Assessing Writing: Mehmet Karaca, Hacer Hande Uysal

Assessing Writing 47 (2021) 100507
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Assessing Writing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asw
The development and validation of an inventory on English

writing teacher beliefs
Mehmet Karaca a, *, Hacer Hande Uysal b
a
Research in Teacher Education and Material Development (R-TEAM) Group, Ankara, Turkey
b
College of Education Department of Foreign Languages Education, Hacettepe University, Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Despite the recent interest in discovering language teacher beliefs in general, L2 writing teachers’
L2 writing beliefs remain almost an untouched area. Considering this gap, this study aims at developing and
English writing teacher validating a sound and comprehensive inventory that can be used for exploring L2 instructors’
English writing teacher beliefs
beliefs regarding the nature of L2 writing, teaching L2 writing, and assessing L2 writing. To do
TEWBI
that, a total of 653 writing instructors were involved in this two-phase study. In the development
phase, a 94-item inventory, Teachers’ English Writing Beliefs Inventory (TEWBI), was devised.
The factor structure of the TEWBI was determined through Exploratory Factor Analysis with the
participation of 311 writing instructors. The results reveal that the TEWBI has a reliability value
with .94, resulting in 57 items under three sub-scales. The Validation phase aimed at validating
the structure of the inventory and its subscales, recruiting another 342 writing instructors. The
results reveal that the model fits the data well (e.g. the RMSEA with .044 (90 % CI = .042–.046)),
indicating the TEWBI produces psychometrically reliable and valid scores. In light of these
findings, the sub-constructs of the TEWBI are discussed, and implications for L2 writing research
are provided.
1. Introduction
The communication demands of globalization in the 21 st century require eloquent written communication skills in English, which
has unquestionably become the lingua franca of international communication, trade, science, and academia. This situation makes
effective English writing instruction and assessment a must, especially for international students. However, this is a challenging task
because L2 writing is considered as the most challenging skill to learn, teach, and assess since it is a complicated construct composed of
cognitive, linguistic, sociocultural, and affective aspects (Cumming, 2001). Moreover, writing is often neglected and used merely to
practice other skills (White & Caminero, 1995), thus, considered as a ‘Cinderella’ skill in L2 language classrooms.
Likewise, L2 writing research has only recently taken attention in the second language and applied linguistics, dating back to the
1960s (Matsuda, Canagarajah, Harklau, Hyland, & Warschauer, 2003; Silva, 1990). Due to the complexities surrounding L2 writing,
and the importance of developing English writing skills in today’s globalized world, L2 writing, L2 writing instruction, and assessment
are important issues that should be investigated, particularly from the perspectives of the writing teachers. However, to date, this has
not been researched in detail but remains as an almost untouched territory in the field (Hirvela & Belcher, 2007).
To understand L2 writing teachers and their beliefs is very important because teacher beliefs largely influence their teaching
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mehmetkaraca55@gmail.com (M. Karaca).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100507
Received 24 January 2020; Received in revised form 20 October 2020; Accepted 26 October 2020
Available online 24 November 2020
1075-2935/© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Karaca and H.H. Uysal Assessing Writing 47 (2021) 100507
behaviors, instructional decisions, and accordingly student learning (Borg, 2003; Farrell & Lim, 2005); therefore, teachers are at the
heart of any instructional improvement or innovation (Levitt, 2002). According to Tillema’s (1995) ‘congruence hypothesis,’ only
when there is congruence between teacher beliefs and the underlying principles of any innovation or reform, teachers adopt that
innovation. As such, to initiate an influential improvement in writing education, the foremost important step is to examine language
instructors’ beliefs about L2 writing and writing instruction and assessment and to consider these while designing L2 writing teacher
education programs.
Yet, it is often reported that in many ESL/EFL contexts, writing teacher education is also an under-developed field and has attracted
far less attention in language teacher education programs (Hirvela & Belcher, 2007). Writing teacher education is not treated as a
distinct and specific area (Uysal, 2007) therefore, at best pre-service language teachers are taught to teach writing through general
language teacher education programs. This leads to the fact that L2 writing instruction is delivered by under-prepared and inexpe
rienced teachers (Johns, 2009) who see themselves more as teachers of language rather than teachers of writing (Lee, 1998).
Considering the problems in language teacher education programs regarding writing, it is highly possible that writing instructors
trained in such contexts may have misconceptions and unrealistic beliefs about writing and writing instruction in English, which can
also influence students’ beliefs as ‘apprenticeship of observation’ plays a central role in the development of beliefs (Lortie, 1975). To
remedy this problem and to improve the quality of L2 writing instruction, exploring writing teacher beliefs is of crucial importance.
To date, although L2 teacher beliefs on grammar instruction, speaking, reading, and listening skills have been investigated
extensively, very little attention has been paid on teacher beliefs about writing in ESL/EFL contexts (Yigitoglu & Belcher, 2014).
Therefore, heeding Hirvela and Belcher (2007) and Borg’s (2015) call for more research on writing teacher education and teacher
cognition in reading and writing instruction in L2, the present study aims to contribute to the theoretical knowledge-base regarding
instructors’ beliefs about writing and writing instruction in English as a second or foreign language. Equally important, to uncover
teacher beliefs properly, data collection tools that yield psychometrically reliable and valid scores should be prepared. The fact that
questionnaires or inventories that yield reliable and valid results are scarce in the field of language teaching (Dörnyei, 2007), the
present study addresses this gap in developing a psychometrically sound writing beliefs inventory. In doing so, this study can benefit
various stakeholders in English writing instruction, including pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, teacher trainers, researchers,
and policymakers.
2. Prior research and theoretical frameworks
2.1. The characteristics of beliefs and teacher beliefs in L2
Although there is an increasing interest in understanding teacher beliefs in the literature (e.g., Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992), there is
no consensus on the definition of this messy construct. In this study, teacher belief is defined as a “proposition which may be
consciously or unconsciously held, is evaluative in that it is accepted as true by the individual, and is therefore imbued with emotive
commitment; further, it serves as a guide to thought and behavior” (Borg, 2001, p. 186). In light of this definition, writing beliefs can be
defined as personal and psychological theories, evaluations and judgments about the nature of writing, how it is learned, how it should
be taught, how it should be assessed, the learners and writers, learning to teach, self and the teaching role held by writing teachers to be
true (Adapted from the belief definition of Breen, Hird, Milton, Oliver, & Thwaite, 2001, p. 472).
To enhance the clarity and better understanding of this complex and messy phenomenon, it is crucial to explicate the distinguishing
features of beliefs from other relevant constructs, especially from knowledge. However, distinguishing beliefs from knowledge is a
demanding endeavor because they are ‘inextricably intertwined’ (Pajares, 1992, p. 325). For some researchers, beliefs subsume
knowledge (e.g., Rokeach, 1968), whereas, for others, beliefs are a part of knowledge (e.g., Kagan, 1992). The notion of beliefs has a
stronger affective and evaluative dimension, whereas knowledge has a stronger cognitive dimension. In addition, beliefs can be
disputable, are more inflexible and less dynamic, while knowledge is more flexible and dynamic. It has been well-documented that
beliefs function as a filter through which knowledge and information are perceived and interpreted (Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992;
Tillema, 1995).
One should note that since the scope of the present study is teacher beliefs about L2 writing instruction and assessment with a focus
of evaluative dimension, the notion of self-efficacy beliefs, which involves the judgments/feelings that individuals hold about their
capabilities/competence to orchestrate and execute certain tasks, is not included in the study. Another distinguishing feature of self-
efficacy belief is that it is a future- and outcome-oriented belief (Bandura, 1986; Pajares, 2003; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).
2.2. Teacher beliefs in language teacher education
Horwitz (1985) opened the window on this important area of research in the field of language teaching with the Beliefs About
Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) to determine the discrepancies and similarities between teachers’ and students’ beliefs about
language learning and teaching. However, in BALLI, most of the items relate to learners rather than teachers’ beliefs. Recently, there
has been considerable research on teachers’ beliefs concerning specific domains in language teacher education, such as speaking (e.g.,
Cohen & Fass, 2001; Farrell & Yang, 2017), reading (e.g., Gebel, 2000; Kuzborska, 2011), and listening skill (e.g., Graham, Santos, &
Francis-Brophy, 2014), communicative language teaching (e.g., Saengboon, 2002), use of technology (e.g., Lam, 2000), target lan
guage use (e.g., Levine, 2003), vocabulary instruction (e.g., Konopak & Williams, 1994), and so on. Among others, grammar in
struction has attracted much more attention in language teacher cognition research (Borg, 2015; Morina, 2016; Phipps & Borg, 2009),
possibly because it is one of the most hotly debated and controversial issues in language teaching.
2
Although students’ or prospective language teachers’ beliefs have been largely investigated, research on in-service teacher beliefs
remains ‘lightly traveled’ (Pajares, 1992, p. 326). Similarly, Fang (1996) pointed out that not much research on teacher beliefs targets
the belief systems of university-level teachers because of the inconvenience of and difficulty in reaching them. With this gap in mind,
this study focuses on university-level teachers’ beliefs about L2 writing instruction.
2.3. Teacher beliefs in L2 writing instruction and assessment
Teacher beliefs directly influence both teachers’ own effectiveness and learners’ performance in L2 writing instruction and
assessment; therefore, they are so important that they ‘lie at the heart of teaching and learning’ (Burns, 1992, p. 64). Several re
searchers investigated both learners’ and teachers’ beliefs about writing from different perspectives, such as the role of giftedness,
writing strategy use, the relationship between writing beliefs and classroom practices.
A number of these empirical studies were conducted on learners’ writing beliefs. For example, Palmquist and Young (1992)
investigated the role of the notion of giftedness in determining students’ expectations about writing. Having examined ESL/EFL
graduate students’ perceptions about differences between writing in L1 and L2, Silva (1993) found that there existed three categories,
including process, rhetoric, and language. Lavelle and Zuercher (2001) focused on university students’ beliefs about themselves as
writers and about their experiences of learning through writing. Wu (2003) investigated Taiwanese college business-major students’
writing beliefs regarding their L1 (Chinese) and FL (English) and the relationship between their writing beliefs and writing strategy
use. It was revealed that students’ different writing beliefs influenced their writing processes and choice of writing strategies.
Besides student beliefs, more importantly, as for the scope of this study, writing teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about writing
instruction and assessment were reported to determine the extent to which they organize student-teacher conferences (Lane, 1993,
cited in Daisey, 2009). Next, because of the culture-specific beliefs, writing teachers from Asian backgrounds were found to avoid some
strategies like peer reviewing and teacher-student conferencing as they may think these strategies can undermine their authority,
especially in teacher-centered contexts (Li, 2007). With such significant effects of teacher beliefs in mind, several researchers called for
more research to explore teacher beliefs in L2 writing instruction and assessment (e.g., Borg, 2015; Yigitoglu, 2011; Yigitoglu &
Belcher, 2014).
As a qualitative study through employing interviews, classroom observations, and analysis of teachers’ written feedback, Yigitoglu
(2011) explored how ESL writing teachers’ beliefs about and practices of teaching L2 writing is affected by their experiences in L1 and
L2 writing and whether there is a relationship between teachers’ self-perceptions and their instructional practices. The findings
revealed that previous language learning experience was a significant source for both native and non-native teachers’ cognitions, their
beliefs about the learning and teaching of L2 writing. Next, teachers’ previous experiences and beliefs guided their teaching practices
and decisions, such as what materials to use and how to present materials during L2 writing classes.
More recently and relatedly, adopting a mixed-method methodology, Kim (2015) investigated Korean university teachers’
cognition (their thinking, decision making, and classroom practices) in EFL writing instruction. She attempted to examine the effects of
contextual factors, prior language learning, teaching experience, and teacher education on teachers’ cognition and classroom prac
tices. EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices were explored through a questionnaire survey with ten writing topics. The results of the
quantitative analysis revealed that Korean writing teachers strongly favored process-oriented writing, paragraph writing, sharing with
peers, enhancement of planning strategies, direct English writing, written commentaries, and varied assessment tasks, while they had
weak beliefs about the product approach, grammar-focused technique, journal writing, and translated writing. Besides, the results of
the qualitative analysis showed that writing teachers’ beliefs about writing instruction were generally in line with their decisions and
practices. The researcher (2015) concluded that EFL writing teachers’ beliefs guiding their classroom practices were malleable and
sensitive to various policy contexts.
Although the present study somehow echoed Kim’s (2015) study, the major aim of Kim (2015) was not to develop a comprehensive
scale for exploring writing teachers’ beliefs, but to investigate university teachers’ cognition and in particular the relationship among
their thinking, decision making, and classroom practices with a focus on the effects of various independent variables (i.e., contextual
factors, prior language learning, teaching experience, and teacher education). However, Kim’s (2015) study has serious methodo
logical problems. First of all, as a rule of thumb, exploratory factor analysis is a must in developing a questionnaire to uncover the
factor structure. Yet, in Kim’s (2015) study, there is no information about this important procedure. Another significant concern is that
she (2015) recruited only 86 EFL teachers to obtain their thinking and beliefs by using a 55-item questionnaire developed by the
researcher. That sample may not be adequate for this 55-item questionnaire to avoid subject variance (DeVellis, 2016). The scale
development literature suggests that the sample should be at least five times larger than the number of the items. In this case, for a
55-item questionnaire, there should have been at least 275 participants in the study. Similarly, Nunnally (1978) recommends that the
sample, including 300 participants, is adequate for developing a scale or questionnaire. These issues can undermine the reliability and
validity of the results yielded by the questionnaire developed by Kim (2015). In light of these concerns, the need for a psychometrically
sound writing beliefs inventory still exists in the L2 writing context. Therefore, the current study is an attempt to address this critical
gap by developing and validating a robust writing beliefs inventory which can be used to investigate EFL teachers’ beliefs. Three
important dimensions (i.e., the nature of L2 writing, teaching L2 writing, and assessing L2 writing) were chosen for this study because
as suggested by previous literature, teachers often have different, if not misformed, cultural views and beliefs on the nature of L2
writing, teaching L2 writing, and assessing L2 writing (e.g., Crusan, Plakans, & Gebril, 2016; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2008; Lee, 2009;
Palmquist & Young, 1992; Silva, 1993; Uysal, 2008; Yang & Gao, 2013; Zacharias, 2007). However, to the best of researchers’
knowledge, there is no comprehensive and sound English writing beliefs inventory developed to provide a complete picture of English
writing beliefs of language instructors in the field of L2 writing education. To fill this critical gap, the current study will be a golden step
3
for a comprehensive investigation of this multifaceted phenomenon (i.e., writing beliefs) in English writing education.
2.4. Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior
It has been well-documented in the literature that beliefs are among the major determinants of an individual’s behaviors (e.g., Borg,
2015; Zheng, 2015). Besides, these beliefs serve as a filter through which individuals interpret new knowledge they encounter in their
lives. Within this context, the theory of planned behavior is the theoretical basis of the present study. This theory has become one of the
most influential conceptual frameworks for the study of human action (Ajzen, 2012). According to this theory, human behaviors are
guided by three kinds of beliefs (Ajzen, 2002, p. 665) as (a) beliefs about the likely consequences of other attributes of the behavior
(behavioral beliefs); (b) beliefs about the normative expectations of other people (normative beliefs); and (c) beliefs about the presence
of factors that may further or hinder performance of the behavior (control beliefs) (Fig. 1).
According to this model, beliefs are the very basis for intentions and behavior, and behavior is guided by intentions. Intention can
be predicted by attitude, perceived norms, and perceived behavioral control for which beliefs provide the basis. In essence, Ajzen
(2012) concluded that ‘beliefs lead people to perform, not to perform a given behavior’ (p. 21). These three aspects, attitude toward the
behavior, subjective norm, and perception of behavior control, result in a behavioral intention. Ultimately, with a sufficient degree of
actual control over the behavior, individuals can conduct their intentions under appropriate conditions. The intention is accepted as
the immediate antecedent of behavior (Ajzen, 2002).
2.5. Research paradigms of writing for developing the TEWBI
Writing is a complex, multifaceted, and multidimensional construct, involving cognitive, linguistic, sociocultural, and affective
dimensions (Cumming, 2001). To begin with, writing is a cognitively demanding activity in which recursive processes of brain
storming, drafting, rewriting, revising, and editing can have an overload on writer’s cognition (Hayes & Flower, 1980). As for the
linguistic dimension of writing, a writer needs to master lexis, syntax, spelling, punctuation, and phrase choice (National Writing
Project & Nagin, 2006). In Kobayashi and Rinnert’s (2012) words, a writer should also have sufficient meta-knowledge, which is
comprised of writing conventions (e.g., discourse markers), rhetorical features (e.g., argumentative structures), along with linguistic
knowledge (e.g., language awareness). Next, since writing is a way of communication with the reader, the writer should have sufficient
knowledge and awareness of the audience as well. Equally important, writing is a cultural and social activity in which the writer should
have the sociocultural background knowledge and awareness of the genre requirements to function in a particular social context in
which certain values and frame of references are prevalent (Alexander, Schallert, & Hare, 1991; Hyland, 2019). Finally, the affective
aspect of writing, such as the writers’ beliefs, attitudes, intentions, expectations, perceptions, and predispositions, are among the most
critical determinants of individuals’ writing performance (Beach & Bridwell, 1984, as cited in Hidi & Boscolo, 2008).
To generate the items while developing the TEWBI, the theoretical L2 writing paradigms, which have focused on each of the
different aforementioned aspects of the writing construct, were examined in detail in terms of how they explained the nature of
writing, teaching writing, and assessing writing. However, we should note that although there is still no single theory explaining all
essential elements and their interactions in second language writing, second language writing has evolved to be an interdisciplinary
field strongly influenced by especially the theories of L1 writing instruction, second language acquisition, and second language
pedagogy (Kroll, 2003; Matsuda, 2003). Therefore, a historical look at the theoretical and pedagogical developments in these areas and
their links with second language writing is necessary to better understand the field.
Interest in second language writing first started under the influence of structuralism and behaviorism, motivated mainly by the
pedagogical problems faced in college ESL classrooms in English-speaking countries (Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2008; Matsuda, 2003).
Contrastive linguistics and error analysis research, analyzing, describing, and comparing L1 and L2 texts in terms of syntactic
structures, tried to understand possible difficulty areas in L2 production (Lado, 1957). It was believed that the problems of L2 writing
were the result of sentence-level errors due to negative transfer from L1 to L2, and thus the pedagogical aim was to predict and
eliminate these errors (Pincas, 1962). Within this context, linguistic accuracy was central to writing instruction. (Hyland, 2019) argued
Fig. 1. Theory of planned behavior (Adapted from Ajzen (2012, p. 19).
4
that "for many who adopt this view, writing is regarded as an extension of grammar - a means of reinforcing language patterns through
habit formation and testing learners’ ability to produce well-formed sentences" (p. 3). Therefore, between the 1940s and 1960s,
controlled composition and later guided composition were popular teaching approaches to writing. The writing was taught through
drills and mechanical exercises to practice previously learned structures or grammar and mechanics of writing (Leki et al., 2008).
Controlled exercises were believed to prevent errors that result from L1 interference and reinforce the correct use of second language
structures (Silva, 1990). Freewriting, on the other hand, maybe harmful as it causes a higher number of errors and, thus, acquisition of
incorrect language patterns (Pincas, 1962). Hence, the end-written product, which was shaped by strict rules and assessed in terms of
linguistic accuracy, was the main focus of L2 writing instruction and assessment.
Later, in the mid-1960s, the approach of teaching writing changed into current-traditional rhetoric, shifting the focus from
sentence-level to discourse-level structures. Kaplan (1966), upon analyzing 600 ESL texts written by different cultural groups, revealed
that each language group wrote paragraphs following some distinct organizational patterns related to their L1 background. Kaplan
(1966), for the first time, articulated that logic and rhetoric were culture-specific, and L2 writing is formed as a result of the transfer of
L1 rhetorical organization and cultural thought patterns. In this case, even some grammatically correct ESL texts may violate the native
English readers’ expectations at the discourse level. As a result, a new research area, “contrastive rhetoric,” started. At this time, it was
believed that there were a finite number of rhetorical patterns for any language, and these forms can be discoverable by text analysis
(Martin, 1992). With the developments in linguistic text analysis, research focused on analyzing, describing, and comparing L1 and/or
L2 written texts in terms of coherence (e.g., Connor & Laurer, 1988; Connor & McCagg, 1983), cohesion (e.g., Halliday & Hasan, 1976;
Reid, 1992), overall organization pattern or text superstructures (e.g., Clyne, 1987; Connor, 1987; Hinds, 1983, 1987; Tirkko
nen-Condit & Lieflander Koistinen, 1989). However, this time, instead of sentence-level errors, the writing was reduced to only the
logical construction of ideas and discourse organization (Silva, 1990). The instruction aimed to teach the idealized linear English
rhetorical pattern to L2 learners through imitating prescriptive models, starting with strict outlines followed by controlled practice to
develop coherent and cohesive paragraphs and essays that have effective thesis statements and topic sentences (Hyland, 2019). The
assessment focused on the degree the end-product texts were in line with the English discourse pattern and textual features.
In the 1970s and 1980s, as controlled composition and current-traditional rhetoric could not satisfy learners and teachers, and with
the influence of the developments in the field of cognitive psychology and L1 composition studies (Flower & Hayes, 1981), the focus
shifted from features of L2 written texts to the underlying composition processes in L2 writing (Hyland, 2019; Matsuda, 2003). For the
first time, Zamel (1976) put forward in L2 writing research that writing is a process rather than a product. The research examined L1
and L2 expert and novice writers’ composing processes and revealed that L2 writing processes were similar to native speaker writers’
processes regardless of second language proficiency level and first language backgrounds (Raimes, 1985, 1987; Zamel, 1982, 1983). In
this approach, good writing is explained not as a result of inherent talent or higher cognitive capacities, but as a result of the expertise
that is gained through training, experience, and practice (Roca de Larios & Murphy, 2001).
According to the cognitive process theory of writing, the writing was viewed as a continuous mental process of generating ideas,
setting goals, developing organization as well as meaning-making (Flower & Hayes, 1981). Writing is seen as a non-linear, complex,
recursive, multi-faceted, exploratory, creative, and generative process through which writers reformulate their ideas, their inner
feelings, and express their own meanings (Cumming, 2001; Emig, 1983; Flower, 1979; Perl, 1980; Silva, 1990; Zamel, 1982). The
content was emphasized over the form, and the cognitive processes and strategies, such as generating, executing/writing, revie
wing/revising, editing, and so on, were prioritized in instruction. In this approach, mostly alternative assessment methods, particularly
portfolios were preferred as they provided collections of multiple drafts collected over time as evidence of the writing process students
went through and their writing development along the way (Hamp-Lyons & Condon, 2000).
However, process-oriented studies were limited as they were often qualitative case studies based on think-aloud protocols, which
made it difficult to generalize about the universality of the processes of writing (Polio, 2003; Roca de Larios & Murphy, 2001).
Moreover, the process approach was also criticized because it was too focused on the writer in isolation, discovering and expressing
self, and it ignored expectations of the reader, and social, historical, and cultural dimensions of writing (Atkinson, 2003; Hyland,
2003a). For example, some studies found that even “one’s self” was defined differently in various cultures, which caused differences in
directness and expression (Connor, 1996). (Horowitz, 1986a, 1986b) also criticized the process approach for failing to prepare stu
dents to meet expectations of academic writing and for giving a false impression about how their writing will be evaluated in academic
contexts.
In the 1990s, the “social turn” (Trimbur, 1994, p. 109) exerted an influence on the approaches of writing; then the process approach
was substituted by post-process approaches (Atkinson, 2003), that is, genre-based pedagogies (Matsuda, 2003). Genre pedagogies
were informed by Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivist theory and the social-interactionist theories of composition (Nystrand, 1986,
1989), which emphasized the important role of the social context in composing, suggesting that texts were created for the expectations
and needs of readers in a specific context; thus, the meaning was a function of dialogue. As a result, writing started to be seen as not an
individual cognitive process, but a social practice (Hyland, 2003a, 2003b, 2019; Johns, 1995, 2003; Swales, 1990; Tardy, 2012) to be
done according to different purposes, using appropriate linguistic and rhetorical tools required by different genres and social contexts
(Halliday, 1994; Swales, 1990); therefore, the writing was not universal, but the way writers write varied from one social context to
another (Halliday, 1994; Hyland, 2003a, 2003b, 2019). A number of corpus-based studies of academic writing supported these social
theories, demonstrating salient features specific to certain genres and how linguistic features and rhetorical structures vary from one
genre to another (Hyland, 2019; Johns, 1995; Swales & Feak, 2000; Swales, 1990; Tang & John, 1999).
According to these social approaches, texts are created not to meet formal course requirements but to communicate and achieve
social goals in particular situations (Hyland, 2008
; Paltridge, 2014). Therefore, the instruction is meaningful and motivating as it connects writing to real purposes and real contexts
5
out of the classroom (Errington, 2009; Melzer, 2014). First, the discourse communities and audience are defined for achieving suc
cessful communication within various different discourse communities (Adler-Kassner & Wardle, 2015; Yancey, 1998) and then
students analyze and are exposed to different registers and genres through readings as models (Firkins, Forey, & Sengupta, 2007;
Hafner & Candlin, 2007; Rothery, 1996) to recognize language patterns in written texts, read with critical understanding, and then use
these patterns in their writing (Rose, 2008). Then interaction among the writer, the discourse community/ reader, and the genre
demands is established through collaboration, peer interaction, feedback and intervention at all stages, and scaffolding by a more
knowledgeable expert (Bikowski & Vithanage, 2016; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Storch, 2013, 2016) to co-construct a socially situated
text.
According to Silva (1990), being exclusive from each other and thus being limited, all of these approaches to second language
writing have failed to form a valid, unified, and comprehensive theory of L2 writing. Each approach focused on a valuable, but a single
element of writing such as lexical-syntactic features, discourse-level structures, process approaches, genre approach, or the social role
of writing. However, the complexity of writing requires the inclusion of linguistic, discourse, cognitive, but also interactive and social
constructive views, complementing each other so that a comprehensive theory of second language writing can be formulated
(Cumming, 2016; Matsuda, 2003; Silva, 1990). Therefore, scholars suggest incorporating the unique features of L2 writing and the
ESL/EFL writing situations, such as texts, the writer, the reader, the writing process, the writing situation, the content, form, the
purpose in an interactive and dynamic manner and considering the different social contexts in research to be able to develop a
comprehensive L2 writing theory (Fogal & Vespor, 2020; Hyland, 2019; Manchon & Matsuda, 2016; Silva, 1990).
In the present study, considering these suggestions, a tentative theoretical framework was developed to be able to write the items of
the TEWBI. Based on a comprehensive literature review, the following framework of English writing beliefs has been developed to
guide the development of the TEWBI (Fig. 2).
According to this tentative framework, there are three broad constructs that constitute English writing beliefs, namely, the nature of
writing, teaching writing, and assessing writing. More specifically, the nature of writing sub-construct involves the beliefs about
different roles and features of L2 writing and the determinants of L2 writing performance, whereas teaching writing sub-construct
covers the beliefs about the techniques, approaches, and materials used L2 writing classrooms. Finally, assessing writing sub-
construct constitutes the beliefs about different assessment practices, scoring types, and in-class and out-of-class assessment
applications.
Fig. 2. The tentative framework for English writing beliefs.
6
2.6. Validity argument framework
Validation is the process through which we can make claims, assumptions, and inferences and then evaluate those claims, as
sumptions, and inferences (Cronbach, 1971; Kane, 2013; Messick, 1989). Validity argument constitutes the collection, interpretation,
and evaluation of the validity evidence.
In the 1910s, criterion-based validity was a popular approach. With this approach, the interrelatedness between test scores and
criterion scores determined validity (Thorndike, 1918). However, it was challenging to find an appropriate situation that was
described by specific behavior (Kane, 2013). Determining a suitable criterion for certain cases was a demanding task for test de
velopers. Then, test developers embraced a content-based approach to validation through which test taker’s performance was eval
uated by field experts by reviewing the test content. Even though it tended to confirmatory bias, a content-based approach was
effective in providing the interrelatedness between individuals’ samples of performance during the test and a larger performance
domain (Kane, 2013). As an alternative to the criterion and content models, the notion of construct validity was proposed in the
mid-1950s.
Shifting the focus from creating a test for a given interpretation to the relationship between the test and a proposed interpretation,
Cronbach and Meehl (1955) developed their construct validation framework. In this approach, the theoretical constructs, which were
based on a scientific theory, to be measured, were defined and interpreted in light of a theory. This made score interpretations more
complicated. Even though the construct validity was well-recognized and accepted as a general framework of validation (Anastasi,
1986; Messick, 1989), this approach was criticized because it had the potential to make the validation process be open-ended and
endless without strong theories (Kane, 2013). In the 1970s and 1980s, Messick shaped validity theory and developed his unified,
construct-based framework. He wanted to extend the restricted views of validation with respect to content, criterion, and
construct-related evidence. His framework assumes that “validation, in essence, is a scientific inquiry into score meaning-nothing
more, but also nothing else” (Messick, 1989, p. 56). Involving various modes of inquiry, his comprehensive framework provides
various claims and assumptions about interpretations and uses of test scores, values, reasoning, and the relationships among these
complex elements. Yet, this framework was considerably complicated and demanding to apply in applied contexts (Kane, 2013).
In the early 1990s, researchers discussed the role of a more explicit and specific statement of the claims and assumptions regarding
the proposed interpretation and use of the test scores (Cronbach, 1988; Kane, 1992, 2006; Mislevy, 2006). Cronbach (1988) proposed a
“validity argument” to evaluate the interpretations and uses of test scores in light of the evidence of the claims. The argument-based
approach to validity embraces the general principles of construct validity, but it doesn’t focus heavily on scientific theories. Relatedly,
Kane (2006) introduced the interpretations and used argument (IUA) to provide more complete and clear claims with a focus on more
comprehensive validation. The IUA aims to make the underlying rationale of the proposed interpretations and uses more straight
forward and understandable so that it can be better evaluated. The core of Kane’s framework is the explicit and specific statement of
claims.
Through the IUA, the validation of the proposed interpretations and uses are evaluated by certain criteria (Kane, 2013). The
validation process starts by scoring the observed performances and assigning an observed score. The soring inference is the bridge
between the observed performances and an observed score. In this process, the appropriateness of the scoring criteria plays a key role.
It is also important to make claims about the performance of a test taker in some larger domain of tasks, rather than in a smaller
domain. With this generalization inference, certain claims are made about the performance expectation of test-takers in a universe of
possible observations. This inference is based on the expectations about the sampling of the observed performances regarding the
larger universe of possible performances. That’s why, sampling criteria are of crucial importance. The observed scores can be used to
predict the future performance of a test taker in different contexts and to make inferences about test taker’s possible performance on
various tasks in different contexts. Through this extrapolation inference, one can broaden the interpretations into novel performance
domains and contexts. As the last step, through implication inference, one can evaluate the impact of the results on the stakeholders or
make a decision based on these scores with respect to the stakeholders in the community.
Since it is one of the most widely employed validity approaches to validity, Kane’s (2006, 2013) interpretation/use argument
framework has guided the present study. The study will report on four sources of validity evidence to support the argument.
“A valid assessment of any skill or ability must start with a definition of the construct” (Weigle, 2013, p. 87). Yet, Slomp (2019) has
lamented that studies in the field of writing assessment have rarely defined writing construct as a starting point of the research. With
this critical gap in mind, the researchers have started the development and validation process by identifying and defining the construct
to be handled. This is an essential step to demonstrate the evidence in terms of scoring inference. Another potential rigorous evidence
to strengthen the validity argument is the comprehensive and thick description of the development procedures. Next, the researchers
have paid extensive attention to examine the domain in that related studies and constructs have been analyzed in detail. The pro
cedures of the construction of a large number of items based on the defined construct, the selection of an appropriate response option,
the omission of these items for a manageable number, the revision of the items in light of a panel of experts’ feedback, and piloting are
robust evidence for the plausibility of scoring inference.
Generalization inference deals with the degree of the representation of the scores in the target domain. This can be guaranteed with
high reliability or consistency of the scores. To ensure this inference, the researchers involve participants from different institutions
and contexts and with different writing backgrounds. In this way, the researchers strengthen the representativeness of the sample and
thus the generalizability of the results. Another possible evidence is the adoption of a stratified random sampling method, one of the
random sampling methods. This procedure contributes to the sound representativeness of the scores. It is highly possible that the
development of an extensive number of items can represent all of the theoretically possible items in the relevant universe, that is, in the
field of L2 writing instruction and assessment.
7
Extrapolation inference extends the interpretation of the future performance of the inventory. For strong evidence regarding this
inference, there should be close interrelatedness between the inventory design and the definition of the target contexts. In developing
the inventory, the researchers have been guided by the suggestions and procedures of Dörnyei (2003) and DeVellis (2016) on sca
le/inventory development. The feedback provided by a panel of writing experts on the inventory items improves the content and face
validity of the scores. What’s more, the analysis of similar studies in terms of their items and constructs can support the validity
argument regarding this inference. To determine the construct validity of the inventory, the researchers employed both EFA and CFA
with the participation of instructors with different writing backgrounds from different regions of Turkey. Through these factorial
analyses, the model has been confirmed. In addition, creating two different datasets strengthens the interrelatedness between the
performance of the TEWBI in the test-world and that of in the real world. In light of these procedures, it is safe to claim that the TEWBI
can yield similar results in different contexts.
Implications inference is the extension of the interpretation and use of results to inform a decision or action in society. In other
words, it evaluates the effects of the assessment on all the stakeholders in the field of L2 writing instruction and assessment. Heeding
the call of Slomp (2019), this study aims to embrace diversity by contributing to a variety of stakeholders, from writing instructors to
policymakers. Equally important, as it was accentuated by Condon (2009) and Huot (2002), this study has attached great importance
to the social consequences of L2 writing instruction and assessment in that the TEWBI is a robust inventory to explore writing in
structors’ beliefs about writing instruction and assessment. Teacher trainers and policymakers can make use of these results to improve
teacher education programs with a focus on writing teacher education. The TEWBI can also be administered to investigate instructors’
unrealistic beliefs about writing instruction and assessment so that teacher trainers can take necessary steps to deal with and form these
beliefs in pre-service teacher education programs. In this way, this study will contribute to the improvement of L2 writing instruction
and assessment in various ESL/EFL contexts.
3. Methodology
The present study was conducted in two phases as Development and Validation to answer the research questions. While the purpose
of the Development Phase was to develop a writing beliefs inventory based on a tentative theoretical framework for English writing
beliefs, the Validation Phase aimed to validate the newly developed writing beliefs model.
3.1. Research questions
1 What are the psychometric properties of the Teachers’ English Writing Beliefs Inventory?
a Does the TEWBI yield psychometrically reliable scores to measure EFL instructors’ writing beliefs?
b Does the TEWBI yield psychometrically valid scores to measure EFL instructors’ writing beliefs?
2 What are the extracted sub-constructs of the TEWBI?
3.2. Research design
The present study adopts a validation procedure to develop and validate the TEWBI. In doing so, Kane’s (2006) interpretation and
use argument (IUA) framework guided this study. In addition, this is a descriptive study adopting a quantitative methodology.
Table 1
Demographic Information of Participants of the Development Phase.
f %
Gender
Male 103 33.1
Female 208 66.9
Institution
State 175 56.3
Private 136 43.7
General Teaching Experience
0-3 years 47 15.1
4-10 years 168 54
11–20 years 70 22.5
21 and over years 26 8.4
Writing Teaching Experience
0-3 years 86 27.7
4-10 years 164 52.7
11–20 years 52 16.7
Educational Degree
Undergraduate (BA) 154 49.5
Graduate (MA and PhD) 157 50.5
Total 311 100
8
Descriptive research is employed when a researcher wants to describe a specific phenomenon without any intervention as it takes place
in its natural environment. Since ‘beliefs cannot be inferred directly from teacher behavior because the teacher can follow similar
practices for very different reasons’ (Kagan, 1992, p. 66), administering questionnaires/inventories is one of the valuable and
necessary means to examine this complex phenomenon in a wide range of institutions and with a high number of subjects. Relatedly, in
the field of language education, questionnaires/inventories have been widely used to examine teachers’ beliefs about language
teaching and learning in general and with relevance to specific curricular domains such as reading, writing, grammar, and so on (Borg,
2015).
3.3. Participants
To develop and validate the TEWBI, the researchers recruited a total of 653 EFL instructors from 51 different universities in Turkey.
Because the present study is a two-phase study, two different datasets were created, and all participants were mutually exclusive across
the two datasets. 311 EFL instructors participated in the first (Development) phase, whereas 342 EFL instructors were recruited for the
second (Validation) phase. Table 1 and Table 2 display the demographic information of these EFL instructors.
The Development phase of the TEWBI involved 311 EFL instructors who teach English in preparatory classes at 29 universities in
Turkey. Of these universities, 23 were state, and 6 were private universities. Because of the natural distribution of gender in language
education in Turkey, the majority of the participants were female (66.9 %), and 33.1 % were male instructors. 175 instructors were
teaching at state universities (56.3 %), while 136 instructors were from private universities (43.7 %). Regarding their language
teaching experience, only 15.1 % of the instructors were novices with 0-3-year experience. The majority of the participants had 4-10-
year experience (54 %), followed by the instructors with 11–20-year experience (22.5 %). The percentage of the instructors with 21
and over year-experience was 8.4. With respect to instructors’ teaching experience in writing, 27.7 % of them had 0-3-year experience.
Half of the participants (52.7 %) had 4-10-year experience. 16.7 % of the instructors were in 11–20-year experience group. Only 2.9 %
of the instructors had 21 and over year-experience. With regard to the highest educational degree, the instructors earned, they were
grouped into two categories as an undergraduate (BA) and graduate (MA & Ph.D.) because there were only 16 instructors who had a
Ph.D. degree. At this point, the percentages of the undergraduate and graduate instructors were 49.5 % and 50.5 %, respectively.
As for the Validation phase, 342 EFL instructors from 32 universities participated in the study. Again, the majority of the partic
ipants were female (76.6 %), and males had 23.4 percentage. The data were gathered from 24 state and 8 private universities.
Therefore, the participants from state universities had 67.5 %, while the ones who were teaching at private universities had 32.5 %.
Regarding their language teaching experience, 7.9 % of the instructors possessed 0-3-year experience while 42.4 % of them had 4-10-
year experience. Besides, 33.9 % of the participants were with 11–20 year-experience. The percentage of the instructors who had 21
and over year-experience was 15.8 %. With respect to language instructors’ teaching experience in writing, 18.4 % of them had 0-3-
year experience. About half of the participants (45.3 %) possessed 4-10-year experience. While 27.5 % of the instructors had 11–20-
year experience, only 8.8 % of them were with 21 and over-year experience. Furthermore, the educational degree the language in
structors hold was categorized as an undergraduate (BA) and graduate (MA & Ph.D.). Because there were only 16 Ph.D. holders, the
researcher grouped MA and PhD holders under the graduate category. While the undergraduate instructors possessed 47.1 %, the
graduate instructors had 52.9 %.
The present study adopted a stratified random sampling method, as one of the random sampling methods, because the main aim of
the present study is to develop an inventory with sound representativeness. A stratified sampling occurs when ‘the researcher divides
Table 2
Demographic Information of Participants of the Validation Phase.
f %
Gender
Male 80 23.4
Female 262 76.6
Institution
State 231 67.5
Private 111 32.5
General Teaching Experience
0-3 years 27 7.9
4-10 years 145 42.4
11–20 years 116 33.9
Writing Teaching Experience
0-3 years 63 18.4
4-10 years 155 45.3
11–20 years 94 27.5
Educational Degree
Undergraduate (BA) 161 47.1
Graduate (MA and PhD) 181 52.9
Total 342 100
9
the population into subgroups (or strata) such that each unit belongs to a single stratum (e.g., low income, medium income, high
income) and then selects units from those strata’ (Teddlie & Yu, 2007, p. 79). Since there are seven geographic regions in Turkey, the
target population was divided into seven subgroups or strata according to the seven different geographic locations of the institutions.
As a result, a total of 653 EFL instructors from 28 different provinces participated in the present study, which is a sound sample of the
target population.
3.4. Data collection
Recognizing the key role of piloting in fostering the quality of the results, the researchers carried out two piloting studies in the
present study. For the pre-piloting phase, five writing tutors from Gazi University Academic Writing Center completed the TEWBI
through face-to-face conferencing, focusing on the comprehensibility of the items. This phase indicated that the testing time took
between 25 and 40 min. Having made the necessary revisions, the researchers re-piloted the TEWBI via an online survey software (i.e.,
Google Docs) with the participation of 70 EFL instructors from 20 different universities, who shared the same context and similar
background with the participants of the formal study.
Regarding the formal study, to increase the participation rate, to obtain more sincere responses, and, in turn, to increase the
reliability of the study, the researchers collected the data by hand through employing pen-paper format. A total of 653 EFL instructors
from 51 universities participated in the two phases of the study. Two different data sets were used for two phases. It took over six
months to collect the data for these two phases. After the data collection procedures had been completed, the data were made ready for
further statistical analysis.
3.5. Survey development
In the process of survey development, the researchers heeded the suggestions and procedures put forwarded by Dörnyei (2003) and
DeVellis (2016). The development process of the TEWBI constitutes thoroughly taken steps, as shown in Supplemental File 1. Upon
determining the broad construct of the inventory (i.e., writing beliefs), the researchers reviewed the literature for determining the
content and the preliminary sub-constructs of the writing beliefs inventory since it is the first crucial step to establish the theoretical
background in developing any questionnaire or inventory (Farhady, 1995) to enhance the external and content validity of the in
strument (Dörnyei, 2003). Next, the researchers examined belief inventories in language teaching (i.e., BALLI (Horwitz, 1985, 1987))
and specifically in L2 writing instruction (i.e., Kim, 2015; Wu, 2003). These previous survey studies made a great contribution to
identifying the draft sub-constructs of the TEWBI. As a result of this process, nine tentative writing sub-constructs were developed
(Supplemental File 2). Then, the researchers eliminated several overlapping sub-constructs and combined the rest sub-constructs into
three broad writing constructs as the nature of L2 writing, teaching L2 writing, and assessing L2 writing.
Based on these three sub-constructs, a comprehensive item pool was generated, including 409 items for the nature of L2 writing,
566 items for teaching L2 writing, and 431 items for assessing L2 writing. After considerable time and effort, redundant and over
lapping items were omitted, and it turned out a 94-item inventory with 32 items for the nature of L2 writing, 33 items for teaching L2
writing, and 29 items for assessing L2 writing sub-constructs. Regarding the format of the inventory, a six-point Likert scale was
determined as strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), slightly disagree (3), partly agree (4), agree (5), and strongly agree (6) to prevent
participants’ tendency to choose the middle category (i.e., neutral). The major rationale behind this is that it is vital to ensure the
dispersion of the responses among options by eliminating the middle point in scale development (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010).
The draft inventory was reviewed by a panel of knowledgeable researchers in the L2 writing field: two native and three non-native
L2 writing experts. In light of their feedback, the statements were revised. This process has had a remarkable influence on the increase
of both content and face validity of the inventory. Next, the TEWBI was pre-piloted with the participation of five writing tutors from a
writing center of a Turkish state university to check the comprehensibility of the items. As a second piloting, the TEWBI was
administered to a total of 70 EFL instructors from 20 different institutions to check its psychometric property (i.e., reliability). After
these processes, the final version of the TEWBI was administered in the development phase of the study.
3.6. Survey validation
In the scale development and validation process, both the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA) are employed. In the current study, the data gathered from 311 EFL instructors for the development phase were analyzed
through the EFA in SPSS 22 for Windows. On the other hand, for the validation phase, the data obtained from 342 EFL instructors
underwent the CFA through LISREL 8.80 program for Windows. Before conducting the EFA and CFA, data screening procedures such as
missing data and outliers were carried out to ensure the appropriateness of the data. Initially, the expectation-maximization (EM)
algorithm technique was executed to estimate and manage the missing data via SPSS. Next, to prevent the outliers from distorting the
statistical results, the possible extreme cases were identified through the Mahalanobis Distance method (p < .001).
In the development phase, regarding the data reduction process, factor analysis was employed to explore the underlying factors or
subscales. In this process, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy were performed to
verify the suitability of the data for the EFA. Besides, to identify the number of the factors, three techniques were adopted, including
the scree plot, Kaiser criterion, and proportion of variance. Since it was assumed that there is a correlation among the factors, a
principal axis factor analysis with direct-oblimin as an oblique rotation method was preferred to ensure the interpretability of the
factors (Byrne, 1998). In light of these processes, the factor structure of the TEWBI was determined.
10
In the validation phase, second-order confirmatory factor analysis was adopted since it was presumed that there is interrelatedness
among the sub-constructs of the TEWBI (Brown, 2006). The main purpose of the second-order factor analysis is to elaborate on the
correlations among first-order factors (i.e., the nature of L2 writing, teaching L2 writing, and assessing L2 writing). In addition, various
fit indices were used for the evaluation of the model fit including absolute (i.e., the Chi-Squared test (X2), Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and the Adjusted
Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI)) and incremental fit indices (i.e., the Normed-fit index (NFI), Non-normed-fit Index (NNFI), and
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)). To interpret whether the model has a good fit or not, several fit indices criteria were heeded, including
Hu and Bentler (1999), Kline (2005), and Chin and Todd (1995).
Since ensuring reliability and validity is central to scale development studies, the researchers paid considerable attention to these
two vital phenomena by employing various ways in the present study. Regarding reliability, the Cronbach Alpha method was preferred
to determine the internal consistency of the statements (Mackey & Gass, 2016). As for validity, the researchers attempted to ensure
three essential validity types, among others, including content, face, and construct validity through a comprehensive review of
literature, expert opinions, piloting, and factorial analyses.
4. Results
This section of the current two-phase study reports the results of the quantitative analyses with descriptive statistics. While the first
phase explores the factor structure of the TEWBI through the EFA, the second phase validates the factor structure of the newly
developed TEWBI through the CFA.
Before the formal study, the draft inventory was piloted with 70 EFL instructors from 20 universities to determine the internal
consistency of the TEWBI. The results showed that the TEWBI has a high internal consistency with Cronbach alpha value .89 (.72 for
the nature of L2 writing sub-scale, .86 for teaching L2 writing sub-scale, and .76 for assessing L2 writing). This high-reliability index is
the manifestation of the good internal consistency of the items (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018). This result can also be an indi
cation that a sound theoretical framework has been developed on writing beliefs.
Before employing the EFA and CFA, several data screening procedures (e.g., missing data and outliers) were executed. Initially, to
estimate and handle the missing data, the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm technique was performed since the rate of the
missing data to the whole data was below 5 %. Having handled the missing data, the researchers analyzed the outliers of the two
datasets through the Mahalanobis Distance method (p < .001) via SPSS. The results of this analysis revealed that there were 11 and 21
extreme cases for the collected data for the first and second phases, respectively. These cases were omitted from the survey data in
order not to distort the results, leaving 300 cases for the EFA and 321 cases for the CFA.
In order to verify the sampling adequacy for the EFA, the data collected for the development phase were exposed to the Bartlett’s
Test of Sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO). It was revealed that the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity values were significant for the
nature of L2 writing (X2 (210 = 1442.023, p < .01), for teaching L2 writing (X2 (210 = 2082.147, p < .01), and for assessing L2 writing
sub-scales (X2 (105 = 1038.599, p < .01), indicating that the assumption of sphericity was not violated (Field, 2013). In addition, the
KMO values were .85, .92, and .87 for the three sub-scales, respectively. In light of these results, it can be expressed the sample size was
suitable and adequate for the EFA (Field, 2013).
There are two main stages (i.e., factor extraction and factor rotation) in factor analysis (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). For the extraction
of the factors, the principal axis factoring was adopted for analyzing and identifying the factors of the sub-scales of the TEWBI. With
respect to factor rotation, a direct-oblimin technique was performed to interpret the factors and to explore the relations between the
observed variables and underlying factors (Byrne, 1998) because the researchers assumed that there was a correlation among the
sub-scales. To determine the number of the factors of each sub-scale, three techniques were adopted, including scree plot, Kaiser
criterion, and proportion of variance.
Based on the factor loadings and the graphic image of scree plots, a series of factor analyses were carried out through omitting low
loaded-items to determine the most optimal factor structure for the sub-scales (Supplemental File 3). The results of the various factor
analysis procedures resulted in a one-factor solution for each sub-scale (Table 3). The minimum factor loadings should be 0.3 (Hair,
Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009). The factor loadings are sensitive to sample size and the number of items in the inventory. It is
believed that with larger sample size, there would be stronger factor loadings. Next, the number of items of the sub-scale may decrease
the factor loadings in this study. The factor loadings ranged from .35 to .62 for the nature of L2 writing sub-scale, from .38 to .67 for
teaching L2 writing sub-scale, and from .37 to .59 for assessing L2 writing sub-scale. Based on the results of the analyses, 37 items were
omitted from the inventory because of low factor loadings and reliability issues. As a result, the TEWBI turned out to be a 57-item
inventory with 21 items for the nature of L2 writing, 21 items for teaching L2 writing, and 15 items for assessing L2 writing
sub-scales (Table 4).
Concerning the reliability of the TEWBI and its sub-scales, internal consistency values were calculated via SPSS. The results
Table 3
The Sub-Constructs of the TEWBI (N = 300).
Sub-Construct Name Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative (%) ɑ
The Nature of L2 Writing 5.482 22.526 22.526 .85

Teaching L2 Writing 7.365 31.931 31.931 .90
Assessing L2 Writing 4.660 26.224 26.224 .84
11
revealed that the TEWBI has a high-reliability value with .94 (Cohen et al., 2018). In addition, the sub-scales also have good reliability
values, including .85 for the nature of L2 writing, .90 for teaching L2 writing, and .84 for assessing L2 writing. When the results of the
pilot study and formal study were compared, it was also found out that various factor analysis procedures increased the internal
consistency among the items (from .89 to .94).
The second phase of the present study reveals the findings from 321 instructors’ responses to 57-item TEWBI. The researchers
performed the CFA via LISREL to confirm the hypothesized three sub-scale structure of the TEWBI, which were explored through the
EFA in the first phase of the study. Since it was presumed that there is an inter-correlation among these three sub-constructs, the
researchers employed a second-order confirmatory factor analysis (Brown, 2006). According to the theorized framework, this study
involves one main construct (i.e., writing beliefs) and three sub-constructs (i.e., the nature of L2 writing, teaching L2 writing, and
assessing L2 writing). The results revealed that there were high correlations among the TEWBI and its sub-constructs. The correlation
between the TEWBI and the nature of L2 writing sub-scale was .85, the TEWBI and teaching L2 writing sub-scale was .96, and the
TEWBI and assessing L2 writing sub-scale was .91 (Supplemental File 4).
The model-fit indices were calculated to explore the goodness of fit of the data (Table 5). The results indicated that regarding the
absolute fit indices, the Relative X2 (Chi-Square/df) value was 2.15, which did not violate the cutoff criterion of 3.00 (Kline, 2005). The
RMSEA had .044 (90 % CI = .042–.046), which was below the cut-off value of ≤ .06, and the SRMR had .049, which was lower than the
cut-off criterion of ≤ .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). These values indicate that TEWBI has a well-fitting model (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw,
2000). Yet, the GFI and AGFI values were .82 and .81, respectively, because they are sensitive to the sample size of the data (Bollen,
1990). In fact, because of the detrimental effect of sample size on these two fit indices, they should be relied upon together with other
indices (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). According to Chin and Todd (1995), these values were close to a good fit. Taken together,
these values were situated at an acceptable level. With respect to the incremental fit indices, the NFI index of .93 was greater than the
threshold of ≥ .90, and the NNFI and the CFI values of .96 were greater than the cut-off criterion of ≥.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Based
on these findings, the model of the TEWBI fits the data well.
Because the researchers created two different datasets for the Development and Validation phases, it was crucial to reconduct a
reliability analysis for the Validation phase. The Cronbach Alpha value of the 57-item TEWBI was .93 with the nature of L2 writing sub-
scale .82, teaching L2 writing sub-scale .90, and assessing L2 writing subscale .83. Again, these findings are the indication of the high
internal consistency among the 57 items and sub-scales of the TEWBI (Cohen et al., 2018). Based on the results of the EFA and CFA, it is
clear that the TEWBI yields reliable and valid scores and that it can be used to measure EFL instructors’ beliefs about L2 writing.
5. Discussion & conclusion
The major aim of this study was to develop and validate an inventory of English writing beliefs rather than to conduct a thorough
investigation of these beliefs. Therefore, it was focused on factorial analyses, descriptive statistics, and validation procedures. The data
were collected from a total of 653 EFL instructors from 51 different Turkish universities. An initial pool of 1406 items was shortened to
94 items. Rigorous development and validation procedures of EFA and CFA corroborated the multifaceted structure of writing beliefs,
including the nature of L2 writing, teaching L2 writing, and assessing L2 writing with robust reliability and validity values. Second-
order confirmatory factor analysis verified that the three sub-constructs of writing beliefs were closely related to each other under an
Table 4
Factor Analysis of the TEWBI.
Sub-Construct One (ɑ = .85) Sub-Construct Two (ɑ = .90) Sub-Construct Three (ɑ = .84)
The Nature of L2 Writing Teaching L2 Writing Assessing L2 Writing
Item No Factor Loadings Item No Factor Loadings Item No Factor Loadings
1 0.621 11 0.672 18 0.598

7 0.589 9 0.664 29 0.568
22 0.585 5 0.630 16 0.562
14 0.548 17 0.620 23 0.555
21 0.543 4 0.613 11 0.542
13 0.531 12 0.612 6 0.539
23 0.514 15 0.605 17 0.526
6 0.495 32 0.603 25 0.524
24 0.483 31 0.597 10 0.519
28 0.463 20 0.591 7 0.498
20 0.458 13 0.590 28 0.479
2 0.435 25 0.580 19 0.467
29 0.431 16 0.577 4 0.454
25 0.430 3 0.562 3 0.432
32 0.423 19 0.534 1 0.371
12 0.412 29 0.509
11 0.410 14 0.499
27 0.399 26 0.443
9 0.363 10 0.437
19 0.351 1 0.427
18 0.350 33 0.385
12
Table 5
The Results of the Model Fit Indices.
Fit Indices Values Cut-off Value Goodness of Fit
Relative X2 (Chi-Square/df) 2.15 < 3.00 Good fit

RMSEA (90 %) .044 (.042–.046) ≤ .06 Good fit
SRMR .049 ≤ .08 Good fit
GFI .82 ≥ .90 Reasonable fit
AGFI .81 > .80 Good fit
NFI .93 ≥ .90 Good fit
NNFI .96 ≥ .95 Good fit
CFI .96 ≥ .95 Good fit
overarching construct of writing beliefs. As it was hypothesized, the results revealed a three-sub-construct model with 57 items.
Concerning the reliability of the TEWBI, the Cronbach alpha value is .94, indicating a perfect internal consistency among the items of
the sub-constructs (Cohen et al., 2018). Regarding validity, three essential validity procedures, including the face, content, and
construct (Mackey & Gass, 2016), were ensured through a systematic review of literature, expert opinions, piloting, and factorial
analyses. In addition, the model fit indices of the TEWBI reveal that the model has a good fit to data. In light of these psychometric
properties, it is safe to conclude that the TEWBI is a robust instrument that can be used for exploring EFL instructors’ writing beliefs.
Farrell (2008) argued that many language teachers are not aware of both their beliefs and to what extent these beliefs are reflected
in their classroom practices. This study has been an attempt to make language instructors become aware of their implicit writing
beliefs. Arnold and Turnbull (2007) believe that impacting and changing teachers’ lesson planning, decision-making and classroom
practices should start with teachers’ examining their own beliefs about language learning and teaching. Therefore, the TEWBI is a good
means for teachers to articulate and reflect upon their beliefs in the process of writing instruction. This process can contribute to their
professional development, the quality of instructional practices, and thus writing pedagogy (White & Bruning, 2005).
It has been lamented that questionnaires or inventories that yield reliable and valid results are scarce in the field of language
teaching (Dörnyei, 2007). As a sound and comprehensive writing beliefs inventory, the TEWBI can be used by researchers in the field of
L2 writing instruction to examine writing beliefs held by language teachers in order to be able to diagnose the needed and absent skills
and practices in the writing classrooms in different teaching contexts.
Given that teachers are social change agents and teacher beliefs are the major determinants of their instructional practices in
writing classes, exploring their beliefs will act as a strong basis for any reform or innovation. In fact, any change in behavior should be
preceded by changes in beliefs because beliefs function as a spirit of behavior. Therefore, in order to be able to initiate an effective
writing teacher education reform, we should begin with investigating and modifying teacher beliefs since these beliefs “lie at the very
heart of teaching” (Kagan, 1992, p. 85). Similarly, from the constructivist point of view, teachers’ beliefs need to be surfaced and
acknowledged if the teachers are to adopt and implement recent developments and innovation in writing teacher education. In this
critical process, the TEWBI can be used by policy makers and curriculum designers to take a picture of the current situation of writing
instruction in EFL contexts through exploring language instructors’ writing beliefs.
Guided by the Kane’s (2006, 2013) IUA framework to validity, this study collected and reported adequate evidence that supports
the validity argument. The systematic and thoroughly taken steps strengthened the development process of the TEWBI. The
comprehensive analysis of the literature and related studies and heeding the suggestions of writing and scale development experts
made a great contribution to the psychometric properties of the TEWBI. Next, the application of the inventory on two different samples
with a different writing background and from different institutions also provided evidence to validity argument. The construction of an
extensive number of items promoted the representativeness of the inventory in the relevant universe. Employing both EFA and CFA can
provide sufficient evidence regarding construct validity. The different datasets can increase the interrelatedness between the
Fig. 3. Tentative and Final Sub-Constructs.
13
performance of the TEWBI in the test-world and that of in the real world. Equally important, this study can embrace diversity by
contributing to various stakeholders in the field of writing instruction and assessment (Slomp, 2019). The exploration of the writing
beliefs held by instructors can be a golden and first step to initiate an influential reform in teacher education programs in terms of
writing education.
Factorial analysis procedures resulted in a 57-item inventory, including three sub-scales with sound psychometric properties.
Before these complex statistical processes, nine tentative sub-constructs were merged into three broad sub-constructs, as shown in
Fig. 3.
Three tentative sub-constructs, including the value of writing, writing performance, and transfer were merged into the nature of L2
writing. This sub-construct investigated how EFL instructors conceptualize and see L2 writing as a distinct field of applied linguistics.
This study revealed that the nature of L2 writing is one of the main sub-constructs of writing beliefs on which EFL instructors’ beliefs can
differ. It includes the items to evaluate EFL instructors’ judgments about (1) the factors determining L2 writing performance such as
cognitive, affective, social, and sociocultural aspects, language proficiency, knowledge of writing strategies, and writing ability; (2) the
role and value of writing as one of the major language skills in today’s globalized world, and (3) the presence and direction of transfer
of writing knowledge and strategies across languages. In the literature, the determinants of L2 writing performance such as cognitive,
affective, social, and sociocultural factors, language proficiency, knowledge of writing strategies, and writing ability have been widely
investigated (e.g., Cumming, 1989; Hayes & Flower, 1980; Kubota, 1998; Silva, 1993; Zhang & Guo, 2012). Besides, it was also
highlighted that different roles and values could be attached to L2 writing such as creative process, a medium for communication,
self-expression and self-discovery, and a way to convey information (e.g., Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Elbow, 1981; Grabe & Kaplan,
1996; Hyland, 2016). In addition, the presence and direction of transfer is one of the hotly debated issues in L2 writing research (e.g.,
Hyland, 2003a, 2003b; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2002; Manchon, 2012; Uysal, 2008). In light of these studies, it can be claimed that the
fact that the TEWBI, including the items related to these mentioned topics, has high content and face validity.
The second sub-construct was named teaching L2 writing, which involved three tentative sub-constructs, including writing ap
proaches, writing strategies, and writing process. This sub-construct covers EFL instructors’ beliefs about in-class and out-of-class
practices of L2 writing instruction. It has been well documented in the L2 writing literature that L2 writing instruction process is
closely associated with the writing approaches (product, process, and genre-oriented) (e.g., Cumming, 2016; Elbow, 1998; Hirvela,
Hyland, & Manchon, 2016; Hyland, 2016; Tardy, 2012), writing tasks (e.g., Hyland, 2008), in-class and out-of-class writing practices
(e.g., free writing, journal writing, collaborative writing, and guided writing) (e.g., Elbow, 1998; Murray, 1985; Storch, 2016), the role
of extensive reading (e.g., Lee, 2015), explicit writing instruction (e.g., Kroll, 2003; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2008), English writing
conventions (e.g., Uysal, 2008), writing strategies (e.g., outlining, webbing, planning, free writing, rereading, revising, editing, etc.) (e.
g., Hyland, 2003a, 2003b, 2019), the use of text models (e.g., Hyland, 2003a, 2003b, 2019), the role of technologies (e.g., Ware, 2004),
and proper textual borrowing (e.g., Bloch, 2001). Again, it can be stated that since these mentioned L2 writing topics were covered in
the TEWBI, it leads to high content and face validity.
The third sub-construct was labeled assessing L2 writing, which investigates EFL instructors’ judgments about assessment practices
of L2 writing. It covers three tentative sub-constructs, including ways of assessment, feedback, and scoring in writing. As one of the
main components of L2 writing, this dimension is composed of the belief statements about the role and practices of feedback (e.g.,
Ferris, 2003; Hyland, Nicolas-Conesa, & Cerezo, 2016), the role of rubrics (e.g., Ene & Kosobucki, 2016), in-class and out-of-class
writing assessment practices (e.g., Weigle, 2002), scoring criteria (e.g., Weigle, 2016), portfolio assessment (e.g., Hamp-Lyons &
Condon, 2000), ongoing assessment practices (e.g., Hamp-Lyons, 2003), the integration of new technologies into writing (e.g., Ware &
Warschauer, 2006), peer feedback (e.g., Hyland & Hyland, 2006), corrective feedback (e.g., Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005), teacher-student
conferences (e.g., Hyland & Hyland, 2006), and teacher written feedback (e.g., Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005).
After several factorial analysis procedures including eigenvalues, the threshold of factor loadings, and cross-loadings, 37 items had
to be removed from the TEWBI (11 items from the nature of L2 writing sub-construct, 12 items from the teaching L2 writing sub-
construct, and 14 items from the assessing L2 writing). More specifically, with respect to the nature of L2 writing sub-construct, the
removed items were related to recursive vs. linear nature of L2 writing, the role of L2 writing, transfer issue, innateness vs. learned
skill, the role of linguistic competence, socially-situatedness of L2 writing, and transmissional vs. transformational role of L2 writing.
As for the items of the teaching L2 writing sub-construct that were removed from the TEWBI, they were about the expressivist approach,
the role of grammar, modeling, process vs. product-centered writing instruction, accuracy vs. fluency, reader expectations, English
writing conventions, and collaboration. Next, the eliminated items of the assessing L2 writing sub-construct focused on corrective
feedback, feedback, direct vs. indirect measures of L2 writing, global-text level vs. surface-level problems, peer feedback, teacher vs.
peer feedback, and timed vs. untimed writing. When the dropped items were scrutinized thoroughly, it is obvious that the removed
items did not hamper the content and face validity of the TEWBI since these topics were covered with other statements in the
instrument.
Several researchers focused on L2 writing beliefs and developed belief scales/inventories (i.e., Crusan et al., 2016; Kim, 2015; Wu,
2003). The devised belief factors and statements of these studies and those in the TEWBI appeared to have considerable coincidences
and a high congruence, which increased the validity of the TEWBI. More specifically, the sub-constructs labeled the nature of L2 writing
and teaching L2 writing greatly coincide with Wu’s (2003) belief statements in that the following topics such as communicative nature
of L2 writing, the role of thinking skills, self-expressive nature of L2 writing, the role language proficiency, self-discovery of writers, the
role of writing strategies, creative writing, and explicit modeling of writing strategies were covered in the TEWBI and Wu’s (2003)
study.
More relatedly, several belief items of the TEWBI correspond to the items covered in Kim’s (2015) study. The congruent areas
include the similarities and differences of L1 and L2 writing, the similarities and transfer of writing strategies in L1 and L2 writing, the
14
influence of linguistic and socio-cultural factors in L2 writing, product-centered writing approach, social and cultural nature of L2
writing, genre-based L2 writing instruction, the integration of reading skill into L2 writing, the use of journal writing, collaborative
writing, audience-awareness in L2 writing, corrective feedback, multiple writing assessment tasks, holistic and analytic scoring,
eclectic approach to scoring, self-assessment, the use of writing rubrics, and the use of authentic materials.
The assessing L2 writing sub-construct of the TEWBI, especially coincides with Crusan et al.’s (2016) study, which investigated L2
writing instructors’ assessment literacy through a 54-item instrument. Regarding the beliefs about the L2 writing assessment, the
researchers (2016) covered three assessment areas, including beliefs about scoring accuracy, beliefs about assessment methods used in
writing assessment, and beliefs about general assessment issues in writing classes. Several belief statements of the researchers’ (2016)
study are compatible with the ones involved in the TEWBI. The following assessment areas, such as direct vs. indirect measures of
writing, self-assessment, portfolio assessment, multiple mediums of assessment, and scoring criteria were echoed in both studies.
6. Limitations and implications
As with any research study, the present study has several limitations. The most salient limitation of the study is that it relies solely
on a self-report instrument that captures EFL instructors’ writing beliefs. One of the critical drawbacks of self-report data is that it is
subject to social desirability bias. Additionally, this study employed a factor analysis method to develop a writing beliefs inventory.
However, it should be noted that as Kachigan (1991) pointed out, the factor analysis method has been criticized as being subject to the
“Garbage In, Garbage Out” principle because it reduces the variables to a smaller number (p. 258). Next, since the aim of this study is
not an in-depth investigation of writing beliefs, it does not involve other data collection methods such as interviews and classroom
observation. For methodological triangulation, further research can be conducted by employing qualitative data collection methods
along with the TEWBI. Finally, this study focused only on teacher beliefs about writing instruction. Teachers’ actual classroom
practices can also be examined to validate their beliefs, and the relationship between their beliefs and classroom practices can be
investigated in different educational contexts.
The results of this study suggest valuable implications for the current status of L2 writing instruction, pre-service teacher prepa
ration, and in-service teacher development. Recognizing the underlying beliefs and philosophies as driving force behind teachers’
decisions and classroom practices, teachers, teacher trainers, researchers, and policymakers can be better equipped with the required
knowledge and skills in the process of teaching and learning. In this sense, this study contributes to a better understanding of language
instructors’ engagement in L2 writing instruction.
Regarding teachers’ professional growth, beliefs are among the major determinants of teachers’ openness and willingness for
continuing professional development and teacher learning activities (Borg, 2015). At this point, an examination of teacher beliefs can
promote the improvement of teachers’ professional development through making teachers fully aware and conscious of the consis
tency and inconsistency between their beliefs and classroom practices (Zheng, 2015). To facilitate teacher learning and growth, it is
proposed that teachers’ preexisting beliefs should be addressed, teachers should be encouraged and provided with opportunities to
make their implicit beliefs explicit and supported to challenge their favorable or unfavorable beliefs.
The need for a comprehensive examination of such a complex phenomenon in various contexts is echoed by scholars (e.g., Borg,
2015). In line with this call, the results of this study will contribute to the theoretical knowledge base regarding EFL instructors’ beliefs
about L2 writing instruction. Researchers in the field of writing teacher education can examine writing beliefs held by language
teachers in different educational contexts by administering the TEWBI and compare the results to gain a deeper understanding and to
diagnose the needed and lacking skills and practices in L2 writing classrooms.
On the practical side, without a closer examination of what EFL instructors’ beliefs are, it seems impossible to promote writing
teacher education since “the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of teachers” (Barber & Mourshed, 2007, p. 16).
In addition, from the constructivist point of view, teachers’ beliefs need to be surfaced and acknowledged if the teachers are to adopt
and implement recent developments and innovation in writing teacher education. Therefore, policymakers and curriculum designers
should examine teacher beliefs to be able to anticipate the success and effectiveness of any new reform or innovation in writing teacher
education programs.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Note
This study is partly based on the PhD dissertation titled “The Development, Validation, and Implementation of an Inventory on
English Writing Teachers’ Beliefs”, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
15
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.
100507.
References
Adler-Kassner, L., & Wardle, E. (2015). Writing is a social and rhetorical activity. Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies (pp. 17–34). Colorado:
University Press of Colorado.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665–683.
Ajzen, I. (2012). Martin Fishbein’s legacy: The reasoned action approach. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 640, 11–27.
Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, U. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational
Research, 61, 315–343.
Anastasi, A. (1986). Evolving concepts of test validation. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 1–15.
Arnold, K., & Turnbull, M. (2007). Teacher beliefs in second and foreign language teaching: A state-of-the-art review. In H. J. Sisken (Ed.), From thought to action: 33 9
exploring beliefs and outcomes in the foreign language program (pp. 9–29). Boston: Thomson Heinle.
Atkinson, D. (2003). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 3–15.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing schools systems come out on top. McKinsey & Company.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of web-based collaborative writing on individual L2 writing development. Language Learning and Technology, 20, 79–99.
Bloch, J. (2001). Plagiarism and the ESL student: From printed to electronic texts. In Belcher, & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing
connections (pp. 209–228). The University of Michigan Press.
Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 256–259.
Borg, M. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs. ELT Journal, 55(2), 186–188.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109.
Borg, S. (2015). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied
Linguistics, 22, 470–501.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Burns, A. (1992). Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practice. Prospect, 7(3), 56–66.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chin, W. W., & Todd, P. A. (1995). on the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in mis research: a note of caution. Management Information
Systems Quarterly, 19(2), 237–246.
Clyne, M. (1987). Cultural differences in the organization of academic discourse: English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 211–247.
Cohen, A. D., & Fass, L. (2001). Oral language instruction: Teacher and learner beliefs and the reality in efl classes at a colombian university. Íkala (Journal of Language
and Culture, Universidad de Antioquia), 6, 43–62.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). London; New York: Routledge.
Condon, W. (2009). Looking beyond judging and ranking: Writing assessment as a generative practice. Assessing Writing, 14(3), 141–156.
Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative patterns in student essays: Cross-cultural differences. In U. Connor, & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text
(pp. 57–71). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connor, U., & Laurer, J. (1988). Cross-cultural variation in persuasive student writing. In Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric
(pp. 138–159). Newburry Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Connor, U., & McCagg, P. (1983). Cross-cultural differences and perceived quality in written paraphrases of English expository prose. Applied Linguistics, 4, 259–268.
Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 443–507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer, & H. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
Crusan, D., Plakans, L. M., & Gebril, A. (2016). Writing assessment literacy: Surveying second language teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Assessing Writing,
28, 43–56.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81–141.
Cumming, A. (2001). The difficulty of standards, for example in L2 writing. In T. Silva, & P. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 209–229). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
Cumming, A. (2016). Theoretical orientations to L2 writing. In R. Manchon, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook second and foreign language writing (pp. 65–88). Berlin:
De Gruyter Mouton.
Daisey, P. (2009). The writing experiences and beliefs of secondary teacher candidates. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(4), 157–172.
DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: Sage Publications.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research. New York: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research. construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). New York, NY – Abingdon:
Routledge.
Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elbow, P. (1998). Writing without teachers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emig, J. (1983). The web of meaning. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Ene, E., & Kosobucki, V. (2016). Rubrics and corrective feedback in ESL writing: A longitudinal case study of an L2 writer. Assessing Writing, 30, 3–20.
Errington, E. (2009). Being there: Closing the gap between learners and contextual knowledge using near world scenarios. The International Journal of Learning, 16(8),
585–594.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65.
Farhady, H. (1995). Research methods in applied linguistics. Tehran: Payame-Noor University Press.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2008). Reflective practice in the professional development of teachers of adult English language learners. CAELA Network Brief, 1–4.
Farrell, T. S. C., & Lim, P. C. P. (2005). Conceptions of grammar teaching: A case study of teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices. TESL-EJ, 9(2), 1–13.
Farrell, T. S., & Yang, D. (2017). Exploring an EAP teacher’s beliefs and practices in teaching L2 speaking: A case study. RELC Journal, 50(1), 104–117.
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed.). London, England: Sage Publications.
Firkins, A., Forey, G., & Sengupta, S. (2007). Teaching writing to low proficiency EFL students. ELT Journal, 61(4), 341–352.
Flower, L. (1979). Writer-Based Prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41, 19–37.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.
Fogal, G. G., & Vespor, M. H. (2020). Dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development. Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gebel, A. (2000). A survey of Spanish teachers’ beliefs and practices for teaching reading in a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. USA: the University of Iowa.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London and New York: Longman.
Graham, S., Santos, D., & Francis-Brophy, E. (2014). Teacher beliefs about listening in a foreign language. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 44–60.
Hafner, C. A., & Candlin, C. N. (2007). Corpus tools as and affordance to learning professional legal education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 303–315.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson: Prentice Hall.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2003). Writing teachers as assessors of writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 162–189). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice, theory and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (2008). Motivation and writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 144–157). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Hinds, J. (1983). Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. TEXT, 3(2), 183–195.
Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor, & R. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 141–152).
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2007). Writing scholars as teacher educators: Exploring writing teacher education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 125–128.
Hirvela, A., Hyland, K., & Manchon, R. M. (2016). Dimensions of L2 writing theory and research: Learning to write and writing to learn. In R. M. Manchon, &
P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 45–63). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
Horowitz, D. (1986a). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445–462.
Horowitz, D. (1986b). Process, not product: Less than meets the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 141–144.
Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 333–340.
Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A. Wenden, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119–129).
London: Prentice Hall.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.
Huot, B. (2002). (Re)articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Utah State University Press.
Hyland, K. (2003a). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17–29.
Hyland, K. (2003b). Second language writing. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2008). Academic discourse. London, England: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). State of the art review on Feedback in second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101.
Hyland, F., Nicolas-Conesa, F., & Cerezo, L. (2016). Key issues of debate about feedback on writing. In R. M. Manchon, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and
foreign language writing (pp. 433–452). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Johns, A. (1995). Genre and pedagogical purposes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 181–191.
Johns, A. (2003). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 195–217). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Johns, A. (2009). The future of second language writing instruction. November Paper presented at the symposium on second language writing.
Kachigan, S. K. (1991). Multivariate statistical analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Padius.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90.
Kane, M. (1992). An argument-based approach to validation. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527–535.
Kane, M. (2006). Validation. In R. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport: American Council on Education and Praeger.
Kane, M. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1–73.
Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thoughts patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.
Kim, J. Y. (2015). Korean university teacher cognition in EFL writing instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. USA: Indiana University.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2002). High school student perceptions of first language literacy instruction: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 11, 91–116.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2008). Task response and text construction across L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 7–29.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2012). Understanding L2 writing development from a multicompetence perspective: Dynamic repertoires of knowledge and text
construction. In R. M. Manchon (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 101–134). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Konopak, B. C., & Williams, N. L. (1994). Elementary teachers’ beliefs and decisions about vocabulary leaning and instruction. In C. K. Kinzer, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), 43rd
Yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 485–495). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference, Inc.
Kroll, B. (Ed.). (2003). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kubota, R. (1998). An investigation of L1-L2 transfer in writing among Japanese university students: Implications for contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 7, 69–100.
Kuzborska, I. (2011). Links between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13–22.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia vs. technophobia: A preliminary look at why second language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 56, 389–420.
Lavelle, E., & Zuercher, N. (2001). Writing approaches of university students. Higher Education, 40(373-), 391.
Lee, I. (1998). Writing in the Hong Kong secondary classroom: Teachers’ beliefs and practices. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 61–76.
Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13–22.
Lee, J. (2015). Exploring the interdependence of second language skills for middle school students studying English in Korea: Effects of extensive reading and extensive writing on
reading, writing, grammar, and attitude measures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). Synthesis of research on second language writing in English. NY: Routledge.
Levine, G. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. Modern
Language Journal, 87, 343–364.
17
Levitt, K. E. (2002). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching and learning in science. Science Education, 86(1), 1–22.
Li, X. (2007). Identities and beliefs in ESL writing: From product to processes. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL Du Canada, 25(1), 41–64.
Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Manchon, R. M. (Ed.). (2012). L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Manchon, R. M., & Matsuda, P. K. (2016). Handbook of second and foreign language writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Martin, J. E. (1992). Towards a theory of text for contrastive rhetoric: An introduction to issues of text for students, practitioners of contrastive rhetoric (vol. 19). American
University Studies. Series XIII, NY.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language
writing (pp. 15–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Matsuda, P. K., Canagarajah, A. S., Harklau, L., Hyland, K., & Warschauer, M. (2003). Changing currents in second language writing research: A colloquium. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 12, 151–179.
Melzer, D. (2014). Assignments across the curriculum. Utah: Utah State University Press.
Messick, S. J. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement. New York: Macmillan.
Mislevy, R. (2006). Cognitive psychology and educational assessment. In R. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 257–305). Westport, CT: American
Council on Education and Praeger.
Morina, M. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs and practices about grammar teaching in public high schools in Kosovo. Unpublished master’s thesis manuscript. Fayetteville: University
of Arkansas.
Murray, D. M. (1985). A writer teaches writing (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
National Writing Project, & Nagin, C. (2006). Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our schools. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317–328.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Nystrand, M. (1989). A Social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication, 6(1), 66–85.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Pajares, M. F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Difficulties, 19(2), 139–158.
Palmquist, M., & Young, R. (1992). The notion of giftedness and student expectations about writing. Written Communication, 9, 137–168.
Paltridge, B. (2014). Genre and second language academic writing. Language Teaching, 47, 303–318.
Perl, S. (1980). Understanding composing. College Composition and Communication, 31(4), 363–369.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380–390.
Pincas, A. (1962). Structural linguistics and systematic composition teaching to students of English as a foreign language. Language Learning, 7, 185–195.
Polio, C. (2003). Research on second language writing: An overview of what we investigate and how. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing
(pp. 35–65). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229–258.
Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439–468.
Reid, J. (1992). A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 79–108.
Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2001). Some steps towards a socio-cognitive interpretation of second language composition process. International Journal of English
Studies, 1, 25–45.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rose, D. (2008). Writing as linguistic mastery: The development of genre-based literacy pedagogy. In D. Myhill, D. Beard, M. Nystrand, & J. Riley (Eds.), Handbook of
writing development. London: Sage Publications.
Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In R. Hasan, & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86–123). London: Longman.
Saengboon, S. (2002). Beliefs of Thai teachers about communicative language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Development, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing, research insights for the
classroom (pp. 11–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657–677.
Slomp, D. H. (2019). Complexity, consequence, and frames: A quarter century of research in assessing writing. Assessing Writing, 42(4), 1–17.
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Storch, N. (2016). Collaborative writing. In R. M. Manchon, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 387–406). Berlin, Germany: De
Gruyter.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2000). English in today’s research world: A writing guide. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18,
23–39.
Tardy, C. (2012). Genre-based language teaching. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2278–2281). West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling. A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 77–100.
Thorndike, E. L. (1918). Individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 15, 148–159.
Tillema, H. H. (1995). Changing the professional knowledge and beliefs of teachers: A training study. Learning and Instruction, 5, 291–318.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S., & Lieflander Koistinen. (1989). Argumentation in Finnish versus English and German editorials. In M. Kusch, & H. Schroder (Eds.), Text
interpretation argumentation. Papers in textlinguistics (vol: 64, pp. 173–181). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Trimbur, J. (1994). Taking the social turn: Teaching writing post-process. College Composition and Communication, 45(1), 108–118.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.
Uysal, H. H. (2007). Educating second language writing teachers: Issues and suggestions. In B. Johnson, & K. Walls (Eds.), Voice and vision in language teacher education:
selected papers from 4th international conference on language teacher education (pp. 239–248). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Uysal, H. H. (2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: Rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational
context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 183–207.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ware, P. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspective on web-based discussions in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 21(4), 451–468.
Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts
and issues (pp. 105–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2013). English language learners and automated scoring of essays: Critical considerations. Assessing Writing, 18(1), 85–99.
Weigle, S. C. (2016). Second language writing assessment. In R. Manchon, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook second and foreign language writing (pp. 473–493). Berlin:
De Gruyter Mouton.
White, M. J., & Bruning, R. (2005). Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 166–189.
White, A. S., & Caminero, R. (1995). Using process writing as a learning tool in the foreign language classes. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 51(2), 323–329.
Wu, S.-J. R. (2003). A comparison of learners’ beliefs about writing in their first and second language: Taiwanese junior college business-major students studying English.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Texas, USA: The University of Texas at Austin.
18
Yancey, K. B. (1998). Reflection in the writing classroom. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Yang, L., & Gao, S. (2013). Beliefs and practices of Chinese university teachers in EFL writing instruction. Language Culture and Curriculum, 26(2), 128–145.
Yigitoglu, N. (2011). Exploring second language writing teacher cognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgia, USA: Georgia State University.
Yigitoglu, N., & Belcher, D. (2014). Exploring L2 writing teacher cognition from an experiential perspective: The role learning to write may play in professional beliefs
and practices. System, 47, 116–124.
Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 38(1), 38–52.
Zamel, V. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: What we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 67–76.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195–209.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students. Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165–187.
Zhang, Y., & Guo, H. (2012). A study of English writing and domain-specific motivation and self-efficacy of Chinese EFL learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of
Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 101–121.
Zheng, H. (2015). Teacher beliefs as a complex system: English language teachers in China. English Language Education Series. Springer.
Mehmet Karaca holds a PhD degree from Gazi University, ELT Department. Currently, he is working as an independent researcher in the R-TEAM Group. Recently, one
of his articles has appeared in Assessing Writing. His research interests include L2 writing, L2 writing teacher beliefs, L2 writing demotivation, teaching English to young
learners, and scale development and validation.
Hacer Hande Uysal is a professor at Hacettepe University, the Department of Foreign Language Education. She received her master’s degree in English Education and
her Ph.D. in Foreign Language and ESL Education from The University of Iowa, United States. Her research interests are second language writing, academic discourse,
early language teaching, and language policies. She is the founder and the previous director of the Academic Writing & Research Center at Gazi University, and she
served as the founding editor-in-chief in the Journal of Language Teaching and Learning for five years.
19

Assessing Writing: Mehmet Karaca, Hacer Hande Uysal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Writing: Mehmet Karaca, Hacer Hande Uysal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing Writing 47 (2021) 100507

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The development and validation of an inventory on English

2. Prior research and theoretical frameworks

2.1. The characteristics of beliefs and teacher beliefs in L2

2.2. Teacher beliefs in language teacher education

2.3. Teacher beliefs in L2 writing instruction and assessment

2.4. Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior

2.5. Research paradigms of writing for developing the TEWBI

Fig. 1. Theory of planned behavior (Adapted from Ajzen (2012, p. 19).

Fig. 2. The tentative framework for English writing beliefs.

2.6. Validity argument framework

3.1. Research questions

3.2. Research design

Total 311 100

Total 342 100

3.4. Data collection

3.5. Survey development

3.6. Survey validation

The Nature of L2 Writing 5.482 22.526 22.526 .85

5. Discussion & conclusion

Item No Factor Loadings Item No Factor Loadings Item No Factor Loadings

1 0.621 11 0.672 18 0.598

Relative X2 (Chi-Square/df) 2.15 < 3.00 Good fit

Fig. 3. Tentative and Final Sub-Constructs.

6. Limitations and implications

Declaration of Competing Interest

Appendix A. Supplementary data

You might also like