www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No.

7; July 2012

The Relationship of Writing Apprehension Level and Self-efficacy

Beliefs on Writing Proficiency Level among Pre-university Students
Termit Kaur Ranjit Singh1 & Saravana Kumar Rajalingam1
1
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Correspondence: Termit Kaur Ranjit Singh, School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800
Minden, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. Tel: 604-653-3760. E-mail: termitk@usm.my

Received: April 25, 2012 Accepted: June 14, 2012 Online Published: July 1, 2012
doi:10.5539/elt.v5n7p42 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n7p42

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the level of writing apprehension and how writing apprehension level
and writing self-efficacy beliefs influences writing proficiency level among pre-university students. Participants
were 320 pre-university students from a northern region college offering this programme. All the respondents were
administered with three instruments measuring their writing apprehension levels and writing self-efficacy beliefs
and their writing proficiency. The writing apprehension levels among these respondents were found to be average.
Self-efficacy factors revealed an inverse relationship with writing apprehension level. The relationship between
writing apprehension level and writing proficiency indicated that the higher the apprehension level the better the
respondents performance. Students’ views with regard to their writing apprehension level are also presented. These
findings are supported in the literature and discussions. Based on the findings, the study presents some
recommendations to overcome this problem.
Keywords: self-efficacy beliefs, apprehension level, writing proficiency, pre-university students
1. Introduction
Lately, the general scenario of the Malaysian Education System has put on the emphasis of English language as the
medium of instruction to impart knowledge via lesson plans starting from pre-university level to tertiary education in
the universities. However, Azlina (2006), pointed out that the reality for a large number of Malaysian students is that
English language is not the medium of choice to function socially and rarely use English language to discuss the
contents of their school subjects.
Since, English language has been given the priority as a medium of imparting knowledge at the university level, so, an
emphasis is has been made on the use of English language at higher secondary or pre-university level. With the current
reality pointed by Azlina (2006), indirectly it leads to writing in English language as a challenging activity for learners
of English as second or foreign language.
1.1 Background of Study
Anxiety or apprehension which belong to the affective variables category, has inspired particular interest in the field
of language acquisition and learning over the last several decades (Atay & Kurt, 2006). The term writing
apprehension was introduced by Daly and Miller (1975), however the latest definition of writing apprehension could
be traced to Lee & Krashen (2002), whom referred writing apprehension as anxiety about writing. Hence, writing
apprehension could be used as a significant predictor to determine the success rate of acquiring English language
proficiency among ESL learners, Carlo Magno (2008). Researchers of ESL and EFL, have proven that writing
apprehension or anxiety has positive correlation on writing performance and quality (Hassan, 2001). Hanna (2010),
found that highly apprehensive writers yielded low quality papers as their output, avoided writing assignment and
even procrastinated compared to those students who with low apprehensive feelings. The study also showed that
writing apprehension has influence at all levels even after the students have graduated from their courses.
Generally, many researchers agree that the ability to write competently is a non-inherited skill. Omaggio Hadley
(1993) opined that, writing should be seen as a continuum of tasks ranging from mechanical aspects to more
sophisticated actions of composition writing in the final stage. This implied that writing skills should be practiced
and mastered via experiences starting from composing, telling, re-telling and transforming information into
extended writing such as in expository or argumentative writing.
Furthermore, Deane (2011) also opined that writing skill does not stand on its own. It has connections with literacy

42 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 7; July 2012

skills, critical thinking skills and requires the writers to handle complicated challenges related to rhetorical,
conceptual and linguistics. Supporting this opinion in Malaysian context, Nor Shidrah, Nuraihan & Noor Lide (2006)
also stated that, writing is a challenging activity particularly for learners of a second or foreign language and
nevertheless it is an ability that they have to master in order to excel in content courses particularly at the tertiary
education level. Hence, taking all these into consideration, writing activity may cause anxiety or apprehension
feelings in many ESL learners.
In addition, writing apprehension has relationship with writing self-efficacy beliefs. Latif (2007), mentioned that
there a vast array of studies which has shown correlations between writing apprehension and writing self-efficacy
beliefs. Studies by Cheng (2002) and Rankin-Brown (2006) also supported the relationship between these two
variables.
As a summary, the researchers believe that writing apprehension is a critical affect problem which is being faced by
the majority of ESL students. Furthermore, writing apprehension problems if left uncheck may lead to poor
proficiency in speaking, writing and also other aspects of language use.
1.2 Problem Statement
Writing skills are important components in the curriculum of primary, secondary, colleges and also applies for
colleges offering pre-university programmes. English language syllabus for pre-university programme colleges
considers writing skills as vital skills for students’ needs. The aim of the syllabus specification for English language
in this programme level is to develop competent users of the language who can function effectively and efficiently
in social and academic contexts. Furthermore, the students enrolling for pre-university programmes are required to
sit for Malaysian University English Test examination (MUET) as one of the important requirements for universities’
entrance qualifications. In MUET exams, the students are tested on their writing skills in writing component
whereby they are expected to write one extended writing and one focused report writing.
In a study done by Noraina Ishak (2005), it was noted that pre-university students are generally weak in four areas
of language learning, i.e speaking, listening, writing and reading. Furthermore, Shaharizam, Ismail, Syahfarin Syah
& Rizal (2005) in a perception study, stated that, there were pre-university students who experienced very frustration
and dissatisfaction of not being able to write effortlessly. As a result, these students felt de-motivated and viewed
writing as complicated and fruitless activity. When the problem is not handled effectively by the pre-university
teachers, the students will remain incompetent in writing skills and this will definitely affect their chances to
perform excellently in universities in the future. Thus, it is very important for the researcher to measure and classify
their apprehension and self-efficacy beliefs levels to create a friendly and less threatening feeling, for the writing
activities in order to minimize the students’ apprehension levels.
1.3 Purpose of Research
Since the ability to acquire writing skills for English language is one of the main objectives for the pre-university
programmes, the purpose of this study was aimed to explore the level of writing apprehension and self-efficacy
beliefs influencing the writing apprehension level among students of these pre-university students.
1.4 Research Objectives
The main objectives of this study were:
1. To determine the level of writing apprehension among pre-university students.
2. To determine whether self-efficacy factor is related to the level of writing apprehension among pre-university
students.
3. To determine whether writing proficiency factor is related to the level of writing apprehension.
4. To find out the views of pre-university students with regard to their writing apprehension level.
1.5 Research Questions
The general aim of this study was to meet the objectives of the study by formulating and examining the following
research questions:
i) What is the level of writing apprehension among pre-university students?
ii) Does self-efficacy beliefs factor influence the level of writing apprehension among pre-university students?
iii) Does writing apprehension level influence the writing proficiency results among pre-university students?
iv) What are the students’ views regarding their writing apprehension level?

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 43

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 7; July 2012

2. Methodology
The general aim of this study was to find out the relationship of writing apprehension level with writing proficiency
and self-efficacy belief on writing apprehension level among pre-university students.
2.1 Population and Sample
The population of this particular college offering the pre-university programme was 2,100 students. All students
were 18 years old at the point where this study was conducted. The majority of the students were from Malay
community with some Chinese and Indians. So, for the sample of this study, 320 students from the population of
2100 students were selected randomly. The reason for selecting only 320 respondents from the 2100 population was
as recommended by Krejcie & Morgan (1970). They were made up of almost equal number of males and females
from this programme. The decision to select them as the sample was because they were seen as those who prefer not
to write or avoid writing whenever possible.
For the instrument to solicit the respondents view on their writing apprehension level, the students were asked to
answer open-ended questionnaire. The instrument consisted of 6 open-ended questions which were categorized into
stress-apprehensive questions, evaluation-apprehensive questions and product-apprehensive questions (2 questions
for each category). The respondents who were selected to answer the questionnaire were selected using a cutting
score formula used in a previous study by Hassan (2001). The respondents with low apprehension level and high
apprehension were identified as those with scores on the EWAS scale, fell a half standard deviation below and above
the mean respectively, while, those who were with in the mean range were considered as average apprehensive
respondents.
Basically the questionnaire consists of four parts:
Part A: Students’ Demographic Information
Students’ demographic information included items like age, gender, practicum, education level and race. The
purpose of this information was to provide some background information about the sample respondents.
Part B: Adapted Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test (EWAS)
For the research purpose, the writing apprehension testing instrument, was adopted and adapted from Muhammad
Abdel Latif‘s (2007) study. A 12-item scale was used to measure the respondents’ writing apprehension level. The
items of this scale were selected and adapted from three different measures. The instrument was found to be
consistent with the adopted definition of writing apprehension. The test instruments were adapted from, Gungle &
Taylor’s (1989) ESL version of the Daly-Miller WAT, Cheng’s (2004) Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory
(SLWAI) for avoidance behaviour subscale and Graham et al.’s (1993) Attitudes toward Writing Scale. So, five point
Likert scale: (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) uncertain, (4) disagree, and (5) strongly disagree, was adopted for the
synthesized scale. Scores on the scale range from 12 (the minimum score) to 60 (the maximum score). Due to items
3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 are negatively phrased, they were scored reversely.
Part C: Adapted Shell Writing Self-Efficacy Test (SWST)
For self-efficacy beliefs testing instrument, it was also adopted and adapted from Muhammad Abdel Latif, (2007)
study. A two-part 18-item scale was used for measuring the respondents’ writing self-efficacy. Part one of the scale
measured respondents’ confidence and judgement of their general writing ability in 8-items. The items for this part
were adopted from Gungle and Taylor’s (1989) ESL version of the Daly-Miller (DMAT), and Graham et al.’s (1993)
Writing Self-Efficacy Scale. Part two of the scale has 10 items that measure the respondents’ confidence in the
possession of specific writing skills (mechanical, usage, grammar, and composition skills). Eight items of part two
of the scale were adopted from Shell et al.’s (1989) Writing Self-efficacy Scale (writing component skill subscale),
one item was adopted from Pajares and Valiante’s (1999) Writing Skills Self-efficacy Scale, and another item was
developed by Muhammad Abdel Latif, (2007).
For part two, a five point Likert scale: (1) very unconfident, (2) unconfident, (3) neither confident nor unconfident,
(4) confident and (5) very confident, was used. Scores on the scale range from 18 (the minimal score) to 90 (the
maximal score). Because items 1, 3, 4, and 7 in part one of the scale are negatively worded, they were reverse
scored.
Part D: Malaysian University English Test (MUET)
Malaysian University English Test (MUET) was launched in 1999 and administered by Malaysian Examinations
Council (Majlis Peperiksaan Malaysia). It is a test to measure candidates’ English language proficiency. MUET is a
compulsory examination for students who intended to further their tertiary education in Malaysian public
universities. For this study, the writing component of the test is used to assess the students’ performance and its

44 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 7; July 2012

relationship to writing apprehension. This exam is highly valid and reliable because it is a Malaysia pre-university
national level examination.
Part E: Semi-structured Open-ended Questions
The semi-structured open-ended questionnaire contained only 6 questions. All the questions were adapted from the
Daly-Miller Apprehension Test. These questions were classified into 3 categories which were 2 stress apprehension
questionnaires, 2 evaluation apprehension questionnaires and 2 product apprehension questionnaires.
2.2 Pilot Study
According to (Gay, Mills & Airasian, 2009), the pilot study is a small-scale tryout of a study conducted prior to the
full-scale study to identify problems with the research plan. The pilot study can serve as a pre-test for certain study
instruments (Baker, 1992).When the pilot study was conducted; the researcher randomly selected 30 respondents
from the same sample to answer the instruments. The instruction and the questionnaire item were read out by the
researcher to the respondents to clear their doubts and they were allocated 60 minutes to answer it. After the pilot
study was carried out to determine the reliability of the questionnaire, the EWAS showed the Cronbach Alpha
reliability coefficient of 0.698 and the SWST reliability coefficient was 0.773 for Part One and 0.817 for Part Two. It
can be concluded that, the values for reliability coefficient fulfilled coefficient value r > 0.06 (Cates, 1990) for
producing consistent results for each time the measurement was done. Thus, the internal consistency of the
instrument used was acceptable.
3. Results
The results were based on the responses given by the sample in the questionnaire. The data was analyzed and
interpreted using statistical software in order to provide answers for the research questions. All the answers provided
by the respondents were based on their personal opinions about their level of writing apprehension and self-efficacy
beliefs in writing using English language.

Table 1. Respondent Profile

Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Valid Male 132 39.3 41.2
Female 188 56.0 58.8
Total 320 100.0 100.0

The sample consisted of 320 students from this college who enrolled in the 2010/2011 session. While the portion of
males and females, it consisted of 188 female and 132 male students (as shown in Table 1).
Research Question 1: What is the level of writing apprehension among these students?

Table 2. Apprehension Level

Apprehension Level No. Students Percentage
High Apprehension 60 18.75%
Average Apprehension 215 67.19%
Low Apprehension 45 14.06%
Total 320 100%

The results from the statistical analysis showed that the EWAS had a mean of 36.02 and a standard deviation of
8.890. Based on the respondents’ scores on the adapted EWAS instrument, the students were grouped into three
apprehension levels. One or more standard deviations below the mean were judged to be high-apprehensive i.e.,
equal to or smaller than 24 (14.06%); those whose mean scores were one or more standard deviations above the
means were judged to be low-apprehensive i.e., equal to or higher than 48 (18.75%). The remaining respondents
were judged to have average writing apprehension level (67.19%).
So, it can be concluded that, the writing apprehension level of the sample respondents in this college was relatively
average. This implied that, majority of these respondents were not apprehensive in writing compositions or essays
using English language.

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 45

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 7; July 2012

Research Question 2: Does self-efficacy beliefs factor influence the level of writing apprehension among these
students?

Table 3. Correlations
Writing Self efficacy
apprehension beliefs
Writing apprehension Pearson Correlation 1 -.544(**)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 320 320
Self efficacy beliefs Pearson Correlation -.544(**) 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 320 320
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The produced output Table 3 showed the Pearson Correlation coefficient value of, r=-0.544 and p=0.000 which is
smaller than the significant level 0.01 (p<0.01). Referring to the correlation coefficient Table 3, the value r was
negative, so, it can be concluded that there was a significant moderate level inverse relationship between writing
apprehension and self-efficacy beliefs. This implied that, the higher the level of writing apprehension, the lower
self-efficacy beliefs would be. Therefore, null hypothesis was rejected.
Research Question 3: Does writing apprehension level influence the writing proficiency results?

Table 4. Correlations
Writing apprehension MUET writing proficiency
Writing Pearson Correlation 1 .184**
apprehension Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 320 320
MUET Pearson Correlation .184** 1
writing Sig. (2-tailed) .001
proficiency
N 320 320
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The produced output Table 4 showed the Pearson Correlation coefficient value of, r=0.184 and p=0.001 which is
smaller than the significant level 0.01 (p<0.01). So, it can be concluded that, there is a significant relationship
between writing proficiency and the level of writing apprehension. This implied that, the higher the level of writing
apprehension, the better the writing proficiency would be. Thus, null hypothesis was rejected.
Research Question 4: What are the students’ views regarding their writing apprehension level?
From the statistical analysis, majority of the students fell under the average writing apprehension (AA) level score
and only a handful fell under the high apprehension (HA) and low apprehension (LA) level. However, for this study
only 9 respondents were selected (only 3 from each category) to write about their opinions. The following comments
illustrated their views:
Question 1: Do you avoid writing? YES / NO? Please explain your answers further.
HA1: Yes, I always try to avoid writing especially in English class. I always feel difficult to write in English essay.
HA2: Yes, because I don’t know how to start the writing and I’m blank of ideas.
HA3: Yes, because it hard for me to come up with idea.
LA1: No, not really. I have never tried to avoid writing. In fact, I really enjoy writing in English all the times.
Through writing I’m able to express myself freely.
LA2: No, because I love writing. Through writing I can express my knowledge or opinion regarding the questions

46 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 7; July 2012

asked.
LA3: No. I enjoy writing as I made it as my daily routine. Usually I will write an entry for my journal or my diary
twice a day to express my feelings and thoughts.
AA1: I’m not really sure to avoid, I write whenever it is necessary only because in English class, I must write in
English language. But writing in Bahasa Melayu is my first choice.
AA2: No, but sometimes I don’t like the title. So, I just do it for sack of the teacher’s request. When I have a lot of
ideas, I’ll try to do the best I can do.
AA3: No. As I’m writing, I can improve my language, grammar and vocabulary. Although, most of my writing
always did too much mistakes, but that’s the way I can learn from the past. With writing also, I can improve my
conversation with the other people.
Question 2: Are you good at writing? YES / NO? Please explain your answers further.
HA1: NO! I for sure not good in writing. Many English essay and summary can’t score high value (markah
tertinggi).
HA2: No because my grammar is weak. So, of I’m write something, maybe there is a lot of grammatical error.
HA3: No, because I will make many grammatical error.
LA1: Yes, I believe that I’m quite good at writing. This is because, many of my essays have been published in my
previous school magazines and some did win in school level competitions.
LA2: Yes but not always due to grammatical carelessness and others.
LA3: Yes. I am good at expressing my ideas, but I think that I’m not that good on my grammar. I also like to write
poems and lyrics apart from writing stories. However, most of the time I like to spend on free writing.
AA1: For English essay, I sometimes write good summary, but essay is hard to write fluently. But, I think I can write
well because only essay is hard. I can still score in summary.
AA2: No. But I am improving. The teacher asked me to read more for improving my English and I am trying it.
AA3: Not really .I can write too long if I have a long time, but sometimes I write too short within the time given
although I’ve got many ideas to elaborate the essay.
Question 3: Do you have fear of your writing being evaluated? YES / NO? Please explain your answers further.
HA1: Yes, I agree that I have fear of the writing being evaluated. For English subject (this semester have write essay
n summary). I can not write English very good. Always score low mark in essay from secondary school until here.
Low mark for English make my parent not satisfy.
HA2: Yes because I’m afraid if I got lower marks.
HA3: Yes, because I am afraid other people cannot understand the things that I write.
LA1: Since my primary schooling years in Kuala Lumpur, I had the best teachers to teach English language subject.
They have encouraged me to write essays to be evaluated by them. So, I have got used to send my essays for
evaluations. I welcomed their feedback of my essays because I knew that I will get better in writing essays.
LA2: No, because I’m always confident with my writing although some of my points may be ridiculous.
LA3: Yes, I am worried that other people may not be able to agree with my opinions and thoughts, so I like to keep
what I wrote to myself.
AA1: My performance in writing in English is not consistent. Sometimes, I feel that when the lecturer gives back the
essay with a smile, he is actually teasing my work.
AA2: Yes. Because after I finish my essay, I will think about the marks that will be given by teacher. In addition, my
grammar is not so good as others.
AA3: No. This is because when my writing being evaluated, I can know the mistakes that I did. From that, I can
learn and will not repeat it again for the next time. Moreover, the other students also will learn from my writing.
Question 4: Are you nervous about writing? YES / NO? Please explain your answers further.
HA1: My hand cannot move easily when writing essay. Most of the times, I feel that I must go out of the tutorial to
breath fresh air when the lecturer ask me to write an essay and pass-up before the class finishes.
HA2: Yes if the writing have a limit of time.

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 47

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 7; July 2012

HA3: Yes, because I will take a long time to write an essay.

LA1: I seldom feel nervous about writing. Usually I feel nervous during competitions or major exams but if it is in
the classroom, I am confident.
LA2: No, there is no such thing as nervous in writing for me.
LA3: No, because I felt free whenever I want to write something. Writing keeps me happy at all times.
AA1: Yes of course I feel nervous sometimes. My writing is not really good compared to my best friend. She is a
good writer, so I have to take a look at her writing first to reduce my nervous.
AA2: No. it just me and the paper. Then, examiner will read my essay but he or she do not know who I am. When I
lack of time, yes, I’m nervous because my essay not complete yet.
AA3: No. I’m not nervous about writing because it is a commonly task for a student. But, it just nervous when there
are less time to finish the writing, but I still got many ideas to elaborate and I will panic.
Question 5: Do you feel expressing ideas through writing is a waste of time? YES / NO? Please explain your
answers further.
HA1: Yes, writing is a waste of time for me. I like to do mathematics more than waste time to do writing.
HA2: No, for the person that can writing an essay because by writing, many things can be explain, and express, but,
for me is a waste of time.
HA3: Yes, because sometimes through my experience, I cannot express my ideas 100% compared when I speak.
LA1: Not really, expressing ideas through writing is not a waste of time. However, I feel that, we should change the
habit of writing on paper to using blogs.
LA2: No because some persons are afraid in confronting the crowd so it is better to express ideas in writing so that
they can avoid themselves from being intimidated by the crowd.
LA3: No. through writing, it makes my mind more creative in thinking. Sometimes whenever I came up with a new
idea, I immediately write it down in my diary or journal. Who knows that I can share my ideas with other people
around me later on.
AA1: It depends on what we are writing. If the topic is more technical than it a waste of time because many don’t
like to read, but, if it is to express experience than it is not wasting time because many will read.
AA2: No. For me, I have to list all my ideas before I start writing. It makes me easier to manage my essay.
AA3: No. I’m not agree because when we are writing, we actually ask ourselves and our mind to thinking the best
ideas to produce the best writing. We should thinking beyond the limit to express our ideas and make it everyone will
love our writing
Question 6: Do you feel good to hand in your essays? YES / NO? Please explain your answers further.
HA1: Off course no. I am not good in writing essay. So, if the lecturer want me to hand in the essay, I will feel bad.
HA2: No, because I cannot write a good essay.
HA3: No, I always not satisfied with what I write. I feel that I not write the essay best as other people.
LA1: It will be a neutral feeling because I’m used to handing in my essays on time.
LA2: Yes, sometimes essay can be a burden, so it will always make me feel good to hand in the essays as it lifts up
my burden.
LA3: Yes, but I’m not comfortable when other people evaluate my writing. However, I’m happy to share my ideas
and opinions in the form of writing.
AA1: I don’t know how to mention the feelings because I don’t know what the lecturer will comment later.
AA2: Yes. In that way, I will know my weakness so that I can improve my English and won’t repeat the same
mistakes.
AA3: Yes. This is because when the lecturers marking essays, so I will know my mistakes in every aspects such as
vocabulary, grammar, language and so on. I also can ask the lecturer to give me a guide in making a good essay.
4. Discussion
The researcher’s initial assumption was that the students were avoiding writing in English language was due to their
high levels of writing apprehension. But, the writing apprehension mean score (WA = 36.02) which was within the

48 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 7; July 2012

score range of 24 to 48 revealed that the sample respondents did not experience a significantly unusual level of
writing apprehension. However, Smith (1984), described that, the closer the score to the limits of this range, that is,
scores close to 60 and 96 (in the non-adapted Daly Miller Test score), the more apt respondents were to experience
feelings or behaviors’ characteristic of the next range of scores which is 97 to 130 (in the non-adapted Daly Miller
Test score)for low level of writing apprehension and 25 to 59 (in the non-adapted Daly Miller Test score)for high
level of writing apprehension.
Meanwhile, for the relationship between level of writing apprehension and self-efficacy beliefs, it was found out that
there was an inverse relationship between the level of writing apprehension and the self-efficacy beliefs. This
implied that, with high self-efficacy beliefs, the students had lower writing apprehension levels. This finding was
also in line with Trylong (1987) who maintained that there is a negative relationship between students’ anxiety
levels and their self ratings of language proficiency. In addition, the findings of this study also supported the
conclusions of Daly & Wilson (1983), Onwuegbuzie (1999), and Pajares & Johnson (1993), these researchers
mentioned that writing apprehension level is indirectly correlated with various self-esteem measures, including
writing apprehension and self-efficacy beliefs.
In this study, the researcher found a significant relationship between these two variables. Although, the researcher
suspected that lower writing apprehension level will lead to better writing proficiency, the analysis of the results
yielded the opposite.
For the relationship between writing apprehension level and writing proficiency, the results showed that the higher
the writing apprehension level, the better the students proficiency. This finding was also supported by Horwitz (1991)
and Onwuegbuzie, Bailey & Daley (2000) studies, where these researchers also found that, the more an individual
becomes anxious in writing, the better performance in writing.
It proved that writing apprehension or anxiety does not only lead to negative effects but there exist possibilities that
it may lead to positive conditions too. So, through this study, the researcher believed that having some amount of
writing apprehension level may lead to better writing proficiency because an individual may realize of the aspects
that he need to accomplish in the writing process.
For the student’s view regarding their apprehension level, the researcher had classified questions 1 and 2 as stress
apprehensive type, questions 3 and 4 as evaluation apprehensive type and finally questions 5 and 6 as product
apprehensive type questions.
For questions 1 and 2, the highly apprehensive respondents HA1, HA2 and HA3 have similarities in their views.
Their views pattern showed that all of them avoided writing even at the beginning stages. Moreover, they claimed in
difficulties to come up with the ideas to write the essay later on. These respondents also mentioned that they were
not good in writing because they predicted that their essay could not score high marks and with lots of grammatical
mistakes. These findings confirmed the outcomes of (Daly & Miller, 1975b) research on the effects on writing
performance. The authors found that, high apprehensive writers approached writing with negative attitudes and
avoid writing whenever there was an opportunity. In a study related with Malaysian context done by Nur Shidrah
et.al (2006) concluded that, students with low proficiency tend to be more apprehensive due to lack of exposures to
vocabulary and language skills. The researchers opined that it was expected because in Malaysia English is not the
official language of the country.
The LA1, LA2 and LA3 mentioned confidently not to avoid writing. All of them mentioned the purpose of them to
participate in writing such as to express themselves and their thoughts. These respondents too claimed that they were
good in writing essays for different purposes and audiences. Meanwhile all the AA1, AA2 and AA3 stated their
uncertainties in avoiding but were willing to write. With the encouragement and extra time, these respondents
mentioned that they too can write.
For questions 3 and 4 which dealt with evaluation apprehensiveness, all HA1, HA2 and HA3 stated the fear of
evaluation due to the expected low marks after writing tasks. These respondents too mentioned their nervousness to
write within the time limit. However, only HA1 stated the difficulty to breathe when nervous.
LA1 and LA2 stated that, they were not afraid of evaluation, but LA3 was worried about it. However, this did not
stop LA3 from writing for own purpose. There was a mixed response for the AA’s too. AA1 and AA2 mentioned the
fear but AA3 stated the opposite in order not to repeat the same mistakes. For the nervousness level, all LA’s stated
that they were not nervous while all the AA’s mentioned feeling of nervous appeared in certain situations such as
lack of time to complete the tasks.
To explain this result, the researcher traced the study of Faigley, Daly, and Witte (1981). This study revealed that,
most students with high writing apprehension produced a lower quality work. The authors argued that anxiety level

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 49

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 7; July 2012

rises with the stricter levels of writing evaluation. The researcher also would like to relate the findings with the
assessment of the English language subject in this pre-university college, where all compositions are required to be
handed in and graded with comments by the lecturers. Furthermore, Zemelman & Daniels (1988), stressed that
students will be interested to write if their audience is clear and their ideas are respected in the classroom.
Lastly, for the product apprehension questions 5 and 6, all the HA’s reported that, expressing the ideas through
writing is a waste of time do not feel that good to hand in their essays. This finding was in line with (Daly & Miller,
1975a) whereby high-apprehensive writers seldom participate in writing. In addition, Bloom (1980) too mentioned
that high-apprehensive writers were more inclined to procrastinate. Further studies by Smith (1984) too revealed that
high apprehensive writers preferred to take lesser chances in their writing. On the other hand, all the LA’s and AA’s
were in the same opinion, whereby they stated that, expressing ideas through writing was not a waste of time.
Furthermore, all of the LA’s and AA are viewed of good and neutral feelings of handing-in their essays.
The possible explanation for these respondents may be based on the research by Charney, Davida, Newman &
Palmquist (1995). Through different learning styles and attitudes on how the students viewed writing, the study
revealed that, students who are active learners are more likely to view writing as something that could be developed.
On the other hand, passive learners tend to perceive writing as something that a person is either good or poor.
Furthermore, in a study by Popovich & Masse (2003) too revealed that pessimistic students were less likely to be
successful in writing assignments. While, the optimistic students who thought of having low levels of writing
apprehension produced better quality work. So, the researcher believed that these beliefs, have an influence on the on
the difference of writing apprehension level among AA’s, LA’s and HA’s among pre-university students.
There are several practical recommendations which could be applied to overcome writing apprehension for these
particular students particularly and Malaysian ESL students in general.
First is to provide the students more opportunities for exposure in English language. Murphy (2004), found that lack of
exposure to vocabulary and language use contribute to writing apprehension among minority students in United States.
Hence, teacher centered approach which is common in Malaysian ESL setting should be changed to student centered
such as problem-based approaches. This approach promotes self-accessed learning which will expose the students to
vocabulary in an authentic manner which will enrich them to master the language.
Another way to reduce writing apprehension levels is to teach writing as a process rather than products or teaching
writing as an art. McDonald (2000) believed that, when writing is being taught as an art, it will provide practical
knowledge and some strategies as a guide for the students.
Other than that, the amount writing activities also plays an important part to reduce the writing apprehension level
among ESL learners. There is evidence that if the students take more practices in writing activities, the better written
essays would be produced. Bromley (2007) argued that, if students are given plenty of opportunities to write and do
self-assessment at all levels by their teachers as standard classroom practices, it would be a critical aspect to develop
high proficient writers.
5. Conclusion and Recommendation
Due to time constraints, the study was conducted only in one of northern region’s pre-university college. Therefore,
the findings cannot be generalized to all the students in other pre-university colleges. Apart from this particular
pre-university students’ college, other similar studies which focus more on qualitative aspects of writing
apprehension and self-efficacy beliefs could be carried out in all pre-university colleges.
Further research could be conducted to investigate on the aspects of attitude, motivation, and perception on why
pre-university students are reluctant to write in English language. In addition, future studies could perhaps improve
the generalizability by using larger samples from different pre-university students throughout Malaysia. Furthermore,
replication of this study with a sample that is heterogeneous on writing apprehension level and writing proficiency is
recommended.
References
Atay, D., & Kurt, G. (2006). Prospective teachers and L2 writing anxiety. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4), 100-118.
Retrieved July 20, 2010, from http://www.asian-efl- journal.com/Dec 06da&gk.php
Azlina Bt. Hj. Arshad. (2006). Malay students’ use of and attitudes towards spoken English. School of Education.
University Sains Malaysia.
Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language. Cleavedon: Multilingual Matters Limited.
Baker, C. (1992). Behavior, apprehension, and writing. College Student Journal, 36, 532-543.

50 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 7; July 2012

Bloom, L. Z. (1980). The composing processes of anxious and non-anxious writers. A naturalistic study. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Washington,
D.C., 13-15 march 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 185 559).
Bromley, K. (2007). Best practices in teaching writing. In L. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best
practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed. pp. 243–263). New York: Guildford.
Cates, W. M. (1990). Panduan amali untuk penyelidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka.
Charney, Davida, John H. Newman, & Mike Palmquist. (1995). “I’m Just No Good at Writing.” Written
Communication, 12(3), 1995, 298-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088395012003004
Cheng, Y.-S. (2002). Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 35,
647–656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2002.tb01903.x
Cheng, Y.-S. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 313-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.07.001
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975a). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension.
Research in the teaching of English, 9, 242-249. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing
Daly, J. A., & Wilson, D. A. (1983). Writing apprehension, self-esteem, and personality. Research in the Teaching of
English, 17, 327-341.
Daly, J., & Miller, M. (1975b). Further studies in writing apprehension: SAT scores, success, expectation willingness
to take advanced courses and sex differences. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 249-253.
Deane, P. (2011). Writing assessment and cognition. Research Report ETS RR-11-14. Retrieved from
http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-11-14.pdf
Faigley, L., Daly, J. A., & Witte, S. P. (1981). The effects of writing apprehension on writing performance
competence. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 16-21.
Gay, L. R., Mills, E. G., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application
(9th Edition). Pearson International Edition.
Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Learning disabled and normally achieving students’ knowledge
of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 26, 237-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949302600404
Gungle, B. W., & Taylor, V. (1989). Writing apprehension and second language writers. In D. M. Johnson, & D. H.
Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students. New York: Longman, Inc. pp. 235-248.
Hadley, A. O. (1993). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Hanna, K. J. (2010). Student perceptions of teacher comments: Relationships between specific aspects of teacher
comments and writing apprehension. Ph.D Dissertation, The University ofNorth Dakota.
Hassan, B. A. (2001). The relationship of writing apprehension and self-esteem to the writing quality and quantity of
EFL university students. Retrieved February 19, 2004 from ERIC Database #ED459671
Horwitz, E. K. (1991). Preliminary evidence for reliability and validity of a foreign-language scale. In F. K. Horwitz,
& D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp. 37-39).
Englwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krejcie, V. R., & Morgan W. D. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610. Retrieved from
http://members.multimania.co.uk/renatonunes/tabela%20tamanho%20amostra.pdf
Lee, S., & Krashen, S. (2002). Predictors of success in writing English as a foreign language: Reading, revision.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks and Ganschow.
Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 90-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05418.x
Magno, C. (2008). Reading Strategy, Amount of Writing, Metacognition, Metamemory, and Apprehension as
Predictors of English Written Proficiency. Professional Teaching Articles, 29. Retrieved from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/PTA/pta_July_08_cm.php
McDonald, J. (2000). The Allyn and Bacon sourcebook for college writing teachers. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
Muhammad Abdel Latif. (2007). The factors accounting for the Egyptian EFL University students’ negative writing
affect. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language & Linguistics, 9, 57-82.

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 51

www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 7; July 2012

Murphy, J. C. (2004). Urban children and reading mastery: An examination of the language vocabulary acquisition
approach to teaching reading. Reading Improvement, Spring, 41(1), 13-18.
Nor Shidrah Mat Daud., Noor Lide Abu Kassim., & Nuraihan Mat Daud. (2006). Second language writing anxiety:
Cause or effect? Retrieved September 15, 2010 from
http://www.melta.org.my/Doc/second_lang_writing_anxiety.pdf
Noraina Ishak. (2005). Improving students’ writing ability in using transition signal through language games. Paper
presented at the Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan Program Matrikulasi KPM, 2005.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1999). Writing apprehension among graduate students: Its relationship to self-perceptions.
Psychological Reports, 84(3), 1034-1039.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E. (2000). Cognitive, affective, personality, and demographic predictors
of foreign-language achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 3-15.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing selfbeliefs of middle school
students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 390-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0995
Pajares, M. F., & Johnson, M. J. (1993). Confidence and competence in writing: The role of self- efficacy, outcome
expectancy, and apprehension. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Altanta, GA, April 12-16, 1993.
Popovich, M. N., & Mark, H. M. (2003). Individual assessment of media writing student attitudes: Recasting the mass
communication writing apprehension measure. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(2), 339-355.
Rankin-Brown, M. S. (2006). Addressing writing apprehension in adult English language learners. Proceedings of
CATESOL State Conference.
Shaharizam, Ismail, Syahfarin Syah, & Rizal. (2005). The perceptions of using genres of writing for report writing
exercise among H5P4 students in Negeri Sembilan Matriculation College. Paper presented at the Seminar
Penyelidikan Pendidikan Program Matrikulasi KPM, 2005.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading
and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 91-100.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.1.91
Smith, M. W. (1984). Reducing writing apprehension. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Trylong, V. L. (1987). Aptitude, attitudes and anxiety (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University,
Indiana.
Zemelman, S., & Daniels, H. (1988). A community of writers: Teaching writing in the junior and senior high school.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

52 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750