Startseite Assessing self-efficacy, working memory, and proficiency in a multimedia writing environment
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Assessing self-efficacy, working memory, and proficiency in a multimedia writing environment

  • Mark Feng Teng ORCID logo und Maggie Ma ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 23. September 2024
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
Aus der Zeitschrift International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching

Abstract

The present study examined self-efficacy, working memory, and English proficiency in a multimedia writing environment. The research design included a survey to assess self-efficacy and a writing assessment within a multimedia environment, while controlling for working memory capacity and levels of English proficiency. Data collection methods comprised a survey on self-efficacy beliefs in multimedia writing, a working memory task, and the standardized College English Test Band 4 in China. The participants were a total of 406 Chinese university students. The results support the reliability of the self-efficacy questionnaire, with five dimensions: linguistic knowledge, planning, monitoring, evaluation, and performance. These five factors were positively correlated with the students’ writing performance in a multimedia environment. The structural equation modeling findings suggest that working memory and English language proficiency moderate learners’ self-efficacy in EFL multimedia writing. Relevant implications based on the findings were discussed.

Keywords: English language proficiency; multimedia; self-efficacy; working memory; writing
Corresponding author: Maggie Ma, Department of English, The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Professor Chuang Wang from University of North Carolina at Charlotte for the article.

  1. Correction note: Correction added after online publication 23 September 2024: The Acknowledgments statement has been updated.

  2. Research ethics: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the first author. Informed consent was obtained from the participants.

  3. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  4. Competing interests: The authors state no conflict of interest.

  5. Research funding: None declared.

  6. Data availability: The raw data can be obtained on request from the corresponding author.

Appendix I: A brief summary of students’ interview questions

  1. Do you think you are competent in multimedia writing? Why?

  2. Do you think you can take control of your writing? Why? How about multimedia writing? What challenges have you encountered?

  3. Do you have any challenges in planning and evaluating multimedia writing?

  4. Do you have any challenges in regulating your learning-to-write process, particularly in using multimedia technology?

  5. Do you use any strategies for facilitating self-regulation in multimedia writing? If yes, what kind of strategies? If no, why? Do you think those strategies useful?

  6. Do you set goals for out-of-class writing practice? Why?

  7. What kind of resources do you use for regulating your writing?

  8. What do you think of the multimedia writing course?

  9. What strengths and weaknesses do you think you have for multimedia writing?

Appendix II: Self-efficacy belief in multimedia writing

Please indicate the extent to which the following statements describe your belief in multimedia writing. Indicate how you typically behave rather than how you think you should behave. There are no correct or incorrect responses to these questions.

Multiple-choice options for each item: Strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), somewhat disagree (3), neither agree nor disagree (4), somewhat agree (5), agree (6), and strongly agree (7).

Linguistic knowledge self-efficacy (LKSE)

  1. I can use appropriate parts of speech (e.g., nouns, verbs, adjectives) for multimedia writing.

  2. I can use accurate grammatical structures for multimedia writing.

  3. I can use online tools to check language flow.

  4. I can use online tools to create compound words and complex sentence structures.

  5. I can use online tools to ensure clear text organization.

Planning self-efficacy (PlaSE)

  1. I can think of various ways to help me plan for multimedia writing.

  2. I can think ahead of what information I need for multimedia writing.

  3. I can think of my goals for multimedia writing.

  4. I can brainstorm some ideas for multimedia writing.

  5. I can think about the core elements of good writing needed in a digital environment.

Monitoring self-efficacy (MSE)

  1. I can think and check the composing process in a multimedia environment.

  2. I can use appropriate strategies to monitor multimedia writing.

  3. I can monitor my goals to improve multimedia writing.

  4. I can check the coherence in writing in the multimedia environment.

  5. I can check and avoid grammatical mistakes in multimedia writing context.

Evaluation Self-efficacy (ESE)

  1. I can evaluate language use through various online tools.

  2. I can do better in future writing through personal reflection on the use of multimedia technology.

  3. I can compare genres of writing in a digital environment.

  4. I can evaluate whether a composition is good or bad through feedback in online tools.

  5. I can evaluate both the strength and weaknesses of each online tool and make use of the tools for writing.

Performance self-efficacy (PerSE)

  1. I can use multimedia tools to improve my writing performance.

  2. I can understand the materials presented by the instructor in the multimedia writing course.

  3. I can make use of the content in the multimedia writing course for better writing.

  4. I can understand the basic concepts taught in the multimedia writing course and apply them to my writing.

  5. I can understand feedback from various modalities (e.g., text, audio, video, and visuals) and apply them to my writing.

References

Baddeley, Alan. 1998. Working memory. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences, Serie III, Sciences dela vie 321. 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0764-4469(97)89817-4.Suche in Google Scholar

Baddeley, Alan. 2000. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science 4(11). 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01538-2.Suche in Google Scholar

Baddeley, Alan & Graham Hitch. 1974. Working memory. In Gordon A. Bower (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 8, 47–89. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1Suche in Google Scholar

Bai, Rui, Hu Guangwei & Gu P. Yongqi. 2014. The relationship between use of writing strategies and English proficiency in Singapore primary schools. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 23(3). 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0110-0.Suche in Google Scholar

Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Suche in Google Scholar

Bandura, Alan. 1989. Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist 44(9). 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175.Suche in Google Scholar

Bandura, Albert. 2006. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Frank Pajares & Tim Urdan (eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 307–337. Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar

Bruning, Roger, Michael Dempsey, Douglas F. Kauffman, Courtney McKim & Sharon Zumbrunn. 2013. Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology 105. 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029692.Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, Jing & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2019. Assessing student-writers’ self-efficacy beliefs about text revision in EFL writing. Assessing Writing 40. 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob, Patracia Cohen, Stephen G. West & Leona S. Aiken. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd edn. New York: Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Conway, Andrew, Michael Kane, Michael Bunting, Zach Hambrick, Oliver Wilhelm & Randall Engle. 2005. Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12. 769–786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772.Suche in Google Scholar

Creswell, W. John. 2012. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, 4th edn. London: Pearson.Suche in Google Scholar

Doolittle, Peter & Gina Mariano. 2008. Working memory capacity and mobile multimedia learning environments: Individual differences in learning while mobile. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 7(4). 511–530.Suche in Google Scholar

Dutke, Stephan & Mike Rinck. 2006. Multimedia learning: Working memory and the learning of word and picture diagrams. Learning and Instruction 16(6). 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Foster, Jeffrey L., Zach Shipstead, Tyler L. Harrison, Kenny L. Hicks, Thomas S. Redick & Randall W. Engle. 2015. Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition 43(2). 226–236. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0461-7.Suche in Google Scholar

George, Darren & Paul Mallery. 2010. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 10th edn. New York: Allyn and Bacon.Suche in Google Scholar

Hayashi, Yuko. 2019. Investigating effects of working memory training on foreign language development. The Modern Language Journal 103(3). 665–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12584.Suche in Google Scholar

Hayes, Richard John. 1996. A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. Michael Levy & Sarah Ransdell (eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications, 1–27. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Hayes, John R. & Linda S. Flower. 1980. Identifying the organization of writing processes. In Lee W. Gregg & Erwin R. Steinberg (eds.), Cognitive processes in writing, 3–30. New Jersey: Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Hu, Litze & Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6. 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.Suche in Google Scholar

Jones, Ed. 2008. Predicting performance in first-semester college basic writers: Revisiting the role of self-beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33. 209–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.11.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Kong, Amy & Mark Feng Teng. 2023. The operating mechanisms of self-efficacy and peer feedback: An exploration of L2 young writers. Applied Linguistics Review 12(2). 297–328. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0019.Suche in Google Scholar

Kormos, Judit. 2012. The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(4). 390–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Kress, Gunther. 2003. Literacy in the new media age. New York, London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203299234Suche in Google Scholar

Liu, Meilu, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Christine Biebricher. 2023. Investigating students’ cognitive processes in generative AI-assisted digital multimodal composing and traditional writing. Computers & Education 211. 104977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104977.Suche in Google Scholar

Ma, Maggie & Mark Feng Teng. 2021. Metacognitive knowledge development of students with differing levels of writing proficiency in a process-oriented course: An action research study. In Barry Lee, Reynolds & Mark Feng Teng (eds.), Innovative approaches in Teaching writing to Chinese speakers, 92–117. Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501512643-006Suche in Google Scholar

Magogwe, Joel Mokuedi & Rhonda Oliver. 2007. The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System 35(3). 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.01.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Michel, Marije, Judit Kormos, Tineke Brunfauta & Michael Ratajczaka. 2019. The role of working memory in young second language learners’ written performances. Journal of Second Language Writing 45. 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Mueller, Ralph O. & Gregory R. Hancock. 2008. Best practices in structural equation modeling. In Jason W. Osborne (ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods, 488–508. London: Sage.10.4135/9781412995627.d38Suche in Google Scholar

Olive, Thierry. 2012. Working memory in writing. In Virginia Berninger (ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology, 485–503. New York: Psychology Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Oxford, Rebecca L. 2013. Teaching and researching language learning strategies, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315838816Suche in Google Scholar

Pajares, Frank. 2003. Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly 19(2). 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308222.Suche in Google Scholar

Pajares, Frank & Giovanni Valiante. 2006. Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In Charles A. MacArthur, Steve Graham & Jill Fitzgerald (eds.), Handbook of writing research, 158–170. New York: Guilford Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Peeters, Ward & Jo Mynard. 2023. Supporting self-regulated language learning skills online: Awareness raising approaches for computer-supported collaboration. Language Awareness 32(1). 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.2018447.Suche in Google Scholar

Pennington, Martha C. & Sufumi So. 1993. Comparing writing process and product across two languages: A study of 6 Singaporean university student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 2(1). 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(93)90005-N.Suche in Google Scholar

Qin, Limin & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2019. English as a foreign language writers’ metacognitive strategy knowledge of writing and their working performance in multimedia environments. Journal of Writing Research 12(2). 393–413.10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.06Suche in Google Scholar

Raimes, Ann. 1985. What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly 19(2). 229–258. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586828.Suche in Google Scholar

Redick, Thomas S., James M. Broadway, Matt E. Meier, Princy S. Kuriakose, Nash Unsworth, Michael J. Kane & Randall W. Engle. 2012. Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 28(3). 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000123.Suche in Google Scholar

Révész, Andrea, Marijie Michel & Min Jin Lee. 2017. Investigating IELTS academic writing task 2--Relationships between cognitive writing processes, text quality, and working memory. Australia: British Council, Cambridge English Language Assessment and IDP.Suche in Google Scholar

Sasaki, Miyuki & Keiko Hirose. 1996. Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language Learning 46(1). 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb00643.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Schoonen, Rob, Patrick Snellings, Marie Stevenson & Amos Van Gelderen. 2009. Toward a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In Rosa Manchón (ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research, 77–101. Toronto: Multilingual Matters.10.2307/jj.27195487.9Suche in Google Scholar

Schüler, Anne, Katharina Scheiter & Erlijn Genuchten. 2011. The role of working memory in multimedia instruction: Is working memory working during learning from text and pictures? Educational Psychology Review 23(3). 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9168-5.Suche in Google Scholar

Schunk, Dale H. & Peggy A. Ertmer. 2000. Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In Monique Boekaerts, Paul R. Pintrich & Moshe Zeidner (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation, 631–649. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50048-2Suche in Google Scholar

Schunk, Dale H. & Frank Pajares. 2010. Self-efficacy beliefs. In Penelope Peterson, Eva Baker & Barry McGaw (eds.), International encyclopedia of education, 3rd edn. 668–672. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00620-5Suche in Google Scholar

Sun, Ting & Chuang Wang. 2020. College students’ writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulated learning strategies in learning English as a foreign language. System 90. 102221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102221.Suche in Google Scholar

Sun, Ting, Chuang Wang & Stella Yun Kim. 2022. Psychometric properties of an English writing self-efficacy scale: Aspects of construct validity. Reading and Writing 35(3). 743–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10206-w.Suche in Google Scholar

Teng, Mark Feng. 2019. Autonomy, agency, and identity in teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Singapore: Springer.10.1007/978-981-13-0728-7Suche in Google Scholar

Teng, Mark Feng. 2021. Interactive-whiteboard-technology-supported collaborative writing: Writing achievement, metacognitive activities, and co-regulation patterns. System 97(102426). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102426.Suche in Google Scholar

Teng, Mark Feng & Jing Huang. 2019. Predictive effects of writing strategies for self-regulated learning on secondary school learners’ EFL writing proficiency. TESOL Quarterly 53. 232–247.10.1002/tesq.462Suche in Google Scholar

Teng, Mark Feng & Maggie Ma. 2024. Assessing metacognition-based student feedback literacy for academic writing. Assessing Writing 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100811.Suche in Google Scholar

Teng, Mark Feng & Chenghai Qin. 2024. Assessing metacognitive writing strategies and the predictive effects on multimedia writing. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2325132.Suche in Google Scholar

Teng, Lin Sophie, Peijian Sun & Linlin Xu. 2018. Conceptualizing writing self-efficacy in English as a foreign language context: Scale validation through structural equation modeling. TESOL Quarterly 52(4). 911–942. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.432.Suche in Google Scholar

Teng, Mark Feng & Sophie Lin Teng. 2024. Validating the multi-dimensional structure of self-efficacy beliefs in peer feedback for L2 writing: A bifactor-exploratory structural equation modeling approach. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100136.Suche in Google Scholar

Teng, Mark Feng & Chuang Wang. 2023. Assessing academic writing self‐efficacy belief and writing performance in a foreign language context. Foreign Language Annals 56. 144–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12638.Suche in Google Scholar

Teng, Mark Feng & Ying Zhan. 2023. Assessing self-regulated writing strategies, self-efficacy, task complexity, and performance in English academic writing. Assessing Writing 57(100728). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100728.Suche in Google Scholar

Teng, Mark Feng & Lawrence Jun Zhang. 2023. Assessing self-regulated writing strategies, working memory, L2 proficiency level, and multimedia writing performance. Language Awareness. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2023.2300269.Suche in Google Scholar

Truong, Thi Nhu Ngoc & Chuang Wang. 2019. Understanding Vietnamese college students’ self-efficacy beliefs in learning English as a foreign language. System 84. 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.06.007.Suche in Google Scholar

Turner, Marilyn L. & Randall W. Engle. 1989. Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language 28. 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(89)90040-5.Suche in Google Scholar

Unsworth, Nash, Richard P. Heitz, Josef C. Schrock & Randall W. Engle. 2005. An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods 37. 498–505. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192720.Suche in Google Scholar

Usher, Ellen L. & Frank Pajares. 2008. Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Education and Psychological Measurement 68. 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407308475.Suche in Google Scholar

Vasylets, Olena & Javier Marín. 2021. The effects of working memory and L2 proficiency on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 52. 100786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100786.Suche in Google Scholar

Wolsey, Thomas Devere & Dana L. Grisham. 2012. Transforming writing instruction in the digital age. New York: Guilford Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Wolters, Christopher A. & Maria B. Benzon. 2013. Assessing and predicting college students’ use of strategies for the self-regulation of motivation. Journal of Experimental Education 81. 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.699901.Suche in Google Scholar

Woodrow, Lindy. 2011. College English writing affect: Self efficacy and anxiety. System 39. 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.10.017.Suche in Google Scholar

Zhang, Lawrence Jun & Limin Qin. 2018. Validating a questionnaire on EFL Writers’ metacognitive awareness of writing strategies in multimedia environments. In Åsta Haukås, Camilla Bjørke & Magne Dypedahl (eds.), Metacognition in language learning and teaching, 157–178. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781351049146-9Suche in Google Scholar

Zimmerman, Barry. 2013. From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologists 48. 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676.Suche in Google Scholar

Zimmerman, Barry & Rafael Risemberg. 1997. Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology 22. 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0919.Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2024-01-10
Accepted: 2024-08-08
Published Online: 2024-09-23

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2024-0010
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
English language proficiency; multimedia; self-efficacy; working memory; writing
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 9.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2024-0010/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen