Insights into tertiary English - Majored students’ writing self - efficacy

 TNU Journal of Science and Technology 225(11): 47 - 54 
47 
INSIGHTS INTO TERTIARY ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS’ 
WRITING SELF-EFFICACY 
Tran Quoc Thao
1*
, Nguyen Hoang Nhat Khanh
2
1
Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HUTECH), 
2
The University of Dalat 
ABSTRACT 
Determining learners’ self-efficacy plays a pivotal role in improving their language learning process. 
In additional, understanding language learners’ writing self-efficacy can help to enhance their writing 
performance. However, EFL learners’ writing self-efficacy varies in accordance with their learning 
contexts. This paper, therefore, aims at presenting a study of the writing self-efficacy of English-
majored students at the context of The University of Dalat in Lam Dong province, Vietnam. This 
study involved 179 senior English-majored students in answering closed-ended questionnaires and 
15 students in participating in semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data from questionnaire were 
analyzed using SPSS 20.0 in terms of descriptive statistics, while qualitative data from interviews 
were analyzed employing the content analysis approach. The results revealed that participants 
believed that they could write English well in their daily life and perform the writing tasks English in 
writing classes. Furthermore, participants were found to be self-confident in their writing abilities. 
The findings of this study are hoped to contribute to a better understanding of English-majored 
students’ writing self-efficacy at the research context and other similar ones. As such, pedagogical 
implications are suggested for improving the quality of teaching and learning of academic writing 
based on English-majored students’ writing self-efficacy. 
Keywords: Academic writing; belief; English-majored student; self-efficacy; writing skill 
Received: 10/6/2020; Revised: 15/6/2020; Published: 22/6/2020 
TÌM HIỂU NIỀM TIN VÀO NĂNG LỰC VIẾT 
CỦA SINH VIÊN CHUYÊN NGÀNH TIẾNG ANH 
Trần Quốc Thao1*, Nguyễn Hoàng Nhật Khanh2 
1Trường Đại học Công nghệ Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, 2Trường Đại học Đà Lạt 
TÓM TẮT 
Niềm tin vào năng lực của bản thân đóng vai trò then chốt trong việc cải thiện quá trình học ngôn 
ngữ. Hiểu rõ niềm tin vào năng lực viết của người học ngôn ngữ có thể giúp nâng cao khả năng 
viết của họ. Tuy nhiên, niềm tin vào năng lực viết của người học ngôn ngữ ở các ngữ cảnh khác 
nhau thì khác nhau. Vì vậy, bài báo này nhằm trình bày nghiên cứu về niềm tin vào năng lực viết 
của sinh viên chuyên ngành tiếng Anh của trường Đại học Đà Lạt, thuộc tỉnh Lâm Đồng, Việt 
Nam. Nghiên cứu này có sự tham gia của 179 sinh viên năm cuối chuyên ngành tiếng Anh trong 
việc trả lời bảng khảo sát và 15 sinh viên tham gia phỏng vấn bán cấu trúc. Dữ liệu định lượng từ 
bảng câu hỏi được phân tích bằng SPSS 20.0 về mặt thống kê mô tả, trong khi dữ liệu định tính từ 
các cuộc phỏng vấn được phân tích sử dụng phương pháp phân tích nội dung. Kết quả cho thấy 
những người tham gia tin rằng họ có thể viết tiếng Anh tốt trong cuộc sống hàng ngày và trong lớp 
học. Hơn nữa, những người tham gia cũng thể hiện sự tự tin vào khả năng viết của mình. Những 
phát hiện của nghiên cứu này được hy vọng sẽ góp phần hiểu rõ hơn về những sinh viên năm cuối 
chuyên ngành tiếng Anh. Như vậy, ý nghĩa sư phạm được đề xuất để cải thiện chất lượng dạy và 
học viết học thuật dựa trên các sinh viên chuyên ngành tiếng Anh. 
Từ khóa: viết học thuật; niềm tin; sinh viên chuyên ngành tiếng Anh; năng lực bản thân; kỹ năng viết 
Ngày nhận bài: 10/6/2020; Ngày hoàn thiện: 15/6/2020; Ngày đăng: 22/6/2020 
 * Corresponding author. Email: tq.thao@hutech.edu.vn
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34238/tnu-jst.3273 
 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn
Tran Quoc Thao et al. TNU Journal of Science and Technology 225(11): 47 - 54 
 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 48 
1. Introduction 
Writing is believed to be the key skill that can 
contribute much to students’ learning success 
[1]. Additionally, researchers [2], [3], [4] 
have detected the connection between self-
beliefs and self-efficacy in writing and other 
variables related to writing and writing 
outcomes as students’ beliefs about 
themselves as good writers can present a vital 
role in self-regulated writing [5-6]. Students’ 
beliefs in their writing will vary throughout 
the writing area, and the sense of self-efficacy 
varies in prophetic power relying on the task 
to be predicted. Likewise, self-efficacy has a 
significant impact on behavior [7-8]. This has 
wider meanings as proof that students’ self-
efficacy in their writing are linked to the 
learning strategies they accept [9]. Writing is 
also regarded as a powerful and productive 
skill, and it is a complicated action that needs 
a particular level of having language 
knowledge, using writing strategies, enriching 
new words, and mastering grammar [10-12]. 
Researchers [13-14] have asserted that self-
efficacy has a significant impact on behavior. 
Likewise, Zimmerman and Bandura [15] have 
found that the writing self-efficacy is 
positively correlated with the goals of course 
performance, satisfaction with potential 
grades, and actual performance. In addition, 
the writing self-efficacy provides information 
about learners’ own beliefs about their skills 
for specific skills such as grammar and 
mechanics [11]. In another aspect, self-
efficacy predicts the success of students in 
academia and at various levels [11]. Schunk 
[16] has debated how self-efficacy might 
work during academic learning. He argues 
that the initial self-efficacy varies depending 
on the “aptitude (abilities and attitudes)” and 
past experiences. Personal factors such as 
information processing and goal setting as 
well as situational factors (feedback and 
rewards for lecturers) affect the students. 
From these factors, students derive 
indications of how well they learn to assess 
the effectiveness of their further learning [16]. 
Motivation is increased and students, in turn, 
have a sense of self-efficacy for doing well. 
Students with the same degree of cognitive 
ability development may vary in their mental 
performance being controlled on the ability of 
their perceived self-efficacy. Thus, personal 
success and achievements demand not only 
skills but also the self-efficacy to make good 
use of these capabilities [17]. Pintrich and 
DeGroot [18] discuss that students must have 
both the will and the ability to achieve in the 
classroom. They have found that perceived 
self-efficacy predicts the use of cognitive and 
self-regulatory learning strategies by students 
in the classroom and that these strategies, in 
turn, are predictive of academic attainment. 
Self-efficacy has important characteristics in 
learning [19]. First, self-efficacy focuses on 
assessing performance rather than personal 
characteristics such as psychological 
characteristics or physical characteristics. 
Second, these beliefs are multi-dimensional 
rather than a single disposition. Therefore, 
English-language efficacy beliefs may differ 
from efficacy beliefs in mathematics. In fact, 
efficacy beliefs are associated with different 
functional areas. Third, self-efficacy measures 
are context-dependent. Learning in 
competitive classrooms may have a lower 
self-efficacy than in cooperative ones. Thus, 
the self-efficacy ratings differ with respect to 
the performance context. Fourth, self-efficacy 
judgments depend on a performance control 
criterion rather than normative or other 
criteria. Performance is judged by the 
difficulty level of the task, not how well a 
person is performing compared to others. 
Finally, self-efficacy judgments relate to 
future functioning. Beliefs are measured 
before performing the relevant activities. This 
former property of self-efficacy places them 
in a temporal position and plays a causal role 
in each area, including academic motivation. 
Bandura [20] has indicated that self-efficacy 
is formed through four sources, namely 
mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, 
verbal or social beliefs, and physiological and 
emotional states. 
Tran Quoc Thao et al. TNU Journal of Science and Technology
 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 49 
Prior studies relevant to this area have been 
conducted. Significantly, Hong et al. [21] 
examined various patterns of writing self-
efficacy of EFL students. They affirmed that 
the characterization of high and average 
personal efficacy described students spending 
many times learning English and were too 
large or too small female in comparison to the 
low self-efficacy profile. The low self-
efficacy profile differed significantly from the 
mean and high self-efficacy profiles in terms 
of self-regulated learning strategies and 
speech interpretation strategies. Additionally, 
Wang et al. [22] conducted a study on 
students’ self-regulated learning strategies 
and self-efficacy beliefs in learning English. 
The study involved 517 non-English majored 
students in a Chinese university in answering 
a questionnaire. The results indicated that 
participants’ self-ratings of self-efficacy and 
use of self-regulated learning strategies were 
not high. In the context of Vietnam, Phan and 
Locke [23] carried out a study on Vietnamese 
EFL teachers’ sources of self-efficacy. This 
study employed journal and observation as 
the research instruments to collect data from 
eight teachers. The findings showed that there 
were four sources of self-efficacy (mastery 
experiences, social persuasion, vicarious 
experiences and physiological/affective 
states). In 2019, Truong and Wang [24] did a 
study on examining college students’ self-
efficacy beliefs in learning English as a 
foreign language. They employed a 
questionnaire to collect data from 767 first 
year students. The results indicated that there 
was a positive relationship between self-
 225(11): 47 - 54 
efficacy beliefs and English language 
proficiency, and no difference in self-efficacy 
beliefs were found in terms of gender. 
In brief, it is observed that the focus of self- 
efficacy has been conducted in different 
contexts, but the writing self-efficacy has not 
been substantially examined. Therefore, this 
study endeavors to explore the writing self- 
efficacy of English majored students at a 
tertiary institution in Lam Dong Province, 
Vietnam. In order to achieve the 
aforementioned objective, the following 
research question is addressed: “What beliefs 
about writing self-efficacy do tertiary 
English-majored students hold?” 
2. Methodology 
2.1. Research context and participants 
The mixed methods study was conducted at a 
Lam Dong based higher institution in 
Vietnam, which has different faculties. The 
Faculty of Foreign Languages has two 
English language training programs namely 
English Language Education and English 
Language Studies. English majored students 
have to learn English language skills 
(Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing) 
within the first two years. 
This study involved 179 senior English- 
majored students who were purposively 
sampled. Table 1 presents general information 
of the research subjects in terms of gender, 
age, and hours a day to self-practice writing 
skill, and the experience of taking an 
international English test. Among 179 
participants, 15 students were purposively 
invited for semi-structured interview.
Table 1. Research participants’ general information 
 N = 179 
Frequency % 
Gender 
Male 13 7.3 
Female 166 92.7 
Age 
20-23 179 100.0 
over 23 0 0 
Self-practicing writing skill / per day 
less than 1 hour 17 9.5 
1-3 hours 142 79.3 
over 3 hours 20 11.2 
Experience of taking an international 
English test 
Yes 17 9.5 
No 162 90.5 
Tran Quoc Thao et al. TNU Journal of Science and Technology 225(11): 47 - 54 
 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 50 
2.2. Research instruments 
Two research instruments, namely a closed-
ended questionnaire and semi-structured 
interview, were used in this study. The former 
which was adapted from the questionnaire of 
Wang et al. [22] consists of two sections: 
Section A: Respondent’s demographic 
information; Section B: Questionnaire 
content. The main content of questionnaire 
has 15 closed-ended items asking writing self-
efficacy (in daily life: 7 items and in writing 
classes: 8 items). The five-point Likert scale 
for the items in writing self-efficacy is from 
Totally unable to do to Totally able to do. The 
Cronbach’s alpha of the whole questionnaire 
was .98. This means that the reliability of the 
questionnaire was very high. The latter was 
semi-structured interview which was designed 
based on the theoretical framework and 
includes three main questions. The 
respondents answered the questionnaire and 
interview questions in their mother tongue so 
that they did not encounter any language 
difficulty in expressing their ideas. 
2.3. Procedures for data collection and 
analysis 
After the questionnaire and interview had 
been piloted, 200 copies of the official 
questionnaire were administered to students, 
but 179 copies were returned. It took them 
around 15-20 minutes to finish the 
questionnaire. Then, 15 students were 
purposively invited for semi-structured 
interviews. Each interview lasted from 20-25 
minutes. All the interviews were recorded for 
latter analysis. 
With respect to data analysis, the quantitative 
data from questionnaires were analyzed by 
SPSS in terms of mean and standard 
deviation, while the qualitative data from 
interviews, the content analysis was employed 
for data analysis. The interval mean scores 
were interpreted as 1.00 - 1.80: Totally unable 
to do; 1.81 - 2.60: Unable to do; .61 - 3.40: 
Possibly able to do; 3.41 - 4.20: Able to do; 
4.21 - 5.00: Totally able to do well. 
Interviewees were coded as S1, S2 to S15. In 
order to valid the data analysis, two inter-
raters were invited for re-analysing the three 
randomly chosen pieces of data. The level of 
agreement among inter-raters had to be at 
least 95%. 
3. Results and discussion 
3.1. Results 
3.1.1. English-majored students’ writing self-
efficacy in daily life 
Table 2 reveals that the overall mean score of 
English-majored students’ writing self-efficacy 
in daily life is 4.37 (out of 5). This can be 
interpreted that English-majored students 
believed that they were totally able to write 
English in their daily life. It is further noticed 
that the standard deviations were relatively 
large, which means that many students were 
not really able to write English well. 
Specifically, participants could do well in 
writing English such as “[composed] 
messages in English on the Internet 
(Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.)” and (item 1: 
M = 4.40; SD =.97) and “[left] a note for 
another student in English” (item 3: M = 4.40; 
SD =.97). In addition, participants were able 
to write “e-mails in English” (item 4: M = 
4.39; SD =1.09), “an invitation to a friend for 
a party” (item 6: M = 4.39; SD =1.09), “a 
good report” (item 7: M = 4.37; SD =1.02), “a 
text in English” (item 2: M = 4.34; SD =1.10) 
and “diary entries in English” (item 5: M = 
4.34; SD =1.01). The scores of standard 
deviation were very large. It could be 
understood that participants’ writing self-
efficacy in daily life was scattered. 
Tran Quoc Thao et al. TNU Journal of Science and Technology 
 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 51 
Table 2. English-majored students’ writing self-efficacy in daily life 
No Item 
225(11): 47 - 54 
 N=179
M SD 
1 I compose messages in English on the Internet (Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.) 4.40 .97 
2 I write a text in English. 4.34 1.10 
3 I leave a note for another student in English. 4.40 .97 
4 I write e-mails in English. 4.39 1.00 
5 I write diary entries in English. 4.34 1.09 
6 I write an invitation to a friend for a party. 4.38 1.01 
7 I write a good report. 4.37 1.02 
Total 4.37 1.02 
Note: M=mean; SD= Standard deviation 
With respect to the findings from the semi-
structured interviews, it was found that 
interviewees had high writing self-efficacy 
beliefs in their daily life. They reported that 
they usually did their writing in English 
outside a class such as writing letters, writing 
a diary and joining online discussions. Some 
particular examples are as follows: 
I like writing a diary. Not only would this be a 
keepsake to reflect on many years down the line, 
but I will be able to practice my writing in English. 
Set my goals for the week, try to achieve them and 
then write what I did that week. (S4) 
I join online discussions to discuss some course-
related questions that can help me analyze 
material, clarify commonalities and differences, 
and answer other students’ entries. (S10) 
Moreover, participants shared that they could 
write in English in daily life because they 
practiced writing a lot. They could use formal 
constructions and high-level vocabulary, and 
they always consulted a good dictionary to 
choose proper words. In addition, they 
affirmed that being good at writing meant 
choosing the right words and not filling the 
entire page. In a like manner, an interviewee 
stated that he was confidence in his writing 
because he could identify and practice the 
writing of sentences, correct common 
sentence types, practice the writing of many 
sentence types as well as avoid some common 
mistakes. For example, some students 
described as below: 
I am good at writing because I can identify and 
practice writing sentences, recognize and correct 
common types of sentences, recognize and practice 
writing many types of sentences as well as avoid 
some common mistakes. (S6) 
I am good at writing because I can use formal 
constructions and high-level vocabulary and 
always consult a good dictionary to choose the 
proper word. (S12) 
3.1.2 English-majored students’ writing self-
efficacy in writing class 
As illustrated in Table 3 about English-
majored students’ writing self-efficacy in 
writing class, participants were totally able to 
write “reflections” (item 11: M = 4.39; SD = 
.97), “long sentences such as 
compound/complex sentences” (item 12: M = 
4.38; SD = .1.00), “messages” (item 9: M = 
4.35; SD = 1.05) “in English, “keep writing 
even when it is difficult” (item 14: M = 4.37; 
SD = 1.01), and “form new sentences from 
words [they] have just learnt” (item 14: M = 
4.35; SD = 1.07). In addition, participants 
could “write essays in English” (item 10: M = 
3.39; SD = 1.54) and “do writing assignments 
at the last minute and still get a good grade” 
(item 13: M = 3.43; SD = 1.17). Nonetheless, 
they were possibly able to “make English 
sentences with idiomatic phrases” (item 8: M 
= 3.31; SD =1.20). Regarding the scores of 
standard deviation, they are quite large. This 
means that there were gaps among 
participants’ answers. 
Tran Quoc Thao et al. TNU Journal of Science and Technology 225(11): 47 - 54 
 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 52 
Table 3. English-majored students’ writing self-efficacy in writing class 
No Item 
n=179 
M SD 
8 I make English sentences with idiomatic phrases. 3.31 1.20 
9 I write messages in English. 4.35 1.05 
10 I write essays in English. 3.98 1.54 
11 I write reflections in English. 4.39 .97 
12 I write long sentences such as compound/complex sentences in English. 4.38 1.00 
13 I do writing assignments at the last minute and still get a good grade. 3.43 1.17 
14 I keep writing even when it is difficult. 4.37 1.01 
15 I form new sentences from words I have just learnt. 4.35 1.07 
Total 4.07 1.13 
Note: M=mean; SD= Standard deviation 
The findings from the in-depth interviews 
demonstrated that English-majored students 
were tota