A Closer Look at the Foreign Language Writing Anxiety
of Turkish EFL Pre-service Teachers
Zafer SUSOY
Anadolu University
zsusoy@anadolu.edu.tr
Seray TANYER
Anadolu University
seraytanyer@anadolu.edu.tr
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the foreign language (L2) writing anxiety levels of Turkish
pre-service teachers of EFL and the relationship between their writing anxiety and writing
performance. We also report on the participants’ underlying perceptions, attitudes towards writing
anxiety in L2 and possible anxiety sources. 48 freshman students taking the ‘Academic Writing and
Report Writing’ course at Anadolu University participated in this study. The data were collected by
means of two main instruments; a) Second Language Writing Apprehension Inventory (SLWAI)
(Cheng, 2004), b) an open-ended questionnaire. Participants’ first midterm exam scores were also
used as an index of their writing performance for correlational analysis. According to the results of
the SLWAI, 19% of the participants were found to be high anxious (HA) while 21% were labeled to be
low anxious (LA), and the rest (60%) were categorized as moderate anxious (MA). Correlational
analysis result suggested a statistically significant negative relationship between writing anxiety and
writing performance. A one-way ANOVA was run to compare the writing scores of students
distributed to three different anxiety levels. Furthermore, the analysis of the open-ended
questionnaire uncovered the sources, associated feelings, people and situations and the perceived
difficulties related to writing in L2.
Key Words: writing anxiety, EFL writing, writing performance
Main Conference Topic: Language Education
1. Introduction
Anxiety has caught the attention of many scholars in educational settings, particularly,
in the foreign language learning environments. According to Horwitz (2001), anxiety has
been one of the most investigated variables in educational and physiological research area and
she goes on stating that many learning types can be impeded by anxiety. Cheng, Horwitz, &
Schallert, (1999) considered foreign language classroom anxiety as a more generic type of
anxiety and detected a strong speaking component in it, whereas they pinpointed that L2
1
writing anxiety is a ‘language-skill-specific’ anxiety type. The term writing apprehension (or
writing anxiety as referred in this study) was first composed by Daly and Miller (1975a).
They described it as individuals’ common recessions from both situations and professions
which demand writing and as a fear of the consequences resulting from the negative
evaluation of their writing. There have been some studies searching the writing anxiety’s
effect on writing performance and achievement. Cheng (2004), for example, found a
relationship between students’ writing anxiety and their weak performances on English
writing exams and jobs involving writing. A very short discussion about the place and weight
of writing instruction in Turkey is needed here to address the aim and the need for this
research study.
The role of English writing in Turkey can be claimed to be strictly limited in primary
and secondary public schools although English courses are offered from kindergarten to
university. The focus of writing classes, if any, is on the written product rather than on the
writing process. The students’ short paragraphs or occasional short essays are grammatically
corrected by the teacher and other aspects related to the writing process are hardly ever
taught. In the tertiary level, however, the pursuit of academic goals and interests mostly
require the students write well-organized papers either to pass the prep classes or to succeed
in the degree programs in many universities. Thus, the students are greatly challenged by an
expected high degree of writing proficiency, perhaps for the first time in their lives.
Research investigating the link between writing anxiety and writing performance vary
from L1 settings to EFL/ESL settings. The results generally revealed confusing and
inconsistent correlations from negative to almost no relationship in between. In contrast to an
ampleness of studies on L1/L2 writing anxiety documenting student populations’ anxiety
experiences, there still seems to be considerable need for further investigation into the preservice or in-service teachers’ writing anxiety profiles and its effect on their writing
2
performances as teachers play an important role in molding their students’ ideas and attitudes
towards writing (Palmquist and Young, 1992). To our best knowledge, there have been only a
few research studies to discuss the writing anxiety issue from the perspectives of prospective
teachers of EFL in a Turkish context (Atay and Kurt, 2006; Kurt and Atay, 2007; Öztürk and
Çeçen, 2007). Therefore, this research is aimed to be an attempt to contribute to the related
literature. The present study investigates the second language (L2) writing anxiety levels of
Turkish EFL pre-service teachers and the relationship between their anxiety levels and writing
performance. We also report on the perceived difficulties and the perceptions of the
participants associated with L2 writing anxiety. The rationale beyond choosing EFL preservice teachers is that their voices and writing anxiety experiences might raise some
important implications for their future teaching practices. The research questions guiding this
study are:
1)
What is the level of writing anxiety of Turkish EFL pre-service teachers?
2)
Is there any relationship between the participants’ writing anxiety level and writing
performance and,
3)
What are the participants’ underlying perceptions and attitudes towards writing in L2?
2. Literature Review
2.1 Defining Foreign Language Anxiety and L2 Writing Anxiety as a Variable
Anxiety as a physiological variable was defined by Spielberger (1983) as “the
subjective feeling of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with an
arousal of the autonomic nervous system” (p.1). Foreign language anxiety is a particular type
of anxiety related to negative emotional reactions to learning a foreign language (Horwitz,
2001). Oxford (1999) defines language learning anxiety as, “fear or apprehension occurring
3
when a learner is expected to perform in the second or foreign language” (p. 59). According
to Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) this learning anxiety is resulted from the learners’ weak
and reliant communicative skills in an L2. Some anxious students are worried about losing
face as a result of making mistakes and a fear of negative evaluation and remarks (Pichette,
2009). This anxiety state becomes even more apparent in L2 learning settings where the
speaking element or the spoken communication between learners of an L2 was emphasized by
previous studies as probably the most anxiety provoking situation (Frantzen & Magnan, 2005;
Matsuda & Gobel, 2004; Young, 1991).
From this focus on the speaking skill capabilities of learners and foreign language
learning anxiety, a very recent fascination emerged among many researchers who investigated
writing anxiety in a second language (Hasan, 2001; Atay and Kurt, 2006; Kurt and Atay,
2007). Cheng et. al. (1999) attempted to distinguish writing and speaking components and
they concluded that L2 writing anxiety is a ‘language-skill-specific’ anxiety. Writing anxiety,
by definition, is closely related to the individuals’ conscious avoidance from the situations,
courses and professions which require writing, additionally; it is also associated with the
learners’ fear of negative and judgmental evaluation and remarks stemmed from their writing
(Daly and Miller, 1975a).
2.2 Writing anxiety; its relationship with writing
performance and its sources
Anxiety as an affective variable in foreign language learning has been supposed to
interfere in learning outcomes. Liu and Huang (2011) claimed that anxiety among the other
affective variables was the strongest predictor of student L2 performance. Research
investigating the link between writing anxiety and writing performance vary from L1 settings
to EFL/ESL settings. The results generally revealed confusing and inconsistent correlations
from statistically significant and negative correlation to almost no correlation in between. In
spite of a scarce number of studies concluding that anxiety could be somewhat helpful or
4
“facilitating” (Oxford, 1999; Negari and Rezaabadi, 2012), the majority of the related past
research showed that anxiety negatively affected performance and achievement. As an
example to the “facilitating” effect of anxiety on achievement, Negari and Rezaabadi (2012)
stated that students got higher marks from their writing in the event of a higher anxiety
environment in the final test than their previous writing performance in the case of a low
anxiety setting, where they were told that their writing would not be evaluated. In a study
conducted in Egypt, however, Hassan (2001) measured the English writing anxiety levels of
132 third-year college students and compared the findings with their performance in a 40minute writing task in terms of writing quality. He found that low anxious students performed
better than their high anxious peers. That’s to say, English writing quality was negatively
affected by the students’ high writing anxiety. The role of writing anxiety in students’ writing
performance was marked by Faigley, Daly and Witte (1981). They demonstrated high anxious
students’ notably shorter and syntactically “immature” and “hesitant” essays compared to
their low anxious counterparts. Through an objective test of writing ability, they also noted
that high writing anxiety resulted in students’ less command on usage and writing convention
issues.
Previous research also indicated that writing anxiety and its negative effects on the
performance became more apparent in tasks under time constraints (Kean, Glynn and Britton,
1987). In his writing anxiety scale development study Cheng (2004) employed a timed
English essay writing task as a token of the participants’ English writing performance to
investigate the correlations between writing anxiety types and writing performance. The
results demonstrated a significant negative relationship between anxiety and writing
performance. Writing anxiety has been found to be negatively related to writing performance
or achievement in several ESL contexts, as well. Masny and Foxall (1992), for example,
tested and classified 28 adult learners of ESL in their writing course as low and high
5
achievers, then they also classified the students as high and low apprehensive based on a
writing apprehension questionnaire given. The researchers found that low apprehensive
students had been classified as high achievers. In a correlational study with 96 Chinese majors
of English, Zhang (2011) revealed a noteworthy negative relationship (r=-0.838) between the
measure of ESL writing anxiety and the grades of a 30 minute English writing task.
On the contrary, Pajares and Johnson (1994) declared that “writing apprehension was
not a predictive of writing performance” (p.313). Likewise, the results of a study with 33
international students of advanced English revealed almost no correlation between the
participants’ L2 writing anxiety measured by Second Language Writing Apprehension
Inventory (SLWAI) (Cheng, 2004) and their grades on three individual writing assignments
(DeDeyn, 2011). Furthermore, in a research study Lee (2005) assigned a writing topic on 270
EFL learners in Taiwan and used the writing scores graded by two different raters as an
indicator of writing performance. She, then, compared the participants’ writing scores with
their anxiety level; however, she traced no association. Put differently, students with
reportedly higher anxiety did not perform more poorly. These intricate findings exhort that the
relationship between writing anxiety and writing performance is subtle and suggest much
work to better understand the L2 writing anxiety.
As for the sources of second language writing anxiety, the components of teaching and
learning environments seem to have a role in generating writing anxiety. Issues of time
restriction, teachers and their negative evaluation, peer effect resulting from competition and
interest in the writing subject have been widely documented by several researchers. (Cheng,
2004; Atay and Kurt, 2006; Lin and Ho, 2009; Zhang, 2011).
3. Method
3.1.
Participants and the Research Context
6
The participants of this study were 48 pre-service teachers of English enrolled at the
English Language Department (ELT) of Anadolu University, one of the prestigious state
universities in Turkey. They were selected randomly from two classes of ‘Academic Writing
and Report Writing’ course, which is not lectured by the researcher. 6 of the participants were
male while the remaining 42 students were female. All of the participants were first year
students between ages 18-21. Participants of the present study were all native speakers of
Turkish and they had all studied English for 8-9 years during their primary and/or secondary
education. To enroll the university’s ELT department, the participating students had to pass
the University Entrance Exam which is held nationwide and has a demanding part aiming to
measure the general English proficiency of the students who want to study ELT. Upon
enrolling in the university, all the students had to pass a proficiency exam offered by the
university’s test office before starting the four-year degree program. They were expected
either to pass this exam or attend a one-year extensive English preparatory program provided
by the university. Therefore, the participants of this study could be supposed to have a high
English proficiency level.
During the first year of the above mentioned four-year degree program, where this
study took place, students are given some basic skill courses like Contextual Grammar,
Academic Reading, Speaking and Written Communication in the first year. Students are given
Written Communication and Academic Writing and Report Writing in the first and second
semester respectively. Students in these writing courses are first introduced to the main
characteristics of an academic research article and they, then, are expected to analyze,
comment on and summarize well written research articles from various academic rhetorical
modes. They also write well-developed paragraphs and various essay types depending on the
topics given. All in all, students’ academic achievement mostly depends on their written
assignments and exam papers.
7
3.2 Materials
The data were collected through two types of materials. The first one is Second
Language Writing Apprehension Inventory (SLWAI) (Cheng, 2004). This inventory (see
Appendix A) was developed to measure the degree to which an individual feels anxious while
writing in an L2 and consists of 22 items which are answered on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. The SLWAI was reported to have a good
internal consistency, with a Cronbach Alpha coefficient reported of .91 (Cheng, 2004). The
Cronbach alpha for the present study was .907.
An open-ended questionnaire comprised of 6 questions was also used to contribute the
participants’ own voice and in-depth perceptions about their L2 writing anxiety experiences to
the inventory data (see Appendix B). The questionnaire, adopted from Atay and Kurt (2006)
helped the researcher to gain insightful information to understand the phenomenon. In simple
terms, the participants were asked to 1) name the difficulties they had about L2 writing, 2)
associate the L2 writing anxiety with particular people and/or situations, 3) specify the
physical changes reacted to the L2 writing anxiety, 4) state whether they shared their writing
anxiety experiences with anyone, and 5) explain how their L2 writing anxiety would affect
their future teaching practices. In addition, the participants’ first midterm exam scores,
achieved by writing an essay, were used to investigate the relationship between writing
anxiety and writing performance. The midterm papers were independently graded by the
course lecturer and the scores were shared with the researcher for the purpose of the study.
3.3 Data Collection and Analysis Procedure
The study took place in the second term of 2012-13 academic year. The both
instruments were administered separately during the students’ regular course hour. The
students were assured that the participation would not bias their course grades. The responses
8
to the negatively worded statements of the SLWAI were reversed and recorded in order for a
high score from the inventory to represent high anxiety. The open-ended questionnaire was
given in Turkish for a maximum ease of expression to 31 students out of the total
participating sample of 48 students since some students were absent when the open-ended
questionnaire was given.
The SLWAI and the students’ writing scores were analyzed by means of SPSS 20 for
descriptive and inferential statistics. Additionally, a Pearson Correlation Coefficient test was
run to investigate the relationship between the anxiety level and writing scores. Depending on
their responses to the SLWAI, the participants were divided into three anxiety levels, i.e.,
High Anxious (HA), Moderate Anxious (MA), and Low Anxious (LA). Participants who
scored one standard deviation below or above of the mean score (M=67,37, SD=13.5) were
respectively considered to be low and high anxious. The rest were assumed to have a
moderate anxiety. Lastly, a one-way ANOVA was run to compare the writing scores of
students distributed to three different anxiety levels and to explore whether the anxiety level
has an impact on writing performance.
To analyze the qualitative data collected from the open-ended questionnaire, pattern
coding strategy was used as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994). The open-ended
questions were viewed as the main categories. Then, all the responses to each open-ended
question were thoroughly read more than once to familiarize with the emerging contradictory
or consistent patterns. By doing so, the researcher managed to establish possible codes that
are related to the category. For example, the first open-ended question asked the participants
to write the difficulties they face during writing in L2, thus the first category was named
‘perceived difficulties about writing in L2’. Then, student responses like ‘The only difficulty
for me is my scarce knowledge of vocabulary’ or ‘not remembering the necessary, suitable
word’ was coded in the “inappropriate usage and meaning of vocabulary” category. In this
9
way, six categories and 33 emerging codes were constructed. Finally, the frequencies and
percentages were calculated across the number of respondents who were included in the same
code and category. The results were tabulated to be summarized (see Appendix C). To
confirm the reliability, a colleague of the researcher independently analyzed the data. An
inter-rater reliability (89%) was established in terms of frequency agreement rate and
disagreements were resolved through discussion. Moreover, English verbatim translations of
the students’ statements were presented in the form of quotations to exemplify the findings.
4. Results
4.1 Results of the Inventory
As for the RQ1, Turkish EFL pre-service teachers’ writing anxiety level was identified
using descriptive statistics. Referring to the participants’ scores on the SLWAI, three groups
of anxiety level were presented as in the Table 1. There existed 10 Low Anxious (LA) preservice teachers, scoring one or more standard deviation below the mean score and consisted
of 21% of the all participants. 19% of them whose mean scores were one or more standard
deviation above the mean were regarded as High Anxious (HA) while the rest whose scores
range from 53.87 to 80.87 were categorized as Moderate Anxious (MA).
Table 1: Numbers and Percentages of Participants in Three Anxiety Categories
Anxiety Category
Frequency (N=48)
Percentage*
Low Anxiety
10
21
Moderate Anxiety
29
60
High Anxiety
9
19
*The values were rounded off to the nearest number.
As for RQ2, in order to examine the relationships between Writing Scores (M=59.69,
SD=15.824) of Turkish EFL pre-service teachers and their Writing Anxiety Level (M=67,37,
SD=13.5), Pearson’s r correlation analyses was conducted. The results revealed that there
existed a significant negative weak correlation between writing anxiety level and writing
10
performance (r=-0.288, p < .05). It means that while the anxiety level of the pre-service
teachers increase; their writing scores have a tendency to decrease.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of Anxiety and Writing Score
M
SD
Min.
Max.
Writing Score
59.69
15.824
5
87
Anxiety Score
67.38
13.500
26
91
Figure 1. The Distribution of Writing Score Means in Three Anxiety Levels
Table 3. Summary of ANOVA
Sum of
Squares
856.096
df
2
Mean
Square
428.048
Within groups
10912.216
45
242.494
Total
11768.313
47
Writing Score
Between groups
F
1.765
*p<.05
The descriptive statistics (Figure 1) indicated mean score differences for three
different anxiety levels Low Anxiety (M=66.50, SD=23.330), Moderate Anxiety (M=59.38,
SD=13.513), and High Anxiety (M=53.11, SD=10.612), The results of the one-way ANOVA
(Table 3), however, indicated that there is not a statistically significant difference
11
(F(2,45):1.765, p=.183) among the writing scores of three groups of pre-service teachers from
three different anxiety levels. For this reason, these mean score differences were not found to
be generalizable to the population.
4.2 Results of the open-ended questionnaire
In the first question, the students were asked to state the difficulties faced during
writing in English. Among the difficulties faced in the writing process, ‘inappropriate usage
and meaning of vocabulary’, difficulties resulted from the ‘fixed patterns and rules of
writing’, and ‘inability to express one’s thought in L2’ were found to form the main
challenges in L2 writing as summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 Perceived difficulties about writing in L2
Inappropriate Usage and Meaning of Vocabulary
Fixed Patterns and rules of writing
Inability to express one’s thoughts in L2
Inability to generate ideas
Writing topic
Time of Writing
No Perceived Difficulty
Frequency(f)
14
7
5
4
3
3
3
Percentage(%)
45
22
16
12
9
9
9
Number of respondents: 31
The following statements exemplify the difficulties in L2 writing;
‘A word might have more than one meaning and I cannot decide which one to use’
‘ I have great difficulty if I cannot use a dictionary. Because I can forget even the
most common words while writing’
‘ It is difficult to express my ideas effectively due to my inadequate vocabulary knowledge’
‘ I cannot be creative, cannot deviate from some certain patterns’
‘ There are lots of rules. I forget what I will write while concentrating on the rules’
The second question aimed at the situations and people that the students associated
with their writing anxiety. As can be seen in Table 5, writing anxiety was mostly attributed to
fear of negative evaluation, lack of previous writing practice and again lack of vocabulary.
12
Table 5 People and situations associated with writing anxiety
Worries about exams and grades
Lack of previous writing practice and vocabulary
Time Pressure
Rules of Academic Writing
Writing Topics
Intensive Excitement
High Self-Expectations
Teachers
Peers
No Person Indicated
(f)
(%)
8
32
5
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
21
20
16
16
16
4
4
8
8
84
Number of respondents: 25
In the following verbatim quotations, students stated that evaluation environments,
time limitations and lack of past writing experience provoked anxiety. They wrote; ‘I get
more anxious in cases where writing is compulsory’, ‘The pressure of completing writing on
time makes me panic’, ‘While sitting in the exams, I feel too much pressure on myself making
me forget even the easiest words’, ‘The only reason is that I have just met this kind of serious
issues, for the first time in my life’
Two students indicated that their peers’ comments and performances also play a role in
provoking their anxiety while another two mentioned the teacher effect;
‘I feel myself physiologically incapable since many others say that writing courses are
one of the most difficult courses’
‘Seeing my friends writing on their exam papers full to the brim makes me anxious’
‘Teachers walking around in the exams, especially when I catch their eyes’
‘Sometimes, the teachers’ frightening approaches’
In the third question, we aimed to find out the physical changes occurring in the case
of anxiety. Table 6 shows the students’ physical reactions while experiencing anxiety in the
event of writing in L2.
Table 6 Physical Reactions to L2 writing
(f)
(%)
Sweating
Becoming Tense
Increase in the Heart Rate
Blushing
Handshaking
10
7
4
3
3
35
25
14
10
10
13
Fewer
Headache
No Physical Change
2
2
9
7
7
32
Number of respondents: 28
The fourth question aimed at finding out how the students felt during writing in L2. As
can be seen in Table 7, 10 out of 29 participants stated hesitation about their writing. On the
other hand, 9 students marked that they felt satisfied and self-confident during and after their
writing.
‘Writing in a foreign language sounds like a privilege’
‘I get self-confidence. I feel that I know something and I can use my knowledge’
‘I am a little nervous before starting. However, I can generally write with ease. Seeing
that I can write creates a driving force’
‘Understanding another language and writing in it shows me that I can succeed even
further’
Table 7 Feelings About Writing
(f)
(%)
Hesitant About the Quality of the Written Product
Self-Confident and Satisfied
Uneasy About the Topic
Nervous
10
9
5
5
34
31
17
17
Number of respondents: 29
Some students conceived several doubts and worries about their writing and the
resulting consequences such as the grade of their writing or the accuracy and the quality of
their writing.
‘Whenever I write essays in English, I cannot help asking to myself if I wrote well
and correctly or if I would get a good grade’
‘It is not because I don’t like writing. I have fears of not making logical and correct
sentences’
‘It feels as if there was always something missing in my writing. The thought of my
friends writing better than me makes me nervous’
In the fifth question, the students were asked whether they shared their writing anxiety
experiences with anyone. As can be seen in Table 8, 10 out of 28 participants noted that they
14
did not share their experiences with anyone. 18 participants, however, indicated that they
usually shared the issue with a classmate.
Table 8 Sharing of the Writing Anxiety Experiences
Those who share
with a classmate
no person indicated
Those who do not share
(f)
18
16
2
10
(%)
64
57
7
35
Number of respondents: 28
Those who do not share their anxiety experiences on L2 writing generally think that
sharing is not useful as quoted below;
‘No, I haven’t shared. I don’t see any point in complaining as there is no other way’
‘I do not share because I don’t think that it will work’
Those who share their writing anxiety experiences stated that they do so on the
grounds of receiving support and aid, especially from their classmates. This notion is
exemplified in the statements below;
‘Yes, I frankly share. I go after my friends who are very good in this course’
‘I shared and I received lots of advice’
Students share their worries with their classmates as they consider the classmates as
having the same worries and thus, understanding.
‘With my classmates. We talk about the homework. These are our common issues’
‘I share with my friends. We often share the same worries’
In the last question, we asked the participants to write how their attitudes towards
writing in L2 would affect their future teaching practices. As can be seen in Table 9, 13 of the
29 respondents mentioned an expected positive effect, particularly in their professional life as
a teacher and in pursuing academic goals. 7 respondents stated that they would employ more
writing activities with their future students than they had been offered in their primary or
15
secondary level of education. The respondents (n=16) who implied an anticipated negative
effect in the future did not specify their comments, thus could not be specifically categorized.
Table 9 The Effects of Writing Attitudes on Future Teaching
(f)
(%)
Positive Effect
Performing writing practices eagerly
Pursuit of Academic Goals
Professional Success
Negative Effect
13
7
3
3
16
44
24
10
10
55
Number of respondents: 29
Some verbatim quotations exemplify the respondents’ views as to how their attitudes
towards writing in L2 could possibly affect their future teaching practices;
‘The reason I have difficulty in writing now is that we had almost no writing
instruction before university. So I definitely want to employ writing practices in the
future’
‘I will help my students more just because I myself like writing’
‘I hope I will not forget the importance of writing until graduation and can impose the
same on my students, too.’
‘The better I write, the more a successful teacher I will be’
‘I want to work at a university. I know writing articles in academic life is very
important’
Those who reported a negative effect informed such comments as ‘How will I teach
when I cannot write?’, ‘I don’t think I will write in L2 in the future’ or ‘I know that my
insufficient English writing will cause some problems in my future teaching life’.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
The main purpose of this study has been to investigate the second language (L2)
writing anxiety levels of Turkish pre-service teachers of EFL and the relationship between
their writing anxiety and writing performance. We have also reported on the participants’
underlying perceptions, attitudes towards writing anxiety in L2 and possible anxiety sources.
The overall results of this study have been found to be both in line and in contradiction with
the related literature. The hypothesis that writing anxiety would negatively affect the writing
16
performance has been slightly supported, whereas the perceptions, sources and reactions
about writing anxiety strongly accorded with the literature.
The Second Language Writing Apprehension Inventory (SLWAI) (Cheng, 2004) was
used to quantify the participants’ (n=48) writing anxiety level (M=67,37, SD=13.5), and to
group them as low, moderate and high anxious students. As the next step, we conducted
Pearson’s r correlation analyses between the whole sample’s writing anxiety level and the
midterm grades achieved by writing an essay in the ‘Academic Writing and Report Writing’
class. The grades (M=59.69, SD=15.824) were reckoned as an indicator of writing
performance. The results suggested a statistically significant negative correlation (r=-0.288, p
< .05). In other words, it seems that writing grades are likely to drop when or where writing
anxiety is high. In fact, these findings are consistent with a sum of previous research which
reported negative correlation between writing anxiety and writing performance both in EFL
and ESL contexts (Kean et.al, 1987; Masny and Foxall, 1992; Hassan, 2001; Cheng, 2004;
Zhang, 2011).
Furthermore, we ran a one-way ANOVA to find out whether the writing scores within
the three anxiety levels would suggest a statistically significant difference. The analysis,
however, revealed no statistical difference (F(2,45):1.765, p=.183). Thus, the weakness of
negative correlation, though statistically significant, found within the whole sample was
confirmed. The result of this further analysis is not surprising considering the contradictive
nature of writing anxiety’s impact on writing performance. There are several research studies
documenting almost no relationship between writing anxiety and writing performance.
(Pajares and Johnson, 1994; Lee, 2005; DeDeyn, 2011).
The participants reported that they had difficulty in finding and using the appropriate
vocabulary items while writing in English. Feeling tense and consequently sweating were the
17
most rated reactions. In addition, worries about the negative evaluation in the exams and the
lack of previous writing practice were indicated to be the primary sources of writing anxiety.
Majority of the participants responded that their writing anxiety would have a negative effect
on their future teaching practices, such as avoiding from teaching writing. These findings are
in parallel with several previous research (Cheng, 2004; Atay and Kurt, 2006; Lin and Ho,
2009; Zhang, 2011).
6. Pedagogical Implications and Limitations
Based on the results of the current study and the previous studies, we would like to
propose some recommendations to reduce writing anxiety in EFL classrooms. Firstly, the
participants of this study pointed ‘exams and grades’ and ‘lack of previous writing practice and
vocabulary’ as a strong source of writing anxiety. Thus, the conventional teacher-centered
evaluative environment in the classroom should be replaced by other contemporary evaluation
methods such as peer-reviewing or self-evaluation (Kurt and Atay, 2007; Jahin, 2012). The
participants in this study stated that they preferred their peers to share their writing anxiety
experiences since they all shared the same or similar worries. However, it should be noted that
training students on peer reviewing is of considerable importance, otherwise the peer
comments can be ambiguous and negative (Zhang, 2011). Zhang (2011) goes on
recommending self-evaluation, particularly with highly proficient learners as in this study, as
a way to reduce writing anxiety. Therefore, the writing teachers should provide checklists or
diaries to encourage self-evaluation.
Secondly, writing teachers should attempt portfolio keeping (Öztürk and Çeçen,
2007) or guided writing techniques (Januartini, Nitiasih and Suarnajaya, 2013) which
emphasize the writing process and provide aid and encouragement during the writing process.
Thirdly, writing teachers should frequently intervene in the writing process and use more
18
positive reinforcement and constructive feedback to the students’ written work since majority
of the participants of this study indicated a hesitation about their written product.
We should note that the results here are restricted to the participants of this study for
some reasons; therefore, one should be careful in drawing certain conclusions. First of all, the
convenience sampling of the study may not be sufficient to generalize the results to wider
populations and settings. Writing anxiety should be investigated with a greater number of
participants for statistically meaningful findings. Alternatively, grades from final exams can
also be added into analysis for further and richer interpretations. Secondly, the participants
wrote their essay in a midterm exam, thus some variables like test anxiety should be
controlled in future studies. Notwithstanding its exploratory character, this study may suggest
some insight into understanding the relationship between writing anxiety and writing
performance from the perspective of Turkish pre-service teachers of EFL, in other words,
from the perspective of advanced learners of English.
Zafer Susoy is a Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant in the Department of English Language
Teaching at Anadolu University of Turkey. He is now continuing his master degree program. His
research interests are foreign language writing, teacher training, and reflection in the classroom.
Seray Tanyer is a Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant in the Department of English Language
Teaching at Anadolu University of Turkey. She is now writing her Master’s Thesis on self-evaluation in
EFL writing classroom. Her research interests are in foreign language writing, corpus linguistics,
language assessment, and teacher training.
19
References
Atay, D., & Kurt, G. (2006). Prospective teachers and L2 writing anxiety. Asian EFL Journal,
100-118.
8(4),
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
Cheng, Y. S., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and
speaking components. Language Learning, 49(3), 417-446.
Daly, J. A., & Miller, M. D. (1975a). The empirical development of an instrument of writing
apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 242–249
DeDeyn, R. (2011). Student identity, writing anxiety, and writing performance: a correlational study.
(Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University).
Faigley, L., Daly, J. A., & Witte, S. P. (1981). The role of writing apprehension in writing performance
and competence.Journal of Educational Research, 75, 16–21
Frantzen, D., & Magnan, S. S. (2005). Anxiety and the true beginner—false beginner dynamic in
beginning French and Spanish classes. Foreign Language Annals, 38(2), 171-186.
Hassan, B. A. (2001). The Relationship of Writing Apprehension and Self-Esteem to the Writing
Quality and Quantity of EFL University Students.
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual review of applied linguistics, 21(1),
112-126.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern
Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.
Jahin, J. H. (2012). The Effect of Peer Reviewing on Writing Apprehension and Essay Writing Ability of
Prospective EFL Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(11), 4.
Januartini, N. T., Nitiasih, P. K., & Suarnajaya, W. (2013). The Effect of guided writing technique and
anxiety upon writing competency. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, 1.
Kean, D. K., Glynn, S. M., & Britton, B. K. (1987). Writing persuasive documents: The role of students'
verbal aptitude and evaluation anxiety. The Journal of Experimental Educational, 95-102.
Kurt, G., & Atay, D. (2007). The Effects of Peer Feedback on the Writing Anxiety of Prospective
Turkish Teachers of EFL. Online Submission, 3, 12-23.
Lee, S. Y. (2005). Facilitating and inhibiting factors in English as a foreign language writing
performance: A model testing with structural equation modeling. Language learning, 55(2),
335-374.
Lin, G. H. C., & Ho, M. M. S. (2009). An Exploration into Foreign Language Writing Anxiety from
Taiwanese University Students' Perspectives. Online Submission.
Liu, M., & Huang, W. (2011). An exploration of foreign language anxiety and English learning
20
motivation. Education Research International, 2011.
Masny, D., & Foxall, J. (1992).Writing apprehension in L2. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 020 882)
Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of performance in the foreign language
classroom. System, 32(1), 21-36.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage
Publications, Incorporated.
Negari, G. M., & Rezaabadi, O. T. (2012). Too Nervous to Write? The Relationship between Anxiety
and EFL Writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(12), 2578-2586.
Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner. In J. Arnold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning
(pp. 58-67). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Öztürk, H., & Çeçen, S. (2007). The effects of portfolio keeping on writing anxiety of EFL students.
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 3(2), 218-236.
Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1994). Confidence and competence in writing: The role of self-efficacy,
outcome expectancy, and apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 313-331.
Palmquist, M., & Young, R. (1992). The notion of giftedness and student expectations about writing.
Written Communication, 9, 137-168.
Pichette, F. (2009). Second language anxiety and distance language learning. Foreign Language
Annals, 42(1), 77-93.
Spielberger, C. D. (2010). State‐Trait anxiety inventory. Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology.
Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a Low‐Anxiety Classroom Environment: What Does Language Anxiety
Research Suggest?. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 426-437.
Zhang, H. (2011). A study on ESL writing anxiety among Chinese English majors: Causes, effects and
coping strategies for ESL writing anxiety (Doctoral dissertation, Kristianstad University).
21
Appendix A: Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory
Your Name (Please fill in)……………………………
Age: …….…..
Gender: Male / Female
Read the statements below very carefully. For each statement, among the choices (1), (2), (3), (4), and
(5), put a tick (✓) under the most suitable one for you. We kindly request you be honest while
answering the questions.
Thank you for your participation…
(1) SD : I Strongly Disagree
(2) D : I Disagree
(3) NSF: I have No Strong Feelings either way
(4) A
: I Agree
(5) SA : I Strongly Agree
(1)
SD
(2)
D
(3)
NSF
1. While writing in English, I am not nervous at all.
2. I feel my heart pounding when I write English compositions under time
constraint.
3. While writing English compositions, I feel worried and uneasy if I know they
will be evaluated.
4. I often choose to write down my thoughts in English.
5. I usually do my best to avoid writing English compositions.
6. My mind often goes blank when I start to work on an English composition.
7. I worry that my English compositions are a lot worse than others.
8. I tremble or perspire when I write English compositions under time pressure.
9. If my English composition is to be evaluated, I would worry about getting a very
poor grade.
10. I do my best to avoid situations in which I have to write in English.
11. My thoughts become jumbled when I write English compositions under
time constraint.
12. Unless I have no choice, I would not use English to write compositions.
13. I often feel panic when I write English compositions under time constraint.
14. I am afraid that the other students would deride my English composition if
they read it.
15. I freeze up when unexpectedly asked to write English compositions.
16. I would do my best to excuse myself if asked to write English compositions.
17. I worry at all about what other people would think of my English
compositions.
18. I usually seek every possible chance to write English compositions outside
22
(4)
A
(5)
SA
of class.
19. I usually feel my whole body rigid and tense when write English
compositions.
20. I am afraid of my English composition being chosen as a sample for
discussion in class.
21. I am afraid at all that my English compositions would be rated as very
poor.
22. Whenever possible, I would use English to write compositions.
Appendix B: Open-ended Questionnaire (adopted from Atay and Kurt, 2006)
1. Do you experience any difficulties while writing in L2? If yes, what are they?
2. Name the situations and people connected with your writing anxiety.
3. What kind of physical changes occur while you are writing in L2?
4. How do you feel when writing in L2?
5. Have you shared your experience of writing anxiety with anyone?
6. How do you think your attitudes towards L2 writing will affect your future teaching
practices?
Appendix C: Overall Summary of Open-ended Questionnaire
Perceived difficulties about writing in L2
Inappropriate Usage and Meaning of Vocabulary
Fixed Patterns and rules of writing
Inability to express one’s thoughts in L2
Inability to generate ideas
Writing topic
Time of Writing
No Perceived Difficulty
Frequency(f)
14
7
5
4
3
3
3
Percentage(%)*
45
22
16
12
9
9
9
23
People and situations associated with writing anxiety
Worries about exams and grades
Lack of previous writing practice and vocabulary
Time Pressure
Rules of Academic Writing
Writing Topics
Intensive Excitement
High Self-Expectations
Teachers
Peers
No Person Indicated
8
32
5
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
21
20
16
16
16
4
4
8
8
84
10
7
4
3
3
2
2
9
35
25
14
10
10
7
7
32
10
9
5
5
34
31
17
17
18
16
2
10
64
57
7
35
13
7
3
3
16
44
24
10
10
55
Physical Reactions to L2 writing
Sweating
Becoming Tense
Increase in the Heart Rate
Blushing
Handshaking
Fewer
Headache
No Physical Change
Feelings About Writing
Hesitant About the Quality of the Written Product
Self-Confident and Satisfied
Uneasy About the Topic
Nervous
Sharing of the Writing Anxiety Experiences
Those who share
with a classmate
no person indicated
Those who do not share
The Effects of Attitudes Writing on Future Teaching
Positive Effect
Performing writing practices eagerly
Pursuit of Academic Goals
Professional Success
Negative Effect
* Percentages were rounded off to the nearest number
Note. Participants might have commented on more than one category.
24