COMPUTERS and COMPOSITION 11(1), November 1991, pages 65-82

Word Processing and Writing Apprehension

in First and Second Language Writers
Marianne Phinney
Advocates of computer use in composition classes often argue that using computers will reduce
writing apprehension, improve attitudes toward writing, and make the writing process easier for
students. This should also hold true for second language writers, whose attitudes toward writing
and English may include more fear and apprehension than those of first language writers
(Betancourt & Phinney, 1988). However, there is little empirical evidence to show that using
computers to write can indeed reduce apprehension and improve students' attitudes. This study
used two measures, Daly and Miller's (1975a) Writing Apprehension Test (WAT) and Rose's
(1984) Writing Attitude Questionnaire (WAQ), to examine changes in writing apprehension and
blocking behavior among first and second language writers in first year composition classes
using computers.

Background

Computers have become an accepted tool in writing classes, and research on computers and
various aspects of the composing process has mushroomed in the last decade. Researchers have
argued that computer use helps to reduce anxiety about writing and premature editing (Daiute,
1985, 1986), changes revision strategies (Daiute, 1986; Hawisher, 1987), and improves attitudes
towards writing (Dalton & Hannafin, 1987; Hawisher, 1987). However, little research has
appeared on the effect of computer use on writing apprehension or on blocking; Hawisher
(1989), in her thorough review of research, does not include apprehension and blocking as
categories of study.

In addition, little research has appeared on the use of computers with second language writers.
Second language writers are often assumed to have more apprehension than first language
writers, to monitor their output more (Krashen, 1982), to be more likely to edit prematurely, and
to have more negative attitudes toward writing in their second language than first language
writers. If this is the case, then second language writers should benefit from computer-assisted
writing at least as much as first language writers, perhaps more.

Measuring Writing Apprehension and Blocking

Research on writing apprehension and writer's block has generally used two approaches. The
first correlates some measure of writing apprehension with a variety of factors, including writing
performance and quality of product (Daly, 1977; Daly & Miller, 1975a), performance on
standardized writing tests (Daly, 1978; Daly & Miller, 1975b), perceived intensity of the writing
environment (Bennett & Rhodes, 1988), gender differences (Daly, 1979; Daly & Miller, 1975b),
and willingness to write and expectations about writing (Daly & Miller, 1975b).
The second approach focuses on the cognitive components of writer's block. Boice (1985)
identified seven categories of blocking behavior in his study of blocked academic writers:
working apprehension or perceived difficulty in writing, procrastination, dysphoria, which
included several categories of fear or anxiety, impatience with the progress of the writing,
perfectionism, evaluation anxiety, and maladaptive rules. Similarly, Rose (1984) found five
categories of blocking behavior in his student writers: lateness, premature editing, complexity of
material, attitudes towards one's writing, and pure blocking or inability to write. Rose also
discussed the effect of rigid rules that, when applied inappropriately, result in blocking.

Two measuring instruments are commonly used to examine writing apprehension and blocking
behavior. The earlier and more familiar instrument is Daly and Miller's (1975a) Writing
Apprehension Test (WAT). This is a twenty-six-item questionnaire, thirteen items with positive
polarity and thirteen with negative polarity, scored on a 5-point Likert scale, which asks the
subject to agree or disagree with statements about writing like "I look forward to writing down
my ideas" or "Expressing my ideas through writing seems to be a waste of time." The
questionnaire produces a single score which can be taken as an index of writing apprehension.
The Daly-Miller WAT has been adapted for ESL populations (Gungle & Taylor, 1989) using a
6-point scale that eliminates the middle uncertain position.

Another instrument, developed by Rose (1984), measures different components of blocking

behavior. Rose found his twenty-four-item Writing Attitude Questionnaire (WAQ) tapped five
different subscales: attitude towards writing, complexity of material, premature editing, lateness
in completing tasks, and writer's block. "Attitude" indicates the respondent's feelings about his or
her writing ("I think my writing is good") and evaluation of that writing ("I think of my
instructors reacting positively to my writing"). "Complexity" taps the writer's ability to deal with
complex material ("Writing on topics that can have different focuses is difficult for me").
"Editing" reveals the tendency to edit prematurely ("When I write, I'll wait until I've found the
right phrase"). "Lateness" deals with the problem of not meeting deadlines ("I have to hand in
assignments late because I can't get the words on paper"). The last subscale, "Blocking,"
indicates behaviors associated with writer's block ("At times, my first paragraph takes me over
two hours to write").

Rose's questionnaire has been shown to be valid for English and Spanish bilingual student
populations (Betancourt & Phinney, 1988). In that study, bilingual writers showed different
levels of apprehension for the five scales depending on their native language, but the subscales
themselves were found to be valid for both populations.

Although some of the statements are similar in both questionnaires (WAT-"I like to write my
ideas down", WAQ-"I enjoy writing, though writing is difficult at times"), the two instruments
produce very different scores. Although the WAT statements tap various aspects of
apprehension, WAT is commonly used to provide a single measure of the subject's writing
apprehension. A high score indicates a high level of apprehension. The WAQ can be used to
produce five scores (Betancourt & Phinney, 1988) indicating the level of apprehension on each
subscale, and thus provides a more detailed picture of the subject's response to writing. Both
questionnaires share the weakness of any self-response questionnaire; the researcher must trust
that the subject has responded accurately.
With the exception of Gungle and Taylor's (1989) adaptation of the Daly-Miller WAT and the
bilingual study of Betancourt and Phinney (1988), few studies on writing apprehension in second
language writers have appeared. Many second language writing instructors, however, sense that
second language writers often have considerable apprehension about writing in their second
language. In college and university ESL classes, second language writers are often expected to
compete with first language writers eventually. However, their previous ESL exposure may not
have included the kind of writing experience that first language writers have had. Many second
language writers feel that their competence in the second language will never match that of first
language writers and so, no matter what they do, their writing will always be second-rate. Often,
second language writers are poor or inexperienced writers in their first language and, thus, have
little or no writing ability to transfer to their writing in the second language.

Computers and Composing in a Second Language

Although the level of research activity in second language writing and computers does not come
near the activity in first language writing, a few studies have appeared that suggest computer use
does seem to have positive effects on second language writers. Phinney and Mathis (1990),
interviewing several ESL students who wrote with computers for a semester, indicated that the
students felt the computer improved their attitudes toward writing in English. They also seemed
to spend more time writing than students who did not use a computer and produced longer papers
(Phinney, 1988). Neu and Scarcella (1991) note similar results, as do other anecdotal studies
(Blanton, 1987; Piper, 1987), although at least one writer notes that individual students may vary
considerably in adapting their writing processes to the computer (Benesch, 1987).

Although it may be satisfying to the instructor, anecdotal evidence cannot be generalized to

larger populations. With the exception of Neu and Scarcella (1991), who designed their own
questionnaire, none of these studies concretely measured changes in attitudes in second language
writers using computers.

A previous study (Phinney, 1991) used Rose's WAQ to assess changes in the blocking behavior
of ESL students who wrote with computers and the behavior of those who wrote by hand. In the
group using computers, apprehension was reduced on all subscales except "premature editing."
The control group did not show reduced apprehension, and apprehension increased on the
"lateness" subscale. The results suggested that using a computer to write did reduce some
sources of apprehension for that population of ESL students.

The Study

Method

Subjects
Two groups of subjects, first language and second language writers, were used. The thirty-five
first language writers were students in the first semester composition course (ENGL 3111) at El
Paso Community College (EPCC). Most of the students had previously taken ENGL 3110, a
paragraph writing course, and had passed the exit exam for that course. A few students had been
placed directly into ENGL 3111 based on their SAT scores.
The forty-five second language writers were students in the first semester composition course
(ESOL 3111) at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). Most of these students had passed
previous ESOL courses before entering ESOL 3111. Approximately twenty percent had been
placed directly into ESOL 3111 on the basis of their scores on the Secondary Level English
Proficiency (SLEP) test and an in-house writing test.

In both institutions, ESOL 3111 or ENGL 3111 is required for all degree plans as part of the
general education requirements mandated by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
Although both institutions teach ESOL and ENGL composition courses, El Paso Community
College did not teach ESOL 3111 with computers and the University of Texas at El Paso did not
teach ENGL 3111 with computers. To compare language groups, it was thus necessary to select
students from both institutions.

At both institutions, students are able to select the section of the course at registration, and
sections are designated as computer or non-computer sections. Therefore, the control and
experimental samples are self-selected to a certain extent, which may affect subjects" responses
to the questionnaires. Students who preferred or were willing to use computers may have
different levels of apprehension than students who preferred not to use them. However, some
students select sections because of the time they are offered, not because of computer
requirements.

Materials
The study used the Daly-Miller WAT as modified by Gungle and Taylor (1989) for ESL writers
and Rose's WAQ. The items in each questionnaire were randomized and administered as a paper-
and-pencil test.

Procedure
At both institutions, one section in which writing was taught using computers was selected as the
experimental group. Another section, taught by the same instructor with the same syllabus but
without the computer, was selected as the control group. The texts used were Reading Critically,
Writing Well: A Reader and Guide (Axelrod & Cooper, 1987) at EPCC and Academic Writing:
Techniques and Tasks (Leki, 1989) at UTEP.

At EPCC, students were required to write six papers during the semester. In the first week, the
instructor provided an orientation to the computer lab and the writing software (WRITER'S
WORKBENCH). Students were then required to go through an on-line tutorial. Classes were not
conducted in the lab; students prepared drafts at home, then entered them into the computer and
revised them outside of class. Students received comments from the instructor and from peers;
WRITER'S WORKBENCH was used to provide analyses of the draft and the final version.

At UTEP, the ESL students were also required to write six papers during the semester. In the
second week of classes, the instructor provided an orientation to the computer lab and the
software (WORDPERFECT 5.0 and WRITER'S HELPER STAGE II). The on-line tutorial for
WORDPERFECT was available to students but was not required. In the computer section, classes
were held in the lab one to two times per week. Students often prepared drafts at home, entered
them into the computer, and revised them on the computer in class; they also used the computers
outside of class. Students received evaluation and comments from the instructor and their peers;
some students used the revision routines of WRITER'S HELPER.

All sections were given the Daly-Miller WAT as revised by Gungle and Taylor (1989) and the
Rose WAQ at the beginning of the semester and again at the end of the semester fifteen weeks
later. Only students who completed both pre- and post-test questionnaires were included in the
study. There were nineteen subjects in the English control group and sixteen in the English
experimental group who took the Daly-Miller WAT. Sixteen subjects in the control group and
fifteen in the experimental completed the Rose WAQ. There were twenty-two students in both
the ESL control and experimental groups who took the WAT. Twenty subjects in the ESL
control group and twenty-five in the ESL experimental group took the WAQ.

Hypotheses
Based on an earlier study (Phinney, 1991) it was hypothesized that students using the computer
would show a greater reduction in the various subscales of the Rose WAQ and on the Daly-
Miller WAT compared with the students writing by hand. It was also hypothesized that the
second language writers would show greater reduction on those areas of the WAQ that are
related to attitude and apprehension ("Attitude" and "Blocking"), because those areas are more
likely to be affected by linguistic factors than Lateness and Complexity.

Results

Writing Apprehension Test

The WAT scores were analyzed using a repeated-measures ANOVA with Language (English vs.
ESL) and Treatment (computer vs. pen and paper) as the between-subjects factors and WAT pre-
and post-test scores as the within subjects factor, Time. The results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
WAT Pre- and Post-test Analysis of Variance

Source SS df MS F p
Between Groups
Language 2431.938 1 2431.938 4.030 .0457
Treatment 5001.516 1 5001.516 8.287 .0054
Lang ×
Treat 589.310 1 589.310 0.976
Error 45265.000 5 603.533
Within Groups
Time 1314.743 1 1314.743 10.980 .0018
Lang ×
Time 868.154 1 868.154 7.250 .0087
Treat ×
Time 120.501 1 120.501 1.006 .3202
Lang ×
Treat × 27.831 1 27.831 0.232
 Time
Error 8980.367 75 119.738

One interaction was significant at the 0.01 level, Language × Time (F(1,75) = 7.25). This
interaction is shown in Figure 1. The Treatment factor was also significant at the 0.01 level
(F(1,75) = 8.287), but did not enter into a significant interaction.

Figure 1 shows that although the ESL students began with more apprehension as measured by
the WAT (M = 93.27), their apprehension did not change significantly by the end of the semester
(M = 94.36). However, the native English writers showed increased apprehension at the end (M
= 91.94), even though they began with slightly less apprehension than the ESL writers (M =
81.17).

Figure 1. Writing Apprehension Test.

(Language × Time Interaction)

The control groups showed a higher mean WAT score (95.68) than the experimental groups
(85.19) across both time and language. In fact, in both language groups, the experimental groups
had lower WAT scores than the control groups in both the pre- and post-test. This may be a
result of the self-selection problem as discussed above.

Writing Attitude Questionnaire

For each subscale on the WAQ, the responses were summed and the mean calculated to produce
five scores for each subject for each administration of the questionnaire. These mean scores were
analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA with language (English vs. ESL) and treatment
(computer vs. pen and paper) as the between-subjects factors and time (pre-/post-test) and
apprehension subscale as the within-subjects factors. In that analysis, only apprehension was
significant (F(4,288) = 10.024, p < 0.001). Because language was not a significant factor and did
not enter into a significant interaction, the analysis was repeated for each language group.
For the native English writers, apprehension was the only significant factor (F(4,116) = 5.505, p
< 0.001). Neither treatment nor time entered into a significant interaction. The ANOVA results
are shown in Table 2; the results of the apprehension factor are graphed in Figure 2.

Table 2
WAQ Analysis of Variance -- English

Source SS df MS F p
Between Groups
Treatment 0.191 1 0.191 .058
Error 95.951 29 3.308
Within Groups
Time 1.864 1 1.8644 1.751 .1935
Treat × Time 0.252 1 0.252 0.237
Error 30.871 29 1.065
Apprehension 15.448 4 3.862 5.505 .0007
Treat × Appr. 2.568 4 .642 0.915
Error 81.372 116 0.702
Time × Appr. 1.931 4 0.483 1.179 .3235
Treat × Time
× Appr. 1.333 4 0.333 0.814
Error 47.490 116 0.409

Figure 2.WAQ Subscales (Native English Writers)

When only the apprehension subscales are considered, a Tukey post-hoc test for significance
showed that "lateness" (M = 2.121) was significantly lower than "Editing"(M = 2.746), Attitude
(M = 2.661), and Complexity (M = 2.688) at the 0.01 level (crit. diff. = .386). The difference
between Lateness and Blocking (M = 2.571) was significant at the 0.05 level (crit. diff. = 0.468).
In other words, the English writers showed the least apprehension about Lateness; the other
scales were not different from each other.
In the ESL group, the three-way interaction among treatment × time × apprehension was
significant at the 0.01 level (F(4,172) = 3.606, and apprehension was also significant (F(4, 172)
= 4.445, p < 0.01). The results of the ANOVA are shown in Table 3.

Table 3
WAQ Analysis of Variance -- ESL

Source SS df MS F p
Between Groups
Treatment 0.026 1 0.026 0.013
Error 84.161 43 1.957
Within Groups
Time 1.142 1 1.142 0.953
Treat × Time 1.614 1 1.614 1.348 .2509
Error 51.513 43 1.198
Apprehension 8.562 4 2.141 4.445 .0023
Treat × Appr. 2.604 40 .651 1.352 .2519
Error 82.832 172 0.482
Time × Appr. 1.015 4 0.254 0.948
Treat × Time
× Appr. 3.860 4 0.965 3.606 .0078
Error 46.029 172 0.268

Figure 3. WAQ Treat × Time × Block Interaction (ESL Writers).

(Language × Time Interaction)

The three-way interaction is graphed in Figure 3. Tukey post-hoc tests indicate that the control
group showed a significant increase in scores on the "attitude" and "lateness" subscales (crit. diff.
= .13, p < 0.01). They also showed a significant decrease in scores on the "complexity" and
"editing" subscales (crit. diff. = 0.13, p < 0.01). The experimental group showed a significant
decrease on "attitude" (crit. diff. = 0.119, p < 0.05), "complexity," "lateness," and "blocking"
(crit. diff. = 0.13, p < 0.01), but not on editing.

Discussion

The two questionnaires, although superficially similar, have been analyzed differently to provide
two views on changes in student apprehension and behavior when using a computer. The first
questionnaire, the Daly-Miller WAT, gives a single index of writing apprehension. The WAT
scores indicated that the experimental groups tended to have less apprehension than the control
groups, although the effect was not significant. The significant effect, the interaction between
language × time interaction, indicated that the first language writers increased in apprehension
between the beginning and end of the semester while the ESL writers showed no change. It may
be that ESL writers generally are so apprehensive about their writing that they have already
reached their ceiling on the WAT. If the questionnaire is a valid measure of writing apprehension
for both ESL and native English writers, it appears that computer use alone does not reduce
overall apprehension for either first language or second language writers.

The WAQ, rather than measuring apprehension, may be taken as a measure of different attitudes
and behaviors that may lead to writer's block. Phinney (1991), using the same questionnaire,
indicated that using a computer to write did reduce blocking behavior for ESL students on all the
subscales except "editing." That result is replicated here, despite the smaller sample size. The
control group in this study also showed decreases in "complexity" and "editing." This may
indicate that the ability to deal with complex material may improve with writing experience,
regardless of the tools used.

It is worth noting, however, that apprehension about "editing", an area in which computers are
supposed to be beneficial, decreases in the control group but not the experimental group. This
result was also found by Phinney (1991). Because editing on a computer is so easy, it may
actually increase premature editing rather than decrease it.

For the first language writers, using the computer did not seem to affect blocking behavior as
measured by the WAQ. Although they did show differences in the blocking subscales, which is
only to be expected, their scores did not change significantly in the post-test, nor were there any
significant differences due to treatment.

These results suggest that the second language writers benefitted from using computers to write
more than first language writers, at least in their attitudes as measured by the WAQ. However,
computer use for this population did not reduce overall apprehension as measured by the Daly-
Miller WAT.

One possible source of variance in this study is the unavoidable differences between institutional
population and teaching methods. Because neither institution offers both ESL and English
computer-assisted composition courses, the comparison between languages could only be made
by sampling from both programs. Although many students transfer between EPCC and UTEP,
the composition programs and the student populations are not identical. Secondly, the lab
configurations and the instructors' orientations are different. The native English writers at EPCC
did not attend class in the lab; the ESL students at UTEP did. It is possible that the ESL students
spent more time actually writing on the computers and, therefore, show greater changes in their
behavior. The hardware and software used may also be a factor; discussions with the instructors
indicated that the EPCC students used the style-checking routines of WRITER'S WORKBENCH
more than the UTEP students used the corresponding routines in WRITER'S HELPER.

This study also suffers from the limitations of any self-reporting questionnaire. We are not
dealing with observed behaviors. Because students are asked to recall what they did "when they
wrote their last paper," the data are only as reliable as individuals' memories; students" responses
may also be colored by their expectations about the questionnaire and the class itself. Secondly,
language is also a factor. The ESL students were responding to questionnaires written in their
second language; the English students had the first language advantage.

Finally, questionnaires like the WAT and the WAQ can give measures for groups of students,
but they are less reliable for identifying individual reactions and behaviors. Students vary
considerably in the way they approach the writing process and in the way they integrate their
strategies with the tools they use. Continued research on the way first language and second
language writers handle writing apprehension and use computers to write should focus on the
individual as well as groups of writers, using multiple observation methods to confirm changes
in attitude and apprehension levels.

The results of this study underscore the need for further examination of the long-term effects of
writing with a computer and the interaction of experience, language background, and attitudes
toward writing. With computers now an indispensable tool in many first and second language
writing classrooms, research on the ways students adapt their writing strategies to these new
tools can help us in focusing our teaching as well.

Marianne Phinney teaches at the University of Texas at El Paso.

Notes
[Note: Callouts for these endnotes do not appear in text in original.]

1. I would like to express my appreciation to Prof. Rebecca Moore at El Paso Community

College and to Profs. Lynn Spencer and Sandra Khouri at the University of Texas at El
Paso for their assistance in collecting the data for this study.
2. The University of Texas at El Paso has since scheduled some ENGL 3111 classes in the
Liberal Arts Computer Lab.
3. At the time of the study, the El Paso Community College lab consisted of ten AT&T
computers with the UNIX operating system.
4. The University of Texas at El Paso lab consists of fifty-two IBM PC computers with MS
DOS 3.3 Software and printers are accessed through a limited local area network.
5. Although WAQ has beeen validated in Spanish (Betancourt and Phinney 1988), the WAT
has not, to my knowledge.

References
Axelrod, R. B. & Cooper, C. R. (1987) Reading critically, writing well: A reader and guide.
New York: St. Martin's.

Benesch, S. (1987). Word processing in English as a second language: A case study of three
nonnative college students. Paper presented at Conference on College Composition and
Communication, Atlanta, GA.

Bennett, K., & Rhodes, S. C. (1988). Writing apprehension and writing intensity in business and
industry. Journal of Business Communication, 25(1), 25-39.

Betancourt, F. & Phinney, M. (1988). Sources of writing block in bilingual writers. Written
Communication, 5(4), 461-478.

Blanton, L. L. (1987). Reshaping ESL students' perceptions of writing. ELT Journal, 41, 112-
118.

Boice, R. (1985). Cognitive components of blocking. Written Communication, 2(1), 91-104.

Daiute, C. (1985). Writing and computers. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.

Daiute, C. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies with
computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 141-159.

Dalton, D. W. & Hannafin, M. J. (1987). The effects of word processing on written composition.
Journal of Educational Research, 80, 338-342.

Daly, J. A. (1977). The effects of writing apprehension in message encoding. Journalism

Quarterly, 54, 566-572.

Daly, J. A. (1978). Writing apprehension and writing competency. Journal of Educational

Research, 72, 10-14.

Daly, J. A. (1979). Writing apprehension in the classroom: Teacher role expectancies of the
apprehensive writer. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 37-45.

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.

Daly, J. A. & Miller, M. D. (1975b). Further studies on writing apprehension: SAT scores,
success expectation, willingness to take advanced courses, and sex differences. Research in the
Teaching of English, 9, 250-260.

Gungle, B W. and Taylor, V. (1989). Writing apprehension and second language writers. In D.
M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 235-248).
New York: Longman.
Hawisher, G. E. (1987). The effects of word processing on the revision strategies of college
freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 145-159.

Hawisher, G. E. (1989). Research and recommendations for computers and composition. In G. E.

Hawisher and C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Critical perspectives on computers and composition instruction,
pp. 44-69. New York: Teacher's College Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York:
Pergamon.

Leki, I. (1989). Academic writing: Techniques and tasks. New York: St. Martin's.

Neu, J. & Scarcella, R. (1991). Word processing in the ESL writing classroom: A survey of
student attitudes. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research
issues and practice (pp. 169-187). New York: Newbury House.

Phinney, M. (1988). Computers, composition and second language learning. In M. C.

Pennington, (Ed.), Teaching languages with computers: The state of the art (pp. 81-96). San
Francisco: Athelstan.

Phinney, M. (1991). Computer-assisted writing and writing apprehension in ESL students. In P.

Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice
(pp. 189-204). New York: Newbury House.

Phinney, M. & Mathis, C. (1990). ESL student responses to writing with computers. TESOL
Newsletter, 24(2), 30-31.

Piper, A. (1987). Helping learners to write: A role for the word processor. ELT Journal, 41, 119-
125.

Rose, M. (1984). Writer's block: The cognitive dimension. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.

Appendix A
(ESL) Writing Apprehension Test
Daly-Miller WAT adapted by Gungle and Taylor (1989)

Directions: Below is a series of statements about writing (in English). Please indicate the degree
to which each statement applies to you by circling whether you (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3)
agree somewhat, (4) disagree somewhat, (5) disagree, (6) strongly disagree with the statement.
Some of these statements may seem repetitious; just take your time and try to be as honest as
possible. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

1. I avoid writing (in English).

2. I have no fear of my (English) writing being evaluated.
3. I look forward to writing down my ideas (in English).
 4. I am afraid of writing essays (in English) when I know they will be evaluated.
5. Taking a(n English) composition class is a very frightening experience.
6. Handing in a composition (written in English) makes me feel good.
7. My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on a composition (in English).
8. Expressing ideas through writing (in English) seems to be a waste of time.
9. I would enjoy sending my (English) writing to magazines to be evaluated and published.
10. I like to write my ideas down (in English).
11. I feel confident in my ability to clearly express my ideas in (when) writing (in English).
12. I like to have my friends read what I have written (in English).
13. I'm nervous about writing (in English).
14. People seem to enjoy what I write (in English).
15. I enjoy writing (in English).
16. I never seem to be able to clearly write down my ideas (in English).
17. Writing (in English) is a lot of fun.
18. I expect to do poorly in (English) composition classes even before I enter them.
19. I like seeing my thoughts on paper (in English).
20. Discussing my (English) writing with others is an enjoyable experience.
21. I have a terrible time organizing my ideas in a(n English) composition course.
22. When I hand in a(n English) composition I know I'm going to do poorly.
23. It's easy for me to write good compositions (in English).
24. I don't think I write as well (in English) as most people.
25. I don't like my (English) compositions to be evaluated.
26. I'm no good at writing (in English).

Appendix B
Writing Attitude Questionnaire
(from Rose (1984))

Directions: Below are twenty-four statements about what people do or how they feel when they
write. Under each is a five-point scale describing degrees of agreement or disagreement with the
statements. Please circle the number that best describes your agreement or disagreement with
your own writing behavior.

For example, if the statement reads "I write standing up, like Hemingway." and you rarely or
never write standing up, you should respond in the following way (your answer would be "5"):

1 - Almost Always
2 - Often
3 - Sometimes
4 - Occasionally
5 - Almost Never
This questionnaire requires that you reflect on your writing behavior in English. Some items will
be easy to answer, but others might be a little difficult because you'll have to analyze what you
habitually do. Try to recall exactly what you did when you wrote a recent paper, so that you can
report what you really do, not what you wish you could do.
Obviously, you will not be graded on your answers on this questionnaire. Therefore, you can feel
free to report candidly what you do and feel when you write. Again, don't report what you would
like to do and feel but what you actually do and feel. As you work through the questionnaire, you
might realize that an earlier response wasn't right. If that happens, it is OK to go back and change
your answer to make your response more accurate.

Attitude

1. My teachers are familiar with so much good writing that my writing must look bad by
comparison.
2. I've seen really good writing, but my writing doesn't match up to it.
3. I think my writing is good.
4. I think of my instructors as reacting positively to my writing.
5. Writing is a very unpleasant experience for me.
6. I enjoy writing, though writing is difficult at times.
7. I like having the opportunity to express my ideas in writing.

Complexity

1. I'm not sure, at times, of how to organize all the information I have collected for a paper.
2. Writing on topics that can have different focuses is difficult for me.
3. I have trouble deciding how to write on issues that have many interpretations.
4. To write essays on books and articles that are very complex is difficult for me.
5. I have trouble with assignments that ask me to compare or contrast or to analyze.

Lateness

1. I run over deadlines because I get stuck while trying to write my paper.
2. I have to hand in assignments late because I can't get the words on paper.

Editing

1. Each sentence I write has to be just right before I'll go on to the next.
2. When I write, I'll wait until I've found just the right phrase.
3. I find myself writing a sentence, then erasing it, trying another sentence, then scratching
it out. I might do this for some time.
4. My first paragraph has to be perfect before I'll go on.

Blocking

1. While writing a paper, I'll hit places that keep me stuck for an hour or more.
2. At times, I find it hard to write what I mean.
3. At times, my first paragraph takes me over two hours to write.
4. Starting a paper is very hard for me.
5. At times, I sit for hours unable to write a thing.
6. Some people experience periods when, no matter how hard they try, they can produce
little, if any, writing. When these periods last for a considerable amount of time, we say
the person has a writing block. Estimate how often you experience writer's block.