An Analysis of Students’ Writing on the Basis of Writing Anxiety

Level and Cross-Cultural Understanding of the Target Language

Hesti Wahyuni Anggraini

and Alhenri Wijaya

English Education Study Program,Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sriwijaya Jalan Raya

Palembang-Prabumulih Km.32, Ogan Ilir, Indonesia

English Education Study Program, Universitas Sriwijaya, Ogan Ilir, Indonesia

hwanggraini@fkip.unsri.ac.id

Keywords: Writing analysis, writing anxiety level, cross-cultural understanding.

Abstract: Written communication has been claimed as the most difficult skill to acquire. This makes the students feel

anxious to be involved in English writing. Understanding of the target language culture cannot be ignored

toward the students writing quality. Errors in English writing might be made by the students, too.This study

proposes to investigate the phenomenon of writing anxiety level, students’ understanding on the target

language culture towards the quality of writing, and errors identification made by EFL students in English

writing. The data were collected from classroom observation, interview, questionnaires, and writing test. The

result indicated that students felt medium level of writing anxiety. Closer analysis resulted that students’

writing anxiety level were mostly affected by stress apprehension in time management during the writing

task. However, they saw writing as a fun classroom activity. In line with this, students’ good understanding

of target language culture significantly influenced their English writing quality. Students expressed their ideas

straightforward. Errors appeared because they had little knowledge of English vocabulary. Profound analysis

showed that some students did not write thesis statement. Some placed it inductively. The number of

paragraphs followed the rules. However, no use of discourse markers was still found on some respondents’

writing.

1 INTRODUCTION

Negative view toward written communication in

college life had led the learners feel uneasy during the

writing task. EFL learners seemed to neglect writing

class as writing class is time-consuming (Alwasilah,

2004). Also, Hedge (2000: 7) stated that written text

production is complex by nature and requires plenty

of procedures. The fact that writing is seen as

psychological activity of the language user to put

information in the written text (Siahaan, 2008: 215)

and the demands of language features (Hedge,

1992:7) make EFL learners anxious to be involved in

writing. Then, cultural factor of the target language

plays crucial part toward the students’ writing quality.

This is due to the fact that writing is viewed more

formal and it includes social factors (Brown, 1994).

From the viewpoints above, this study proposes to

investigate and identify what factors affect writing

anxiety level, how cultural factors affect the writing

quality, and errors found in learner’s writing.

2 METHOD

Research method used in this study was analysis

descriptive. The respondents were 20 English major

students in the fourth year who were taking Cross

Cultural Understanding class. The data were gained

from two different questionnaires, interview to

selected students, classroom observation, and writing

task as well.

Questionnaires were distributed in order to know

students’ writing anxiety level, named Foreign

Language Writing Anxiety Scale (FLWAS) and

Cross-Cultural Understanding Test. To calculate the

collected data from FLWAS questionnaire, the writer

used the formula given. The questionnaire used five-

Likert scale consisting of 26 items. Then, CCU test

was given by using 30-item questionnaire. The

respondents were asked to have a check whether the

statement is appropriate (A) or inappropriate (I).

A semi structured interview was conducted to

three selected respondents in order to know their

viewpoints toward writing class along with the

166

Anggraini, H. and Wijaya, A.

An Analysis of Students’ Writing on the Basis of Writing Anxiety Level and Cross-Cultural Understanding of the Target Language.

DOI: 10.5220/0007163901660169

In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference

on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017) - Literacy, Culture, and Technology in Language Pedagogy and Use, pages 166-169

ISBN: 978-989-758-332-2

problems, their attitude toward writing class, and also

their understanding toward American culture in

written communication. The collected data were

transcripted and described in depth analysis.

Then, the writer carried out a classroom

observation to get the information toward students’

attitude during writing task. Also, the collected data

were described in depth analysis.

At last, writing task was given to identify errors

made the respondents on the basis of their

understanding of American culture in written

communication. The task asked about their opinion

about cultural differences. The respondents should

spend about 40 minutes on the task to produce at least

250 words. The writer asked two raters to check the

respondents’ writing.

3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The results of the study show that EFL learners felt

writing anxiety because of their unskilful time

management during the task (Dally & Miller, 1975).

Then, Gardner & Lambert (1972) and Schumann

(1978) stated that good cultural understanding of the

target significantly influences learner’s

understanding toward the target language itself. The

former findings were supported by Boardman (2008)

who stated that writing style in a certain language

represents the characteristics or culture of a nation. A

very time-consuming cultural understanding of a

target language, to some extent, creates errors during

writing task. Studies conducted by Ballard & Clanchy

(1991), Cho (1999), Connor (1996), Cortazzi & Jin

(1997), and Schneider & Fujishima (1995) mentioned

five contrastive rhetoric; the occurrence of thesis

statement, number of paragraphs, supporting details,

word choice, and coherence and unity.

3.1 Factors Affecting Students’

Writing Anxiety Level

From the data obtained, it is shown that the mean

score of the respondents’ writing anxiety is 68.25. It

means respondents mostly felt medium writing

anxiety level. Then, the mean score of students’

English writing is 79.85, which means respondents

had a good ability in English writing. However, some

errors were still found on their work. The table

following shows a very detailed description.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics.

Writing Test

FLWAS

Valid (listwise) N= 20

N=20

Minimum= 64

Minimum= 57

Maximum=92

Maximum= 76

Mean= 79.85

Mean= 68.25

Std. Deviation= 9.304

Std. Deviation= 4.745

Medium level may manifest signs of writing

anxiety during writing task (Dally & Miller, 1975).

This statement is supported by the result of data

obtained during classroom observation. Learners

tended to show the indicators of writing anxiety, for

instance, looking at the watch, wrinkling their

forehead, and grumbling (like “huuhh”). These all

were caused by their poor time management. The

result of questionnaire also indicated that 65%

respondents had terrible time organizing their ideas in

English composition course. Respondents should

spend 40 minutes to finish the task to write at least

250 words. Besides, they were urged to write an

opinion essay so that it might be hard for some

students to express their ideas. In contrast, they saw

writing as an enjoyment. This finding can be seen in

students’ response in statement 6, 8, and 17. They

mostly, 75% respondents, stated that English writing

is a lot of fun. It means that the learners had no

problem with their writing product. See Table 2.

Table 2: FLWAS Questionnaire Result.

Statement

Response

6. Handing in a composition

(written in English) makes me feel

good.

Agree (75)

21. I have a terrible time organizing

my ideas in a(n English)

composition course.”

Agree (65%)

25. I don't like my (English)

compositions to be evaluated.”

Disagree (70%)

Closer analysis resulted on surprising findings. To

indicate whether or not the respondents felt

evaluation apprehension, the writer? analyzed

statements 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22,

23, 24, and 25. Seventy percent students disagreed

with statement 25 “I don't like my (English)

compositions to be evaluated.” This finding

represented that they had no problems with their

writing processes or with particular writing skill, such

as invention.

To examine the occurrence of stress

apprehension, the data from questionnaire showed

that their problems fell into the statement 21, “I have

An Analysis of Students’ Writing on the Basis of Writing Anxiety Level and Cross-Cultural Understanding of the Target Language

167

a terrible time organizing my ideas in a(n English)

composition course.” About 65% respondents agreed

with the statement. To note, this sign may manifest

students’ medium writing anxiety level.

3.2 Cross-cultural Understanding and

Quality of Writing

Students’ cultural understanding of the target

language significantly influenced their writing

quality. Respondents mostly expressed their ideas in

English writing straightforwardly. However, mean

score 79.85 indicated that some students might face

some problems during the writing task. The detail

information was described as follows:

Extract 1:

Q : Do you think that writing in English is the same

way in writing in Indonesia?

S.1: Different.. it’s totally different. Because, let’s

say, for example, like in Bahasa Indonesia we

can say yeah.. in a long sentence while we

translate in English, so it can only in one

sentence.

Extract 2:

Q: Writing and culture cannot be separated. Agree or

not?

S.1: Eee.. .. yes miss. Writing and culture cannot be

separated.

S.2: What I thought is that writing and culture cannot

be separated. Mmmm. in this case that it

influences any aspects. What I have ever read, if

we have understanding in American culture, we

can express our ideas in writing.

Respondents had good understanding toward the

target language culture and agreed that it could

influence the quality of their writing.

3.3 Errors Identification on the Basis

of cross-cultural Understanding

Mean score in writing task 79.85 showed that

respondents had good ability in writing. However,

findings from the data obtained showed that some

students still had problems in English writing. The

following describes the errors made by the

respondents:

1. The occurrence of thesis statement. Three

respondents did not write thesis statement and

only two respondents place the thesis statement

deductively. This means that mostly the

respondents did not follow the writing rules in

English.

2. Number of paragraph. Mostly, respondents wrote

in the right track. Their essay covered three parts:

introduction, body, and conclusion.

3. Supporting details. Respondents understood well

that topic sentence and supporting details did not

run like a zig-zag or circular.

4. Word choice. Surprising finding resulted on one

respondent often use metaphors and proverbs.

This writing sample was shown as “ Therefore,

the proverb said, “When in Rome, do as Roman

does”….”.

5. Coherence and unity. Respondents, to some

extent, forgot to use discourse marker, like

conjunction or connectors. However, it did not

distract the reader’s understanding.

Errors made by the respondents in choosing the

appropriate word choice might be influenced by their

first language mastery. It was due to the fact that

Indonesian people mostly expressed their ideas in

written communication by the use of metaphors and

proverbs, while writing in English requires language

learners to be accustomed to writing

straightforwardly. Then, English writing rule requires

to place of thesis statement deductively, while the

respondents mostly put it vise versa. These two

findings rejected the result of the study done by

Ballard & Clanchy (1991), Cho (1999), Connor

(1996), Cortazzi & Jin (1997), and Schneider &

Fujishima (1995).

In regard of the paragraph organization and the

presence of supporting details, mostly, their writing

processes run smoothly. Even though some

respondents forgot to use discourse markers, it did not

distract the readers.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The result of the study has concluded that the

respondents’ medium writing anxiety level has been

an inevitable phenomenon in foreign language

learning. Internal and external factors significantly

affect the respondents’ attitude during writing task

and quality of writing. Therefore, EFL learners are

expected to anticipate their particular needs and find

appropriate strategies for reducing their stress that

support their fully understanding of a good English

writing. Teachers’ roles in EFL classroom cannot also

be denied. Then, the introduction of culture of the

target language in language learning processes

respectively manifests the quality of writing.

CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology

Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education

168

REFERENCES

Alwasilah, A. C. 2006. From local to global: Reinventing

local literature through English writing class. TEFLIN

Journal, 17(1), 11-27.

Ballard, B., Clanchy, J. 1991. Assessment by

misconception: Cultural influences and intellectual

traditions. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Second language

writing in academic contexts, (pp. 122-134). Norwood,

NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Brown, H.D. 1994. Principles of language learning and

teaching. New York, NY: Pearson Education.

Cho, J. H. 1999. Contrastive Rhetoric. Unpublished PhD

thesis. Bowling Green State University, Bowling

Green, OH. Retrieved May 8, 2017, from

http://faculty.fullerton.edu/jcho/dispreface.htm.

Connor, U. 1996. Argumentative patterns in student essays:

Cross-cultural differences. In U. Connor, & R. Kaplan

(Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text

Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, pp. 57-72.

Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. 1997. "Communication for learning

across cultures." In D. McNamar & R. Harris (Eds.),

Overseas students in higher education: Issues in

teaching and learning (pp. 76-90). New York:

Routledge.

Gardner, R. C. and Lambert, W. E. 1972. Attitudes and

motivation in second language learning. Rowley,

Mass.: Newsbury House.

Hedge, T. 1992. Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the Language

Classroom. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

.Schumann, J. H. 1978. Social distance as a factor in

second language acquisition. Language Learning,

26,135-143.

Schneider, M. L., & Fujishima, N. K. 1995. When practice

doesn't make perfect: The case of a graduate ESL

student. In D.Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic

writing in a second language: Essays on research &

pedagogy (pp. 231-265). Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Publishing Corporation.

Siahaan, S. 2008. Issues in linguistics. Yogyakarta: Graha

Ilmu.

An Analysis of Students’ Writing on the Basis of Writing Anxiety Level and Cross-Cultural Understanding of the Target Language

169