknowledged students’ confidence in their writing
capabilities, EFL practitioners are also encouraged to design learner-
focused instructional activities to foster students’ self-efficacy in the
learning-to-write process. For example, when teachers instruct stu-
dents on how to evaluate and improve an essay, they are encouraged
to use metacognitive prompts with some questions (e.g., Does the essay
have a clear thesis statement?), which operates in the form of peer col-
laboration to relieve students’ cognitive and psychological burdens in
the learning-to-write process. This meditative form of instructional
practices might empower students to effectively regulate their own
learning with increased confidence and motivation (Teng & Zhang,
2016b).
Another implication is that practical teachers are encouraged to
develop some teaching strategies for identifying, challenging, and
altering less confident students with a view to cultivating more self-effi-
cacious learners (Bruning et al, 2013; Teng, 2016; Usher & Pajares,
2008). In a similar way, different forms of writing instruction (e.g.,
writing programs and workshops) can be provided to develop learners’
accurate judgments of their writing competence. According to Ban-
dura (2006), self-efficacy is an internalized construct that can be
learned and developed over time through a synthesis of consistent
self-evaluation, coaching, and repeated practice. Therefore, the devel-
opment of positive self-efficacy beliefs is essential to promoting stu-
dents’ adaptive functioning and their academic success with an aim to
foster learners’ own agency in both L1 and L2 learning-to-write pro-
cesses (Bruning et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2015).
Despite optimistic results garnered from this study, we also recog-
nize several limitations, and we propose feasible solutions for future
research. First, this study collected data from a sample of Chinese EFL
writers, and the conceptual structure of self-efficacy may not be valid
for other L2 groups or the results may not be generalizable in other
contexts. Therefore, we suggest further validation and refinements of
the writing self-efficacy scale in different learning contexts across var-
ied populations. For example, a multigroup confirmatory factor analy-
sis would be a way to evaluate factorial stability and invariance across
groups. In addition, this study operationalized the evaluation of writ-
ing self-efficacy from three dimensions, which may not comprehen-
sively represent writing complexities. Thus, further studies on L2
writing self-efficacy are recommended to extend the conceptual
26 TESOL QUARTERLY
dimensions of the self-efficacy measure as well as to develop items
relating to these factors. Third, this study evaluated criterion validity
through examining the correlations between the valuation motiva-
tional beliefs and writing performance. In future studies, it would be
interesting to explore relationships of different dimensions of writing
self-efficacy to other motivational variables (e.g., anxiety) as well as
writing-related variables (e.g., task complexity and genre differences).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to express our gratitude to the editor and the three anonymous
reviewers for their insightful comments.
THE AUTHORS
Lin Sophie Teng is a professor at Heilongjiang University, in China, and a

researcher at the Woolf Fisher Research Centre, University of Auckland, in New
Zealand. Her research interests include second language writing, self-regulated
learning, and language assessment. Her recent articles have appeared in Modern
Language Journal, TESOL Quarterly, Assessing Writing, and Metacognition and Learning.
Peijian Paul Sun is a research associate professor at the School of Foreign Lan-
guages, Sun Yat-sen University, in China. His research focuses on L2 Chinese
teaching and learning, teacher education, and educational technology. His publi-
cations appear in Interactive Learning Environments, TESOL Quarterly, and Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research.
Linlin Xu is a PhD candidate in applied linguistics at the University of Auckland, in

New Zealand. Her research interests span intercultural education, English for aca-
demic purposes (EAP), academic writing, and discourse analysis. She has published
on the topics of EAP and intercultural education in SSCI-indexed journals such as
Teaching in Higher Education and Innovations in Education and Teaching International.
REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). IBM SPSS Amos 22 user’s guide. Crawfordville, FL: Amos
Development Corporation.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist,
44, 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behav-
ior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90022-L
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T.
Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, England:
Institute of Analysts and Programmers.

Bernacki, M. L., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Aleven, V. (2015). Examining self-efficacy
during learning: Variability and relations to behavior, performance, and learn-
ing. Metacognition and Learning, 10(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-
014-9127-x
Boscolo, P., & Hidi, S. (2007). The multiple meanings of motivation to write. In S.
Hidi & P. Boscolo (Eds.), Writing and motivation (pp. 1–14). Oxford, England:
Elsevier.
Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D. F., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013).
Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 105(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029692
Byrne, B. M. (1991). The Maslach Burnout Inventory: Validating factorial structure
and invariance across intermediate, secondary, and university educators. Multi-
variate Behavioral Research, 26, 583–605. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mb
r2604_2
Cheng, A. (2016). EAP at the tertiary level in China: Challenges and possibilities.
In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic pur-
poses (pp. 97–108). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cumming, A. (2012). Goal theory and second-language writing development, two
ways. In R. Manch on (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 135–
164). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
D€
ornyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, adminis-
tration, and processing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Graham, S. (2007). Learner strategies and self-efficacy: Making the connection.
Language Learning Journal, 35(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09571730701315832
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th
ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in
writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, meth-
ods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum.
Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29,
369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260
Hirvela, A., Hyland, K., & Manch on, R. M. (2016). Dimensions of L2 writing the-
ory and research: Learning to write and writing to learn. In R. M. Manch on &
P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 45–
63). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equa-
tion Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Kim, D. H., Wang, C., Ahn, H. S., & Bong, M. (2015). English language learners’
self-efficacy profiles and relationship with self-regulated learning strategies.
Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lind
if.2015.01.016
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Sec-
ond Language Writing, 21, 390–403. https://doi.org/doi.org10.1016/j.jslw.2012.
09.003
28 TESOL QUARTERLY
Lee, I. (2016). EFL writing in schools. In R. M. Manch on & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.),
Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 113–139). Berlin, Germany:
De Gruyter.
Li, H. (2013). Predicting the first-year non-English majors’ writing performance
with EFL writing self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Beijing International
Studies University, 214, 55–61.
Locke, T., & Johnston, M. (2016). Developing an individual and collective self-effi-
cacy scale for the teaching of writing in high schools. Assessing Writing, 28, 1–
14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.01.001
Manch on, R. M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and
research. In R. M. Manch on (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an
additional language (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Mardia, K. V. (1974). Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and
kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies. Indian Journal of Statistics,
37(2), 115–128.
Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2008). Best practices in structural equation mod-
eling. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 488–508).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Noar, S. M. (2003). The role of structural equation modeling in scale develop-
ment. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 622–647. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15328007SEM1004_8
Oxford, R. L. (2013). Teaching and researching language learning strategies (2nd ed.).
Harlow, England: Pearson.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A
review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139–158. https://d
oi.org/10.1080/10573560308222
Pajares, F. (2007). Empirical properties of a scale to assess writing self-efficacy in
school contexts. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 39,
239–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2007.11909801
Pajares, F. (2008). Motivational role of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning.
In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 111–139). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. C. (Eds.). (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Green-
wich, England: Institute of Analysts and Programmers.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writ-
ing self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24,
390–405. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0995
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing
development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook
of writing research (pp. 158–170). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In
M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
(pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-
regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–
407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcıa, T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National
Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning:
Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M.

Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631–649). San Diego, CA: Aca-
demic Press.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2010). Self-efficacy beliefs. In P. Peterson, E. Baker,
& B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 668–672).
Oxford, England: Elsevier.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy
and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writ-
ing Quarterly, 23(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560600837578
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning:
Theory, research, and applications. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 81(1), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing:
The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657–677. https://d
oi.org/10.2307/3587400
Teng, L. S. (2016). Changes in teachers’ beliefs after a professional development
project for teaching writing: Two Chinese cases. Journal of Education for Teaching,
42(1), 106–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2015.1135228
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016a). Fostering strategic learning: The development
and validation of the Writing Strategies for Motivational Regulation Question-
naire (WSMRQ). Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25, 123–134. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40299-015-0243-4
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016b). A questionnaire-based validation of multidi-
mensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. Modern Language Journal,
100, 674–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12339
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2017). Effects of motivational regulation strategies on
writing performance: A mediation model of self-regulated learning of writing in
English as a second/foreign language. Metacognition and Learning, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11409-017-9171-4
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A valida-
tion study. Education and Psychological Measurement, 68, 443–463. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013164407308475
Woodrow, L. (2011). College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety. Sys-
tem, 39, 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.10.017
Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese univer-
sity students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 320–353.
https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.223352
Zhang, L. J. (2013). Second language writing as and for second language learning.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 446–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.
2013.08.010
Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cog-
nitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00461520.2013.794676
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on
writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031004845
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Reliability and validity of self-efficacy for
learning form (SELF) scores of college students. Journal of Psychology, 215(3),
157–163. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.215.3.157
30 TESOL QUARTERLY
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A
social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0919
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and perfor-
mance: An introduction and an overview. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1–12). New
York, NY: Routledge.
APPENDIX A
A Brief Summary of Students’ Interview Questions
1. Are you confident in your English writing proficiency and com-

petence? Why?
2. Do you feel confident when you are writing a composition in
English? Why?
3. Do you have any challenges in the writing process?
4. Do you feel confident in your writing course performance?
Why?
5. Do you have any challenges in the learning-to-write process?
6. Do you feel confident in regulating your learning behavior in
the learning-to-write process? Why?
APPENDIX B
Descriptive Analysis of the L2 Writer Self-Efficacy Scale (L2WSS)
Items M SD Skewness Kurtosis

LS_1 I can correctly use parts of speech (e.g., nouns, 4.93 1.3 0.52 0.15
verbs, adjectives) in writing.
LS_2 I can write a simple sentence with grammatical 4.85 1.32 0.51 0.24
structure.
LS_3 I can write compound and complex sentences with 5.53 1.19 1.06 1.23
grammatical structure.
LS_4 I can write a composition with a clear organisation 4.66 1.39 0.37 0.37
or structure.
LS_5 I can revise wordy or confusing sentences of my 4.57 1.26 0.29 0.08
writing.
LS_6 I can revise my composition to make it better 4.81 1.2 0.41 0.06
organized.
LS_7 I can revise basic grammar errors in my writing. 4.94 1.24 0.76 0.37
SRE_1 I can realise my goal to improve my writing. 4.32 1.34 0.32 0.32
SRE_2 I can think of my goals before writing. 3.97 1.46 0.03 0.77

Appendix B (Continued)
Items M SD Skewness Kurtosis
SRE_3 I can think of different ways to help me to plan 4.53 1.47 0.47 0.48
before writing.
SRE_4 I can evaluate whether I achieve my goal in 4.14 1.44 0.16 0.72
writing.
SRE_5 I can evaluate my strength and weakness in writing. 4.94 1.31 0.75 0.38
SRE_6 I can evaluate whether a composition is good or 4.73 1.4 0.71 0.18
bad.
PS_1 I can understand the most difficult material 4.65 1.29 0.26 0.23
presented in writing courses.
PS_2 I can understand the basic concepts taught in 4.7 1.35 0.3 0.37
writing courses.
PS_3 I can understand the most complex material 4.42 1.44 0.24 0.33
presented by the instructor of writing courses.
PS_4 I can do an excellent job on the assignments in 4.76 1.4 0.48 0.34
writing courses.
PS_5 I can master the writing knowledge and strategies 5.48 1.33 1.07 1.13
being taught in writing courses.
PS_6 I can use the writing knowledge and strategies being 4.65 1.33 0.42 0.01
taught in writing courses.
PS_7 Considering the difficulty of the writing course, the 4.69 1.38 0.55 0.05
teacher, and my skill, I can perform well in writing
courses.
Note. LS = linguistic self-efficacy, SRE = self-regulatory efficacy, PS = performance self-efficacy.
32 TESOL QUARTERLY
View publication stats

0 Conceptualizing Writing Self-Efficacy in English As A Foreign Language Contexts

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

0 Conceptualizing Writing Self-Efficacy in English As A Foreign Language Contexts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Conceptualizing Writing Self‐Efﬁcacy in English as a Foreign Language

Article in TESOL Quarterly · December 2017

Lin Sophie Teng Peijian Paul Sun

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This study was designed to validate a multidimensional structure of

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, xxxx 2017 1

W riting is often regarded as a complex task due to its multifaceted

of writing knowledge but also positive self-efficacy to deploy the knowl-

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 3

Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy

Social cognitive theory regards learners as agents who “draw on

Self-Regulated Learning Theory and Self-Efficacy

SRL theory highlights learners’ own strategic efforts to manage their

Writing Self-Efficacy in L1 and L2 Contexts

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 5

Measuring Writing Self-Efficacy

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 7

Conceptualization of L2 Writing Self-Efficacy Measurement

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 9

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 11

This study was designed to conceptualize and validate a multidimen-

A total of 609 university students were voluntarily recruited from

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 13

Motivational beliefs. In order to examine participants’ motivational

Writing test. We adopted a given-topic writing test to evaluate stu-

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 15

According to D€ ornyei (2010), questionnaire validation is a critical

Reliability. This study adopted the repeated survey method (test-

Validity. Several procedures were applied to evaluate validity of the

Initial Piloting of the Questionnaire

Confirmatory Factory Analysis

The questionnaire was delivered to a large sample of undergraduate

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 17

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 19

Self-efficacy dimensions CR AVE MSV ASV

self-efficacy. These coefficient values together revealed a robust inter-

Model comparison is a highly recommended procedure to evaluate

Model 2: One-factor model (null model). In this model, we

Model 3: Three-factor uncorrelated model. This model postulated

to the construct validity of the three-dimension correlated structure of

This study further evaluated criterion-related validity of the ques-

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 21

Self-efficacy Intrinsic goal Extrinsic goal Task Writing

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

Our study aimed to conceptualize and validate a multidimensional

Multidimensional Structure of Writing Self-Efficacy and

Self-regulatory efficacy. The second factor was labeled self-regulatory

Performance self-efficacy. The third factor was labeled performance

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 23

Writing Self-Efficacy and Motivational Beliefs

IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE

Our empirical evidence shows the promise of multidimensional con-

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 25

Lin Sophie Teng is a professor at Heilongjiang University, in China, and a

Linlin Xu is a PhD candidate in applied linguistics at the University of Auckland, in

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 27

WRITING SELF-EFFICACY IN EFL CONTEXTS 29

A Brief Summary of Students’ Interview Questions

1. Are you confident in your English writing proficiency and com-

Descriptive Analysis of the L2 Writer Self-Efficacy Scale (L2WSS)

Items M SD Skewness Kurtosis

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