The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning
Volume 10 | Issue 2 Article 8

Summer 8-31-2019

An Exploration of Writing Self-Efficacy and

Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours in
Undergraduate Writing
Kim M. Mitchell
Red River College, [email protected]
Diana E. McMillan
University of Manitoba, [email protected]
Rasheda Rabbani
University of Manitoba, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://www.cjsotl-rcacea.ca

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.2.8175

Recommended Citation
Mitchell, K. M., McMillan, D. E., & Rabbani, R. (2019). An exploration of writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulatory behaviours in
undergraduate writing. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-
rcacea.2019.2.8175
An Exploration of Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-
Regulatory Behaviours in Undergraduate Writing
Abstract
Students will take independent action to improve their writing when they believe those actions will
have a positive effect. The data presented focuses on the self-regulatory writing behaviours of nursing
students in their third year. The purpose was to explore patterns of writing self-efficacy, anxiety levels,
and student grade point average (GPA) in relation to student choices with help seeking, advanced
planning of writing, revision habits, and response to feedback. Low writing self-efficacy, high anxiety
students sought help from more sources, reported their feedback made them feel negative about their
capabilities as writers, and were less likely to report reading and applying feedback to future writing
efforts. No patterns of writing self-efficacy or anxiety levels emerged with respect to student revision
habits or their choice to begin their assignments in advance of the due date. GPA was also not
associated with the writing self-regulatory choices assessed. As the primary writing support for
students in the later years of a nursing program, educators should consider interventions that
encourage help seeking, facilitate students’ understanding and integration of the feedback they receive
into their assignment revisions, and normalize the negative emotions that interfere with the self-
efficacy levels required to write well.

Les étudiants vont prendre des mesures indépendantes afin d’améliorer leur écriture quand ils
pensent que ces mesures vont avoir des résultats positifs. Les données présentées se concentrent sur
les comportements d’auto-régulation d’étudiants de troisième année en sciences infirmières. L’objectif
était d’explorer les tendances de l’auto-efficacité de l’écriture, les niveaux d’anxiété et la moyenne
générale des étudiants par rapport aux choix des étudiants pour chercher à se faire aider, planifier
l’écriture à l’avance, leurs habitudes de révision et la réponse au feedback. Les étudiants ayant une
mauvaise auto-efficacité de l’écriture et qui étaient anxieux ont cherché à se faire aider auprès de
davantage de sources, ils ont rapporté que leur feedback leur avait donné un sentiment négatif
concernant leurs capacités en tant que rédacteurs et ils avaient moins tendance à rapporter leurs
lectures et à appliquer le feedback reçu à leurs efforts futurs en rédaction. Aucune tendance d’auto-
efficacité de l’écriture ou de niveaux d’anxiété ne sont apparus en ce qui concerne les habitudes de
révision des étudiants ou leurs choix pour commencer leurs travaux à l’avance par rapport à la date
où ceux-ci devaient être remis. La moyenne générale n’était également pas liée aux choix évalués
d’auto-efficacité de l’écriture. En tant que soutien de rédaction principal des étudiants au cours des
dernières années du programme de soins infirmiers, les éducateurs devraient envisager des
interventions qui encouragent les étudiants à chercher de l’aide, à faciliter leur compréhension et
l’intégration du feedback qu’ils reçoivent dans les révisions de leurs travaux, et à normaliser les
émotions négatives qui perturbent les niveaux d’auto-efficacité indispensables pour bien écrire.

Keywords
writing self-efficacy, self-regulation, help seeking, revision, feedback, post-secondary students; auto-
efficacité de l’écriture, auto-régulation, demander de l’aide, feedback, étudiants de niveau post-
secondaire

Cover Page Footnote

This study was funded by the Red River College Program Innovation Fund Award 240-17001-06.

This research paper/rapport de recherche is available in The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning:
https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.2.8175
 Mitchell et al.: Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours

Writing an effective product requires successful decision making, problem-solving, and

considerable reflection upon one’s own writing capacity. These requirements for successful
writing have the power to move us forward or paralyze us from progressing. The actions our
students take at the point of feeling uncertain or stuck in the midst of their writing process may be
characteristics that distinguish high and low self-efficacy writers. Writing self-efficacy is defined
as self-assessed ability to successfully implement writing in a specific context. Albert Bandura’s
(1997) theoretical discussions of self-efficacy have stood the test of time and continue to play a
role in educational research as a motivational concept which drives human agency. Traditionally,
writing theorists identified that the writing process constitutes three recursive phases: planning or
preparation to write, translating or the act of composing, and reviewing or revising (Flower &
Hayes, 1977, 1981). The success of each of these phases is dependent on a writer’s personal agency
or ability to make appropriate choices to take specific actions intended to improve a writing
product, all while facing competing distractions, anxiety, and emotional fluctuations.
More recent theoretical discussions of writing recognize that writing is a more complex
social process which is disciplinary, contextually driven, and highly influenced by institutional
and classroom conditions and belief systems about writing. Writing self-efficacy levels will also
be influenced by these social conditions (Mitchell, 2018). Social research on writing and cognitive
perspectives need not be mutually exclusive (Perry, 2012), and the social turn in writing theory
should not negate the importance of social cognitive research on writing. While constructionist
and sociocultural perspectives on writing have dominated the theoretical literature, there is
apparent value in cognitive perspectives for the pragmatic approach they provide to pedagogy and
student agency through instructional support.
Interventions aimed at helping students write may target writing behaviours such as help
seeking, getting an early start with an assignment through advance planning activities, revision
habits, and response to feedback; all actions broadly categorized as self-regulatory in nature.
Bandura (1991) connected self-regulation to self-efficacy theory with his seminal paper. Self-
regulation can be defined as the cognitive act of self-monitoring one’s behaviour and its effects in
relation to personal standards and the environmental context (Bandura, 1991). A reciprocal
relationship exists between a student’s writing self-regulatory behaviours and writing self-efficacy
which impacts thought, affect, motivation, and actions (Bandura, 1991; Zimmerman & Bandura,
1994). Pajares and Valiante (2006) refer to self-efficacy and self-regulation as “kissing cousins”
(p. 167). The reciprocal relationship between the two concepts reflects how they mutually
influence each other. The presence of writing self-efficacy can increase student agency leading
them to make self-regulatory choices. Acting on self-regulatory choices can influence self-efficacy
levels. The catalyst between the two processes is the supportive nature of the social environment
in which students are asked to write.
In contexts, such as being asked to complete a writing assignment, self-regulation is
enacted via a process of forethought and goal setting which guides action to ensure the writing
task is completed and completed in a manner that is acceptable to the writer (Bandura, 1991). In
simplest terms, people pursue actions to develop capacity in a task such as writing, only if those
actions are known or suspected to produce positive self-reactions. That motivator behind choosing
to take action to improve writing ability may be internal (pride in their work) or external (for a
specific grade). Motivational constructs of human agency, such as self-efficacy, are enhanced by
the belief that a person has the power to effect positive change through their own actions (Bandura,
2006). Those positive self-reactions increase self-efficacy, decrease writing anxiety, and help
students develop an enduring interest in writing. Writing self-efficacy, in turn, may keep students

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2019 1

 The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 8

writing over the long term which is the most powerful factor in improving writing outcomes
(Mitchell, Harrigan, & McMillan, 2017).
When students are asked to write an academic paper as part of their coursework, in a
writing scaffold environment, supports are put in place within that course’s content and structure
that help students solve problems and progress towards assignment completion (McMillan et al.,
2007; Mitchell, Harrigan, Stefansson, & Setlack, 2017). However, in many circumstances,
students are left to make choices within their writing process beyond those built into course
pedagogy. Those choices may include: when, how often, and from whom they seek help during
the writing process; if they start an assignment well in advance with forethought and planning or
wait to complete it at the last minute; if they revise their written work or hand in a raw unfinished
draft; and if, when they get feedback, they read, understand, reflect, and apply that feedback to
future writing.
While self-regulatory choices have an influence on self-efficacy according to Bandura’s
(1997) theory, only scant research has been done to connect these writing behaviours to self-
efficacy levels (e.g., Ekholm, Zumbrunn & Conklin, 2015; Mitchell, Harrigan, Stefansson et al.,
2017; Williams & Takaku, 2011). By knowing which writing behaviours are associated with high
and low self-efficacy and anxiety levels, educators will be able to identify interventions to improve
these emotional and motivational constructs in students who doubt their ability to write. The
purpose of this study was to explore patterns of writing self-efficacy, anxiety levels, and student
grade point average (GPA), both over time and within relation to student self-reported choices in
help seeking behaviours, advanced planning of writing prior to the due date, revision habits, and
response to feedback.

Review of the Literature

Research measuring writing self-efficacy and anxiety with respect to student choices in
help seeking, advanced planning, revision habits, and feedback response is limited; however, it
does provide some insights into the theoretical relationship between writing self-efficacy and self-
regulatory behaviours.

Help Seeking

Help seeking, or the act of seeking feedback when problems arise or when confirmation of
choice of approach is required in the writing process, is one example of a self-regulatory behaviour.
Having a degree of self-regulation and academic motivation should inspire students to seek help
when needed and that help seeking should then inspire revisions to their writing (Feltham & Sharen,
2015; Pajares & Valiante, 2006). Jones (2008) has noted that failure to seek help with writing is a
marker of low writing self-efficacy students. Karabenick (2004) observed help seeking choices are
often contextually influenced. Perceived receptiveness of the person the student wishes to seek
help from (instructor or peer) along with the student’s goal orientation as either mastery oriented
(learning) or performance oriented (e.g., for social status or grades) have combined influences on
choices to seek help. There are conflicting findings in the research regarding the empirical
relationship between help seeking and writing self-efficacy. Mitchell Harrigan, Stefansson, et al.
(2017) found no differences in writing self-efficacy between students who reported seeking help,
with help seeking defined as contact with an instructor, and those who did not, while Williams and
Takaku (2011), who defined help seeking as writing centre use, found that it was the low self-

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8175 2
 Mitchell et al.: Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours

efficacy students who made the most visits. However, more research is required to clarify this
contradiction in findings.

Planning Writing in Advance of a Due Date

Writing a major academic paper often requires advanced preparation before a single word
is written. Generating ideas, researching, reading, developing an outline, forming personal goals
for writing, and taking time to think and reflect are all a part of the planning stage of writing
(Flower & Hayes, 1981). Little research exists exploring the relationship between starting to work
on an assignment in advance of a due date and writing self-efficacy levels. Jones (2008) states
procrastination is a habit of students who have poor self-regulation and low self-efficacy. In
contrast, Mitchell, Harrigan, Stefansson, et al. (2017) found that it was the students with the highest
self-efficacy and highest grade who were more likely to report having completed their papers last
minute in an introductory discipline-specific writing course in nursing. The authors suspected these
strong students perhaps did not consider planning activities such as reading or lying in bed
ruminating as acts that were a part of the planning and preparation process. Narrowly defining
what it means to start a writing assignment may have contributed to their self-reports of writing at
the last minute. This observation raises the question whether all forms of writing procrastination
are created equal and may be evidence that beginning academic writers need to be taught that
“starting my paper” means more than typing words. Student’s may report starting a writing
assignment last minute because they narrowly define beginning their assignment as “composing
words.” Not all last minute writing originates from a place of writing paralysis or disorganized
planning. Thus, further exploration is required to assess if writing self-efficacy levels influence
when a student begins writing an assignment in relation to its due date.

Revision Habits

Revision is, by consensus, important to good writing and good writers will revise their
written work at all stages of the process. Flower and Hayes (1977, 1981) define revision as a
process that can occur in an ongoing fashion during the composing process or can be completed at
the end of a draft during the re-read process. Theories of self-efficacy suggest three contributing
factors that make students reluctant to revise their written work: holding a perspective that their
writing will be inadequate regardless of effort; viewing requests for changes in their work as a
threat to their identity; and perceiving their writing ability as a fixed skill (Feltham & Sharen,
2015). Others suggest that students are more likely to use revision to correct mechanical errors
rather than improve the clarity of their meaning and content, the latter of which is how educators
visualize revising (Wiltse, 2002). No previous research was identified connecting revision habits
to writing self-efficacy levels.

Feedback Response

Most of the literature exploring self-regulatory response to writing is focused on student

response to feedback. Exploring feedback in relation to writing self-efficacy is appropriate as the
component of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory describing social persuasion suggests that feedback
from significant others informs an individual’s self-beliefs (Bandura, 1997). Evans (2013)
conducted a review of articles published between 2000 and 2012 exploring assessment feedback

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2019 3

 The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 8

in higher education and included 460 articles analyzing the topic. Feedback is viewed in these
articles as either an integral part of learning or a consequence of performance. There are numerous
mechanisms for providing written responses to student writing. The most commonly performed
are transmissive in execution – written summaries or annotations in margins with no opportunity
for student response – are the least effective. These annotations can be handwritten or use “track
changes” in a word processing program. Providing feedback is time consuming for evaluators (Ball,
Franks, Jenkins, McGrath, & Leigh, 2009; Weaver, 2006; Wiltse, 2002) and emotional for both
students and educators (Ekhom et al., 2015). However, feedback can effectively improve student
writing when it is clear and understood by the student (Feltham & Sharen, 2015; Parboteeah &
Anwar, 2009; Riddell, 2015).
The feedback process often occurs with the student and teacher remote from each other.
Nevertheless, physical presence is not required for the feedback process to be considered a social
interaction with profound effects on the student-teacher relationship (Evans, 2013). Responding to
student writing is a complex process. Feedback provision is a genre of writing unto itself and is
subject to numerous disconnects as students and teachers are often using different discoursal
languages when writing or responding to feedback (Hodges, 1997). Educators write feedback
assuming students will follow that feedback in future writing assignments, but several
complications confound this process. First, students are often not in a place in their disciplines
where they share the same understanding of academic disciplinary discourse as their teachers
which contributes to a lack of understanding of the feedback they receive (Parboteeah & Anwar,
2009; Weaver, 2006). Second, when feedback focuses more on corrective processes rather than
substantive issues related to content or meaning, students will focus on the grammatical corrections
required, because they are easier to address, and ignore the more important corrections required
for improvements to logic or content (Bardine, 1999; Torres & Anguiano, 2016). Third, feedback,
even well intended feedback, can negatively influence a student’s writing identity. Students view
their assignments as extensions of themselves and feedback that demands a student take their
identity out of their writing will negatively affect a writer’s self-efficacy (Esambe, Mosito, &
Pather, 2016; Torres & Anguiano, 2016).
Several surveys have been undertaken to explore student response to receiving feedback.
Weaver (2006) found that 21-41% of the business and design students surveyed lacked confidence
in understanding the feedback they received. Their responses to questions such as, “Was feedback
written clearly, related to course outcomes, or assignment criteria?” was most often rated a luke-
warm “usually” or “sometimes.” Most students reported they were likely to act on feedback
suggestions (80-83%), while fewer admitted to ignoring negative or critical feedback (9-20%).
Moderately high percentages of students reported their feedback as simultaneously encouraging
(45-55%) or demoralizing (39-45%) indicating the emotional roller-coaster inherent in receiving
feedback on writing assignments. Similarly, Ball et al. (2009) reported students used their feedback
to inform their next assignment (82%) and that it improved future performance (72%). This sample
of nursing students reported that they could interpret their feedback (60%) and found it readable
(47%) and clear (62%).
With respect to writing self-efficacy two studies report findings connecting feedback
response to self-efficacy levels. Wiltse (2002), in a sample of media students, found writing
apprehension (a form of writing anxiety) predicted students’ use of their local or global feedback,
but writing-self-efficacy did not have any influence on feedback use. Ekholm et al. (2015) in a
sample of education and English students found writing self-efficacy and feedback perceptions
predicted aptitude for self-regulation and feedback partially mediated the relationship between

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8175 4
 Mitchell et al.: Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours

writing-self efficacy and self-regulation. One of the conclusions to Evans’s (2013) review was a
call for further research exploring the relationships between feedback provision, emotional
constructs, motivation, and the development of self-concept. Further exploration of the
relationship between feedback response and self-efficacy will contribute to our understanding of
how writing self-efficacy may contribute to a student’s likelihood to use the feedback provided to
them.

Method

The data presented in this study was collected during a follow-up survey of a group of
students who, when in first-year, participated in an exploration of writing self-efficacy in the
context of a discipline-specific writing course. The students in the follow-up were in their third
academic year even though some of them (34.7%) had not progressed to third-year courses. The
primary goal in revisiting these students two years after the original study was to seek
understanding of the longitudinal maintenance of writing self-efficacy within the context of an
entire nursing program. That exploration was published (Mitchell & McMillan, 2018). We
collected additional data in the follow-up survey to explore self-regulatory writing behaviours,
which were not assessed in the first-year study. This present study examines this new primary data
on self-regulatory behaviours and seeks to understand these behaviours in relation to the writing
self-efficacy and anxiety data collected in the follow-up study. The sample of students included
were registered in an accelerated nursing program with courses offered in three terms over an
academic year thus compressing a four-year program into three years. The students were surveyed
on two occasions, at the beginning (August 2015) and end (May 2016) of the 2015-2016 academic
year. In order to capture their time as nursing students beyond their first year, the survey asked
students to reflect on their writing experiences from the previous academic year.
The nursing program under study values the importance of writing as a learning strategy,
as a mode of connecting theory to practice, and as a professionalization strategy for the
advancement of the nursing profession. Students write at least one major academic paper a term
involving incorporation of peer reviewed sources. They also write in various other genres (e.g.,
reflective journals, annotated bibliographies, letters to various stakeholders, and shorter analysis
assignments). The institution under study does not have a writing centre. Individual nursing
instructors facilitate the writing assignments according to personal expectations, course objectives,
and preferences for writing conventions; however, writing tutor support is available from a student
support centre and is typically provided by non-nursing personnel. Class sizes are large in the
second- and third-years of the program (50-70 students), and most classes are team taught.
Including a peer review process to facilitate writing was not a pedagogical strategy used at the
time of this data collection in any of the courses requiring academic papers, although many
students informally used peer review on their own. Most courses with an academic paper
incorporate some scaffolded elements where students complete their preparation or the writing of
their paper in smaller segmented sections. Many instructors also instituted a requirement that
students meet with an instructor regarding some component of the research and writing process
(e.g., to discuss topic ideas or review research articles). This requirement was more common in
second-year courses versus third. For all assignments, instructional staff provide a grading rubric
prior to assignment completion.
Of the students from the original first-year cohort eligible for participation (Mitchell,
Harrigan, & McMillan, 2017), 79 students were surveyed in August with 49 returning completed

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2019 5

 The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 8

questionnaires (62.0% response rate). By May, five of the students who returned completed
questionnaires in August, had left the program, thus 44 surveys were distributed, and 32
questionnaires were returned (72.7% response rate).
Ethical approval was obtained for the follow-up survey from the Research Ethics Board at
the instructional institution. A student advisor not involved with the study assisted with identifying
eligible students via their student numbers collected in the first-year study. The questionnaires
were delivered to eligible students either by the first author (at their August orientation day) or by
a proxy instructor teaching a course in which a potential participant was registered. A letter was
included on the front of each survey explaining the study procedures and describing their informed
consent. A returned questionnaire was considered consent to participate. To maximize
participation, two email reminders were sent to students encouraging the return of the survey. No
stipend or grade bonus was offered to students for participating in the follow-up.

Measures

Self-Efficacy Scale for Academic Writing (SESAW). This scale was developed in a
nursing context (Mitchell, Harrigan, Stefansson, et al. 2017). The scale format is a 10-item 4-point
Likert. Scores can range from 4 to 40 with a higher score reflecting higher self-efficacy. The scale
has exhibited strong internal consistency reliabilities ranging from .82-.90. Concurrent validity
with the Post-Secondary Writerly Self-Efficacy Scale (Schmidt & Alexander, 2012) ranged
from .76-.81 (Mitchell & McMillan, 2018).
Post-Secondary Writerly Self-Efficacy Scale (PSWSES). The PSWSES is a 20-item
scale and was developed in a writing centre environment (Schmidt & Alexander, 2012). For use
in non-writing centre studies, the last item of the scale asking about use of tutors can be excluded.
This makes the PSWSES a 19-item instrument where participants are asked to rate their level of
agreement on a 0-100 scale. Cronbach’s alpha was found to be .93 on initial testing. In the current
study, Cronbach’s alpha was .95-.96 in both follow-up assessments.
Visual Analog Scale for Anxiety (VAS-Anxiety). Anxiety was assessed with the
following question, “When you think about having to write a scholarly paper in your classes in the
upcoming school year, how anxious does this make you feel?” This single-item assessment of
anxiety was presented to students with the anchors “not at all anxious” and “as anxious as I can
imagine” along a 100 mm line and is the same scale reported in Mitchell, Harrigan, Stefansson, et
al. (2017). A VAS was chosen to reduce response burden given the length of the questionnaires
assessing the primary variable of writing self-efficacy and the demographic and writing behaviours
questionnaire.
Grade Point Average (GPA). Student institution-wide GPAs were gathered from student
records. GPA reflects the student average grade in all courses attempted and completed in a
program of study. GPA scores could range from 0-4.5 with 0 reflecting a letter grade of F and 4.5
reflecting a letter grade of A+. Because only institution-wide GPA was available, students who
had attended the college in other programs, including nursing access programs, prior to nursing
admission would have that course work reflected in their institutional GPA. Students with grades
from other college programs represented 13/49 students in the August sample (26.5%).
Demographic and writing behaviours questionnaire. Demographic information for this
study was not collected again, thus demographic information, for students participating in the
follow-up, was extracted from the previous study done on the same cohort when they were in first-
year (Mitchell, Harrigan, & McMillan, 2017). Instead, a writing behaviours questionnaire was

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8175 6
 Mitchell et al.: Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours

included requesting students provide information about their writing help seeking behaviours, who
they sought help from (formal tutors, friends and family, fellow students), their contact with their
instructor, how far in advance of a due date they began writing their papers, their revision habits,
and their response to feedback provided about their writing such as their feelings about the
feedback they had received and if they read and understood that feedback. In answering these
questions, students were asked to reflect upon their previous academic year.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using the Statistical Program for the Social Sciences
(version 25). Descriptive statistics, McNemar’s Chi-square, mixed between-within groups analysis
of variance (ANOVA), and linear regression were the primary statistical procedures used to
explore mean levels of writing self-efficacy, anxiety, and GPA scores based on student self-
categorization within the self-regulatory behaviours of help seeking, advanced planning, revision
habits, and response to feedback.

Results

The demographic and writing behaviour characteristics of the sample (N = 49) are
presented in Table 1. Participants were primarily female (87.8%), under the age of 29 (65.3%),
raised speaking English (77.6%), and had entered the nursing program with some college or
university experience (65.3%). Mean sample scores in August (n = 49) were as follows: SESAW
(M = 29.97, SD = 4.26); PSWSES (M = 73.60, SD = 16.37); and Anxiety (M = 58.06, SD = 25.71).
Mean sample scores in May (n = 32) were as follows: SESAW (M = 31.69, SD = 4.01); PSWSES
(M = 74.25, SD = 16.84); and Anxiety (M = 42.47, SD = 31.84). Mean institutional GPA for the
sample (n = 49) was 3.41(SD = 0.49).

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2019 7

 The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 8

Table 1
Demographic and Writing Behaviour Characteristics of the Sample
August 2015 May 2016
N = 49 N = 32
n % n %
Age at Entrance to Nursing Program
<=24 17 34.7
25-29 15 30.6
30-34 10 20.4
35+ 7 14.2

Gender
Male 6 12.2
Female 43 87.8

English as Second Language

Yes 10 20.4
No 38 77.6
Missing 1 2.0

Prior Education
High School or equivalent 4 8.2
Some College/university 32 65.3
Previous diploma 10 20.4
Previous degree 3 6.1

Year in Program at Start of Follow-up

2 17 34.7
3 32 65.3

Sought Formal Tutor for Writing

Yes 6 12.2 2 6.3
No 43 87.8 30 93.8

Sought help from a friend/family (not a classmate)

Yes 24 49.0 13 40.6
No 25 51.0 19 59.4

Sought help from classmate or other nursing student

Yes 20 40.8 11 34.4
No 29 59.2 21 65.6

Contact with Instructor *

None 6 12.2 11 34.4
Brief Help 40 81.6 20 62.5
Lengthy Meeting 3 6.1 1 3.1

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8175 8
 Mitchell et al.: Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours

When do you start writing your papers?**

>One week before due date 37 75.5 12 37.5
Within last week before due date 9 18.4 15 46.9
Within 2 days of due date 3 6.1 4 12.5
12-24 hours prior to due date 0 1 3.1

Do you revise your paper?

Revise while writing, skim after 20 40.8 12 37.5
Rough draft, major edits multiple re-reads 29 59.2 19 59.4
No revisions, hand in as soon as done 0 1 3.1

How do you feel about the feedback you get on your writing?
Positive about writing capability 35 71.4 22 68.8
Negative about writing capability 14 28.6 9 28.1

Do you read your feedback when a paper is returned?

Never look at it 3 6.1 1 3.1
Look at grade and comments, don’t know what to do with it 14 28.6 8 25.0
Take feedback into consideration on future assignments 32 65.3 23 71.8
* McNemar-Bowker test X2 = 9(df = 2), p = .01; ** McNemar’s test on collapsed categories of > one week
and < one week p < 0.001

In most self-regulation assessments (help seeking, advanced planning, revision, feedback)

students reported very little change in behaviour from the first measure to the second measure
(Table 1). In terms of help seeking behaviours, seeking help from a friend or family member (40.6-
49.0%), or classmate (34.4-40.8%) was chosen more often than seeking help from formal tutors
(6.3-12.2%). Students often sought help from instructors but used this option less often the further
they were into their program (87.8% reported help seeking in August versus 65.63% in May, p
= .01).
Regarding feedback, many students reported not knowing what to do with the written
feedback on their papers (25-28.6%), but most students reported, at least, reading the feedback
they were given (93.9-96.8%), and about three quarters of the students reported feeling positive
about their writing after reading that feedback (68.8-71.4%).
When asked how far in advance of the due date they began writing their papers, very few
participants in this sample were last minute writers beginning their assignments within two days
before the due date (6.1% August; 15.6% May). Most students reported beginning writing a week
or greater in advance of the due date in August, but this behaviour had decreased by the May
reporting (75.5% August; 37.5% May, p < .001). Beginning to write with time prior to the due
date allowed them time to write rough drafts, edit, and re-read their papers multiple times (59.2-
59.4%). Re-reading a paper multiple times was the revision behaviour most often reported by this
group of students.

Writing Behaviours

A mixed between-within subjects ANOVA was conducted to assess the relationship

between the self-regulatory behaviour choices of students, indicated at the August data collection,
and writing self-efficacy (SESAW and PSWSES) and anxiety across the two time periods. The
results are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Missing data was imputed for the students who

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2019 9

 The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 8

completed the August but not the May survey. For the PSWSES and Anxiety measures, the August
score was carried forward as the May Score. For the SESAW, a mean score for all SESAW
responses given by an individual participant across the entire longitudinal study was used to
replace the missing responses at the May data collection. The number of sources a student sought
help from (formal tutoring, friends and family, or other nursing students) were counted and
recategorized as no help, help from one source, and help from two or more sources. Help from
instructors was excluded from these counts because, in some courses, a discussion with an
instructor was a required element of the assignment (especially in second-year courses) and not a
self-regulated choice of the student, hence why May reports of help seeking from instructors were
reported less often. Due to low numbers in some cells, the feedback read, advanced planning, and
revisions categories were collapsed into dichotomous categories as indicated in Table 2-4.
Most self-regulatory categories exhibited a significant main effect for time. SESAW scores
increased and anxiety score decreased between measurement points. The PSWSES scale did not
demonstrate a main effect for time in any category. Numerous significant relationships emerged
when exploring self-regulatory choices and their relationship to SESAW, PSWSES, and Anxiety
scores by main effect for group. SESAW scores were significantly higher in students who reported
reading and applying their feedback (p = .001), felt their feedback made them feel positive about
their capabilities as a writer (p < .001), and did not seek help from outside sources (p = .005).
PSWSES scores were significantly higher in students who reported reading and applying their
feedback (p = .003), felt their feedback made them feel positive about their capabilities as a writer
(p < .001), and did not seek help from outside sources compared to seeking help from just one
outside source (p = .02). Anxiety scores were significantly lower in students who reported reading
and applying their feedback (p = .025), felt their feedback made them feel positive about their
capabilities as a writer (p = .002), but had no discernable relationship based on number of sources
a student sought help from.
There were two discernable significant interaction effects for time and group (Table 5) in
students who reported reading and applying their feedback when compared to students who
reported not knowing what to do with their feedback (p = .004) and in students who did and not
feel positive about their writing after receiving feedback (p = .014). Students who reported reading
and applying their feedback (p < .001) or that their feedback made them feel positive about their
writing (p < .001) demonstrated a reduction in anxiety over time while students who reported not
knowing what to do with their feedback or that their feedback made them feel negative about their
writing showed no change in their anxiety over time.
There were numerous critical non-significant results when exploring writing self-efficacy,
writing anxiety and GPA in relation to self-regulatory writing behaviours. No significant main
effects for group were observed based on self-regulatory choices of starting their paper in advance
of the due date or based on their reported revision habits for SESAW, PSWSES, or Anxiety scores.
A linear regression model exploring the contributions of the self-regulatory choices (feedback,
planning, help seeking and revisions) identified that no category of self-regulation made a
significant contribution to student program-wide GPA.

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8175 10
 Mitchell et al.: Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours

Table 2
Mixed between-within Subjects ANOVA for SESAW in Relation to Self-Regulatory Behaviour Categories (n = 49)
August May
M SD M SD Wilks’ F(df) p Partial
Lambda eta
squared1
When I receive a grade and instructor feedback for my Time x group .99 .68(1,47) .42 .01
work I usually: Interaction
Effects

Never look at it; or look at my grade and read 26.7 3.5 28.6 4.0 Main effect .76 14.5(1,47) <.001 .24
my instructor’s comments but I never know across Time
what to do with that feedback. (n = 17)

Look at my grade and read my instructor’s 30.4 3.6 31.7 2.4 Main effect by 11.7(1,47) .001 .20
comments carefully and when I write my next group
assignment, I take the relevant feedback into
consideration. (n = 32)
Receiving feedback about my writing typically causes Time x group .98 .85(1,47) .36 .02
me to feel: Interaction
Effects

Positive about my capabilities as a writer (n = 30.4 3.4 31.7 3.7 Main effect .76 14.3(1,47) <.001 .23
35) across Time

Negative about my capabilities as a writer (n = 25.9 3.4 27.0 2.9 Main effect by 16.9 <.001 .26
14) group

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2019 11

 The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 8

Number of sources a student sought help from: Time x group .93 1.6(2,46) .21 .07
Interaction Effects

Did not seek help (n = 12) 31.9 4.0 29.4 3.2 Main effect across Time .73 16.9(1,46) <.001 .27

Sought help from one source (n = 25) 28.5 3.7 30.1 3.9 Main effect by group 6.0(2,46) .005* .21

Sought help from two or more sources (n = 12) 27.5 3.3 30.6 3.9

When do you start writing your paper? Time x group 1.0 .41(1,47) .52 .01
Interaction Effects

Greater than a week before the due date (n = 37) 29.4 3.7 31.0 3.9 Main effect across Time .85 8.3(1,47) .01 .15

Less than a week before the due date (n = 12) 28.3 4.9 29.4 3.8 Main effect by group 1.2(1,47) .29 .02

Do you revise your paper? Time x group .98 .86(1,47) .36 .02
Interaction Effects

Rough draft, major edits multiple re-reads (n = 29) 29.1 3.0 30.9 4.0 Main effect across Time .79 12.3(1,47) .001 .21

No revisions; revise while writing and only skim 29.2 5.1 30.2 3.8 Main effect by group .08(1,47) .79 .002
after completion (n = 20)
1
Partial eta squared: effect size small .01, moderate .06, large .14
*Post hoc Tukey – no sources vs. 1 source: p = .01; 1 source vs. 2 or more: p = .02

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8175 12
 Mitchell et al.: Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours

Table 3
Mixed between-within Subjects ANOVA for PSWSES in Relation to Self-Regulatory Behaviour Categories (n = 48)
August May
M SD M SD Wilks’ F(df) p Partial
Lambda eta
squared1
When I receive a grade and instructor feedback Time x group 1.0 .02(1,46) .89 <.001
for my work I usually: Interaction
Effects

Never look at it; or look at my grade and 61.4 19.2 61.7 20.3 Main effect 1.0 .14(1,46) .71 .003
read my instructor’s comments but I across Time
never know what to do with that
feedback. (n = 17)

Look at my grade and read my 75.3* 12.4 78.5* 12.1 Main effect by 9.9(1,46) .003 .18
instructor’s comments carefully and group
when I write my next assignment, I take
the relevant feedback into consideration.
(n = 32)
Receiving feedback about my writing typically Time x group 1.0 .004(1,46) .95 <.001
causes me to feel: Interaction
Effects

Positive about my capabilities as a 76.8* 11.6 77.2* 12.0 Main effect 1.0 .18(1,46) .67 .004
writer (n = 35) across Time

Negative about my capabilities as a 54.8 16.1 55.4 16.6 Main effect by 29.6(1,46) <.001 .39
writer (n = 14) group

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2019 13

 The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 8

Number of sources a student sought help from: Time x group .91 2.3(2,45) .11 .09
Interaction
Effects

Did not seek help (n = 12) 80.2 13.4 82.8 12.9 Main effect .97 1.4(1,45) .24 .03
across Time

Sought help from one source (n = 25) 67.1 14.3 65.4 13.6 Main effect by 4.2(2,45) .02** .16
group
Sought help from two or more sources 67.2 * 20.5 70.2* 20.9
(n = 12)
When do you start writing your paper? Time x group 1.0 .004(1,46) .95 <.001
Interaction
Effects

Greater than a week before the due date 72.3* 15.3 72.8* 16.2 Main effect 1.0 .12(1,46) .73 .003
(n = 37) across Time

Less than a week before the due date (n 64.7 18.9 65.1 17.4 Main effect by 2.1(1,47) .15 .04
= 12) group

Do you revise your paper? Time x group 1.0 .01(1,46) .94 <.001
Interaction
Effects

Rough draft, major edits multiple re- 72.4* 13.9 72.8* 15.7 Main effect 1.0 .20(1,46) .66 .004
reads (n =2 9) across Time

No revisions; revise while writing and 67.6 19.4 68.1 18.1 Main effect by 1.0(1,47) .32 .02
only skim after completion (n = 20) group
1
Partial eta squared: effect size small .01, moderate .06, large .14
* n = 48 one unanswered PSWSES questionnaire
** Post hoc Tukey – no sources vs. 1 source: p = .02

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8175 14
 Mitchell et al.: Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours

Table 4
Mixed between-within Subjects ANOVA for VAS-Anxiety in Relation to Self-Regulatory Behaviour Categories (n = 49)
August May
M SD M SD Wilks’ F(df) p Partial
Lambda eta
squared1
When I receive a grade and instructor feedback for my Time x group .83 9.4(1,47) .004 .17
work I usually: Interaction
Effects

Never look at it; or look at my grade and read 61.0 27.4 63.4 29.1 Main effect .90 5.4(1,47) .025 .10
my instructor’s comments but I never know across Time
what to do with that feedback. (n = 17)

Look at my grade and read my instructor’s 61.3 27.9 44.5 33.8 Main effect by 1.2(1,47) .28 .03
comments carefully and when I write my next group
assignment, I take the relevant feedback into
consideration. (n = 32)
Receiving feedback about my writing typically causes Time x group .88 6.5(1,47) .014 .12
me to feel: Interaction
Effects

Positive about my capabilities as a writer (n = 56.1 27.8 41.0 31.1 Main effect .93 3.7(1,47) .06 .07
35) across Time

Negative about my capabilities as a writer (n = 73.9 22.8 76.1 24.4 Main effect by 10.4(1,47) .002 .18
14) group

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2019 15

 The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 8

Number of sources a student sought help from: Time x group .99 .26(2,46) .77 .01
Interaction Effects

Did not seek help (n = 12) 47.7 32.9 36.4 37.3 Main effect across Time .82 9.9(1,46) .003 .18

Sought help from one source (n = 25) 65.2 23.6 57.2 28.7 Main effect by group 2.1(2,46) .14 .08

Sought help from two or more sources (n = 12) 66.4 27.1 52.8 36.2

When do you start writing your paper? Time x group 1.0 .22(1,47) .64 .005
Interaction Effects

Greater than a week before the due date (n = 37) 62.6 27.2 51.5 34.1 Main effect across Time .89 6.0(1,47) .02 .11

Less than a week before the due date (n = 12) 57.1 29.2 49.6 31.8 Main effect by group .15(1,47) .70 .003

Do you revise your paper? Time x group 1.0 .13(1,47) .72 .003
Interaction Effects

Rough draft, major edits multiple re-reads (n = 29) 62.5 26.1 53.3 34.3 Main effect across Time .83 9.8(1,47) .003 .17

No revisions; revise while writing and only skim 59.4 30.0 47.8 32.1 Main effect by group .27(1,47) .61 .01
after completion (n = 20)
1
Partial eta squared: effect size small .01, moderate .06, large .14

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8175 16
 Mitchell et al.: Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours

Table 5
Interaction Effects between Time and Feedback Self-regulation Groups Based on VAS-Anxiety Scores
Anxiety August Anxiety May
Partial
Wilks’ Eta
Mean CI Mean CI Lambda F df p Squared1
When I receive a grade and instructor feedback for my work
I usually:
Never look at it; or look at my grade and read my 61.0 47.5-74.5 63.4 47.6-79.1 1.0 0.22 1,47 .64 .01
instructor’s comments but I never know what to do
with that feedback. (n = 17)

Look at my grade and read my instructor’s 61.3 51.5-71.2 44.5 33.0-56.0 .69 20.9 1,47 <.001 .31
comments carefully and when I write my next
assignment, I take the relevant feedback into
consideration. (n = 32)

Receiving feedback about my writing typically causes me to

feel:
Positive about my capabilities as a writer (n = 35) 56.1 47.1-65.2 41.0 31.0-51.0 .73 17.4 1,47 <.001 .27

Negative about my capabilities as a writer (n = 14) 73.9 59.7-88.2 76.1 60.3-91.9 1.0 0.14 1,47 .71 .003
1
Partial eta squared: effect size small .01, moderate .06, large .14

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2019 17

 The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 8

Discussion

This study provides preliminary evidence that the students we want seeking help, those
with lower writing self-efficacy and higher anxiety, are the ones seeking help which is similar to
the finding reported in William and Takaku (2011) based on their sample of writing centre students.
On the surface, this is contrary to theories of writing self-efficacy and help seeking which
hypothesize that high self-efficacy students are the ones most likely to seek help (Jones, 2008;
Feltham & Sharen, 2015; Pajares & Valiante, 2006). However, the writing self-efficacy levels in
the help seeking students could more accurately be described as moderate than low. High self-
efficacy students require less help because they have developed problem solving strategies over
time and are self-sufficient, use reflection as a problem-solving strategy, or they were able to
address their needs with a quick conversation with an instructor and did not require other sources
of help. Students who only used their instructors as sources of help would have recorded a help
seeking count of zero sources in this study. In order to seek help, students require some degree of
awareness that seeking help will generate a positive change in their writing outcome. In order to
believe that seeking help will result in a positive change in writing ability, some degree of writing
self-efficacy is required (Bandura, 1991). The moderate levels of writing self-efficacy reported by
the help seeking students may have been sufficiently high enough to motivate seeking help.
Writing self-efficacy patterns also emerged with respect to student response to their
feedback. Asking students if their emotional response to their writing feedback was positive or
negative unsurprisingly sorted low self-efficacy, high anxiety, students into the negative feelings
category. This result held when using both the SESAW and PSWSES scales. This single question
is a proxy measure for the social persuasion source of writing self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) which
identifies that feedback from significant qualified others in the writer’s life will influence their
writing self-beliefs. In addition, patterns emerged with respect to whether students applied their
feedback to future assignments or if they did not know what to do with that feedback. Higher
writing self-efficacy students were more likely to report attempting to apply their feedback and
this pattern held for both writing self-efficacy instruments applied during this study. Ekholm et al.
(2015) reported that positive responses to feedback were associated with positive perceptions of
writing ability. Weaver (2006) suggested that it was unknown if low self-efficacy begets a negative
response to feedback or if a negative response to feedback contributes to low self-efficacy. Likely
there is a degree of reciprocity in these experiences.
Interestingly, the students who displayed positive responses to feedback in terms of feeling
good about their writing and applying their feedback to future assignments demonstrated a drop in
anxiety over time while students who felt negative about their feedback and reported not knowing
what to do with it, demonstrated no change in their anxiety across the academic year. This finding
confirms the connections reported in the literature between feedback and student anxiety in writing
(Evans, 2013) and emphasizes the importance of instructor involvement in anxiety management
during the provision of feedback on writing assignments.
Unexpectedly, no differences in writing self-efficacy or anxiety emerged based on student
habits of revision or starting to write their paper nearer or further away from its assigned due date,
meaning both high and low self-efficacy students revise and consider advance planning in writing
assignments. As Mitchell, Harrigan, Stefansson, et al. (2017) observed, students may not be
considering the more invisible aspects of writing (reading, note taking, reflecting) when they
assign a start date to writing their paper which could have resulted in a variety of interpretations
of the question in the survey. Students also could have various definitions as to what counts as

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8175 18
 Mitchell et al.: Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours

revising their paper from using spell check in a word-processing program to substantive logic and
content revisions (Bardine, 1999), which also may have contributed to the random distribution of
self-efficacy scores based on revision habits. One study (Ferrari, Bouffard, & Rainville, 1998)
observed students’ revision habits in an in-class writing environment in French, and noted that
both good and poor writers revise their work but poor writers were more likely to introduce errors
into their writing or make ineffective changes during their revision, indicating that effective
revision strategies must be taught for the particular genre of writing being evaluated.
Student GPA scores also had no relationship with the self-regulatory behaviours assessed
in this study indicating that students’ sought help, started their papers early, revised their papers
or responded to their feedback based on contextual issues with the assignments rather than as a
habit associated with their overall GPAs. Students in this sample may have been satisfied with
their GPA. Educators often assume that students are motivated to take actions in their coursework
which will have benefits to their GPA but this may be a faulty assumption. In a highly rigorous
program such as nursing, as a prioritization strategy and survival tactic, students may choose not
to take additional time-consuming actions to improve their writing skills simply because they have
chosen to accept their current academic status. The degree of student satisfaction with their current
GPA, as a motivational factor that might influence self-regulatory choices intended to help
improve their writing, was not assessed in this research but should be a future consideration.

Study Limitations

This study is limited by its small sample size and to students who are in their third year of
an accelerated nursing program and who had been provided a discipline-specific writing course in
the first year of their program. In addition, because the sample was limited to students who had
participated in an earlier writing self-efficacy study, there are limitations to these findings based
on students who can produce acceptable writing, grades (the average GPA was in the B range),
and had moderately high writing self-efficacy levels. Most of the weakest students had already
been eliminated from the study due to program or study attrition. Because of the differences in
requirements for seeking help with their writing from instructors in this program, where help
seeking was required as a scaffolding instructional method in some courses but not in others, help-
seeking from instructors was not included in the counts of help seeking sources. As seeking help
from an instructor is often the easiest form of help seeking, assessing the number of times a student
sought help from an instructor may have had its own relationship with writing self-efficacy,
anxiety, or GPA. Measuring anxiety via a one-item questionnaire should also be examined with
caution. The visual analog scale used for anxiety asked the students to envision their next scholarly
paper when responding to the item. During the May survey, some students would have been
nearing completion of their nursing program and may not have had a specific future paper to
envision thus resulting in artificially low anxiety responses. Finally, this study explores writing
self-regulatory strategies, in their naturally occurring state. It is unknown how the instructional
practices that the many different educators that the student participants were in contact with over
this academic year might have impacted their choices. As writing is a community practice, the
specific nature of how interactions between faculty and student, and peer to peer between students,
might have influenced their writing self-efficacy and anxiety is unknown.

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2019 19

 The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 8

Considerations for Writing Pedagogy

The proportion of students who reported using their feedback to inform future writing
assignments was lower in this sample (65.3-71.8%) than in Ball et al. (2009) at 82.2%. While
observing that 28.1-34.7% of the sample did not know what to do with their feedback (or never
looked at it) is similar to student reports of confusion over the meaning of their feedback reported
in the literature, it is concerning that nearly a third of students are failing to perceive the benefits
of the feedback provided to them. Evans (2013) identified that student willingness to follow
feedback was dependent on the emotional impact of that feedback, the pedagogical intelligence of
the student, and past experiences with feedback use. Students may also not know how to apply
feedback to future writing because they might unconsciously recognize circumstances where the
feedback is not transferable from one genre to the next. James (2010), in a study exploring the
kinds of learning outcomes likely to transfer between courses, identified that some types of writing
outcomes associated with learning (e.g., language and discourse) are more transferable than others
(e.g., organizational and cohesion tasks like framing). Ensuring students understand their feedback
on their writing assignments and know when it is relevant to a future assignment is a problem
amenable to intervention. As educators control the instructional environment, they are responsible
for supporting and guiding students to understand the feedback they receive on their writing
(Ekholm et al., 2015). Educators can also support students’ anxiety responses to that feedback and
be mindful of the powerful impression feedback can leave on vulnerable students. Feedback should
be written with the goal of shaping students’ learning and a sense of conscientiousness toward not
attacking a student’s ego is required to provide effective feedback (Evans, 2013).
Qualitative research asking students to discuss their response to the feedback they have
read has confirmed the social impact inherent in the feedback process and the identity formation
present in the act of writing (Torres & Anguiano, 2016). Students prefer personalized feedback
that recognizes that a person is attached to the writing. They are less concerned with all their
comments being positive versus critical, but desire, in both instances, that the comments are well
explained (Bardine, 1999). Understanding of feedback can be inferred in situations when the
student is able to interpret why the feedback was given, come up with a suitable revision solution,
and explain how the feedback contributed to informing the improvements they made in their
writing (Zhao, 2010). Most of the feedback provided to students on their writing in the cohort
represented in this study is transmissive in nature, rather than the more effective iterative processes
where students would respond to feedback in an ongoing and dialogic process such as through
one-on-one face to face meetings or reflections that respond to evaluator comments.
Feedback cannot be separated from the process of revision in this perspective. Success in
improving writing and writing self-efficacy in students is contingent on revision following the
feedback process. Riddell (2015) provided several solutions for connecting feedback to the
revision process including having students mark sample essays, which served the purpose of
helping them identify areas in their own writing where they were failing to clearly explain content.
In this present sample, informal peer review was used as a help seeking source by 34.4-40.8% of
the student sample indicating that students were open to sharing their work with their peers and
trusted their judgement with feedback given. Peer assessment is reported to be an intervention
which can also promote student self-regulation (Evans, 2013). Peer review may also be a solution
to the time-consuming nature of providing multiple rounds, or feedback loops, to writing
instruction. Riddell estimated that the extra feedback involved in her intervention of multiple drafts
amounted to 20% more grading over standard arms-length methods of instructional staff providing

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8175 20
 Mitchell et al.: Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours

feedback to students but that extra work did translate into improved writing and a 6-8% increase
in student grades.

Conclusion

Writing self-efficacy and self-regulation of writing are linked and mutually influence one
another. In this study, help-seeking and feedback response had the strongest association with
writing self-efficacy and anxiety. Future studies are needed to explore solutions to students’ lack
of understanding of the feedback they receive on their writing. As feedback is reciprocally related
to the revision process, feedback and revisions pedagogies should be linked more directly in
classrooms if writing improvement is to be observed. Future research needs to also address the
inconsistencies found in this study with respect to writing self-efficacy levels, revision and
completion of assignments in relation to its due date by more clearly defining for students what it
means to revise a paper and what activities fall under the purview of getting started with writing.
Interventions to improve student writing are imperative to a professional discipline, such as
nursing, which relies on effective communication of evidence-based practice to build successful
interdisciplinary teams and provide effective patient care.

References

Ball, E., Franks, H., Jenkins, J., McGrath, M., & Leigh, J. (2009). Annotation is a valuable took to
enhance learning and assessment in student essays. Nurse Education Today, 29, 284-291.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2008.10.005
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(2), 164-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Bardine, B. A. (1999). Students’ perceptions of written teacher comments: What do they say about
how we respond to them? The High School Journal, 82(4), 239-247.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40364481
Ekholm, E., Zumbrunn, S., & Conklin, S. (2015). The relation of college student self-efficacy
toward writing and writing self-regulation aptitude: Writing feedback perceptions as a
mediating variable. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 197-207.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.974026
Esambe, E., Mosito, C., & Pather, S. (2016). First-year students’ essay writing practices: formative
feedback and interim literacies. Reading & Writing Journal of the Reading Association of
South Africa, 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/rw.v7i1.87
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of
Educational Research, 83(1), 70-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
Feltham, M., & Sharen, C. (2015). “What do you mean I wrote a C paper?” Writing, revision and
self-regulation. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 8, 111-138.
https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v8i0.4259
Ferrari, M., Bouffard, T., & Rainville, L. (1998). What makes a good writer? Differences in good
and poor writers’ self-regulation of writing. Instructional Science, 26, 473-488.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003202412203

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2019 21

 The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 10, Iss. 2 [2019], Art. 8

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1977). Problem-solving strategies and the writing process. College
English, 39(4), 449-461. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/375768
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition
and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/356600
Hodges, E. (1997). Negotiating the margins: Some principles for responding to our students'
writing, some strategies for helping students read our comments. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 1997(67), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.6907
James, M. A. (2010). An investigation of learning transfer in English-for-general-academic-
purposes writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(2010), 183-206.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.09.003
Jones, E. (2008). Predicting performance in first-semester college basic writers: Revisiting the role
of self-beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 209-238.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.001
Karebenick, S. A. (2004). Perceived achievement goal structure and college student help seeking.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 569-581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.96.3.569
McMillan, D. E., Bell, S., Benson, E. E., Mandzuk, L. L., Matias, D. M., McIvor, M. J. …Wilkins,
K. L. (2007). From anxiety to enthusiasm: Facilitating graduate nursing students’
knowledge development in science and theory. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(2), 88-
91.
Mitchell, K. (2018). Constructing writing practices in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education,
57(7), 399-407. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20180618-04
Mitchell, K. M., Harrigan, T., & McMillan, D. E. (2017). Writing self-efficacy in nursing students:
The influence of a discipline-specific writing environment. Nursing Open, 1-11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nop2.90
Mitchell, K. M., Harrigan, T., Stefansson, T., & Setlack, H. (2017). Exploring self-efficacy and
anxiety in first-year nursing students enrolled in a discipline-specific scholarly writing
course. Quality Advancement in Nursing Education, 3(1), 4.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17483/2368-6669.1084
Mitchell, K. M., & McMillan, D. E. (2018). A curriculum-wide assessment of writing self-efficacy
in a baccalaureate nursing program. Nurse Education Today, 70, 20-27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.08.003
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In
C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.
158-170). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Parboteeah, S., & Anwar, M. (2009). Thematic analysis of written assignment feedback:
Implications for nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 29, 753-757.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2009.02.017
Perry, K. (2012). What is literacy? A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of
Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50-71.
Riddell, J. (2015). Performance, feedback, and revision: Metacognitive approaches to
undergraduate essay writing. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 8, 79-95.
https://doi.org/10.22329/celt.v8i0.4256
Schmidt, K. M., & Alexander, J. E. (2012). The empirical development of an instrument to
measure writerly self-efficacy in writing centers. Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1), 62.
Retrieved from http://www.journalofwritingassessment.org/article.php?article=62

https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8175 22
 Mitchell et al.: Writing Self-Efficacy and Writing Self-Regulatory Behaviours

Torres, J. T., & Anguiano, C. J. (2016). Interpreting feedback: A discourse analysis of teacher
feedback and student identity. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 10(2), 2-11.
Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written
responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930500353061
Williams, J. D., & Takaku, S. (2011). Help seeking, self-efficacy, and writing performance among
college students. Journal of Writing Research, 3(1), 1-18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17239/jowr2011.03.01.1
Wiltse, E. M. (2002). Correlates of college students’ use of instructors’ comments. Journalism &
Mass Communication Educator, 57(2), 126-138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107769580205700203
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on
writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing,
15(2010), 3-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.002
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course
attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845-862.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/000283120310048

Published by Scholarship@Western, 2019 23