A measure of second language writing anxiety

A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation Y.-S. Cheng Department of English, National Taiwan Normal University, 162 Hoping East Road, Section 1, Taipei 10610, Taiwan Abstract Evidence has been accumulating that shows the promise of multidimensional conceptualizations of anxiety in investigating the effects of anxiety on different aspects of human behavior and intellectual performance. In view of the lack of an L2 writing anxiety scale explicitly developed from a multidimensional perspective, this study aims to develop and evaluate a self-report L2 writing anxiety measure that conforms to a three-dimensional conceptualization of anxiety. Sixty-five EFL learners’ reports of L2 writing anxiety were drawn upon to generate an initial pool of scale items. A pilot test was conducted on the initial pool of items to help establish a preliminary version of L2 writing anxiety scale for further refinement and evaluation in the formal study. A sample of 421 EFL majors enrolled in seven different colleges in Taiwan participated in the formal study. Exploratory factor analysis was employed to determine the final make-up of the Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) that consists of three subscales: Somatic Anxiety, Cognitive Anxiety, and Avoidance Behavior. In addition to reliability coefficients, the validity of the SLWAI total scale and subscales was assessed by means of correlation and factor analysis. The results suggest that both the total scale and the individual subscales of the SLWAI have good reliability and adequate validity. # 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Research background For the past three decades, a great body of research has been devoted to examine the role of anxiety in second language (L2)1 learning. However, as shown in Scovel’s (1978) review of the literature then available, early studies on anxiety and L2 learning produced Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 313–335 E-mail address: t22035@cc.ntnu.edu.tw. 1 In this paper, second language or L2 is used to refer to either a second language or a foreign language. 1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.07.001 contradictory results regarding the relationship between anxiety and L2 achievement or performance. Many researchers have attributed these discrepant findings in part to the use of inadequate anxiety measures, such as scales of test anxiety and general trait anxiety, which do not assess an individual’s responses to the specific stimulus of second language learning (Horwitz, 1986; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; MacIntyre, 1999). Furthermore, these researchers proposed conceptualizing second/foreign language anxiety as a unique form of anxiety specific to the L2 learning context. Since then, several instruments have been developed and widely adopted to measure this anxiety, including Gardner’s (1985) French Class Anxiety Scale and French Use Anxiety Scale, and Horwitz et al.’s (1986) Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale. These L2-learning-specific measures of anxiety have contributed to a clearer picture regarding the relationship between anxiety and L2 learning. In general, research adopting these anxiety measures has indicated a consistent negative association of second language anxiety with students’ L2 learning attitudes (Phillips, 1992), self-ratings of proficiency (MacIntyre, Noels, & Cle´ment, 1997), language processing (Steinberg & Horwitz, 1986; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994a, 1994b), and with L2 academic achievement (Aida, 1994; Horwitz, 1986; Saito & Samimy, 1996). Nevertheless, some researchers, taking heed of the dominance of speaking-related items in the above-mentioned second language anxiety measures, began to question the adequacy of using them to measure anxiety aroused in performing language skills other than speaking (Aida, 1994; Cheng, Horwitz, & Schallert, 1999; Phillips, 1992). Some language anxiety researchers even took a step further, proposing to distinguish language-skill- specific anxiety from general second language classroom anxiety that seems to be more associated with oral aspects of L2 use (Cheng et al., 1999; Horwitz, 2001). Meanwhile, researchers have increasingly focused their attention on identifying and examining anxiety associated with specific language skills such as reading (Saito, Horwitz, & Garza, 1999; Sellers, 2000), listening (Vogely, 1998; Kim, 2000), and writing (Cheng et al., 1999; Leki, 1999). This trend of investigation suggests a pressing need to develop proper and standardized measurement instruments for researchers who are interested in the quantitative assessment and investigation of various kinds of skill-specific second language anxiety. For ‘‘adequate measures are a necessary condition for valid research’’ (DeVellis, 1991, p. 11). There have been some studies on second language writing anxiety. In them, the Daly– Miller Writing Apprehension Test (WAT; Daly & Miller, 1975) was the most commonly used measurement instrument of second language writing anxiety (e.g., Cheng et al., 1999; Hadaway, 1987; Lee, 2001; Masny & Foxall, 1992; Wu, 1992). Although the Daly–Miller WAT as a whole has been shown to be an instrument of satisfactory internal consistency reliability as well as concurrent and predictive validity, there seems to be plenty of room for further improvement if the WAT is to be used in future studies of second language writing. First of all, the WAT was originally developed with reference to first language learners, particularly English native speakers. It might not tap the most essential aspects of second language writing anxiety. Moreover, several researchers have raised questions about the construct validity of the WAT. In his investigation of L1 writing anxiety, McKain (1991, pp. 22–25) did a content analysis of the WAT and classified the 26 items on the WAT into five categories: (1) nine items on positive feelings that are more or less incompatible with Y.-S. Cheng / Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 313–335314 anxiety (e.g., ‘‘I enjoy writing’’ and ‘‘I like to write my ideas down’’); (2) nine items on self-efficacy or outcome expectancies (e.g., ‘‘I feel confident in my ability to clearly express my ideas in writing’’ and ‘‘I expect to do poorly in composition class even before I enter them’’); (3) five items on the presence (n = 4) or absence (n = 1) of anxiety (especially evaluation anxiety) (e.g., ‘‘I have no fear of my writing being evaluated’’ and ‘‘I am afraid of writing essays when I know they will be evaluated’’); (4) one item on the value of writing (i.e., ‘‘Expressing ideas through writing seems to be a waste of time’’); and (5) two items dealing with miscellaneous events or behaviors that might be caused by anxiety (i.e., ‘‘I avoid writing’’ and ‘‘My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on a composition’’). Because only 14 of the 26 WAT items deal with feelings (among them, only four items concern the presence of anxiety), McKain called into question the WAT as a pure measure of writing anxiety. On the grounds that 9 of the 26 WAT items have to do with individuals’ self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectancies, McKain (1991) further argued that the WAT could be considered as ‘‘a measure of writing self-esteem just as much as a measure of writing apprehension’’ (p. 25). McKain’s argument has received some empirical support from Cheng et al.’s (1999) principal components analysis of an L2 version of the WAT. Originally, the WAT was reported to represent a unidimensional structure and capture a single construct by Daly and Miller (1975). All of the items on the WAT are thus expected to load on one factor or one component in a factor analysis of the measure. However, different from the expectation, data in Cheng et al. (1999) supported a three-component solution. That is, the WAT items loaded on three components. Among the three components, the Low Self-confidence component accounted for the largest part of the total variance of the L2 version of the WAT, followed by the components of Aversiveness of Writing and Evaluation Apprehension. Similarly, one of the three components that consistently emerged from Shaver’s (1990) three principal components analyses of the WAT on L1 learners was Writing Self-concept, although it did not always explain the greatest amount of variance in the three analyses. The other two components were labeled as Affective Performance Reaction and Reaction to Evaluation. The above results suggest that Low Self-confidence is a major component of the WAT. Together with Burgoon and Hale’s (1983) finding that the WAT could be factor analyzed into three dimensions representing Discomfort or Ease in Writing, Enjoyment of Writing, and Rewards of Writing, Shaver (1990) argued that contrary to Daly and Miller’s (1975) proposed unidimensional structure, the WAT represents a multidimensional construct,2 comprising three dimensions of L1 learners’ attitudes toward writing. However, the dimensionality of the WAT is still subject to debate because two-factor solutions have been obtained in other studies, as reported in Bline, Lowe, Meixner, Nouri, and Pearce (2001). Y.-S. Cheng / Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 313–335 315 2 A unidimensional conceptualization of anxiety treats anxiety as a unitary, global construct. A unidimensional measure of anxiety contains no subscales and produces only one single summed score. In contrast, a multi- dimensional conceptualization of anxiety defines anxiety as being composed of several different but intercorre- lated facets or dimensions. Each facet or dimension of the anxiety construct can be seen as representing a separate construct. But at a more abstract level, these facets or dimensions are all integral parts of the more global anxiety construct. Developed from this perspective, a multidimensional measure of anxiety comprises several subscales designed to measure the various facets/dimensions of anxiety. The items on each subscale can be summed to get a score representing the degree of reaction in each facet/dimension of anxiety. These conflicting results not only highlight the need to clarify the issue of how many and what dimensions are embedded in the WAT but also question the construct validity of the WAT. It should also be noted that Shaver (1990) treated the WAT as a measure of attitudes toward writing, a construct broader in scope than writing anxiety. Indeed, results of the aforementioned content and factor analyses suggest that treating the WAT as a specific measure of writing anxiety may be problematic. In their report on two L1 studies that examined the predictive validity of the WAT, Richmond and Dickson-Markman (1985) held a similar view to McKain (1991) regarding the nature of the WAT. The two studies reported in Richmond and Dickson-Markman (1985) upheld the predictive validity of the WAT because the WAT was found to be a significant predictor of L1 achievement (i.e., the American subjects’ performance on the English section of the American College Test) and L1 writing quality (i.e., the subjects’ performance on a 15-minute essay). However, they doubted that the predictive power of the WAT came from anxiety. Based on the finding that low and moderate levels of writing anxiety, as measured by the WAT, did not produce significant differences in reports of state anxiety, Richmond and Dickson-Markman (1985) noted that the WAT might be ‘‘a measure of self-confidence in ability to write rather than anxiety about writing’’ (p. 259). In the form of a subscale, self-confidence has been included in sport anxiety measures such as Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990) and the Anxiety Rating Scale-2 (Cox, Robb, & Russell, 2000). However, according to the theory from which these sport anxiety measures were developed, self-confidence is an individual difference construct that is separate from the construct of anxiety, which is conceptualized to be multidimensional and consist of two components: cognitive and somatic anxiety (Craft, Magyar, Becker, & Feltz, 2003). Cognitive anxiety refers to the mental aspect of anxiety experience, including negative expectations, preoccupation with performance, and concern about others’ perceptions; whereas somatic anxiety refers to one’s perception of the physiological effects of the anxiety experience, as reflected in increased ‘‘autonomic arousal and unpleasant feeling states such as nervousness and tension’’ (Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981, p. 541). This approach is quite different from that taken for the WAT, which does not attempt to distinguish between self-confidence and anxiety or separate cognitive anxiety from somatic anxiety. As a result, use of the WAT may create some difficulty in teasing apart the conceptual or causal links between anxiety and self-confidence, a subject of much research and discussion in the field of L2 learning (Horwitz et al., 1986; MacIntyre, Cle´ment, Do¨rnyei, & Noels, 1998; Oxford, 1999). The finding of a close relationship between general second language anxiety and self-perceived competence in L2 has provided some insight into ways of reducing anxiety in the L2 classroom (Cheng, 2001; MacIntyre et al., 1997; Onwuegbuzie, Bailey, & Daley, 1999; Price, 1991). However, similar results found in the studies of L1 or L2 writing (e.g., Cheng, 2002; Daly & Wilson, 1983; Pajares & Johnson, 1994) become more difficult to interpret. The writing anxiety scale (i.e., the WAT) used in these studies to examine the relationship between writing anxiety and self-confidence contains many items related to self-confidence in writing. Such attempts thus become a potential tautology. One possible solution to this problem is to develop a measure of writing anxiety that does not confound writing anxiety with self-confidence or beliefs about one’s writing Y.-S. Cheng / Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 313–335316 ability. To achieve such a goal, McKain (1991) devised an L1 writing anxiety measure by drawing 12 items from the WAT and Holland’s (1978) Writing Problems Profile. The 12 items were chosen on the basis that at least three of four independent raters coded them as being related specifically and narrowly to ‘‘anxious feelings’’ associated with writing, but not other aspects of writing such as ‘‘behavior (e.g., avoidance of writing) or cognition (e.g., beliefs about one’s writing ability)’’ (McKain, p. 81). Deliberately excluding items related to writing self-efficacy beliefs and enjoyment of writing, McKain’s writing anxiety measure, the Writing Anxiety Questionnaire (WAQ), was shown to be an improvement over the WAT in terms of content validity and construct validity, despite their similarity in predictive validity. Like the WAT, the WAQ defines L1 writing anxiety as a unidimensional, global construct and does not contain any subscales. However, as previous studies suggest, empirical evidence does not always support scale developers’ categorization and definition of the scale items. For example, Russell and Cox (2003) found that the word ‘‘nervous’’ could be interpreted as being related to somatic anxiety or cognitive anxiety by different people. In a factor analysis of potential cognitive and somatic anxiety items drawn from existing anxiety scales, Morris et al. (1981) found that although some of the items, as expected, loaded differentially on either the worry factor (i.e., cognitive anxiety) or the emotionality factor (i.e., somatic anxiety), many of them did not. Likewise, the proposed unidimensional structure of the WAT has been challenged by several factor analyses of the WAT, as reviewed earlier. Therefore, the presupposed unidimensional structure of the WAQ requires validation via factor analytic methods. In addition, because the WAQ, like the WAT, was not developed specifically for L2 learners, its applicability in the L2 context is questionable. More importantly, accumulating evidence has indicated the promise of multi- dimensional conceptualizations of anxiety in investigating the antecedents of anxiety as well as the effects of anxiety on different aspects of human behavior or intellectual performance (Morris et al., 1981; Smith & Smoll, 1990). For instance, following a multidimensional approach and conceptualizing test anxiety as consisting of two components—worry and emotionality—Morris and Liebert (1973) showed that the antecedents of the two components of test anxiety differed. To be specific, the threat of electric shock aroused merely emotionality when one worked on an intellectual task, but failure feedback at the same situation aroused worry only. On the other hand, Deffenbacher (1977) found that the two components of test anxiety varied in their impact on intellectual performance. That is, worry alone correlated with Miller Analogies Test performance among graduate school applicants; emotionality, however, produced debilitative effects only in the high-worry group. By the same token, when conceptualizing pain-related anxiety as consisting of four components: cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, fear, and escape/avoidance, Bishop, Holm, Borowiak, and Wilson (2001) found that somatic anxiety was the only significant predictor of pain tolerance among participants with tension headache. Obviously, the significant relationships between various facets of anxiety and human behaviors reported above would have been obscured by the use of a unidimensional conceptualization and measure of anxiety. No wonder more and more researchers advocate a multidimensional approach to anxiety conceptualization and measurement. Y.-S. Cheng / Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 313–335 317 From the multidimensional perspective, anxiety is not a unitary, unidimensional phenomenon but involves various response dimensions. Various multidimensional measures of anxiety have been developed in fields such as test anxiety (see Morris et al., 1981; Sarason & Sarason, 1990), speech anxiety (see Fremouw & Breitenstein, 1990), and sport performance anxiety (see Smith & Smoll, 1990). In these measures, anxiety symptoms are grouped along several relatively independent dimensions, including somatic/physiological (e.g., upset stomach, pounding heart, excessive sweating, and numbness), cognitive (e.g., worry, preoccupation, and negative expectations), and behavioral (e.g., procrastination, withdrawal, and avoidance). However, a measure of second language writing anxiety that takes into consideration the multidimensional nature of anxiety is still wanting. In light of the problems discussed above, the purpose of this study was to develop a self-report measure of second (here foreign) language writing anxiety grounded in both L2 learners’ reports of anxiety experiences and the multidimensional conceptualization of anxiety. Further, this study presented preliminary information regarding the construct and criterion-related validity of the measure. Method Participants Three groups of EFL students majoring in English in Taiwan participated in the present study. Only English majors were recruited due to the concern that students otherwise might not have sufficient English writing experiences to provide rich information regarding their writing anxiety experiences. First of all, to help generate an initial pool of L2 writing anxiety scale items, 67 undergraduate and graduate students (59 females and 8 males, ranging in age from 19 to 35 years, with a mean age of 22 years) from three intact classes in the English department of two universities were recruited to fill out an open-ended questionnaire that asked about their anxiety exper