Individual Assessment of Media Writing Student Attitudes:
Recasting the Riffe and Stacks’ Writing Apprehension Measure
by
Mark H. Massé, associate professor
765-285-8222
mhmasse@bsu.edu
and
Mark N. Popovich, professor
765-285-8207
mnpopovich@bsu.edu
Department of Journalism
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
ABSTRACT
In this follow-up study of introductory media writing students at a Midwestern university, the authors studied how attitudes toward writing changed from the beginning of a fall semester until its conclusion. Secondary objectives included assessing the nature of positive and negative attitudes toward writing, and identifying the impact (if any) of gender, age, class rank and journalism/communication major (sequence) on attitudes. Q Methodology was used to replicate studies of writing apprehension conducted by Riffe and Stacks in 1988 and 1992. By providing a personalized (subjective) measure of attitudes, Q Methodology enabled researchers to conduct an individual assessment of attitudes as opposed to analyzing group norms, as in previous research on the phenomenon of writing apprehension. This research replicated the methodology used in an earlier pilot study conducted during a summer session with a limited number of students. The expanded study revealed more in-depth information on two Factors of students: Optimists/Professionals and Doubters/Pessimists. After a 16-week semester, the Optimists/Professionals remained very positive about writing and the relevance of writing skills. By contrast, the Doubters/Pessimists grew even more negative toward the writing experience. The findings offer writing instructors insight into the mindset of a critical group of journalism and communication students—those in introductory media writing classes. The more instructors can learn about student attitudes toward writing, especially at the outset of a course, the more opportunities they may have to address self-efficacy issues and implement pedagogical approaches to enable students to gain confidence and understand the role of writing skills in their education and professional development.
Key Words: Q Methodology, Writer Apprehension
Confidence in one's craft is critical to long-term success as a writer. But such confidence is often lacking in an introductory journalism or media writing classroom. Phillips was one of the first communication researchers to suggest that an individual is apprehensive when his “anxiety about communication outweighs his projection of gain from the situation.”1
Writing apprehension among students in a media writing course may result in fear, frustration and ongoing anxiety about learning the very skills students will require in chosen careers. Although a certain amount of nervousness at the outset of a writing assignment is expected, an enduring negative attitude may block the student’s progress through several courses of study. The more media writing instructors can learn about their students’ individual attitudes toward writing, especially at the outset of a course, the more opportunities the instructor may have to address anxiety issues and implement personalized strategies that could help students to gain much-needed confidence in their writing abilities.
Communication researchers have been concerned about the writing process and the effect of anxiety or apprehension on human communication, notably since the 1960s. Over time they concluded that communication anxiety was a serious problem that affected a large proportion of the general population. Composition teachers and, subsequently, media writing teachers have explored the effect of this phenomenon on writing students. As part of this exploration, researchers have developed quantitative measures to help them identify and define apprehension in the writing process. One of these measures was the Riffe and Stacks’2 instrument--the Mass Communication Writing Apprehension Measure (MCWAM)—a 56-item Likert-style instrument that represented eight factors related to writing apprehension. Utilizing factor analysis, their instrument produced group means for each of the 56 items and, subsequently, group means
for the eight factors that defined apprehension. The validity of the factors was tested by factor analysis and modified over two studies by the authors. They correlated class ranking, major, age, race, and gender with the apprehension factors to determine which of those demographics were most related to apprehension. While the MCWAM correlated group means with the factors of apprehension, the instrument did not enable writing instructors to accurately assess the individual feelings of students toward the writing process. McKeown explains the difficulty:
The inherent limitations of scales are compounded when the person-sample is relatively
homogeneous and the scale elicits a preponderance of ‘strongly agree’ and ‘strongly disagree’
answers. In such a circumstance, one may find an overwhelming central tendency of the sample on
a given attitude but miss the subtle differences of meaning that also exist.3
In order to more precisely measure student feelings concerning apprehension—a method that would help the instructor both examine group attitudes toward apprehension and, more importantly, help the instructor identify those individual students most apprehensive about writing—the investigators turned to Q Methodology. William Stephenson,4 the creator of Q Methodology, had posited that the use of an instrument with Likert-type items would provide only measures of constructs for a more or less homogenous group of students, rather than any measure of the operant (subjective) feelings of individual student writers. According to the Stephenson premise, the 56 items on the MCWAM could actually be considered opinions of the students toward apprehension, and that to find individual and group attitudes toward the concept would require student responses to a Q sort.5 The resulting factors produced by factor analysis would be actual student “attitudes of mind” that arguably provide a more accurate picture of student subjective feelings toward apprehension.6 Such a measure could be more reliable by actually measuring the students’ own feelings about writing, rather than relying on group means to summarize those feelings.
The focus of this paper was to recast the Riffe and Stacks’ apprehension instrument as a Q sort to see if alternative interpretations about media student writing apprehension would arise that supported or differed from those interpretations found in earlier studies. A second objective was to assess the impact of a media writing class on the attitudes of student writers related to the existence of or lack of writing apprehension.
Literature Review
Writing is at the core of the discipline of journalism, but research on how writers write and what influences their writing performances was dominated by the field of English composition since the 1960s and 1970s.7 Zurek8 helped develop the link between the writing composition process and journalism. He placed strong emphasis on the revision process in writing, which he pointed out had been largely ignored in journalism textbooks. Early models of news writing and the news story were developed by Conn9 and Smith.10 Pitts11 introduced the protocol methodology to the study of professional journalists at work in the newsroom writing deadline news stories. She determined that the lead writing process was a unique and significant writing process for news writers, which led to a model of the news writing process based on her protocol research.12
Subsequently, researchers have produced results that emphasize the importance of revision in the writing process.13 They have provided evidence that systematic feedback by instructors is important;14 they have determined that knowledge of language and mechanics is an important component of effective writing;15 they have provided evidence that writing instructors were beginning to adapt composition strategies to improve journalistic writing;16 they have explored the use of Q Methodology to assess the pedagogical orientations of journalism writing instructors;17 and they have qualitatively assessed the value of using student journals to understand media student attitudes toward writing.18
Student attitudes toward their craft are considered significant predictors of writing ability.19 Studies have targeted the relationship of apprehension to writing performance.
Daly and Miller20 were among the earliest investigators to create an instrument to measure apprehension toward writing. They composed 63 statements into a Likert-type scale format, and they administered the instrument to 164 undergraduate students. They determined that they had a one-factor solution that resulted in an apprehension instrument of 26 statements.
In a follow-up study, Daly and Miller21 used results from the 26-statement writing apprehension instrument in comparison with SAT-Verbal scores for 246 students enrolled in a basic composition course. They found students with high writing apprehension had significantly less success in previous courses than those without apprehension of writing; students who voluntarily enrolled in advanced writing courses were significantly lower than others in writing apprehension; students high in apprehension perceived their past experiences in writing as significantly less successful than did low apprehensives. Female students had significantly lower scores than males on the writing apprehension measures. They concluded that predispositions toward writing may not be measured effectively by many currently used aptitude tests.
Daly22 explored the relationship between writing apprehension and message construction (i.e., how attitudes affect actual writing behavior). He found individuals with high writing apprehension differed significantly from low apprehensives on both perceived message quality and actual structural characteristics of the messages encoded. This result was later supported by Humphrey23 who (using multivariate analysis) found that contrary to expectation, newswriting students with higher writing apprehension produced more effective news stories.
Ruffner24 used multiple regression analysis to assess the relationship between journalistic writing ability and various psychological, demographic, and stylistic variables. Ruffner demonstrated that an enduring affective state has measurable effects on the quality of written communication, and that a combination of psychological, demographic, and stylistic variables provide sensitive discriminators of quality writing as measured by grade.
Use of the writing process method of instruction (versus emphasis on the writing product) has been recommended to address writing apprehension in the classroom.25 The writing process is defined as series of steps—pre-writing, drafting, and revising/editing—that are used by the writer in a recursive (non-linear) fashion. When employing the writing process in the classroom, the instructor utilizes pedagogical strategies for creating a supportive environment (e.g., positive feedback, revision opportunities, selective marking of errors).
Riffe and Stacks26 refined an instrument over two studies to identify the dimensions of writing apprehension among mass communication students. The Mass Communication Writing Apprehension Measure (MCWAM) was first completed by a sample of 621 mass communication undergraduates at two southern universities. Thirty-eight items (statements) representing seven factors were featured in the instrument. The data revealed that writing attitudes among mass communication students may be treated as multidimensional. The study also suggested that some differences among students in attitudes toward writing could be related to such characteristics as gender as well as educational classifications (e.g., major, class standing).
In 1992 Riffe and Stacks27 replicated their earlier study with 18 new mass communication items (statements). Also, a new “Audience Salience” factor was added for a total of eight dimensions (attitudes toward writing categories): Factor I: “General Affect.” This dimension encompasses enjoyment and anticipation of writing. Factor II: “Blank Page Paralysis.” The difficulty occurs with actually starting the task. Students “go blank” or fixate on the right word. Factor III: “Mechanical Skills Competence.” A basic skills orientation that represents either awareness of deficiency or lack of confidence. Factor IV: “Evaluation Apprehension.” Encompassing both behavioral and cognitive/affective aspects of apprehension, this is more than just having writing read by someone, and reflects fear of critical evaluation, judgment, or grade. Factor V: “Career and Essential Skills.” Some students see writing as irrelevant to their careers. Factor VI: “Task Avoidance.” Independent of any “Blank Page Paralysis,” some students avoid writing tasks. Factor VII: “Audience Salience.” The importance of writing for others (whether to persuade or inform) seems clear in this new mass communication dimension. Factor VIII: “Facts vs. Ideas.” This factor could locate whether the student writer's confidence (“ease”) is conditional, and tied to a particular type of writing (facts or ideas). Or, if it locates a preference for dealing with facts and information, it might distinguish mass communication majors from other majors, and journalists from others within mass communication.
The 56 Likert-type items were completed by a sample of 708 undergraduates enrolled in introductory mass communication and introductory media writing courses. The authors found that journalism majors enjoyed writing more than other mass communication majors, were less intimidated by a blank page or screen, and were more oriented toward the career importance of their writing skills. They also had a greater orientation toward an audience. Mass communication students were generally less apprehensive across the array of dimensions and on mass communication-specific items. Riffe and Stacks concluded that their writing apprehension measure could be utilized as a classroom diagnostic tool or student counseling instrument.
Objectives
After examining writing apprehension literature, investigators believed that the 56-item Riffe and Stacks’ instrument could easily be adapted as a Q sort that could be administered to beginning journalism students. Those 56 items represented eight factors: General Affect (GA), Blank Page Paralysis (BPP), Mechanical Skill Competence (MSC), Career and Essential Skills (CES), Evaluation Apprehension (EA), Task Avoidance (TA), Audience Salience (AS) and Facts v. Ideas (FI). Their belief was based on their own experiences with Q Methodology when they conducted a summer-term pilot study,28 and they believed that the use of Q Methodology to help students evaluate the MCWAM statements might bring a deeper and more personalized perspective to writing apprehension. Further, Q Methodology was considered an effective tool for studying finite groups, as in classroom situations where instructors would be more alert to individual student attitudes toward apprehension in order to devise corresponding strategies to combat apprehension.
The use of Q Methodology would present students with the opportunity to personalize their ratings of the apprehension statements on the Q sort. Instead of being part of group norms, each student would be able to rate his/her own feelings toward the statements he/she sorted. Rather than produce generalizations about student writing apprehension, Q researchers would produce typical attitude patterns for students using the same instrument. In application, the condition of instruction given to each student would be different from previous studies. Whereas Riffe and Stacks would ask students to rate a set of apprehension statements by means of a Likert scale, ultimately leading to abstract categories, Q researchers would ask each student to project his/her own personal feelings as he/she sorted and placed each statement in the Q sort on an ll-point continuum, ultimately leading to individual and groups comparisons of the subjective feelings of each person involved in the study. Stephenson would say that the act of sorting statements about a particular topic would constitute a psychological event for each subject—an event that could be measured systematically thereby presenting new knowledge of the students involved in the study.29
Investigators for this study sought answers for the following research questions: Would Q Methodology help communication investigators ascertain if student writing apprehension was multidimensional as determined by Riffe and Stacks? Would Q support the premise proposed by Riffe and Stacks that gender might be related to differences in writing apprehension? Would Q support the Riffe and Stacks’ premise that career importance of writing skills was related to journalism student writing apprehension? Would Q support the Riffe and Stacks’ premise that journalism students displayed a greater orientation toward audience as a factor in writing apprehension? Finally, investigators were interested in knowing what effect classroom instruction would have on student writing apprehension. More concisely, what would be typical student attitudes toward writing apprehension at the beginning of their first college media writing class, and would those attitudes change by the time the class ended?
Method
Investigators constructed a Q sort of 56 items that were the statements created by Riffe and Stacks30 for their MCWAM. The statements represented the eight factors found by Riffe and Stacks. Statements were given in the fall term, 2002, to 127 beginning journalism students at a Midwestern university, with an accredited journalism program, taking their first college journalism writing class during a 16-week fall term.
These students were taught by five news-editorial faculty in seven sections of the class. The students represented eight journalism and telecommunications department sequences (advertising, graphics, magazine, news-editorial, photo journalism, public relations, secondary education, telecommunications/ news).
Students were asked to take the Q sort twice: in week one (pre-test) and week 16 (post-test). Each time the condition of instruction was the same, “What are your feelings toward writing?” Students sorted all 56 statements for the first time on the second day of class. Their second sort occurred on the next to last day of class for the 16-week term. They were asked each time to sort the statements across a ll-point continuum from “Most Agree (5)” to “Most Disagree (-5).”
From the 127 Q sorts, a random sample of 40 respondents was selected—20 men, 20 women. Q researchers typically do not find it necessary to randomize the subjects for their Q sorts. They are inclined to choose a purposive sample in which various demographics or characteristics demanded by the study design were balanced in the sample. Their goal is to find the typical attitudes that groups display rather than those representative of some larger group of individuals. The random procedure used in this study was chosen to minimize the various differences between teaching techniques and methods that all five instructors used during the term.
Once Q sorts were collected, the sorts were analyzed with the PQMethod program,31 which provided a correlations matrix of all the students involved in the study, unrotated and subsequently rotated factor matrices, correlations between factors, a summary of all statements ranked by z-scores for all the factors chosen in the study, descending array statement differences between factors chosen for the study, factor Q sort values for each statement in the study, and a list of consensus items, among other things. Another benefit of PQMethod was that it allowed investigators to compare and contrast hand-rotated factors with those that were computer-generated by means of a varimax rotation.
In order to determine the number of factors, or patterns of perceptions, that might appear in the pre-test and post-test Q sorts, investigators employed the procedures explained in Brown.32 By calculating the standard error of a zero-order factor loading, investigators could identify significant factor loadings on each factor. A factor loading was significant if it exceeded a correlation of .346. If a factor had more than two significant loadings at the .01 level, it was considered to be a factor that should be evaluated. Once the factors were determined, investigators were able to examine all z-scores for 56 statements on each factor(s). They determined that for a statement to be significant for a particular factor, a z-score of +/- 1.0 would be required.
Investigators employed another method discussed in Brown33 to help them distinguish statements that differed significantly between the factors. Using factor Q sort values, or an average of ranks for each statement on each factor, investigators arbitrarily chose as significant those statements that differed from one factor with another by an absolute score of 3 or more. This approach would help investigators determine statement differences between factors, particularly when factors might be highly correlated.
Findings
Pre-Test
The Q analysis produced two factors of students in the pre-test. The correlations between factors was .341, and both factors accounted for 43 percent of the variance in the hand-rotated solution. Factor 1 contained 12 males and 12 females. Ages ranged from 18 to 23. Fourteen were sophomores; seven were juniors; and there was one each from freshman, senior, and graduate student class ranks. Ten of the students were identified as being in the news-editorial sequence; four were from public relations; three were from graphics; two were from magazine; one from advertising; another from secondary education; and three were identified as being from “other” sequences.
Members of Factor 1 were labeled Optimists. These students were confident about their writing skills, enjoyed the writing process, and recognized the value of writing in their professional development (see Table 1). This group was enthusiastic not apprehensive about their writing. Their two highest-rated statements were from the Career Essential Skills (CES) category, recognizing how valuable their writing skills would be in their careers. Two General Affect (GA) statements revealed their positive attitudes toward the act of writing. Two Audience Salience (AS) statements conveyed these students’ confidence about writing for readers (an audience). Other highly ranked statements referred to the Factor 1 group’s confidence in Mechanical Skills Competence (MSC) and in meeting deadlines (Task Avoidance, TA).
In total, five of the eight factors from the Riffe and Stacks’ study were represented by Factor 1 students. But the chosen statements represented enthusiasm not apprehension toward the writing process and the value of having strong writing skills.
Factor 1 students confirmed their confidence and competence as writers with their responses to negative statements. They apparently did not suffer from writer’s block when starting assignments (Blank Page Paralysis, BPP), and they did not worry about their writing being evaluated (Evaluation Avoidance, EA).
TABLE 1: Factor 1 significant positive and negative statements with z-scores (Pre-Test)
No. Statement z-scores
39 Good writing skills are essential in my career (CES). 1.842
40 My writing skills will be a valuable asset in my profession (CES). 1.765
16 I enjoy writing (GA). 1.700*
22 I like seeing my thoughts on paper (GA). 1.356*
37 I have good basic writing skills (MSC). 1.265
51 I like writing for an audience (AS). 1.262
3 I usually make deadlines (TA). 1.157*
2 I feel good when I meet deadlines (TA). 1.093
52 I like writing to inform people (AS). 1.070
29 I spend too much time staring at a blank piece of paper when I try to write (BPP). -1.035
30 I have a hard time choosing the right words when I write (BPP). -1.059
47 It is very difficult for me to write when I know my writing will be evaluated (EA). -1.163
27 I am nervous about writing (BPP). -1.203
19 I write only when I have to (GA). -1.324*
33 I am not very good at punctuation (MSC). -1.449*
32 I feel lost when it comes to grammar and punctuation (MSC). -1.474*
42 The ability to write well is becoming less important for professional success (CES). -1.626
41 My writing skills will not be important factors in whether I’m promoted (CES) -1.682
23 I avoid writing if I can (GA). -1.884*
*Denotes statements that significantly differentiate Factor 1 from Factor 2 statements.
These students disagreed with statements indicating a lack of Mechanical Skill Competency (e.g., grammar, punctuation). They disagreed with statements that downplayed the importance of writing in their
career choices (CES). Their overall enthusiasm for writing was reinforced with their negative reaction to the statement on writing avoidance (GA).
Factor 2 students, labeled the Doubters, consisted of six males and five females. Ages ranged from 19 to 23. Five were sophomores; five were juniors. There was one graduate student in Factor 2. Five of the students were identified in the public relations sequence. The remaining six students were equally represented, with one each from advertising, magazine, photojournalism, telecommunications and “other” sequences.
Although the students on this factor agreed with two of the same statements as Factor 1 (viz., about the value of writing skills in the profession [CES]; and that they had good writing skills [MSC]), their responses to other statements demonstrated caution toward and concern about the writing process. Doubters admitted to “putting off” working on writing assignments (TA), though they felt good when meeting deadlines (TA). One significant difference between Factor 1 and Factor 2 students was the latter group’s marked preference for self-paced, self-regulated writing (GA). These students’ responses suggested they would not perform well under pressure or when the assignment allowed little flexibility. They indicated that they wrote best when they chose when to write, when they worked at their own speed, and when they could choose the tone of the assignment. Factor 2 students were concerned with their mechanical skills as writers (MSC). This was evident from their responses to statements regarding remembering grammar rules and spelling. One moderate response was that these students did not mind having their writing evaluated (EA). In total, five of the eight factors from the Riffe and Stacks’ 1992 study were represented by Factor 2 students. Their responses indicated an awareness of what was required to be a successful writer as well as a reluctance to write and a lack of confidence toward specific writing skills. While the highest-rated statement for Factor 1 students dealt with career concerns, Factor 2 students were more concerned about task avoidance issues such as deadlines.
TABLE 2: Factor 2 significant positive and negative statements with z-scores (Pre-Test)
No. Statement z-scores
2 I feel good when I meet deadlines (TA). 1.862
12 I write best when I choose when to write (GA). 1.761*
11 I write best when I work at my speed (GA). 1.594*
40 My writing skills will be a valuable asset in my profession (CES). 1.514
38 I am conscious of my spelling as I write (MSC). 1.428
34 I have trouble remembering grammar rules (MSC). 1.327
48 I put off working on my writing assignments (TA). 1.232
37 I have good basic writing skills (MSC). 1.142
5 I write best when I can choose the tone (serious or humorous) (GA). 1.133*
44 It does not bother me to have my writing evaluated (EA). 1.017
20 I enjoy playing with words (GA). -1.061
43 I do not like having anyone change my writing (EA). -1.092
15 I practice my writing outside of class (GA). -1.105*
49 When I know I’ve got a writing assignment due, I start work right away so I’ll have time to
do a good job (TA). -1.477
14 I look forward to writing (GA). -1.588*
41 My writing skills will not be important factors in whether I’m promoted in my profession -1.914
(CES).
42 The ability to write well is becoming less important for professional success (CES). -1.936
24 I would enjoy any kind of writing job (GA). -2.585*
*Denotes statements that significantly differentiate Factor 2 from Factor 1 statements.
Based on their negative reaction to statements, Factor 2 students reinforced their understanding of and appreciation for the importance of writing skills in a journalism career (CES). But these same students rejected the notion of enjoying any kind of writing job (GA). The significant negative statements provided an insightful picture of the mindset of the Doubters. Factor 2 students reacted negatively to several General Affect (GA) statements, including: enjoying playing with words, looking forward to writing, and practicing writing outside of class. These students also revealed their tendency to procrastinate, based on their negative response to a statement about allowing sufficient time to do a good job on a writing assignment (TA). This lack of commitment to the writing process on the part of Factor 2 students became even more entrenched in the attitudes expressed by this group in the post-test.
Post-Test
The Q Methodology study conducted in week 16 of the semester produced two hand-rotated post-test factors whose attitudes reinforced what was expressed in the pre-test. The correlations between the factors was .285, and both factors accounted for 47 percent of the variance in the solution. Factor 1 attitudes became more positive toward writing and toward career expectations. Investigators labeled this Factor as Professionals. Factor 2 was even more clearly identified with negative attitudes toward the craft of writing. The Factor 2 Doubters had now become the Pessimists.
Factor 1 consisted of 13 males and 13 females, a net gain of two more students to Factor 1 by the time the class was completed. Ages ranged from 18 to 39. Sixteen were sophomores; seven were juniors. One student each represented the freshman, senior and graduate classes. Nine of the members of this factor were aligned with the news-editorial sequence; seven from public relations; and three from the advertising sequence. There were two each from the magazine, graphics and “other” sequences. One Factor 1 member was from secondary education. Two of the Factor 1 post-test group were in Factor 2 in the pre-test group. These two males, 21 and 23, represented the public relations and graphics sequences. In addition, two
19 year-old, sophomore students representing the news-editorial sequence in Factor 1 indicated stronger feelings toward writing than they had expressed in the pre-test.
Those students in Factor 1, labeled Professionals by investigators, remained very positive about the craft of writing, about their enjoyment of the writing process, and about their confidence in their writing skills (See Table 3). At the end of the semester, they were able to distinguish their attitudes about specific aspects of their writing competencies, such as clarity and selectivity of writing style (tone).
TABLE 3: Factor 1 significant positive and negative statements with z-scores (Post-Test)
No. Statement z-scores
40 My writing skills will be a valuable asset in my profession (CES). 1.781
39 Good writing skills are essential in my career (CES). 1.776
16 I enjoy writing (GA). 1.729*
37 I have good basic writing skills (MSC). 1.532
31 I usually seem to be able to clearly write down my ideas (BPP). 1.383
22 I like seeing my thoughts on paper (GA). 1.290*
3 I usually make deadlines (TA). 1.062
5 I write best when I choose the tone (serious or humorous) (GA). 1.034
52 I like writing to inform people (AS). 1.028
14 I look forward to writing (GA). 1.000
26 My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on a writing task (BPP). -1.101
29 I spend too much time staring at a blank piece of paper when I try to write (BPP). -1.179
28 I have a terrible time organizing my ideas when I try to write (BPP). -1.243
47 It is very difficult for me to write when I know my writing will be evaluated (EA). -1.262
46 It makes me nervous to know someone will read my writing (EA). -1.334
19 I write only when I have to (GA). -1.336*
32 I feel lost when it comes to grammar and punctuation (MSC). -1.437*
27 I am nervous about writing (BPP). -1.521
41 My writing skills will not be important factors in whether I’m promoted in my profession -1.698
(CES).
23 I avoid writing if I can (GA). -1.734*
42 The ability to write well is becoming less important for professional success (CES). -1.789
*Denotes statements that significantly differentiate Factor 1 from Factor 2 statements.
Factor 1 students ranked the importance of good writing skills in their profession highest among the positively rated statements (CES). Four of the other highly rated statements dealt with General Affect (GA) attitudes, including the enjoyment of writing, appreciating seeing one’s thoughts on paper, a preference for
selecting the tone of the assignment, and looking forward to writing. Factor 1 students remained quite confident about their basic writing skills (MSC), their ability to clearly write down ideas
(BPP), and their ability to make deadlines. They also indicated a preference for writing to inform people (AS).
The ranking of negative statements by Factor 1 students served to reinforce their confidence in their skills and their ability to successfully complete assignments. They soundly rejected four (BPP) statements related to writer apprehension, namely writer’s block, procrastination, an inability to organize and general anxiety about writing. The students were not intimidated by having their work read and evaluated by others (EA). Their enthusiasm for writing was further revealed by their rejection of two statements related to writing avoidance (GA). They also rejected the notions that writing skills would not be important in their professional development and career advancement (CES). Factor 1 students remained confident about their mechanical skills (e.g., grammar and punctuation) (MSC). In sum, the members of this factor demonstrated an extremely positive set of attitudes toward writing, reflecting a high degree of confidence in their competence and professionalism.
TABLE 4: Factor 2 significant positive and negative statements with z-scores (Post-Test)
No. Statements z-scores
19 I write only when I have to (GA). 2.019
48 I put off working on my writing assignments (TA). 1.776
50 It is important to me that readers enjoy what I write (AS). 1.652
23 I avoid writing if I can (GA). 1.585
12 I write best when I choose when to write (GA). 1.499*
2 I feel good when I meet deadlines (TA). 1.472
38 I am conscious of my spelling as I write (MSC). 1.388
36 I am a good speller (MSC). 1.388
40 My writing skills will be a valuable asset in my profession (CES). 1.021
21 I enjoy writing something that will be read carefully by others (GA). -1.043
42 The ability to write well is becoming less important for professional success (CES). -1.170
16 I enjoy writing (GA). -1.314
18 I enjoy studying words and their meanings (GA). -1.461
13 I enjoy talking about writing (GA). -1.552
15 I practice my writing outside of class (GA). -1.566*
14 I look forward to writing (GA). -1.738*
24 I would enjoy any kind of writing job (GA). -1.798*
49 When I know I’ve got a writing assignment due, I start to work right away so I’ll have time
to do a good job (TA). -1.895*
*Denotes significant statements which distinguish Factor 2 from Factor 1 statements.
By contrast, Factor 2, labeled the Pessimists, had become significantly more negative toward writing by the end of the semester (See Table 4). They indicated they wrote only when they had to (GA), put off working on writing assignments (TA), and avoided writing if they could (GA). Yet, it was still important to these students that readers enjoyed what they wrote (AS). Factor 2 students also said they felt good when they met deadlines, but their ability to do so when admitting to procrastination and writing avoidance was arguably in question. Two of the highly rated statements by these students dealt with their mechanical skills
—spelling (MSC). Among the cluster of highly rated statements, only the one discussing the value of writing skills in a profession (CES) was shared by Factor 1 and Factor 2 students—though Factor 2 students placed this statement as the ninth of nine top-ranked statements.
Factor 2’s negative responses revealed dissatisfaction with writing in general, a lack of dedication to the craft, and an aversion to the writing process. Seven (GA) statements confirmed the group’s pessimism toward becoming successful writers. They included rejection of writing under any number of circumstances: having their writing read carefully by others, looking forward to writing, practicing writing outside of class, even a negative reaction to enjoying any kind of writing job. These students’ attitudes indicated they did not work in a timely fashion (TA). They were pragmatic in that they did not agree with the statement that the ability to write was becoming less important for professional success (CA).
Conclusions
The research findings tended to confirm what prior studies on writing apprehension and anecdotal evidence had revealed about student attitudes toward writing: a dichotomy exists in the classroom between those students who have confidence in their skills and those who don’t. This stratification becomes even more pronounced as the semester progresses. Although a selective number of “doubting” students appear to overcome their apprehension and gain confidence in their writing ability while in a media writing course, most of the students who arrive with anxious, self-doubting, or other negative attitudes become even more disenchanted and discouraged as the course proceeds. Analysis of the z-scores in this Q Methodology study further suggests that the mindset of the negative (Factor 2) students begins with writing apprehension and then regresses further to detachment from and dissatisfaction with the act of writing itself. The existence of such attitudes among introductory journalism students warrants serious remedial attention from both instructors and administrators.
In this Q Methodology study of introductory media writing students, a significant segment of students (Factor 1) began the semester with positive attitudes toward writing, with an appreciation for the rigors of the craft, and with an understanding of the value of good writing skills in their professional development. At the end of the semester, these students remained very positive toward writing and were able to distinguish their skill sets and preferences of writing styles. The majority of Factor 1 students were from the news-editorial sequence, but there was also a solid cadre of public relations sequence students. Male and female members of Factor 1 were equally split, and age (18-39) did not appear to be an influence on intensity of attitudes toward writing. For example, the five members of Factor 1 with the most positive statements toward writing were ages18-20. The majority of Factor 1 members were sophomores.
The members of Factor 2 began their introductory media writing course as tentative and anxious students. They preferred to have control over when and how they write. Although they enjoyed meeting a deadline, they admitted they procrastinated. They were also troubled by the mechanics of writing (e.g., grammar rules). They did not discount the value of writing skills. On the contrary, they understood the importance of such skills in their profession. But they failed to demonstrate an appreciation for the craft of writing and what was required for advancement. They did not look forward to writing. They did not practice writing outside of class. They were resistant to criticism toward their writing. Although they appeared to understand the value of writing skills in their career development, they were reluctant to accept any kind of writing job. There were slightly more males in Factor 2 (five male, three females in the post-test), and ages ranged from 19 to 22; most on this Factor were sophomores. There were no news-editorial sequence students represented in the Factor 2, post-test group. The majority of the Pessimists came from public relations and advertising sequences.
One of the conclusions that Riffe and Stacks brought forward in their second MCWAM study was that their instrument “. . . would be better used in counseling or advising capacity, or as a classroom diagnostic tool. …”34 The results in this study would emphatically support their notion. Furthermore, by including the use of a Q sort to administer the MCWAM statements, instructors could recover a richer and more accurate analysis of how their students were feeling about their writing. They could uncover information about the relative importance of the statements rated by their students because they would find a definite hierarchy of statements produced by a Q analysis that would otherwise be obscured by using a scalar approach.
Investigators asked five research questions at the outset of this study. The first dealt with the multidimensionality of writing apprehension. Riffe and Stacks found that a number of factors contribute to writer apprehension. This study supports that premise. The apprehensive factor that arose in the pre-test was sensitive to mechanical skills, and the general attitude toward writing displayed by the students was characterized by doubt and anxiety. Apprehensive students admitted to procrastination and a lack of writing practice outside the classroom. By contrast, investigators again found a very optimistic and enthusiastic viewpoint expressed by a cadre of students enrolled in their first college journalistic writing class. They exhibited low apprehension and were convinced of the importance of their writing skills. This suggested that not all college writing students were apprehensive about the writing process, and these optimistic students were confident about a career in writing.
The second research question dealt with evidence from Riffe and Stacks that gender might contribute to differences in writing apprehension among students. In fact, they opined that female attitudes may be more pro-writing than males. Investigators discovered no conclusive evidence of gender influence regarding writing apprehension. In both the pre- and post-tests, there were an equal number of males and females represented in Factor 1. Factor 2 had slightly more males than females, one and two, respectively, in the pre- and post-tests. Although further investigation of the role of gender in student writer attitudes is warranted, investigators noted in this study that those students with both the highest pro-writing and anti-writing ratings were males (e.g., three of the top five in each Factor were males).
The third research question involved the relationship between career importance and writing apprehension. This study did not conclusively support Riffe and Stacks’ contention that the more relevant a writing career was to students, the less writing apprehension they would exhibit. Students from both Factors involved in the pre-test and post-test acknowledged the importance of writing skills in their professional development. The Factor 1 students rated the role of writing skills in a career as the most important in the post-test. Factor 2 students rated these skills at the bottom of their top-ranked statements. It appeared that the less apprehensive students were more confident about their careers and saw a direct link between their talents and future success. The more apprehensive, pessimistic students understood the importance of writing skills in a career. But they appeared to approach the subject from a conceptual rather than personal viewpoint, perhaps distanced by their other negative attitudes toward writing.
The fourth research question examined the contention of Riffe and Stacks that media students were more sensitive to audience salience or the importance of writing for others. This study provided only slight evidence to support this notion. In the pre-test, Factor 1 students selected one statement (I like writing for an audience) among their highest-rated statements. In the post-test, Factor 1 students rated another audience salience statement (I like writing to inform people) highly. This might also indicate a progression of students’ writing skills and appreciation for the news writing style—that of providing a service to the audience. Factor 2 students selected an audience salience-type statement (It is important to me that readers enjoy what I write) among their highest rated (nine) post-test statements.
The final research question dealt with the effect of classroom activities on the writing apprehension of student writers. Based on the attitudes expressed by students on both factors, investigators believe that a writing classroom resembles a bifurcated environment. The confident students were eager to write, acknowledged the requirements of their craft, and worked to meet deadlines and achieve a successful outcome. By contrast, the apprehensive students entered the writing classroom with concerns about their writing skills. They acknowledged their lack of commitment to the craft of writing. This study revealed that a semester of classroom work did not have a significant impact on changing the attitudes of apprehensive students. Only two students originally in the apprehensive Factor 2 group had shifted to the optimistic Factor 1 group by the post-test. At the same time, one Factor 1 student had become part of Factor 2 by the post-test. What the research demonstrated was that the negative-minded students had become even more pessimistic at the end of the term. Whereas their responses were tentative at the outset of the course, at the end of a 16-week media writing class, the Factor 2 students’ bleak mindset may be summarized with the highest-rated statement: I write only when I have to. While the Factor 1 students were leaving the course with a stronger assessment of their competencies and expectations for future success, the Factor 2 students were rejecting the very practices that were required if they were ever to succeed as journalism students and effective professionals.
The research provided insight into the depth of negativity that existed among groups of students in the writing classroom. The research also indicated that instructors who wish to have an impact on the apprehensive student must address the negative attitudes at the outset of the course and must remain dedicated to bolstering the confidence of these students throughout the term. If these students are not targeted for remedial action, they will surely fail to become competent, confident writers.
With this follow-up study, investigators believe they have provided a broader perspective on the media writing apprehension instrument created by Riffe and Stacks. Q Methodology in this study revealed the serious impact that writing apprehension can have on student attitudes, both groupwise and individually, during a course. Students who start a class with apprehension, may well end the course disenchanted with the act of writing itself and pessimistic about their future in a journalism program and a profession.
The enhanced perspective offered by Q Methodology reveals the range of attitudes, from resistance to pessimism, that are manifested by students coping with the writing process. New and deeper insights may be obtained concerning the subject of student writer apprehension, and these insights offer opportunities to enhance writing instruction.
Notes
1Phillips, G.M. 1968. “Reticence: pathology of the normal speaker.” Speech Monographs (35):39-49.
2Riffe, D. and Stacks, D.W. 1992. “Student Characteristics and Writing Apprehension.” Journalism
Educator 47(2):39-49.
3Bruce McKeown. 2001. “Loss of Meaning in Likert Scaling: A Note on the Q Methodological Alternative.”
Operant Subjectivity 24(4): 201-206.
4Stephenson, W. 1953. The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
5A Q sort is a projective technique in which subjects sort through a quantity of statements keeping in mind the
condition of instruction proposed by investigators. Subjects place stories on an 11-point continuum ranging
from +5 to -5. The statement choices are distributed over the continuum, and, for example, subjects might be
asked to put 2 statements under the +5 rating, four statements under the +4 rating, etc., until all the statements
have been distributed. The largest group of statements would be located in the middle of the continuum and
would represent those statements for which subjects did not have a strong feeling either positively or negatively, and they would receive a rating of 0.
6Stephenson, W. 1965. “Perspectives in Psychology: XXII: Definitions of Opinion, Attitude and Belief.” The
Psychological Record 15: 281-288.
7Emig, J. 1971. The Composing Process of Twelfth Graders. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English; Emig, J. 1977. “Writing as a Mode of Learning.” College Composition and Communication 28:122-128.
8Zurek, J. 1986. “Research on writing process can aid newswriting teachers.” Journalism Educator 41(4):19-23.
9Conn, E. 1968. “Tentative Conception of the Newswriting Process.” Journalism Quarterly 45:344-345.
10Smith, E.J. 1979. “The screw model had advantages over inverted pyramid.” Journalism Educator 33(1): 17-19
11Pitts, B.J. 1984. “Protocol analysis of the news writing process.” Newspaper Research Journal 39(4):12-20;
Pitts, B.J. 1987. “Taping Protocols Helps Professors Grade News Stories.” Journalism Educator 42(2):28-30.
12Pitts, B.J. 1989. “Model provides description of news writing process.” Journalism Educator 44(1):12-19, 59.
13Murray, D. 1978. “Internal Revision: A Process of Discovery.” In C.R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.) Research on
Composing (pp. 85-104). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English; Hayes, J.R. and Flower, L.S. 1980. “Writing as Problem Solving.” Visible Language 14(4):388-399; Yoder, S. 1993. “Teaching Writing Revision: Attitudes and Copy Changes.” Journalism Educator 48(3):41-47.
14Dodd, J.E., Mays, R.P., and Tipton, J.H. 1997. “The Use of an Accuracy Survey to Improve Student Writing.” Journalism and Mass Communications Educator 52(1):45-51.
15Ward, S. and Seifert, R. 1990. “The Importance of Mechanics in Journalistic Writing: A Study of Reporters and
Editors.” Journalism Quarterly 67(1):104-113.
16Schierhorn, A.B. and Endres, K.L. 1992. “Magazine Writing Instruction and the Composition Revolution.”
Journalism Educator 47(2):57-64.
17Massé, M.H. and Popovich, M.N. 1998. “Assessing Faculty Attitudes Toward the Teaching of Writing.”
Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 53(3):50-64.
18Massé, M.H. 1999. “Evaluating Students' Progress By Reading Their Journals.” Journalism & Mass
Communication Educator 54(3):43-56.
19Humphrey, A.S. 1982. “A Multivariate Model for the Assessment of Journalism Writing Abilities.”
Unpublished M.A. thesis, California State University, Fullerton.
20Daly, J. and Miller, M. 1975a. “The Empirical Development of an Instrument to Measure Writing Apprehension,”
Research in the Teaching of English 9:242-249.
21Daly, J. and Miller, M. 1975b. “Further Studies in Writing Apprehension: SAT Scores, Success, Expectations,
Willingness to Take Advanced Courses and Sex Differences,” Research in the Teaching of English 9:249-253.
22Daly, J. 1977. “The Effects of Writing Apprehension on Message Encoding.” Journalism Quarterly,
54:566-572.
23Humphrey, “A Multivariate Model.”
24Ruffner, M. 1981. “An Empirical Approach for the Assessment of Journalistic Writing,” Journalism
Quarterly 58:77-82.
25Boozer, R.W., Stacks, D.W. and Lally, T.D. 1983. “Writing Apprehension: Further Conceptualization
and Refinement of Measurement,” in S. Bruno (Ed.), ABCA Proceedings: The Corporate
Connection (pp. 27-47). Houston: American Business Communication Association.
26Riffe, D. and Stacks, D.W. 1988. “Dimensions of Writing Apprehension among Mass Communication
Students.” Journalism Quarterly 65(2):384-391.
27Riffe, D. and Stacks, D.W. 1992. “Student Characteristics and Writing Apprehension.” Journalism Educator 47(2):39-49.
28Popovich, M.N., Massé, M.H. and Pitts, Beverley. 2003. “Revisiting Student Writer Apprehension: A New
Interpretation of the Riffe and Stacks’ Writing Apprehension Measure.” Operant Subjectivity 26(3): 88-111.
29Stephenson, W. 1988-89. “The Quantumization of Psychological Events.” Operant Subjectivity 12 (1/2): 1-23.
30Riffe and Stacks, “Student Characteristics,” 41-42.
31PQMethod (version 2.09) was adapted by Peter Schmolck (2000) from a mainframe program, QMethod, written John Atkinson, and is available as freeware at the following Web address: http://www.rz.unibw- muenchen.de/~p41bsmk/qmethod/, or the program can be accessed by visiting www.qmethod.org.
32Brown, S.R. 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 208-224.
33Brown, Political Subjectivity, 239-247
34Riffe and Stacks, “Student Characteristics,” 47.