Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 294303

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of English for Academic Purposes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jeap

Effects of an efcacy-focused approach to academic writing

on students perceptions of themselves as writers
Kris Van de Poel a, b, *, Jessica Gasiorek c, d
a
University of Antwerp, Applied Language Studies, Rodestraat 14 R202, BE 2000 Antwerp, Belgium
b
North-West University, School of Languages, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa
c
Department of Communication, SS&MS Bldg., Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
d
University of Antwerp, Belgium

a b s t r a c t

Keywords: To become a successful participant in the community of their academic discipline, students
Efcacy must learn this communitys communicative currency: the norms, standards, procedures,
Academic discourse and linguistic forms that constitute academic discourse. However, it is rare for a disci-
Academic literacies
plines expectations and requirements to be overtly discussed or taught, despite the fact
S/FL academic writing
that research has demonstrated that there is a persistent gap between staff and student
EAP
expectations and standards in this domain. In this article, we focus on academic writing,
one component of academic discourse. Specically, we consider the effects of an efcacy-
focused teaching approach (actively targeting students knowledge, skills, and related
affect) on S/FL English language and literature students (self-reported) knowledge of what
constitutes academic writing, their comfort discussing it, and the role this has in their
perceptions of themselves as writers. We conclude by discussing the implications of these
ndings for learning and teaching in the area of academic writing.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Learning to write for an academic context is not easy; learning to write for an academic context in a second/foreign
language (S/FL) is perhaps doubly difcult. In this article, we consider academic writing a component of academic discourse,
a set of contextualized practices into which students in a tertiary education setting need to be socialized. Research has
demonstrated that there is a persistent gap between staff and student expectations with respect to what is considered good
academic writing (Cotton, 2004, p. 97; Lea & Street, 1998; Street, 1999; Van de Poel & Brunfaut, 2004a, p. 329). Students often
do not know what qualities their instructors are looking for in their writing, and as such do not have condence in their ability
to write in this context. Students condence in their writing capabilities has been found to inuence their writing motivation
as well as writing anxiety, grade goals, and depth of processing (see Pajeres, 2003 for a review of the literature); as such, the
effects of writing instruction on condence, as well as competence, are important to consider.
In what follows, we propose that explicitly making students aware of the standards for academic writing in a Flemish (i.e.
in the northern Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) university setting, paired with a program of instruction targeting the skills
necessary to meet those standards, should positively impact students condence in their own writing abilitiesdin other
words, their self-efcacy, or belief in their own capability to accomplish what is asked of them (Bandura, 1986; Pajeres, 1996).
We then present a study undertaken in Flanders, Belgium that examines the effects of such an instructional program on S/FL

* Corresponding author. University of Antwerp, Applied Language Studies, Rodestraat 14 R202, BE 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.
E-mail addresses: kris.vandepoel@ua.ac.be (K. Van de Poel), jgasiorek@umail.ucsb.edu (J. Gasiorek).

1475-1585/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.003
 K. Van de Poel, J. Gasiorek / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 294303 295

English language and literature students (self-reported) knowledge of what constitutes academic writing, their comfort
discussing it, and the role this has in their perceptions of themselves as writers. We conclude by discussing the implications of
these ndings for learning and teaching in the area of academic writing.

2. Discourse communities and academic discourse

To successfully participate in a community, one must learn to communicate in a manner that is approved and accepted by
that group (Hyland, 2006). Loosely dened (and not without controversy), a community is a group of people connected
around common values for a common goal or purpose which is communicated among its members. A discourse community (a
construct developed by the American linguist Swales, 1990 for the EAP/ESP context), then, is a social group involved in
discourse pertaining to that group.
The start of university is the rst time most students encounter academia as a community. Like any (discourse)
community, academia has a set of (largely unwritten) rules with regard to interaction, knowledge displays, and commu-
nication in general to which its members have to adhere and in which its members have to engage (see Goffmans, 1959
membership and Swales, 1998 textography of communities). These issuesdthat is, the ways in which individuals
think about and use language within an academic settingdgenerally fall under the rubric of academic discourse. Although this
term immediately brings to mind controversy and debate (e.g., Bourdieu in Bourdieu, Passeron & De Saint Martin, 1994
Linguistic Misunderstanding and Professorial Power), most scholars agree that academic discourse generally refers to ways
of thinking and using language in a specic context, which is determined by complex social activities (Hyland, 2009), and
embedded within that contexts ideological framework (Gee, 1990).
While academic staffdwho are established members of their respective academic communitiesdare familiar with the
code of academic discourse, students who are new to a given discipline, university setting, or language, generally are not
(Belcher, 1994; Cotton, 2004; Van de Poel & Brunfaut, 2004a). Established forms of interaction and communication in an
academic context are typically taken-for-granted as straightforward and unproblematic by tutors but regarded with
uncertainty and incomprehension by students (Hyland, 2009, p. 123). Students thus need to be familiarized with the
conventions of their disciplinedthat is, helped to understand the social and cultural context in which the academic discourse
operates, the communities purposes with the discourse, and the institutional expectations placed on itdto be able to
successfully participate. Casanave (2002) rightfully points out that there is an asymmetry between the ways that teachers
seem to perceive their worlds full of complexity, detail, and purposeful rhetorical practices and the confusion yet relative
lack of complexity in students perceptions (p. 80).
Unfortunately, explicit instruction in relevant skills and in issues related to this kind of socialization cannot be taken for
granted. The closest attempt that academic staff often make at explicating their expectations vis--vis academic discourse is
feedback on students writing (see e.g., Barker, 1997; Harris & Thorpe, 1999; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Street, 1999, 2003; and
for a Flemish approach Van de Poel & Brunfaut, 2004a, 2004b). Sometimes this feedback is nothing more than a mark (at
a nal exam); in other cases, it is limited to underlined words or orthographic (re)marks. Students often do not understand
why or how they are falling short of their instructors (and by extension their academic communitys) expectations, and do
not know what to make of the comments provided on assignments (Ivanic, Clark, & Rimmershaw, 2000). Academic staff rarely
explain the assumptions that underlie this type of feedback, and students interpretations of these implicit expectations may
be quite different than what instructors intend (e.g., Cotton, 2004; Lea & Street, 2000; Street, 1999). The instructional program
presented in this article was designed with the goal of bridging this gap in knowledge and expectations between staff and
students in the area of academic writing, with a focus on both knowledge and relevant skills.

3. Writing and academic discourse

A prominent component of academic discourse is academic writing, which may take a number of different forms,
including essays, projects, lecture notes, and theses. As writing is the primary way in which students demonstrate and are
evaluated on their understanding of their eld, and is often the principal means of assessing (and by extension, marking)
students progress (Hyland, 2006), learning how to productively use and deal with written language in disciplinarily
approved ways (Hyland, 2006, p. 38) is crucial to students success in their time at university.
Although the term itself is general, we would like to emphasize that academic writing is by no means monolithic;
choices of language and text vary considerably across disciplines and sub-disciplines. Even within the Humanities, or even
more narrowly within the area of linguistics, different ideas exist about what should be communicated, how it can be
communicated, and how the audience should be approached. Each discipline (and even sub-discipline) tends to have its own
unique conventions and norms, but in all cases, these practices dene and constitute the parameters within which the
communitys members operate. In other words, an understanding of the discourse of any discipline depends on a detai-
led knowledge of that discipline not just knowledge of its content. but knowledge of its everyday practices (Myers, 1990,
p. 4).
Writing as an academic practice requires a considerable amount of language competence, especially when the language
being used is a second or foreign language for the speaker. S/FL learners must not only learn the norms, values, and
expectations related to academic writingdas anyone seeking to engage in this community woulddbut also they have to learn
the vehicle (i.e., the language, the words) for it, an additional challenge.
296 K. Van de Poel, J. Gasiorek / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 294303

Finally, since engaging in a community requires action, and writing may be considered both a cognitive and affective
activity (Hayes, 2004; McLeod, 1987), students level of comfort and condence with this knowledge and these skills are also
an important consideration. If students have the ability to engage but not the requisite condence to do so, their knowledge
and skills do them little practical good. It appears that the affective component of writing, which considers learners comfort
and condence in their knowledge and abilities (McLeod, 1987; Pajeres, 2003)dis often neglected in discussions of academic
writing, and discussions of attaining academic literacy more broadly. However, this element is captured in the construct of
efcacy (Bandura, 1986), dened as self-perceptions which help determine what individuals do with the knowledge and skills
they have. Researchers have found that students self-efcacy beliefs are correlated with other motivation constructs, as well
as with their academic performances and achievement. Writing self-efcacy has been associated with writing apprehension,
perceived value of writing, and self-efcacy for self-regulation; it has also been found to mediate the effect of gender and pre-
performance on writing performance (Pajeres, 2003).

4. Attaining academic literacy

As outlined above, to successfully advance in their studies, students must learn and ultimately become comfortable with
their disciplines expectations, norms, and language as they relate to academic discourse. Attaining academic literacy is a term
commonly used for this socialization process, with academic literacy referring to the competence and range of skills students
need not only to read and write texts, but also to understand, interact, and communicate with members of their academic
community (the practice) (see Hyland, 2006, 2009; Snow, 2005; Street, 1999). To produce texts, students must attain certain
knowledge and skills (a skills-based approach; Christie, 2005; Lillis & Scott, 2007). This is particularly the case in an S/FL
context, where it is much less likely that students are familiar with that S/FLs language and meta-language of academia.
However, a programs instructional approach cannot solely rely on the notion that literacy is a set of divisible skills that can or
need to be learned and, once acquired, can be applied to other contexts. Such an approach has already been rejected by Howes
(1999) and Street (1999) among others, due to its persistent failure to develop students academic writing skills. Attaining
academic literacy relies on (somehow) developing insights into and awareness of the entire communication process.
Just exposing learners to academic practices or presenting them with good examples is not sufcient either (Howes,
1999; Johns, 1997); students do not learn by osmosis. However, as we have shown, it is rare for the expectations of
academic discourse to be explicated to students. We argue that a writing program should explicate these expectations to
students, as a rst step in helping them attain academic literacy. That said, knowing what the expectations are is of relatively
little concrete value to students if they do not have the practical skills to be able to meet them. Thus, for S/FL students,
concrete (language) skillsdwhich, again, need to be explicated, not just drilleddare also critical and there is a need for
explicit instruction to facilitate the learning process (Gordon & Braun, 1982). To meet this set of needs, we propose an efcacy-
focused approach to instruction, that is, one that targets awareness, knowledge, skills, and related affect as a means of
socializing students into the norms, values, and expectations of academic discourse. Becoming academically literate according
to the standards of a given program or discipline should not be considered the sole responsibility of the student; rather, a two-
way investment should be carried out academic staff as well as students should take responsibility for clarifying
expectations and making adjustments where necessary (Macrae, 1997).
In what follows, we discuss a study undertaken to test the effects of an efcacy-focused instructional English writing
program on Flemish students comfort discussing academic writing, their perceptions of their knowledge of what constitutes
academic writing, and how competent and experienced they feel as writers.

5. The writing program: an efcacy-focused approach

As noted above, previous research (Belcher, 1994; Cotton, 2004; Leki, 2006; Littlewood, 1999; Van de Poel & Brunfaut,
2004a) has indicated that a discrepancy exists between the interpretations of and expectations about academic literacy of
teaching staff and students. Academic literacy is not only dynamic, but also personal, as every students academic literacy is
the result of a string of personal experiences. A study carried out in Antwerp, Belgium among Masters students of English
looking back on their process of acculturation (De Rycke, 2010) has shown that becoming academically literate seems to be
closely identied with the process and experience of acquiring a foreign language and language skills awareness. Receiving
feedback on literature assignments and receiving exam grades were landmarks for many students, as grades are experienced
as powerful indicators of discrepancy between the students own evaluation of their work and the teachers opinion about it.
These moments were often cited as a(n emotional) point in time at which students suddenly and rapidly gained insights in
their academic literacy. Similarly, in a 2011 study among freshmen of English at the University of Antwerp, students reported
experiencing a reality shock after receiving their rst grades; this shock appeared to be caused by the discrepancy between
their self-assessment criteria and the criteria used by university staff (De Geest, 2012). There also seems to be a discrepancy
between how quickly students acculturate to university as a new social environment versus how slowly they adapt to
university as a new learning environment. In terms of acculturating to this new learning environment, students seem to
struggle with adapting to academic demands and expectations. According to the freshmen, the main problem of acculturation
appears to be guring out what the criteria for assessment are. After the rst exam period, many students were dissatised
with their grades and claimed that they had expected them to be different. Given that the grading system used by staff reects
what is expected from students, it is problematic that students do not seem to know what these expectations are, and why
 K. Van de Poel, J. Gasiorek / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 294303 297

they are not meeting them. Students inability to understand why and how they received a particular mark could also explain
why their attitude toward their teachers becomes less positive after the exam period: they may feel that staff did not
communicate their expectations clearly enough.
Of students entering Flemish universities,1 just over half (51.4%) pass their rst-year exams (Vives, 2010). Such a high
proportion of students failing freshman year cannot solely be because university poses some kind of impossible intellectual
challenges for half of incoming students. Rather, freshmens academic performance and their motivation to stay in school also
partly depend on how easily they integrate into the university environment (Brinkworth, McCann, Matthews, & Nordstrm,
2009).
In the Flemish university system, students follow a clearly delineated curriculum of courses in the academic program in
which they are enrolled. The Bachelors in English Language and Literature is a three year program that students complete in
conjunction with a program in another language (Dutch, German, French, Spanish or Italian), philosophy, history, or lm and
theater studies, in addition to a number of general education courses in the Humanities.
In the rst year of the Bachelors in English Language and Literature, students must complete courses in English Prociency
(comprised of writing, articulatory phonetics, and lexicon), grammar and grammar exercises, and an introduction to the study
of English literature. In this second term literature course, they are responsible for several small writing exercises and two
short essays. In the second year, students take English Prociency II (writing, lexical practice, conversational practice and
grammatical exercises), grammar, courses on literary texts in English (Romanticism and Realism), a linguistics course, and an
elective in literature, English or American history, or linguistics. In the third and nal year, students take Advanced English
Practice (including translation, phonetic transcription, presentation skills), a linguistics course, and two courses in literature
(Modernism and Post-Modernism), as well as an additional elective. All courses are medium-taught. Students do not do a lot
of writing in their second and third year; at maximum, they write a 3000-word paper for their elective course (but many
students opt for an elective that does not require this). Students conclude their studies with a 12,000-word Bachelors thesis
in English if they major in English.
The writing program examined in this article consists of a rst-year (Ba1) introductory course on writing in an academic
context and a second-year (Ba2) writing course focusing on more advanced academic writing (i.e., essays, papers, articles, and
theses); these are part of the English Prociency courses in the Ba1 and Ba2, respectively. The Ba1 course introduces students
to the basic principles of formal/academic writing with a strong emphasis on what constitutes an academic essay and how to
evaluate one (introducing the required terminology and meta-language to do so), and on foundational skills in argumentative
writing. Thus, the rst year course specically trains students for the types of writing tasks they will undertake in their
program at the university, with particular emphasis on Ba1 students rst exams after the rst term and essay writing in the
second term.
In the Ba2 course, students undertake a series of targeted exercises and writing assignments aimed at addressing specic
aspects of academic writing, including transitions, citing sources, argumentation, and word choice. Each assignment they
complete undergoes peer review in class before being handed in and corrected individually. The Ba2 students who partici-
pated in the study had completed the Ba1 writing course the year before. Both writing courses were/are taught by the same
instructor, who is one of the authors and under whose supervision the corrections of the assignments were/are undertaken.
The focus in both courses is on an understanding of the expectations and requirements for writing in an academic context
(and more specically, those of the English Language and Literature Bachelors program). As these are S/L English students,
instruction includes an emphasis on both the language and meta-language of this type of writing. This includes discussion of
what constitutes academic style and register (explicitly discussing the constructs of register and audience, and providing
students with banks of words and phrases) as well as an introduction to relevant terminology and metalanguage. Thus, each
course includes both socialization and skills components, and both courses aim to raise students awareness of features of
academic writing as well as give them practical experience with analyzing, evaluating, and producing academic writing.2
For each topic each course covers, students are rst presented with short text excerpts (drawn from a corpus of actual
work of past years students) and are guided through a critical analysis of the text as it relates to the topic (e.g., what in the
example is or is not correct or appropriate). Then, students write a similar text component themselves on the basis of an
excerpt. For example, for the rst topic register, students are shown examples of email messages sent to professors that use
a very informal (and not always polite) register. They are asked to consider these examples, and what about them is or is not
appropriate, in terms of register. Then, as an assignment, students write their own (ctional) email to a professor, in which
they ask for an extension on a deadline. Before written assignments are handed in, students learn to work with a rubric listing

1
Belgium has no national exams at the end of secondary school, no entrance exams (except for medical school) or numerus clausus for students wanting
to start tertiary education.
2
Each chapter in these (published) course materials (Van de Poel & Gasiorek, 2007) begins with a list of objectives complemented with a writing checklist.
Following the objectives, each chapter presents and explains a topic or skill central to writing in an academic context, providing both theoretical background
information and concrete examples. Finally, each chapter contains a practical application of the skill discussed. This section shows how to apply what has
been learned to academic situations. Each chapter includes Reection Exercises. Some of them are theoretical in naturedquestions to reect upondwhile
others are task-based. Sample solutions for task-based Reection Exercises are provided. The theory related to each reection exercise can be found in the
text that immediately follows it. Each chapter in the Ba1 materials also includes information entitled The tutor says. This tutor provides additional hints,
tips, and advice on writing in an academic context that is related to the theory discussed in the main text. The information here is meant to address
dilemmas that freshmen often face, and should help them avoid common errors.
298 K. Van de Poel, J. Gasiorek / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 294303

the key qualities and components their text should have (i.e., criteria, with corresponding descriptors as they relate to the
text; see Appendix 1 for an example). Both criteria and descriptors aim to help the students evaluate their text from different
angles. After students have critically assessed their own text on the basis of this rubric, they submit their texts for peer review
(the ethics and process of which is introduced at the beginning of every course, and the nature of which can go from
brainstorming to jointly outlining to critically analyzing a text extract written by the peer). Students then have the oppor-
tunity to revise their text, incorporating their peers comments, before the assignment is handed in for correction by the
instructor, who uses the same rubric students were given to evaluate the text. For each text, the instructor provides both
a mark and comments. This process is concluded with a rewriting phase, in which students revise their text according to the
instructors feedback and upload their revised text on the learning platform. To reinforce course material, in terms of both
knowledge (e.g., of disciplinary standards and expectations) as well as skills, students also complete a series of multiple
choice and short-answer exercises online. The exercises have to be completed autonomously alongside the awareness raising
and writing. Students are given solutions and feedback for every exercise.
In summary, the pedagogical approach in the academic writing courses borrows from several traditions. As S/FL students,
participants in this writing program are still learning the language (ESL), specic language skills need to be taught, and errors
pointed out (contrastively). However, the language learning is tailored to the students academic purposes, genres and
disciplines, in this targeting genre knowledge, domain content knowledge and knowledge of procedures of use of genres
embedded in their social communicative context (cf. Tardy & Swales, 2008). As the scope of the program is restricted to the
study of a particular language, its literature and culture, its approach can be dened as one of English for Specic Academic
Purposes (ESAP). Students are rst exposed to writing-through-reading, are gradually introduced to the different
components and aspects of academic writing, rst receptively (via questions) and then productively (though still guided by
a text excerpt). In short, the courses aim both to socialize and empower students in a context which will be theirs for at least
the three to four years. In what follows, we evaluate the effects of this approach on students perceptions of themselves as
writers.

6. Method

The population of interest for this study is students of English language, linguistics, and literature, for whom English is
a foreign language. The sample examined here consisted of Ba1 and Ba2 students, collected over two years (Ba1: n 112 for
the rst year and n 53 for the second year of the study; Ba2: n 75 for the rst year and n 33 for the second year of the
study) at a Flemish university. With the exception of a handful of exchange students, the rst language of this sample is Dutch.
All students in each of these two writing courses were given a one-page questionnaire (included in Appendix 2), in English,
at the beginning and then again at the end of the writing course. (This meant the end of the rst term for Ba1 students, and
the end of the academic year for Ba2 students.). Students were instructed to ll out the questionnaire as an aid to becoming
more aware of their identity as writers in an academic context. This questionnaire contained seven closed-format questions
asking students to rate their own level of experience and competence as writers; how comfortable they felt discussing their
own writing with peers and with teachers; how comfortable they felt editing and commenting on their peers writing; their
(perceived) understanding of what constitutes academic writing; and whether they felt they knew to produce this kind of
writing. These questions used a four-point, Likert-type scale, where a 1 indicates a low (self-reported) score on a given
construct, and a 4 indicates a high (self-reported) score. This questionnaire was developed to target constructs and skills
emphasized in the writing program (i.e., students perceptions of their own writing ability, comfort discussing and editing
writing, understanding of what constitutes academic writing). All students across all years completed the same questionnaire.
Between the rst and second years of this study, the Ba1 writing program underwent one signicant change in course
curriculum, which was made on the basis of evaluation data collected in the rst year of the study: while the rst round of
students examined here did not do any substantial writing in the Ba1 year beyond an outline (as a nal exam for the course),
the second round of Ba1 students did a series of short writing assignments (following the format described above) in addition
to a nal essay. These assignments were completed in class, underwent directed peer review (that is, students exchanged
papers and provided comments on specic aspects of each others work), and then were individually corrected by the
instructor, whom they could also consult with during set ofce hours. As this changed the nature of students writing
experience in the course, and experience with the course more generally, the data for Ba1 were analyzed separately for each
year.
The Ba2 course, however, did not change year to year; as such the data collected from the two years were combined (for
a total n 86) in the analysis that follows.

7. Results

To assess the effects of this writing program on students perceptions of their knowledge of and comfort with academic
writing, pre- and post-course survey responses were compared with a two-tailed paired-samples t-test. Pairs with missing
data (for example, when a student either left a question blank or indicated more than one response category) were excluded
on a case-by-case basis, sometimes resulting in different sample sizes for different questions.
Following the Ba1 coursedwhich focused on introducing students to the standards and norms of academic writingdin
the rst year of the study, there were statistically signicant differences in students self-reported comfort in discussing their
 K. Van de Poel, J. Gasiorek / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 294303 299

Table 1
Students self-assessment pre- and post-Ba1 course (study year 1).

Item Pre-Ba1 M (SD) Post-Ba1 M (SD) t df

Level of experience 2.47 (0.60) 2.48 (1.94) 0.05 111
Competence as a writer 2.32 (0.58) 2.36 (0.60) 0.46 109
Comfort discussing paper with teacher 2.48 (0.68) 2.68 (0.65) 3.18* 106
Comfort discussing paper with peer 2.88 (0.67) 3.12 (0.62) 3.79** 109
Comfort editing and making suggestions 2.49 (0.62) 2.79 (0.63) 4.48** 108
Understand what makes a successful (academic) essay 2.59 (0.68) 3.22 (0.46) 9.16** 110
Know how to write a successful (academic) essay 2.14 (0.57) 2.88 (0.47) 11.76** 106

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01.

Table 2
Students self-assessment pre- and post-Ba1 course (study year 2).

Item Pre-Ba1 M (SD) Post-Ba1 M (SD) t df

Level of experience 2.31 (0.55) 2.44 (0.55) 2.00* 74
Competence as a writer 2.64 (0.51) 2.80 (0.40) 2.80* 74
Comfort discussing paper with teacher 2.43 (0.72) 2.69 (0.62) 3.48** 74
Comfort discussing paper with peer 2.73 (0.62) 2.97 (0.59) 3.39* 74
Comfort editing and making suggestions 2.39 (0.65) 2.52 (0.64) 1.60 74
Understand what makes a successful (academic) essay 2.63 (0.65) 3.11 (0.42) 5.60** 74
Know how to write a successful (academic) essay 2.19 (0.63) 2.89 (0.39) 9.09** 74

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01.

Table 3
Students self-assessment pre- and post-Ba2 course.

Item Pre-Ba2 M (SD) Post-Ba2 M (SD) t df

Level of experience 2.33 (0.61) 2.76 (0.51) 6.29** 82
Competence as a writer 2.37 (0.75) 2.45 (0.65) 1.15 85
Comfort discussing paper with teacher 2.43 (0.71) 2.79 (0.64) 4.28** 85
Comfort discussing paper with peer 2.87 (0.67) 3.11 (0.73) 2.73** 83
Comfort editing and making suggestions 2.43 (0.68) 2.95 (0.61) 6.64** 85
Understand what makes a successful (academic) essay 2.82 (0.52) 3.20 (0.51) 5.32** 83
Know how to write a successful (academic) essay 2.38 (0.60) 2.78 (0.55) 6.02** 81

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01.

writing with instructors and peers (t 3.18, df 106 and t 3.79, df 109, respectively; p < .01), as well as their level of
comfort making comments on and editing other students work (t 4.48, df 108, p < .01). Students (perceived) condence
in their understanding of what makes a successful academic essay, as well as their ability to write one, also improved
signicantly (t 9.16, df 110 and t 11.76, df 106, respectively; p < .001). Descriptive statistics for all items are reported in
Table 1.
Following the Ba1 course in the second year of the studydwhich included short practical writing assignmentsdthere
were also statistically signicant differences in students self-reported comfort in discussing their writing with instructors
and peers (t 3.46, df 74 and t 3.40, df 74, respectively; p < .01). However, students level of comfort making comments
on and editing other students work did not change signicantly. Ba1 students (perceived) condence in their understanding
of what makes a successful academic essay, as well as their ability to write one, also improved signicantly (t 5.60, df 74
and t 9.01, df 74, respectively; p < .001) following the writing course. Finally, following the course, students also felt
signicantly more experienced (t 2.00, df 74, p < .05) and competent (t 2.80, df 74, p < .01) as writers. Descriptive
statistics for all items are reported in Table 2.
Following the Ba2 course, which provided students with additional theoretical information regarding academic writing
and practical experience with it through a number of exercises and writing assignments, there were statistically signicant
differences across all areas tested but one. Students level of comfort with discussing a paper with instructors (t 4.28,
df 85; p < .001), discussing a paper with peers (t 2.73, df 83; p < .01), and making suggestions about fellow students
writing (t 6.64, df 85; p < .001) increased. Their self-reported understanding of what makes a successful academic essay
(t 6.64, df 85; p < .001) and ability to write one (t 5.32, df 83; p < .001) also improved. Finally, following the Ba2
course, students felt more experienced as writers (t 6.29, df 82; p < .001). Descriptive statistics for all items are reported
in Table 3.
There were no signicant changes in students competence ratings for the combined (year 1 and year 2) sample. However,
interestingly, there were signicant changes in competence perceptions when the rst and second years of the study are
considered individually. In the rst year of the study, students described themselves as more competent writers (t 3.12,
df 52; p < .01) after taking the Ba2 course. After the course in year 1 of the study, 35.8% of students rated themselves as
300 K. Van de Poel, J. Gasiorek / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 294303

competent and 50.9% as somewhat competent writers, as compared to 22.6% and 54.7%, respectively, before. This contrasts
with results from the second year of the study, in which students described themselves as less competent writers (t 2.75,
df 32; p < .01) following the course. In this second year, however, students baseline perceptions of their competence were
much higher: here, 75.8% of students rated themselves as competent and 18.2% as somewhat competent writers before the
course (as compared to 63.6% and 36.4%, respectively, after the course).

8. Discussion

At the outset, some limitations must be acknowledged. First, because of the design of this studydessentially, an inter-
vention with no control groupdwe cannot be certain that changes that students experienced resulted from the writing
program itself, or from other, external factors. However (and unfortunately), a design including a control group was not
possible here, as all students in a given program in a given year were required to follow a uniform program of study. Second, it
could be argued that the data we draw on in this study (seven questionnaire items) are somewhat limited. This was primarily
a result of practical considerations related to students time and workload, as these questionnaires were administered as part
of the writing courses. Despite the brevity of the questionnaire, we still believe these data provide useful insights into
students perceptions of themselves as writers. Nonetheless, given both these limitations, our results should be interpreted
cautiously.
As outlined above, this writing program (comprising Ba1 and Ba2 courses) sought to socialize students with respect to
their disciplines expectations, practices, and language in the area of academic writing. The signicant increase in students
feeling they understood how to write a successful academic essay (the type of writing the courses focused on, as this is what
students need to write for their degree program) suggests that this may be a pedagogically viable approach for making
students aware of the intricacies of this type of writing, and by extension, addressing the gap in staffstudent expectations
discussed above (Barker, 1997; Cotton, 2004; Harris & Thorpe, 1999; Street, 1999, 2003; Van de Poel & Brunfaut, 2004a,
2004b). Again, due to the design of the study, we cannot denitively attribute these gains to the writing program. However,
given that relatively few other courses in their curriculum explicitly address these issues, and students informal comments
on the value of these courses, we feel it is reasonable to discuss these results in terms of the writing program.
Considering the content and structure of the course, a number of factors are likely to have aided students increases in
condence across the areas surveyed (i.e., perceptions of their competence as writers, comfort discussing their writing, and
understanding of what makes a successful essay, and how to write one). To communicate information about the norms,
expectations, and practices of academic writing, language instructors (as well as lecturers in literature and linguistics) must
talk about writing; that is, they must use metalanguage for the subject.3 When students participate in peer review, they must
also actively use this metalanguage to convey their comments, criticisms, and suggestions to their fellow students. (As the
course is medium-taught, all student communication and exercises are undertaken in English.). The signicant increase in
students comfort levels talking with both peers and instructors about their writing suggests that this kind of exposure to and
practice using this kind of language and metalanguage may be an effective means of socializing students in this areadin other
words, of teaching them relevant (linguistic and practical) skills. This increase in comfort may also suggest positive changes in
metacognition relating to writing as well, as students must have a certain level of knowledge and ability to reason about
writing in order to successfully discuss it with others. That their comfort levels discussing this kind of writing increased also
indicates that this process is arguably lowering affective thresholds to participating in this discourse community and thus
increasing their readiness and willingness to communicate with peers and staff. We also nd support for this nding in
evaluative feedback from faculty which has indicated that after the introduction of the new writing programs students in Ba1
and Ba2 seem more aware of their own writing capacities and are able to communicate them more effectively. When feedback
to written assignments and papers is given, students are able to critically discuss them in one-to-one sessions and most are
able to formulate suggestions for self-improvement (see the faculty evaluation data in De Rycke, 2010 and Van de Poel &
Gasiorek, 2006/2008, 2010).
Practical experience with peer review may also have affected students perceptions of their own ability to write and to edit
the work of others. Although students level of comfort making comments on and editing other students work did not change
signicantly in the second year of the Ba1 course (in which students completed a number of short writing assignments, each
accompanied by focused peer review) there were signicant changes by the end of these students second (Ba2) year.
Arguably, by the end of the second year of students studies (Ba2) they have had enough practice with peer review to achieve
a baseline level of familiarity and therefore comfort with the activity (as comfort generally accompanies exposure and
socialization).
Other data also indicate that practice and practical experience play an important role in students self-perceptions relating
to writing. With only minimal practical experience in writing in the rst year study of the Ba1 course, students did not feel
signicantly more competent as writers after taking the course, though they felt their (theoretical, abstract) knowledge of
what makes a successful academic essay increased. However, when writing assignments were added to the course (Ba1, study
year 2), students felt signicantly more experienced and competent as writers following the Ba1 course. In both years of the

3
This is particularly important in the present situation where most graduates will work as language teachers, text editors, cultural brokers, or
communicators with English as S/FL.
 K. Van de Poel, J. Gasiorek / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 294303 301

study, Ba2 students also felt a signicant increase in their level of experience following the Ba2 course, which includes
a number of practical writing assignments. This suggests that the targeted, practical experience that the course provided
impacted students perceptions of their ability to write academically.
Jorissens (2011) study on the effect of the in-class writing assignments on rst year students (N 134) experience of self-
efcacy provides some additional insight into the effect of the hands-on assignments on the students acculturation. In year 1
of the Bachelor program students perceived the six guided assignments as increasingly difcult but only slightly more
frustrating over time. At the same time, the students reported that the writing assignments were interesting and useful. The
perceived interest in the assignments remained fairly high throughout the rst term. Overall, students thought they did well
on the assignments and felt well-prepared for writing exams and papers, and attributed this to the theoretical foundations of
the writing course (and its accompanying textbook). The high face validity of the writing assignments appears to have helped
students feel acculturated after just one term. That said, other studies (e.g., De Geest, 2012) have shown that a reality check
on students actual level of acculturation and understanding comes some weeks later, after they receive their rst set of exam
results.
However, data from this study also suggest that there may be individual differences in students interpretations of their
experiences. As noted above, the combined Ba2 group saw no signicant increase in their perceptions of their competence as
writers. However, when the data is examined on a year-to-year basis, there are signicant differences for this item, but in
opposite directions each year, such that the effects cancel each other out when the groups are combined. (Students in the rst
year of the study rated themselves as signicantly more competent after the course, while students in the second year of the
study rated themselves as signicantly less competent.) This difference between the two years of the studyeven though both
groups followed identical writing tracks (that is, the same curriculum and assignments, taught by the same instructor)dmay
simply be idiosyncratic. The second group was generally regarded by faculty as a more critical cohort, so they may have
focused more attention on the difculties and complexities of academic writing, and thus downgraded their competence (as
they became increasingly aware of their academic communitys expectations in this area) even as their experience increased.
Although this writing program appears to have had positive effects for most students in most areas of interest, these results
remind us that no program is one size ts all and that results of a standardized curriculum may differ from year to year
depending on the cohort in question.
That said, overall, these results suggest that a writing program designed to both socialize students as participants in their
academic community and teach relevant skills through hands-on experience may signicantly impact students self-reported
knowledge of what constitutes academic writing, their comfort discussing and editing it, and their perceptions of themselves
as competent and experienced writers (i.e., their self-efcacy as writers).

9. Conclusion: implications for the teaching and learning of academic writing

Communication in a specic and delineated (academic) community requires knowledge of and insights into that com-
munitys expectations, and practices. While the expectations, customs, and language of each disciplines academic culture are
often self-evident to its established members (i.e., academic staff), this is not usually the case for students, particularly those
early in their academic career. Unfortunately, in a Flemish context, it is rare for a disciplines expectations and requirements to
be overtly discussed or taught, despite the fact that it has been established that newcomers in the community do not acquire
such knowledge or skills in an osmotic way (e.g., Howes, 1999; Johns, 1997; Street, 1999). In an academic context, where
students are routinely evaluated on the basis of their understanding of their academic communitys expectations and
practices, discrepancies between student and staff expectations of academic communication may result in poor marks,
discouragement, and even academic failure. To become a successful participant in the community of their academic disci-
pline, students must learn this communitys communicative currency: the norms, standards, procedures, and linguistic forms
that constitute academic discourse. In other words, they must become academically literate.
In this study, we examined an English writing program that explicitly addresses disciplinary expectations for academic
writing, one aspect of academic literacy, while targeting specic skills that F/SL students need to meet those requirements.
We asked if such a program and approach could effect changes in students (self-perceived) socialization in the areas of
knowledge and condence. A comparison of students pre- and post-course responses suggested that it potentially could:
following the programs courses, students were signicantly more condent in their understanding of what constitutes
academic writing as well as in discussing their writing. Students who completed reective and skills-focused writing
assignments also viewed themselves as signicantly more experienced and competent writers upon completion of the
course.
To date, most work on academic socialization has portrayed socialization as the students responsibility, rather than a joint
enterprise. We contend that it is not just students, but also instructors, that are responsible for students socialization, and the
content of the program we outline here reects this belief. We also propose that in addition to its content, the format of the
class and its activitiesdwhich include critically analyzing example texts, producing ones own text, critiquing peers work,
comparing ones own and others work to an explicit set of expectations, and making revisions in light of feedbackdlikely
play an important role in increasing students comfort, condence, and feelings of self-efcacy as it relates to writing.
Knowledge, skills and affect are not independent factors; they interact with each other, inuencing learning outcomes. All
three contribute to students feelings of efcacy, which in turn have been linked to the regulation of well-being and
attainment (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Honeycutt & Pritchard, 2004; Pajares & Johnson, 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 1997; Stajkovic &
302 K. Van de Poel, J. Gasiorek / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 294303

Luthans, 1998). Since self-beliefs can have benecial or destructive inuences on students academic functioning (Pajeres,
2003, p. 153), it is important for academic writing programs and teachers to engage in nurturing students self-efcacy,
competence and condence, in addition to teaching them content knowledge and related skills. Students perceptions of
themselves as writers are crucial for our understanding of how to facilitate their entrance into the academic community in
a way that enables the academic discourse they engage in.
Although this study only considered students perceptions (we fully acknowledge that this paper relies on self report,
rather than outside evidence, and that measuring changes in performance, rather than beliefs, requires a different kind of
research) its results suggest that an efcacy-focused approachdthat is, one which explicates expectations and requirements
of the students specic academic community while also increasing students awareness, skills, and experience to help them
meet those requirementsdmay help facilitate students (perceived) socialization into their academic community, at least
where writing is concerned. By extension, such an approach may also be a viable means of addressing the gap between
student and staff expectations of academic writing, and thus, of fostering academic literacy (and socialization more gener-
ally). While the program we outline here is location-specic (to Flanders), its principles are in the process of being adapted to
other languages, contexts, and programs.

Appendix 1. Sample Ba1 writing course rubric

3. Constructing an argument

Criteria Questions Think about. Text reference

1. Argument Is my argument debatable? Including an opinion, point of view, . p. 34
2. Thesis statement Is my thesis statement clear and Linking to a particular type of argument, . p. 35, 36
concise (one sentence)?
3. Support/evidence Is my support structured and Linking support and thesis statement p. 35, 36
organized? Linking to a type of argument, . p. 42 overview
4. Evidence Is my supporting evidence Positive evidence, counter-arguments, p. 38
labeled? refutation, . p. 3940
Explain/analyse, discuss, compare/contrast,
dene, .
5. Argumentation Is my argumentation convincing? Cluster information, look for topic p. 35, 36
categories, . is it effective/persuasive, .
organized, structured, .

Appendix 2. Questionnaire
Complete the following sentences by circling your answer.

1. I would describe my level of experience as a writer in the following way:

very experienced [4] moderately experienced [3] not very experienced [2] not at all experienced [1]
2. I would rate myself as a writer in the following way:
very competent [4] competent [3] somewhat competent [3] not very competent [1]
3. If I had to discuss a short paper I had written with a teacher right now, I would feel.
very comfortable [4] comfortable [3] uncomfortable [2] very uncomfortable [1]
4. If I had to discuss one of my papers with a fellow student, I would feel .
very comfortable [4] comfortable [3] uncomfortable [2] very uncomfortable [1]
5. If I had to edit and make suggestions about a fellow students writing, I would feel.
very comfortable [4] comfortable [3] uncomfortable [2] very uncomfortable [1]
6. I understand what makes a successful (academic) essay. Circle your answer.
strongly agree [4] agree [3] disagree [2] strongly disagree [1]
7. I know how to write a successful (academic) essay. Circle your answer.
strongly agree [4] agree [3] disagree [2] strongly disagree [1]

References

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barker, J. (1997). The purpose of study, attitudes to study and staffstudent relationships. In D. McNamara, & R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas students in higher
education: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 108123). London/New York: Routledge.
Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: graduate students and their mentors. English for Specic Purposes, 1, 1334.
Bourdieu, P., Passeron, J.-C., & De Saint Martin, M. (1994). Academic discourse. Cambridge/Stanford: Polity Press & Stanford University Press.
Brinkworth, R., McCann, B., Matthews, C., & Nordstrm, K. (2009). First year expectations and experiences: student and teacher perspectives. Higher
Education, 58(2), 157173.
Casanave, C. P. (2002). Writing games. Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in higher education. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 K. Van de Poel, J. Gasiorek / Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11 (2012) 294303 303

Christie, F. (2005). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. London/New York: Continuum.
Cotton, F. (2004). The lecturer doesnt want my opinion. Mismatched expectations: pedagogical approaches. In L. E. Sheldon (Ed.), Directions for the future:
Issues in English for academic purposes (pp. 91100). Oxford: Peter Lang.
De Geest, A. (2012). Freshman year: a discrepancy between social and academic well-being. Papers selected from the Junior Research Meeting Essen 2011
Language learning and language use Applied linguistic approaches (pp. 167175). Duisburg: Universittsverlag Rhein-Ruhr.
De Rycke, I. (2010). A student perspective on academic literacy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 159, 126.
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York: Falmer.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.
Gordon, C. J., & Braun, G. (1982). Story schemata: metatextual aid to reading and writing. In J. A. Niles, & L. Harris (Eds.), New inquiries in reading research and
instruction (pp. 262268). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
Harris, R., & Thorpe, D. (1999). Language, culture and learning: some missing dimensions to EAP. In H. Bool, & P. Luford (Eds.), Academic standards and
expectations: The role of EAP (pp. 518). Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.
Hayes, J. R. (2004). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. B. Ruddell, & N. K. Unrau (Eds.), Models and processes of reading
(pp. 2955). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.
Honeycutt, R. L., & Pritchard, R. J. (2004). Using a structured writing workshop to help good readers who are poor writers. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Bergh, & M.
Couzijn (Eds.), Effective learning and teaching of writing: Student involvement in the teaching of writing (pp. 141150). Boston: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Howes, D. (1999). A response to Academic literacy: a case study. In C. Jones, J. Turner, & B. Street (Eds.), Student writing in the university: Cultural and
epistemological issues (pp. 207210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. London/New York: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.), (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ivanic, R., Clark, R., & Rimmershaw, R. (2000). What am i supposed to make of this? The messages conveyed to students by tutors written comments. In M.
Lea, & B. Stierer (Eds.), Student writing in higher education: New contexts (pp. 4756). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jorissen, J. (2011). The effect of writing assignments on an academic writing Programme. Unpublished Masters thesis. University of Antwerp, Antwerp.
Lea, M., & Street, B. V. (2000). Student writing and staff feedback in higher education. In M. Lea, & B. Stierer (Eds.), Student writing in higher education: New
contexts (pp. 3246). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Lea, R. M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157172.
Leki, I. (2006). Negotiating socioacademic relations: English learners reception by and reaction to college faculty. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5,
136152.
Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Dening academic literacies research: issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 532.
Littlewood, W. (1999). Dening and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20, 7194.
Macrae, M. (1997). The induction of international students to academic life in the United Kingdom. In D. McNamara, & R. Harris (Eds.), Overseas students in
higher education: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 139142). London/New York: Routledge.
McLeod, S. (1987). Some thoughts about feelings: the affective domain and the writing process. College Composition and Communication, 38, 426435.
Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientic knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efcacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543578.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efcacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: a review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 139158.
Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1996). Self-efcacy beliefs in the writing of high school students: a path analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 163175.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Inuence of writing self-efcacy beliefs on the writing performance of upper elementary students. Journal of Educational
Research, 90, 353360.
Snow, M. A. (2005). A model of academic literacy for integrated language and content instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language
teaching and learning (pp. 693712). Mahwah, NJ/New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efcacy and work-related performances: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240261.
Street, B. (1999). Academic literacies. In C. Jones, J. Turner, & B. Street (Eds.), Student writing in the university: Cultural and epistemological issues (pp. 193
199). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Street, B. (2003). Whats new in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2),
114.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (1998). Other oors, other voices: A textography of a small university building. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tardy, C. M., & Swales, J. M. (2008). Form, text organization, genre, coherence, and cohesion. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing (pp. 565
581). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Van de Poel, K., & Brunfaut, T. (2004a). Bridging the gap between staff expectations and student interpretations of academic writing. Belgian Journal of
English Language and Literatures, 2, 329335.
Van de Poel, K., & Brunfaut, T. (2004b). The Bologna challenge: catering for diversity through academic writing online. In A. Szcs, & I. B (Eds.), New
challenges and partnerships in an enlarged European Union (pp. 363367). Budapest University of Technology and Economics, European Distance
Education Network.
Van de Poel, K., & Gasiorek, J. (2006/2008). Writing in an academic context: a multi-faceted approach to program development. Cahiers de LInstitut de
Linguistique de Louvain, 32(14), 353366.
Van de Poel, K., & Gasiorek, J. (2007). All write. An introduction to writing in an academic context. Leuven/Voorburg: Acco.
Van de Poel, K., & Gasiorek, J. (2010). Evaluation in the course development process: a learner centered approach. English Text Construction, 3, 120140.
Vives. (27 Sept. 2010). Slaagkansen aan Vlaamse universiteiten: tijd om het beleid bij te sturen? Published brieng. KUL Vives. Retrieved April, 2011, from.
http://www.classicavlaanderen.be/informatie/cijfermateriaal/slaagkansen.pdf.

Kris Van de Poel is a senior lecturer in Applied Linguistics at the University of Antwerp, and is a member of the Research Unit for Language Studies. She is also
an extraordinary professor at the School of Languages of the North-West University in South Africa. She has taught academic writing at all levels for many
years and is interested in data-driven research.

Jessica Gasiorek was a Fulbright English Language Teaching Assistant at the University of Antwerp in 20062007. She is currently a doctoral candidate in the
Department of Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and remains associated with the University of Antwerps Research Unit for
Applied Language Studies.