Individual and Collective Self-Efficacy for Teaching Writing in a Multidisciplinary Sample of Canadian Faculty
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.31468/dwr.1039Mots-clés :
Teacher Self-Efficacy, Collective Self-Efficacy, Writing instruction in Canada, Threshold Concepts, Writing, Sociocognitive Perspectives on WritingRésumé
Background: Teacher self-efficacy can be defined as the confidence teachers hold about their individual and collective capacity to influence student learning. While many faculty assign and assess student writing as part of their course activities, they often perceive the act of writing as separate from rather than complementary to their teaching of subject matter content. This paper will report on the combined findings of two large survey studies of 385 faculty at Canadian universities, polytechnics and colleges. The purpose of the study was to assess faculty individual and collective self-efficacy for teaching writing.
Methods: Data was collected from faculty via an electronic survey distributed by email or social media (Twitter). Faculty responded to the Individual and Collective Self-Efficacy for Teaching Writing Scales. They also responded to open-ended questions asking them to relate how they felt about their abilities to guide student writing.
Results: Participants’ average age was 49.9 years with 14.5 years of teaching experience. Participants reported their individual self-efficacy for teaching writing at 77.2% while feeling that their departments as a whole were only 60% confident at teaching writing. Higher individual self-efficacy for teaching writing were found in faculty who were in combined research and teaching positions, PhD prepared, with prior formal education in teaching writing, and with 20 or more years of teaching experience. No statistically significant findings were observed with the Collective Self-Efficacy scale. From the qualitative survey data three themes were identified: 1) Blaming and lamenting; 2) Is teaching writing our responsibility? 3) Hopeful efforts and recognitions.
Conclusion: Overall, the data is rife with narratives of blaming students and institutions for student inability to write and faculty questioning their role as writing instructor. These narratives drown out the narratives of faculty who have a passion for teaching writing. Future research should focus on the development of formalized workshops to support faculty teaching writing and changing their attitudes toward the developmental and disciplinary shared responsibility of writing instruction in higher education.
Références
Anson, C. M. (2015). Crossing thresholds: What’s to know about writing across the curriculum. In L. Adler-Kassner, & E. Wardle (Eds.), Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies (pp. 203-219). Utah State University. https://doi.org/10.7330/9780874219906.c000a
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Basgier, C., & Simpson, A. (2020a). Reflecting on the past, reconstructing the future: Faculty members’ threshold concepts for teaching writing in the disciplines. Across the Disciplines, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2020.17.1-2.02
Basgier, C., & Simpson, A. (2020b). Trouble and transformation in higher education: Identifying threshold narratives about teaching writing. Studies in Higher Education, 45(9), 1906-1918. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1598967
Bhattacharya, K. (2017). Fundamentals of qualitative research: A practical guide. Routledge Taylor & Francis.
Boice, R. (1990). Faculty resistance to writing-intensive courses. Teaching of Psychology, 17(1), 13-17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1701_3
Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E.-H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(64), 1–20.
Dryer, D. B. (2015). Writing is not natural. In L. Adler-Kassner, & E. Wardle (Eds.), Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies (pp. 27-29). Utah State University. https://doi.org/10.7330/9780874219906.c000a
Duncheon, J. C., & Tierney, W. G. (2014). Examining college writing readiness. The Educational Forum, 78(3), 210-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2014.912712
Hampton, M. D., Rosenblum, R., Hill-Williams, C. D., Creighton-Wong, L., & Randall, W. A. (2022). Scientific writing development: Improve DNP student skill and writing efficiency. Nurse Education Today, 112(2022), Article 105334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105334
Hardré, P. L. (2012). Community college faculty motivation for basic research, teaching research, and professional development. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(8), 539-561. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920902973362
Jenkins, S., Jordan, M. K., & Welland, P. O. (1993). The role of writing in graduate engineering education: A survey of faculty beliefs and practices. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 51-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90027-L
Köksal, D., Özdemir, E., Tercan, G., Gün, S., & Bilgin E. (2018). The relationship between teacher’s written feedback preferences, self-efficacy beliefs and burnout levels. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(4), 316-327.
Leggtte, H. R. (2015). Faculty define the role of writing in the social sciences of agriculture. North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Journal, 104-110.
Lerner, N. (2015). Writing is a way of enacting disciplinarity. In L. Adler-Kassner, & E. Wardle (Eds.), Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies (pp. 40-41). Utah State University. https://doi.org/10.7330/9780874219906.c000a
Locke, T., & Johnston, M. (2016). Developing an individual and collective self-efficacy scale for the teaching of writing in high schools. Assessing Writing, 28(2016), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.01.001
Mitchell, K. M. Constructing writing practices in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(7), 399-406. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20180618-04
Mitchell, K. M., Zumbrunn, S., Berry, D., & Demczuk, L. (2023). Writing self-efficacy in postsecondary students: A scoping review. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09798-2
Moon, A., Gere, A. R., & Shultz, G. V. (2018). Writing in the STEM classroom: Faculty conceptions of writing and its role in the undergraduate classroom. Science Education, 102, 1007-1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21454
Pratt, C., Zaier, A., & Wang, Y. (2021). Foreign language teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and perspectives about maintaining their students’ interest. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(1), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1201.02
Roozen, K. (2015). Writing is linked to identity. In L. Adler-Kassner, & E. Wardle (Eds.), Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies (pp. 50-52). Utah State University. https://doi.org/10.7330/9780874219906.c000a
Shellenbarger, T. (2020). The lived experience of nursing faculty developing as scholarly writers. Journal of Professional Nursing, 36(6), 520-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.04.016
Stroumbakis, K. D. Moh, N. & Kokkinos, D. (2016). Community college STEM faculty views on the value of writing assignments. The WAC Journal, 27(1), 142-154. https://doi.org/10.37514/WAC-J.2016.27.1.08
Sword, H. (2012). Stylish academic writing. Harvard University Press.
Thonney, T. (2023). What community college instructors think about student writing: Results of a national survey about writing across the curriculum. College Teaching. https:///doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2023.2208816
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2007), 944-956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
Wardle, E., & Adler-Kassner, L. (2015). Metaconcept: Writing is an activity and a subject of study. In L. Adler-Kassner, & E. Wardle (Eds.), Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies (pp. 15-16). Utah State University. https://doi.org/10.7330/9780874219906.c000a
Whitacre, M. P. (2019). The importance of teacher self-efficacy in the implementation of a middle and high school science writing initiative. Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Teacher Education, 7(1), 78-111. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/wte/vol7/iss1/4
Zemliansky, P., & Berry, L. (2017). A writing-across the curriculum faculty development program: An experience report. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(3), 306-316. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2702041
Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2004), 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.004
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés Kim M. Mitchell 2024
Cette œuvre est protégée sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.
Si un article est sélectionné pour publication dans Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, le ou les auteurs et l’éditeur conviennent que le droit d’auteur sera concédé à l’éditeur, qui protégera l’œuvre contre toute utilisation non autorisée et conservera son intégrité bibliographique et archivistique. L’auteur conservera tous les droits de propriété intellectuelle autres que les droits d’auteur. L’article sera publié électroniquement selon les conditions de la licence publique Creative Commons Attribution – Partage dans les mêmes conditions 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0). Cette licence permet à quiconque d’adapter le contenu de l’œuvre et de s’y référer, à condition que le crédit soit attribué à l’auteur de la publication originale. Tous travaux découlant de l’œuvre originale doivent également respecter cette condition. Il n’y a pas de frais pour associés à la soumission ou la publication d’un article.
