Analyzing Perceived Writing Difficulties Through The Social Cognitive Theory

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899
Rahmat et al.
Volume 3 Issue 2, pp. 1487-1499
Date of Publication: 16th October 2017
DOI-https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.32.14871499
ANALYZING PERCEIVED WRITING DIFFICULTIES

THROUGH THE SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
Noor Hanim Rahmat

Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia
[email protected]
Mazlen Arepin
Faculty of Education, Univeristi Teknologi MARA, Puncak Alam, Malaysia
[email protected]
D Rohayu Mohd Yunos

Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Pasir Gudang Branch, Johor Bahru,
Malaysia
[email protected]
Sharifah Amani Syed Abdul Rahman

Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Pasir Gudang Branch, Johor Bahru,
Malaysia
[email protected]
Abstract
Writing can both be considered as social and cognitive activity. Nevertheless, among the four
language skills, writing skill is among the least liked by many ESL students. Students find writing
a tedious process. Teachers find writing a difficult skill to teach. Writing skill involves planning,
writing, editing, and perhaps re-writing and these skills are not easily taught nor learnt.
Psychologists believe that expectations play a very important role in students success in
learning. Writing teachers would agree that among some of the reasons why students cannot
write well is because they find ESL academic writing difficult. This research looks into students
perceived difficulties towards ESL academic writing. 373 students from seven faculties
participated in this study. The participants responded to 25 items on 5 Likert-scale (always, very
often, sometimes, rarely and never). The questionnaires were analyzed to determine the students
2017 The author and GRDS Publishing. All rights reserved. 1487
Available Online at: http://grdspublishing.org/
ISSN 2454-5899
perceived difficulties on ESL academic writing. Mean score, t-test and one way ANOVA were
used to report on the findings. Findings revealed students found writing to be difficult for several
reasons.
Keywords
ESL, Language Skills, Academic Writing, Writing Skills, Perceived Difficulties
1. Introduction
According to Riswanto (2016), learning to write is not as natural as learning to speak.
Some speakers got away with scarce content through their fluent speech. However, the issue in
writing is more complex than speaking. It was reported that students with writing difficulties do
not only have problem dealing with spelling and forming letters, but also with generating ideas
for writing and this can lead to negative thoughts of the actual writing. According to Al-
Khasawneh (2010), negative thoughts about writing or perceived difficulties can influence the
way the writer write his/her ideas? What are some of the perception that learners have when they
said ESL academic writing is difficult? The objective of this study is to find out what ESL
learners think about essay writing.
1.1 Research Questions
This research is done based on the following questions:
(a) What is the mean for cognitive, environmental and behavioral perspectives across
faculties?
(b) Is there any significant difference for cognitive, environmental and behavioral
perspectives across faculties?
(c) How are ESL learners influenced by cognitive, environmental and behavioral
perspectives?
2. Review of Related Literature

2.1 Writing from Cognitive Perspective
Writers agree that writing is a thinking activity. The writer is constantly engaging in a
thinking activity during the process. According to Rahmat (2011), an active write is constantly
creating and criticizing as they write. Creating refers to the writers attempt to decide on the
ISSN 2454-5899
best information to be included in the essay. Criticising refers to the act of writing, editing and
further revision by the writing throughout the writing process.
Writers usually write for different reasons. Classroom writing can be seen as either real
or display writing (Brown, 2000). These two categories of writing are actually types of writing in
two end of a continuum. Real writing refers to the types of writing that are usually (although not
always) assessed. Writers write real writing contents because they have contents they need to
put in writing. Examples of real writing are journal writing, letter writing, or even advertisement
writing, etc. Examples of display writing are essay writing in class, assignment writing, thesis
writing and many more.
2.2 Social Cognitive Theory
According to Santrock (2009), Banduras social cognitive theory emphasizes the
symbiotic relationship between behaviour, environment, and person as well as cognitive factors.
Behaviour
Person/Cognitve Enviromennt
Figure 1: Banduras Social Cognitive Theory (Santrock, 2009,p 248)
Figure 1 above shows Banduras Social Cognitive Theory. Cognitive factors include
learners perception on his success or failure towards learning. Learners behaviour is influenced
by his/her environment-a positive environment will create a positive outcome and vice versa.
Finally, the behaviour of the learner will result from the existing environment coupled with
his/her cognitive perception of the learning process.
2.3 Perception of Difficulties in Writing
Among some of the top reasons why students hate writing are (a) they have insufficient
groundwork and this can develop into insecurity and frustration. Secondly, (a) students often feel
that essay writing is a subject that has no answers. This is true because there can be answer
keys to essay questions but the actual marking scheme of the essay can only be done by the
writing teacher. Next, due to the uncertainty, some learners hate writing because they have a fear
ISSN 2454-5899
of failure. Contrary to popular believe, a piece of good writing need not have high number of
vocabulary words nor is time consuming.
2.4 Theoretical Framework
Behaviour
(Perceived Difficulties)
Cognitive Environment
(The Writer) (ClassroomTeaching)
Figure 2: Theoretical Framework of the Study

2.4.1 Behaviour (Perceived Difficulties)
According to Petersen (2015), perceived difficulties can stem from difficulties in
perceived difficulties in punctuation, language use and also writing skills. Problems in
punctuation include problems in using full-stops, question marks, exclamation marks, comma,
colon, semi-colons and many more. Problems in language use include problems in using
appropriate type and style of language in writing, use of synonyms/antonyms, use of tense, word
order and many more. Finally, problems in writing skills include problems in spelling,
summarizing, paraphrasing, using in-text citation, and many more.
2.4.2 Environment (Classroom Teaching)
Often, the learners like or dislike towards a learning process in the classroom would
depend on factors like teachers language proficiency, and methods of teaching, medium of
instruction. According to Solagha (2013),l earners are also affected by teachers lack of interest
(or vice versa) towards the subject.
2.4.3 Cognitive (Writer)
During the process of writing, the writer is constantly suing his/her cognitive skills to
make decisions. The decisions are related to the writing and they include the choice of the target
language, as well as choice of what to write or not write.
2.5 Past Research
A study by Al-Khsawneh (2010) reported that the environment is the reason why students
found writing difficult. Students also identified teaching method as one of the contributing
ISSN 2454-5899
factors. Some students also felt that some writing teachers need more training themselves in
order to teach writing. Some students noticed the lack of interest on the part of the teacher to
teach writing.
A study by Ghabool (2012) was done on 30 ESL students from upper and lower
secondary in Malaysia to investigate on the problems that ESL writers face when they compose.
The study reported that ESL writers face problems in conventions, punctuations and language
use. The result revealed that language use was the most common problem reported by ESL
writers
A research was done by Kho, Wong & Chuah (2013) to investigate the writing
difficulties faced by 132 students in a higher institution in Sarawak, Malaysia. The findings
reported that students had problems with creativity and critical thinking skills when it came to
writing. They were also reported to face problems with proofreading and language use besides
also facing problem with tenses, vocabulary and also using their L1 to write L2 essays.
Another study by Zakaria, Ibrahim, Rahmat, Noorezam. , Aripin, & Rasdi (2014) was
conducted on 497 students from four different engineering faculties (Chemica, Electrical, Civil,
and Mechanical) and Business Management to find out if ESL writers differ in their writing
strategies. Results revealed that there were no significant differences in the way these different
writers use their long term memory, explored their task environment as well as they writing
process.
On the other hand, a study by Rahmat, Syed Abdul Rahman & Mohd Yunos (2015)
looked into the writing strategies of three undergraduates studying Bachelor of Education
(TESL), Bachelor of Education (Physical Education and Health) and Bachelor of Education
(Science). The three writers underwent Think Aloud Protocol the findings revealed that the
strategies used by writers of different disciplines do differ in some ways. Some interesting
findings were (a) good writers took a longer time to write and narrative inquiry revealed that
even the good writers perceived essay writing as difficult; hence, they said they needed more
time to begin writing. Another interesting finding was that writers from social science took a
longer time to plan compared to their sciences counterpart. The writers from non-sciences were
also reported to revise compared to the other writers.
3. Methodology
ISSN 2454-5899
This study used the survey research design to examine the perceived difficulties faced by
ESL academic writers. Data was collected from 373 students randomly selected from seven
different faculties namely faculty of engineering, mechanical engineering, applied science, Art
and Design, Business Management, Hotel and Management and also PusatAsasi (TESL). The
instrument used in this study is a questionnaire with two main sections. In section A, the students
responded to information about their demographic profile and section B, learners respond to the
reasons they fund writing difficult, and in section C the learners responded to what they perceive
as difficult in ESL writing. The participants responded to 25 items on 5Likert-scale (always,
very often, sometimes, rarely and never). The questionnaires were analyzed to determine the
students perceived difficulties on ESL academic writing. Mean score, t-test and one way
ANOVA were used to report on the findings.
4. Discussion of Findings
This section will report the findings based on the three research questions.
4.1 Research Question 1:
(a) What is the mean for cognitive, environmental and behavioral perspectives across
faculties?
Table 1: Mean Score statistic for cognitive and environmental perspectives by faculty;
n Mean SD
Electrical Engineering 20 28.88 2.48
Mechanical Engineering 109 29.48 3.16
Applied Science 47 27.51 4.01
Art and design 16 30.41 3.63
TESL 113 30.47 3.91
Business management 40 29.69 3.30
Hotel and tourism management 28 27.85 3.08
Total 373 29.44 3.64
A one-way ANOVA between groups was performed to explore whether there is different
in cognitive and environmental perspectives of students from different faculty. Students
compared by seven different faculties namely Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering,
Applied Science, Art and Design, TESL, Business Management and Hotel and Tourism
Management. The mean statistic score by students faculty composition presented in Table 1
ISSN 2454-5899
Table 2: Mean score statistic for behavioral perspectives by faculty

n Mean SD
Electrical Engineering 20 84.68 7.40
Mechanical Engineering 109 85.26 13.18
Applied Science 47 79.22 11.80
Art and design 16 83.63 21.50
TESL 113 94.64 13.33
Business management 40 85.95 16.01
Hotel and tourism management 28 78.08 16.08
Total 373 86.78 14.88
Table 2 above reports the mean score for all the seven faculties. The highest mean was
ASASI (TESL) at 94.64. This can be explained by the research by Rahmat, et.al. (2015) where
writers from non-sciences perceived writing as difficult compared to their sciences course mates.
(b) Is there any significant difference for cognitive, environmental and behavioral
perspectives across faculties?
Table 3: One Way ANOVA on cognitive and environmental perspectives by Faculty
Source Sum of square df Mean square F Sig.
Between groups 391.13 6 65.19 5.27 0.000
Within groups 4527.253 366 12.37
The one way ANOVA result in Table 3 indicates that there was a statistically significant
difference at the p < .05 level in the mean for cognitive and environmental perspectives of the
seven faculty , F (6,366) = 5.27, p =0.000. The effect size calculated using eta squared, was 0.08.
This indicates that there is a medium difference in mean cognitive and environmental
perspectives between groups.
Table 4: One Way ANOVA on behavioral perspectives by Faculty

Source Sum of square df Mean square F Sig.
Between groups 12315.67 6 2052.61 10.728 0.000
Within groups 70028.20 366 191.334
ISSN 2454-5899
The one way ANOVA result in Table 4 indicates that there was a statistically significant
difference at the p < .05 level in the behavioral perspectives for the seven faculty , F (6,366) =
10.728, p =0.000. The effect size calculated using eta squared, was 0.15. This indicates that there
is a large difference in mean behavioral perspectives between groups. This finding is in
accordance with the findings by Rahmat, et.al (2015) who found that writers from different
faculties do use different strategies when they wrote.
Table 5: Mean for Different values for Pairwise Comparison of Cognitive and Environmental
Perspectives
Electrical Mechanica Applie Art TES Business Hotel and
Engineerin l d and L manageme tourism
g Engineerin Scienc Desig nt manageme
g e n nt
Electrical 0.00 0.61 1.37 1.53 1.59 0.82 1.03
Engineerin
g
Mechanical 0.00 1.97 0.93 0.99 0.21 1.64
Engineerin
g
Applied 0.00 2.89 2.96 2.18 0.33
Science
Art and 0.00 0.06 0.72 2.56
Design
TESL 0.00 0.78 2.63
Business 0.00 1.85
Manageme
nt
Hotel and 0.00
Tourism
Manageme
nt
A Post-Hoc comparisons using Tukey HSD test was performed to determine the mean
difference between the pairs. The mean score for students from Electrical Engineering faculty
(M=28.89; SD=2.48), Mechanical Engineering faculty (M=29.48; SD=3.15), Applied Science
faculty (M=27.51; SD=4.01), Art and Design faculty (M=30.41; SD=3.63), TESL faculty
(M=30.47; SD=3.91), Business Management faculty (M=29.69; SD=3.30) and Hotel and
Tourism Management faculty (M=27.85; SD=3.08). The result as shown in Table 5 indicated
ISSN 2454-5899
that there is no significantly different on the cognitive and environment perspectives for the
seven faculties.
Table 6: Mean for Different values for Pairwise Comparison for behavioral perspectives
Electrical Mechanical Applie Art TES Business Hotel and
Engineerin Engineerin d and L managemen tourism
g g Science Desig t managemen
n t
Electrical 0.00 0.58 5.46 1.05 9.96 1.27 6.60
Engineering
Mechanical 0.00 6.04 1.63 9.38 0.69 7.18
Engineering
Applied 0.00 4.41 15.42 6.73 1.14
Science
Art and 0.00 11.01 2.31 5.55
Design
TESL 0.00 8.69 16.56
Business 0.00 0.00 7.87
Managemen
t
Hotel and 0.00
Tourism
Managemen
t
A Post-Hoc comparisons using Tukey HSD test was performed to determine the mean
difference between the pairs. The result from Table 6 indicated that only mean score for Asasi
TESL faculty (M=94.64; SD=13.33) was significantly different from the others six faculties
Electrical Engineering faculty (M=84.68; SD=7.40), Mechanical Engineering faculty (M=85.26;
SD=13.18), Applied Science faculty (M=79.22; SD=11.80), Art and Design faculty (M=83.63;
SD=21.50), Business Management faculty (M=85.95; SD=16.01) and Hotel and Tourism
Management faculty (M=78.08; SD=16.08). The result as shown in Table 3 indicated that there
is a significant difference on the behavioral perspectives for TESL faculty. This finding can be
explained by the fact that comparatively, TESL students would be better at ESL essay writing
because and findings by Rahmat, et.al (2015)did show that better writers took a longer time to
begin and perceived writing and a difficult task.
ISSN 2454-5899
(c) How are ESL learners influenced by cognitive, environmental and behavioral
perspectives?
Figure 3: Frequency for Cognitive and Environmental Perspectives
Figure 3 above shows the frequency for mean of cognitive and environment perspectives.
For, cognitive perspectives, the highest mean is write in L1(mean 3.5). For environment
perspectives, the highest is teacher shows lack of interest (mean-4.6) and also teacher has low
proficiency (mean 4.4).
Figure 4 Mean for Behavioural Perspectives

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Figure 4: Frequency for Behavioral Perspectives
ISSN 2454-5899
Figure 4 shows the bar chart for mean of behavioral perspectives. When it comes to
writing skills, the students found writing introduction (mean-3.3) and conclusion (mean-3.4) as
their obstacle. What is interesting is that the students perceived punctuation in the introduction
and conclusion as a major obstacle for their ESL writing. Similarly, the study by Ghabool (2012)
also found that writers considered punctuation as one of their obstacles in ESL writing.
5. Conclusion
5.1 Summary of Findings
As a whole, this research has revealed that writers from the non-sciences (specifically
TESL students) behaved in accordance with previous findings. They perceived writing as
difficult and focus their time and attention when it came to essay writing. However, this is not to
say the students from non-sciences were not good writers, rather they saw writing as a means to
completing their assignments and not as something they needed to give attention to. They were
more concerned with the content of the writing and put less emphasis on the ESL academic
writing skills. Brown (2000)10 differentiates between composing and writing. The process of
writing is considered and a means to present content. The composing process, however, is seen
as a thinking process and the writer would be seen to spend as much attention to the content as
well as the composing strategy, and the composing strategy is more prevalent among non-
sciences writers.
5.2 Pedagogical Implications and Suggestion for future Research
This study revealed that different writers from different disciplines focus on different
aspects of the composing process. What is the pedagogical implication of this research?
Traditional writing teachers design their writing activities as if they were extensions of grammar
lessons. Doing so may lead two negative repercussions. Firstly, the learners who had good
grammar skills may be disappointed when they struggle with writing skills because the two skills
are not entirely related. On the other end of the continuum, learners who already are have low
self-esteem because of their low proficiency in grammar can be left demotivated to practice
writing skills. Alhammad (2017) also reported that language learners with anxiety over learning
the language may perceive the language skills as more difficult than it actually is. Writing
ISSN 2454-5899
teachers need to be exposed to many different approaches of teaching ESL learners see writing
as a skill to be learnt regardless of their language proficiency.
5.3 Scope of Future Research
It is suggested that future research looked into what more aspects of perceived writing
difficulties faced by ESL writers. In addition to that, it is also interesting to explore the writing
difficulties and writing behavior through a qualitative study. Data from Think Aloud Protocol
can help researchers explore the cognitive aspects of writing behavior and difficulties.
References
Alhammad,M. (2017) Motivation, Anxiety and Gender: How they Influence the Acquisition of
English as a Second Language for Saudi Students Studying in Ireland. PEOPLE:
International Journal of Social Science. Vol 3 (2) DOI-
https://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.32.93104
Al-Khasawneh, F. (2010) Writing for Academic Purposes: Problems faced by Arab postgraduate
students of the college of business, UUM. ESL World, Issue 2 (28) v ol. 9, Retrieved
from http://www.esp-world.info
Brown,H.D. (2000) Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy.
(Second Edition). NY: Longman
Ghabool,N. (2012) Invetsigating Malaysian ESL Students Writing problems on Conventions,
Punctuation, and Language Use at Secondary School Level. Journal of Studies in
Education, Vol. 2, No. 3
Kho,G.W., Wong,T.W. &Chuah,K.M.(2013) Writing Difficulties faced by Politeknik Kuching
Sarawak Commerce Diploma Students in Doing their Assignments.The Asian journal of
English Language & Pedagogy. Vol 1.90-101.
Petersen,J.(2015) WhyDo Students Hate Essay Writing? Retrieved from
http://askpetersen.com/why-do-students-hate-writing-or-the-biggest-myths-about-essays/
Rahmat,N.H., Syed Abdul Rahman,S.A. &MohdYunos, D.R.(2015) Exploring ESL Academic
Writing Strategies across Course Programmes. Proceedings at Persidangan Anatrabangsa
Kelestarian Insan kali ke -2.The Royale Bintang Resort & Spa, Seremban, Malaysia. 19-
20 Oct 2015.
ISSN 2454-5899
Riswanto,R. (2016) Improving the Students Ability in Writing Report Genre through Mind
Mapping at Junior High Schools in South Sumatera, Indonesia. PEOPLE: International
Journal of Social Science. Vol 2 (1) DOI-http://dx.doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2016.s21.118
Santrok,J.W. (2009) Educational Psychology (4th Edition) Boston: McGraw Hill.
Solagha,O.Z. (2013)Writing Difficulties in the Swedish ESL Classroom Retrieved from
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:652520/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Zakaria,N., Ibrahim,N., Rahmat,N.H., Noorezam,M. , Aripin,N. &Rasdi,N.N.(2014) ESL
Writing Strategies across Disciplinesamong Diploma Students.Secial Issue 10. 57-60.
Retreived from www.ijtra.com

Analyzing Perceived Writing Difficulties Through The Social Cognitive Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analyzing Perceived Writing Difficulties Through The Social Cognitive Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analyzing Perceived Writing Difficulties Through The Social Cognitive Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences

ANALYZING PERCEIVED WRITING DIFFICULTIES

Noor Hanim Rahmat

D Rohayu Mohd Yunos

Sharifah Amani Syed Abdul Rahman

2. Review of Related Literature

Figure 1: Banduras Social Cognitive Theory (Santrock, 2009,p 248)

2.4 Theoretical Framework

Figure 2: Theoretical Framework of the Study

Table 2: Mean score statistic for behavioral perspectives by faculty

Table 4: One Way ANOVA on behavioral perspectives by Faculty

Figure 3: Frequency for Cognitive and Environmental Perspectives

Figure 4 Mean for Behavioural Perspectives

Figure 4: Frequency for Behavioral Perspectives

You might also like