An exploration of university students’ writing- and language-related conceptions: Self-efficacy for academic writing and related factors in an English as a Medium of Instruction context

This doctoral dissertation investigates university students’ writing- and language-related conceptions at the beginning of university studies and at the end of the master’s thesis writing process. The overarching aim of the study centers around the question: how do the students perceive they are coping with the demands of academic writing in a multilingual English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) study context in a Finnish university? The present dissertation comprises three part-studies, which together employ a mixed-method approach and both variable and person-oriented perspectives.

Study I explored first-year university students’ conceptions of self-efficacy for academic writing and English as a second language (L2) self-concept descriptions through a qualitative analysis of learning journals (N=74 students’ journals). The data were collected at a moment when the students were also participating in EMI as a part of their major. The L2 self-concept descriptions displayed a continuum ranging from the negative to more positive, accompanied by narration with various contextual elements such as earlier schooling, teachers, grades, comparison with peers, language use in free time, and the present university EMI context. Self-efficacy beliefs for academic writing displayed a similar spectrum in the variation. Some students felt they had had little exposure to academic writing, describing their self-efficacy as low and emphasizing a need for feedback and explicit instruction. Others, however, reported more familiarity with academic writing and a more positive, emerging sense of self-efficacy for academic writing. An individual-level analysis of both conceptions, L2 self-concept and self-efficacy for academic writing, revealed great variation among the group. However, it seemed that the more negative L2 self-conceptions co-occurred more frequently with low self-efficacy for academic writing.

Study II investigated the interrelations between master’s thesis writers’ (N=283) conceptions of self-efficacy for thesis writing, approaches to thesis writing, experiences of the thesis as a teaching and learning environment (TLE), and thesis grade in an EMI university context. The variable-oriented analysis indicated that the thesis grade is positively related to deep and organized approaches to thesis writing, self-efficacy, as well as experiences of interest and relevance for thesis writing. The person-oriented analysis revealed three groups of writers that differed in their approaches to writing: 1) Students applying a dissonant approach 2) Students applying a deep and organized approach 3) Students applying an unorganized approach. Students applying a deep and organized approach to thesis writing differed significantly from the other two groups with higher self-efficacy for thesis writing, a higher thesis grade, and more positive experiences of the thesis as a teaching and learning environment. The students applying a dissonant approach and the students applying an unorganized approach represented the groups encountering more challenges in the thesis writing process. The findings of this study revealed a connection between thesis writing approaches, experiences of the thesis as a TLE, self-efficacy for thesis writing and thesis grade, which bears similarities to the broader framework of student approaches to learning.

Study III focused on master’s thesis writers (N=283, 81% L2 English, 19% L1 Finnish writers) in an EMI setting at a Finnish university, exploring individual variation within and interconnections between the thesis writers’ conceptions of writing, apprehension about grammar, self-efficacy for thesis writing, and thesis grade. Maladaptive writing conceptions (block, procrastination, and perfectionism) correlated positively with each other and negatively with productivity, self-efficacy for thesis writing, and thesis grade. Block and perfectionism were positively related to apprehension about grammar. No significant differences were found between L1 and L2 writers in their mean scores for thesis grade, self-efficacy for thesis writing, apprehension about grammar or writing conceptions. Three groups of writers were identified, reflecting different combinations of writing conceptions: 1) Writers with maladaptive conceptions 2) Productive writers with perfectionist conceptions 3) Writers with adaptive conceptions. Significant differences were found between these groups in their self-efficacy for thesis writing, thesis grade and apprehension about grammar. L1 and L2 writers were divided very evenly across the identified three groups. The relationship between the identified thesis writer groups and language of thesis (L1/L2) was not significant.

This dissertation provides new qualitative insights into the variation within first-year students’ L2 self-concept descriptions and self-efficacy beliefs for academic writing in a multilingual EMI context in Finland. Furthermore, these findings offer comprehensive quantitative understanding of the interconnections of several factors at play in thesis writing processes, which have not been investigated together in prior research. Multiple elements within the writing processes are connected to self-efficacy for thesis writing: approaches to thesis writing, experiences of the thesis as a TLE, and writing conceptions. These, in turn, have significant connections to the thesis grade. The person-oriented approach reveals individual variation among first-year students and master’s thesis writers in their writing- and language-related conceptions, allowing us to better understand the learners within this context.

The findings of the present dissertation serve as an initial basis for understanding university students’ ability to cope with academic writing in a multilingual EMI context, based on which some suggestions for practical implications can be made. First, awareness raising among university teachers and students is needed of the importance of these various writing- and language-related conceptions, as these conceptions do, indeed, matter in the management of academic writing processes. Second, it is important to design more tailored pedagogical support and allocate sufficient resources, catering to these varying linguistic and writing needs of students. One venue for that could be more cooperation between university language and discipline-specific content teachers. As practices tend to follow language policies, university language policies should be (re)considered and (re)evaluated within the light of the present-day demands of multilingual EMI study contexts– do the policies and practices sufficiently support the development of academic literacy in English as such?