Predictors of success in writing in English as a foreign language: reading, revision behavior, apprehension, and writing

College Student Journal, Dec, 2002 by Sy-Ying Lee, Stephen Krashen

Our data does not allow any firm conclusions about writing frequency. Our suspicion, however, is that writing itself can make strong contributions to cognitive development when writers are dealing with problems that are challenging and of real interest to them.

These conclusions, however, are tentative. They await confirmation from controlled studies and from the reports of experienced practitioners.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics

                                            Mean   Std. Deviation

GRADE                                       81.6   5.67
WRITING                                     0.09   0.3
READING                                     0.42   0.5
GRAM                                        0.72   0.46
WORD                                        0.38   0.49
ORG                                         0.51   0.51
CON                                         0.25   0.43
WA         (maximum possible score = 130)   70.1   13.2

Table 2
Intercorrelations

TABLE 2 Intercorrelations

          WRITE   WA      GRAM      WORD

FVR       0.12    -0.21   -0.07     -0.18
WRITE             -0.13    0.06     -0.12
WA                          .26 *    0.15
GRAM                                 0.06
WORD
ORG
CONTENT

          ORG       CONTENT   GRADE

FVR        0.21      0.32       .38 *
WRITE     -0.07     -0.03     -0.1
WA        -0.07     -0.17      -.51 *
GRAM       -.33 *    -.23 *    -.31 *
WORD      -0.33       .44 *   -0.22
ORG                  0.12       .33 *
CONTENT                        .33 *

Table 3

Multiple regression #1

Dependent variable = grade

predictor   b        beta      t       p

FVR          2.93     0.257    2.14   0.038
WRITE       -3.34    -0.174   -1.53   0.134
GRAM        -1.8     -0.144   -1.22   0.228
CONTENT      1.87     0.143    1.18   0.243
WA          -0.178   -0.414   -3.47   0.001

Table 4

Multiple regression #2

Dependent variable = grade

predictor     b      beta     t       p

FVR         2.91     0.255    2.22    0.031
WRITE       -3.18    -0.165   -1.48   0.145
GRAM        -1.65    -0.132   -1.15   0.257
ORG         2.38     0.211    1.85    0.07
WA          -0.182   -0.426   -3.66   0.001

r2 = .44; F = 7.40, p = .000

Note

Lee and Krashen (1997) hypothesized that a poor composing process is a cause of writing apprehension. Selfe, however, argues that Bev's fear of writing influenced her composing process. Put simply, her lack of planning and revision was because she wanted to spend as little time writing as possible: "When Bev began to compose in response to the assignment, her initial apprehension encouraged her to abbreviate her composing efforts, to write quickly, and to `get it over with' as soon as possible" (p. 86); her failure to do extensive revision was motivated by her desire to avoid "prolonged involvement" with the writing task. The relationship between writing apprehension and the composing process may be reciprocal.

References

Arnold, L. (1964). Writer's cramp and eyestrain--are they paying off? English Journal, 53, 10-15.