See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323541304

Genre-based L2 writing instruction and writing-specific psychological

factors: The dynamics of change

Article  in  Journal of Second Language Writing · August 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2018.03.001

CITATIONS READS

55 1,546

2 authors, including:

Philip Hiver
Florida State University
56 PUBLICATIONS   925 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Complexity and Dynamic Systems Theory for Second Language Development View project

Student Engagement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Philip Hiver on 03 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

[This is the pre-publication version of Han, J., & Hiver, P. (in press). Genre-based L2 writing
instruction and writing-specific psychological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of
Second Language Writing, p. xx-xx.]

In this study we examine processes of motivational change for middle school language

learners (N = 174) within the classroom ecology of genre-based writing. Through

longitudinal cluster analysis, we investigate change in language learners’ writing-specific

motivational profiles, supported by a time-series analysis of reflective journals and interviews

with these participants. We first identified several distinct initial motivational profiles for the

middle school L2 learners who were part of the study and then traced key patterns of change

for each. Our data indicate that over the course of genre-based L2 writing instruction, the

students with respective profiles were able to develop a stronger capacity for writing self-

regulation and to sustain and consolidate their writing self-efficacy. One unique finding was

that the final profile of many learners was characterized by elevated levels of writing anxiety.

However, because this was combined with moderate-to-strong levels of writing self-

regulation and writing self-efficacy it suggests that anxiety can co-exist in constructive

configurations, such as alongside adequate levels of self-regulation and self-efficacy that can

offset this. We discuss the contribution of our findings in relation to understanding how L2

learners experience motivational changes in instructional settings of L2 writing.

Keywords: genre-based writing instruction; middle school L2 learners; writing self-regulation;

writing self-efficacy; writing anxiety; longitudinal cluster analysis, time-series analysis

1
Introduction

Second language (L2) writing is a complex, time-consuming activity which requires

concentration, effort, and persistence. Recent work suggests that psychological factors exert

considerable influence on “the extent to which [learners] notice gaps in their knowledge, the

aspects of language they pay attention to, and, consequently, how they exploit the learning

opportunities provided by writing” (Kormos, 2012, p. 400). Psycho-social factors, such as

learners’ writing specific emotions, self-efficacy and self-regulation, can regulate attention

and cognitive engagement, and determine the level of effort learners will invest in the writing

process. Because these factors are closely related to success in L2 writing, learners’ self-

regulatory capacity, self-efficacy beliefs, and domain-specific anxieties represent a

meaningful subsystem for investigating how these individual factors affect L2 writing

development (Piniel & Csizér, 2015). In this study we set out to build on empirical work in

the field by investigating psychological factors at play in genre-based writing classrooms of a

compulsory (i.e., K-12) language learning setting.

The characteristics of genre-based L2 writing pedagogy are that it is explicit,

systematic, needs-based, and consciousness-raising (Hyland, 2016). These characteristics

correspond closely to broader language educational aims in various L2 settings. They are also

central to key curriculum and policy documents of the L2 learning context under

investigation (i.e., South Korea)—particularly at the secondary school level (Ministry of

Education, Science, and Technology, 2009). These objectives emphasize the need to raise

instructed L2 learners’ awareness of how language is structured to achieve social purposes in

particular contexts of use, in order to help learners’ become proactive and engaged in L2

instructional settings, assume greater responsibility in the learning process, and enhance their

confidence as language users. Thus, the ecology of genre-based L2 writing instruction can be

assumed to positively influence L2 learners’ motivation and self-regulation, lower anxiety,

2
and engender greater self-efficacy for both high and low achievers (Csizér & Tankó, 2017;

Woodrow, 2011; Yasuda, 2011). This suggests a potentially powerful link between

psychological factors and the characteristics of genre-based writing.

It is our position that language learners come to represent the constant interdependent

interactions between their various individual attributes and contextual parameters of their

everyday classrooms (Park & Hiver, 2017; Joe, Hiver, & Al-Hoorie, 2017). In designing this

study, we were guided by the view that through classroom-oriented research “what is

meaningful is not an intervention itself, but rather how individuals relate to it” (Larsen-

Freeman, 2016, p. 382). Following recent calls for research that better accounts for the

dynamic and situated reality of instructed L2 settings (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2016), we set out

to examine how “knowledge of the antecedent, present, and future conditions of the learner

[comprises] valuable information (…) that significantly impact[s] their learning and their

behavior in classes” (Murphey & Falout, 2013, p. 2651). The primary objective of this study

was to explore the writing-specific psychological profiles of L2 learners and examine

processes of change in students’ skill-specific self-regulation, self-efficacy, and anxiety in a

genre-based writing course. Investigating the manner in which these psychological factors

relate to L2 writing using a design “responsive to the unpredictability and dynamism”

(Larsen-Freeman, 2016, p. 388) of classroom learning is likely to strengthen L2 writing

pedagogy, contribute to understanding this underexplored area, and assist in “cultivat[ing]

new ways of talking about [and researching] what transpires” (p. 399) in L2 writing

classrooms.

Genre-based L2 Writing Instruction

Genre approaches to writing instruction emphasize that all writing takes place in a

social situation and is a reflection of a particular purpose (Clark, 2012; Paltridge, 2013).
3
Through a New Rhetoric lens, on one hand, genres can be seen as purposefully constructed

social actions (Connor, 2004) in categories assigned on the basis of external, non-linguistic,

conventional criteria such as audience, purpose, or speech community (Coe, 2002; Devitt,

2004). Scholars within the domain of language for specific purposes (e.g., ESP) view genres

as oral and written discourse defined by formal properties (Gebhard & Harman, 2011)—i.e.,

distinctive linguistic patterns of use and rhetorical characteristics of texts (Wingate &

Tribble, 2012). Genre-based approaches aligned with a systemic functional view of language

are concerned with the relationship between language form, function, and its social context,

thus, falling between the previous two (Hyland, 2007; Tardy, 2011). Genres, in this tradition,

achieve functionality as the interaction within social context between what is taking place,

who is taking part, and what role language is playing (Coffin & Donahue, 2012). These genre

perspectives have all influenced second language (L2) genre-based writing pedagogy,

providing a sophisticated pedagogical framework focusing on the teaching of communicative

purposes, structures, and language features of particular genres (Hyland, 2016).

Instructional Frameworks

A key concern for L2 writing pedagogues is how to organize and sequence classroom

instruction (Byrnes & Manchón, 2014; Tardy, 2006, 2009), with most genre-based

approaches adopting tasks underpinned by Vygotsky’s view of collaborative learning and

Bruner’s notion of scaffolding (Hyland, 2003, 2007). One established framework to

sequencing tasks is represented in the form of a teaching and learning cycle proposed by Feez

(1998). As students progress through the stages of this cycle, they gradually assume more

responsibility as they build confidence in key writing processes.

First, in the contextualizing stage, teachers elicit the social purpose and audience of

the genre as a way of raising learners’ awareness of the social context where the genres
4
perform their functions. Through teacher-led activities, students are then exposed to model

texts intended to explicitly highlight the prototypical features of the genre. This modeling

stage may also involve analyzing and practicing related language forms and the rhetorical

conventions of the genre. However, the ways language and texts function in social contexts

typically receive explicit attention prior to addressing linguistic and rhetorical features

(Hyland, 2004). In the joint construction stage, students jointly construct texts by planning,

developing, and revising collaboratively. The teacher’s intervention is gradually reduced as

students individually apply knowledge and processes from previous stages as they create

texts independently. These teaching and learning stages are said to form a circle because at

any point a stage can be repeated or re-visited to further promote a writer’s full independence

(Devitt, 2004).

The characteristics of genre-based writing pedagogy, which we alluded to above, that

make it particularly advantageous for L2 learners are that it is explicit, systematic, needs-

based, and consciousness-raising (Hyland, 2016). Genre pedagogies for writing promise very

real benefits for L2 learners as they pull together language, content, and contexts, while

offering teachers a means of presenting students with explicit and systematic explanations of

the ways writing works to communicate (Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2008). This affords

students “a richer understanding of the complex relationship between written texts and the

social contexts” (Myskow & Gordon, 2010, p. 283). For language learners who may lack

awareness of the ways a target language is structured to achieve social purposes in particular

contexts of use, this explicitness heightens their awareness of texts’ social setting, purpose,

and audience (Gebhard & Harman, 2011). Furthermore, close interaction with a teacher and

peers through genre-based writing instruction provides opportunities for guided practice. This

necessary support enables learners to achieve specific writing goals, effectively building their

confidence to develop as independent writers (Yasuda, 2011) and making it a particularly

5
good fit for lower-level L2 learners.

Psychological Factors at Play in Genre-based L2 Instruction

Although many psychological facets are at play within L2 writing classrooms, few

empirical investigations have examined how salient psychological factors influence learning

in the setting of genre-based L2 writing classrooms. We have chosen three psychological

factors for explicit examination as these are tied to the structure of genre-pedagogies for L2

writing. The greater scaffolding of students’ progress and the explicit criteria for success in

achieving control of the target genre help students build confidence in key writing processes

(self-efficacy), progressively assume more responsibility as writers (self-regulation), and

through more productive task appraisals reduce students’ negative arousal and avoidance

behaviors (anxiety). Recent work also indicates that these constructs are connected in

complex ways. For instance, self-regulatory strategy use has been found to be linked to an

increased level of motivation and self-efficacy and to a decreased level of writing anxiety

(Csizér & Tankó, 2017). We expand on these links below.

Self-regulation

In educational domains, self-regulation refers to the degree to which individuals are

active participants in their own learning, taking responsibility for and regulating the learning

processes needed for successful achievement (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2012). In the sphere of

L2 learning too, self-regulation is an indicator of “students’ own active and creative

participation in the learning process” (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 144), considered one of the

more prominent factors in accentuating L2 learners’ capacity to effectively and successfully

accomplish L2 learning goals. Self-regulation plays a major facilitating role in learning

success because aspects such as goal-setting, problem solving, and managing strategic effort
6
are closely connected with how learners monitor their performance, adjust their appraisals of

the task at hand and their expectancy for success (Zimmerman, 2001).

Little empirical research has been done on this issue specific to L2 writing. However,

conceptual overviews highlight how self-regulated writers understand, value, and engage in

L2 writing in ways that are fundamentally different from their peers who are relatively less so

(Kormos, 2012). Given that writing is a cognitively taxing process, learners must draw on

their awareness and use of control strategies in managing this highly complex task (Csizér &

Tankó, 2017). Different dimensions of self-regulated learning play an essential role in

mobilizing, directing, and sustaining learning efforts in L2 writing, and this underscores the

way L2 writing achievement is contingent upon self-regulatory focus and capacity (Teng &

Zhang, 2016). Thus, in the complex recursive process of L2 writing which subsumes multiple

interactive stages of idea generation, planning, outlining, drafting, revising, and editing,

metacognitive control and independent strategic functioning in relation to these types of tasks

are critical to success (Oxford, 2017).

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is a core construct in the field of educational research because of the

strong empirical relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and behavior

(Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s beliefs in their capability to

perform a designated task or complete an activity. These beliefs, particularly in an academic

setting, play an important role in how learners feel and think, and how they motivate

themselves and behave (Usher & Pajares, 2008). Prior empirical research suggests that high

self-efficacy is positively associated with L2-related task performance and achievement

(Hsieh & Kang, 2010), and with specific language skills such as writing and reading (Mills,

Pajares, & Herron, 2006; Woodrow, 2011).

7
 Because these tasks-specific self-beliefs exert control over individuals’ thoughts,

feelings, and actions, they have important implications for outcomes of interest in the context

of L2 learning. Particularly in settings of skill-specific L2 instruction (e.g., L2 writing) they

function as a vital force in future performance and success (Mills, 2014). Students with

higher writing self-efficacy beliefs generally possess lower writing anxiety and stronger

writing self-concept, higher perceived value of writing, and better self-regulation (Pajares,

2003). Additionally, these results reveal significant differences in composition text quality

associated with the different levels of self-efficacy. Studies have also consistently

demonstrated that writing self-efficacy is positively linked with learner’s interest and

expanded effort, capacity for self-regulation, writing self-concept, goal achievement, and

successful writing performance (Piniel & Csizér, 2015).

Anxiety

Anxiety’s inhibitory influence on L2 learning is well established (see, e.g., Gregersen

& MacIntyre, 2014). As Horwitz (2010) proposed, L2 anxiety is an inherent factor of

language learning that can be found in most classroom environments. Anxiety is experienced

under conditions of performance and evaluative threat (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986) that

evoke fear of failure and psychologically can trigger a fight or flight response. Since the early

research on the relationship between language anxiety and language achievement, evidence

has accumulated for the negative relationship between language anxiety and language

achievement (Gkonou, Daubney, & Dewaele, 2017).

While attention has recently shifted to language skill-specific anxiety, there is a

critical need for further study regarding skill-related anxiety that highlights aspects of change

as well as types of adaptations in the positive and the negative direction (Dörnyei & Ryan,

2015). With regards to L2 writing, anxiety has been negatively associated with a self-
8
regulatory promotion focus and positive self-efficacy beliefs, which suggests that

apprehension, nervousness, and worry can debilitate individual academic performance and

development in L2 writing (Piniel & Csizér, 2015). Negative affective states and reactions,

such as anxiety arousal, play a key role in regulating avoidance and can result in the

allocation of finite cognitive resources to coping with the anxiety instead of attending to

immediate task performance needs (Tsao, Tseng, & Wang, 2017). Anxiety can also manifest

in forms such as negative self-comparisons and hyper-critical self-evaluation which focuses

anxious L2 writers on their flaws thereby reinforcing expectations of failure that result in

detrimental consequences. Consequently, anxiety is a salient dimension of L2 writers’

experience and their processes of development (Woodrow, 2011).

Method

The aims of the present study are to explore specific psychological profiles of L2

learners and examine processes of change in a genre-based writing course. We do this using a

concurrent mixed method design (Mark, 2015) that we frame as participatory action

research—a collaborative research process that is designed with and for practitioners affected

by a particular issue and which allows relative outsider academics to engage in

transformative applied research. We formulated the following research questions to address

in this study:

RQ1: What psychological profiles do secondary school language learners exhibit in a

genre-based writing class based on their self-regulation, self-efficacy, anxiety, and

ideal L2 self?

RQ2: What factors account for changes in participants’ psychological profiles

9
 throughout genre-based writing instruction?

Participants

Using criterion sampling, 174 participants (female = 84) were recruited from three

large public middle schools located in educationally less-competitive suburban school

districts in the region surrounding Seoul, South Korea. Following Institutional Review Board

approval, we approached the administration and teaching faculty at these three schools to

obtain institutional and parental consent. These 7th grade students (age = 13) were L1

speakers of Korean who volunteered to participate in the context of their free semester, a

nation-wide middle-school program which provides opportunities for students to experience

extracurricular classes without the burden of accompanying high-stakes assessment or the

influence of being tracked into any particular pathway in the following grades. Throughout

the free semester students enroll in electives and these particular schools were the first in the

region to implement a genre-based L2 writing course as part of their free semester course

offering. For these reasons, the free semester was seen as a particular period of interest, one

still relatively unexamined by researchers. Typical of many other foreign language contexts,

all these participants reported engaging in regular independent L2 study outside of the

compulsory classroom setting; however, none indicated study abroad experience in the L2.

Ability levels ranged from novice-high to intermediate-mid (using the American Council on

the Teaching of Foreign Languages proficiency guidelines). These were not used as a

sampling criterion due to its potential as a swamping variable1 in the analyses.

1Since cluster analysis is a multivariate segmentation method, dichotomous or other similar variables that
violate normality assumptions have the potential to mask the existence of heterogeneity and thus “swamp” the
dataset.
10
The Writing Course

The 174 students that agreed to participate in this study were among those who had

signed up for a genre-based L2 writing class in their respective schools—all other students

had enrolled in different (i.e., non-writing) elective classes offered during this free semester.

This genre-based L2 writing course was a semester-long program of instruction (i.e., 2 hours

per week) taught by one of the authors, structured around the teaching-learning framework

proposed by Feez (1998), and focused on the personal recount genre2—a text type that is

among the most commonly encountered in secondary school L2 textbooks. In-class groupings

featured mixed ability levels and genders. As outsider academics volunteering to teach a

genre-based L2 writing class in a context in which none had previously been offered, we

aimed to engage in participatory action research (Chevalier & Buckles, 2013), a process

through which the researchers and practitioners co-develop and evaluate programs. By doing

so, we acknowledged that legitimate understanding is best approximated through

participatory action—as Larsen-Freeman (2016) proposes, by introducing potential

disequilibria into the teaching and learning situation and then observing what happens in

order to inform subsequent pedagogical moves.

The early weeks involved building context by examining the features and goals of the

target genre; several classes were then spent on explicitly modeling and analyzing sample

texts with a focus on the genre structure and language conventions; following this, students

participated in collaborative writing and were familiarized with evaluative rubrics for the

2 The purpose of this genre is to reconstruct past experiences by retelling events in original sequence using four
elements: an orientation, a series of events, personal comments, and a reorientation. Common grammatical
features of recounts include the use of action verbs, past tense, and time connectives.
11
target genre; individual students completed an independent composition in the final weeks

through steps such as planning, writing, revising, and editing their own text. While these

students selected this genre-based writing class as one of several they would take in their free

semester, this does not necessarily indicate that they were atypically motivated to begin with:

the middle school offered 8 other elective classes, several of which also had an L2 or L3

focus, and none of these 174 participants had any prior knowledge of or experience with L2

writing.

Instrument

Questionnaire

A questionnaire was developed by adapting and translating items from existing

measurement instruments to assess psychological factors related specifically to L2 writing

(i.e., L2 writing self-regulation, L2 writing self-efficacy, L2 writing anxiety, and ideal L2

writing self). A pool of items across these four scales was compiled for piloting, and was

condensed through item-scale correlations and reliability testing. The final questionnaire was

composed of 30 items (see Supporting Information), all of which were measured using a six-

point response scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

(1) Writing Self-regulation (5 items, α = .96). This scale was adapted from Tseng, Dörnyei

and Schmitt (2006) to measure the strategic effort of learners to organize and manage

their L2 writing-specific goals and learning processes.

(2) Writing Self-efficacy (6 items, α = .95). This scale was adapted from Mills, Pajares and

Herron (2006) to measure learners’ beliefs and confidence in their capabilities as L2

writers.

(3) Writing Anxiety (7 items, α = .94). This scale was adapted from the Foreign Language
12
 Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986) to measure learners’

negative feelings and behavior related to L2 writing.

(4) Ideal L2 Writing Self (6 items, α = .95). This scale was adapted from Taguchi, Magid and

Papi (2009) to measure students’ desired future images of themselves as competent L2

writers.

Reflection Journal

Participants were asked to submit a reflective journal each week. The journal prompt

asked participants to reflect on their experiences and thoughts in connection with the writing

tasks done in class (i.e., Think back to everything you did in your writing classes this week.

Write some notes about what you experienced, thought about, and felt while in class.).

Participants responded to the journal prompt in their L1 and completed this reflective journal

during the last 8 - 10 minutes of the second class of each week. The purpose of this open-

ended prompt was to generate as wide and informative a range of responses as possible.

Interview

In-depth, semi-structured interviews (see Supporting Information) were conducted

with three prototypical students from each profile identified—i.e., the participants (n = 9)

closest to respective cluster centers—to further explore the participants’ ongoing thoughts

and experiences of the genre-based L2 writing course, and provide supporting data for

examining processes of change. In order to minimize the effect interviewing might have on

the teacher-student relationship, the non-teaching researcher staggered these interviews

throughout the course and conducted them in the participants’ L1 in school classrooms after

class hours. Here we endeavored to reduce the power distance between participants and the

interviewing researcher. All interviews lasted approximately 20 minutes and were recorded
13
with the signed consent of these representative students.

Procedure

The survey was administered twice. The survey completed prior to the semester-long

course was intended to establish learners’ initial psychological profiles, and although not a

two-wave design, this was compared with the survey completed immediately after the course

to investigate what patterns of change would emerge in these profiles associated with the

genre-based L2 writing course. Between the surveys students took part in nine weeks of

genre-based L2 writing classes (i.e., 1hr twice a week), sequenced over 11 weeks because of

unexpected holidays. During the course of these classes, data were collected weekly from

learners’ reflective journals, and thrice in interviews conducted with the representative

students (n = 9). The multiple and overlapping data collection measures in this study were

designed to shed light on all our analytical interests (i.e., initial conditions for learners’

profiles, as well as processes and trajectories of dynamic change), adding value and fuller

answers to our research questions. Throughout all data collection, the participants were

treated in accordance with APA ethical guidelines.

Data Analysis

Quantitative Data

With reference to our first research question, a two-step cluster analysis was run

using SPSS 24 to analyze the pre-course and post-course survey data. Cluster analysis is an

exploratory technique for identifying homogeneous groups when little is known a priori about

a dataset (Everitt, Landau, Leese, & Stahl, 2011), and combining the hierarchical and k-

means clustering algorithms minimizes arbitrariness in the cluster solution. The three

variables chosen to determine cluster membership (i.e., L2 writing self-regulation; L2 writing

14
self-efficacy; L2 writing anxiety) were those that accounted for the highest predictor

importance, while ideal L2 writing self served as a criterion variable used to validate the

multivariate cluster model. Clustering variables were screened for multicollinearity and

normality of distribution. Model selection was determined using Schwarz’s BIC, and the log-

likelihood distance proximity measure (Kaufman & Rousseeuw, 2005). By comparing the

overall cluster-solution quality and movement of cluster means, a final 3-cluster solution was

settled on. Validity of this final cluster solution was established by first examining the

univariate main effects and conducting pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s HSD post-hoc

test. A significant univariate main effect for cluster membership was obtained for the

criterion variable ideal L2 writing self, F(2, 171) = 39.74, p < .001, partial η2 =.317, power

> .999. Finally, a multinomial logistic regression was run to assess the usefulness of the

variables for determining cluster membership. The overall model indicated a good fit (–2 log-

likelihood = 25.45, χ2 = 202.51, df = 52, p < .001). Differences between the final model and a

reduced model were assessed by the likelihood-ratio test (clustering solution p < .001), and

the Nagelkerke’s pseudo-R2 for this model was 0.82 indicating that our three-cluster model

was the most parsimonious. Identical analyses were performed on the post-course survey data

to investigate (a) changes in cluster characteristics (b) and movement of participants from

their initial cluster into different final clusters.

Qualitative Data

Analysis of the reflective journal data and in-depth interviews began with initial

thematic coding (Saldaña, 2015) of this data in NVivo 11 to highlight commonalities and

uniqueness in the dataset. We then used elaborative coding (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003) to

refine codes and themes that supported or modified the observations made from the earlier

data sources (Table 1). To assist in accounting for change in participants’ psychological
15
profiles throughout genre-based writing instruction (RQ2), the frequency of themes occurring

within cases across the 11-weeks were then analyzed statistically using change-point analysis

for each of the three profiles. Change-point analysis (CPA) is a robust method used for

analyzing time-ordered data when no parametric assumptions can be made—for instance

when quantifying qualitative codes—with regards to random sampling, homogeneity of

variance, and normal distribution (Matteson & James, 2013). CPA generates cumulative sum

(CUSUM) charts to detect if and where a significant quantitative change incidents have

occurred in time-ordered data, and uses bootstrapping to provide both confidence levels

(typically set at the 95% level) and confidence intervals for each change (Taylor, 2000).

These significant change incidents should not be confused with critical classroom incidents,

but should be seen instead as statistical inferences of changes in distribution for a set of

multivariate time-ordered observations—here the qualitative elaborative codes. Using CPA

has advantages over other time-series data analytical methods, such as control charting or

autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models, because a) it frequently

identifies changes missed by other analyses, b) it is capable of precision in determining

multiple changes, and c) it can expose false detections (Box, Jenkins, & Reinsel, 2008). The

profile-specific frequency of themes were inputted into the Change-Point Analyzer software

package and the plots and CUSUM charts were generated for each profile, along with tables

of significant changes that included confidence levels and confidence intervals. From these,

the resulting data with the significant change incidents detected in the qualitative themes

were outputted in more reader-friendly figures.

Table 1

Elaborative Codes from the Qualitative Data

16
 developing independence as a
control of target genre building confidence as a writer
writer
awareness of criteria for
monitored performance adjusted task appraisals
success

attention to immediate task managed challenges and reduced apprehension and

demands expanded effort negative arousal

awareness of purpose, engaged proactively while on-

reduced avoidance behaviors
audience & text features task

attention to own linguistic increased collaboration & established positive task-

resources interaction with peers specific self-beliefs

awareness of choices and attention to written corrective increased expectancy for

constraints for target genre feedback success

awareness of target genre’s

accomplished specific goals increased creative risk-taking
relation to other genres
Note. Data sources include reflective journals (×9) and interviews (×3) of the prototypical students from each
profile identified (n = 9).

Results

The present study aims to identify the writing-specific psychological profiles of

secondary school L2 students and to investigate the process of change in these profiles during

a genre-based L2 writing course. We begin by presenting the pre-course profiles, which can

be seen as the initial states of the participants, before examining the way in which these

profiles developed and changed through the lens of learners’ reflective journals and interview

data.

Initial Profiles in Writing

Initial cluster analysis indicated that with regard to L2 writing self-regulation, L2

writing self-efficacy, and L2 writing anxiety, these language learners could be partitioned

into three meaningfully distinct groups corresponding to three initial psychological profiles.

Table 2 presents the demographic information of each cluster at the outset of the genre-based

17
class. In order to more systematically explore the participants’ process of change through

genre-based writing we have given each cluster a descriptive label based on the participants’

detailed profiles (see Table 3). We use these initial profiles as the basis for examining the

process of change the participants experienced through the genre-based writing classes. A

visual summary comparing the three initial profiles of learners can be seen in Figure 1.

Table 2

Initial Cluster Composition

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Sum

n % n % n % N %

Total 57 32.7 54 31 63 36.3 174 100

male 36 29 19 90 51.7

female 21 25 44 84 48.3
Note. The numbers for gender sum vertically, while the total number and percentages in respective clusters sum
horizontally to 100%.

Table 3

Initial Profiles Clustering Variable Means

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Tukey’s

F η2
(n = 57) (n = 54) (n = 63) post-hoc tests

L2 Writing Self-
1.64 2.66 4.31 3>2>1 90.37 .51
regulation

L2 Writing Self-
1.77 3.08 4.83 3>2>1 204.28 .71
efficacy

L2 Writing Anxiety 2.97 2.55 1.27 1>2>3 161.22 .65

Ideal L2 Writing
2.27 3.44 4.74
Self
Note. Ideal L2 Writing Self served as the criterion variable for validation and was not used in determining the
clustering solution.
All F-values are significant at the p < .001 level.

18
df = 2

LLM Cluster

Prior to the writing course, the profile of learners in cluster 1 was a combination of

low levels of self-regulation, low self-efficacy, and medium anxiety (see Figure 1). For this

reason, this cluster—composed of 57 learners (21 female; 36 male)—was labeled the LLM

Cluster. As Table 3 illustrates, the LLM profile represents L2 learners who reported the

lowest L2 writing self-regulation of all participants in the sample (M ≥ 1.60). Students also

possessed a marked lack of L2 writing self-efficacy (M < 1.80), but reported moderate levels

of L2 writing anxiety (M < 3.00). This was accompanied by a lack of productive or desirable

L2 self images, evidenced by their low scores for the criterion measure ideal L2 writing self

(M < 2.30). Learners in this profile can be described as those who are anxious about L2

writing, but possessed neither the self-regulatory capacity nor the positive self-beliefs to

compensate, and were thus likely to struggle psychologically.

MMM Cluster

The pre-course profile of learners in cluster 2 was characterized by medium levels of

all three clustering variables (Table 3). For this reason it was labeled the MMM Cluster. The

MMM profile accounted for 54 participants (25 female; 29 male). Figure 1 shows that in

contrast to other profiles, MMM Cluster participants can be characterized as having mediocre

levels of L2 writing self-regulation (M < 2.70) and average levels of L2 writing self-efficacy

(M ≥ 3.00). They reported a middle-of-the-range level of L2 writing anxiety (M ≥ 2.50), but

in comparison to the criterion measure of the LLM profile, had more a prominent ideal L2

writing self (M < 3.50). These learners can be described as those likely to experience a

tension between these components as they strive to reach their potential in L2 writing.

19
HHL Cluster

The third profile accounted for the remaining 63 learners (44 female; 9 male), and—

as Figure 1 illustrates—was labeled the HHL Cluster due to its combination of high L2

writing self-regulation (M ≥ 4.30) and L2 writing self-efficacy (M ≥ 4.80), accompanied by

exceptionally low L2 writing anxiety (M < 1.30). They also possessed the strongest positive

future images of themselves as L2 writers of any cluster (M > 4.70). Learners in this HHL

profile could be described as those who believe they are effective L2 writers with the ability

to control their learning, and who experience an absence of negative emotionality for L2

writing. These characteristics could be seen as having a strong influence on their thoughts

and actions in L2 writing.

Figure 1. Initial cluster profile comparison.

Movement of Profiles in each Cluster

During the course of the semester-long genre-based writing class, all participants were

followed carefully through reflective journals, and interviews were conducted with three

representative students (i.e., those closest to the clustering center) to explore the process of

change in their psychological profiles. Class groupings over this course were not influenced
20
by who belonged to which cluster, and the school took care not to have one class group

weighted too heavily toward any one gender or ability level.

An Internal Struggle: The LLM Profile

Participants with the LLM profile, at first, showed little interest in L2 writing when

compared to those in the other clusters. When asked to reflect on their first day of class, not

only did these LLM participants all respond in substantially fewer words than participants in

the other clusters but they all indicated a preoccupation with perceived challenges of genre-

based writing and anticipated difficulties for participating in this class. Their initial

perceptions of L2 writing were that it is primarily a difficult, boring, and unimportant task.

This kind of class is difficult and boring, but since I picked this class I have to force

myself to try to learn. (Case 24, week 2)

No student in this cluster had any prior experience of L2 writing and there was minimal

evidence of control of the target genre (Figure 2); for them, writing was seen as involving

primarily sentence completion and grammar practice. This was also manifested in their

heightened writing anxiety and decreased writing self-efficacy and self-regulation. A few

learners expressed the feeling that writing was important for their future; however, when

pressed they were not able to expand on this viewpoint further and referred instead to

constraints such as compulsory school-leaving exams.

I guess writing is important because I have no choice but to study it for the college

entrance exam. (Case 162, week 1)

Thus, these learners initially expressed strong views of themselves as poor performers in L2

writing due to their lack of experience as writers.

21
Figure 2. Change point analysis of the LLM profile elaborative codes.

As the course progressed, however, they began referring more to their own learning

processes and reported feeling slight changes as either L2 writers or learners (Figure 2).

Writing about my personal experience in this class was still difficult to do by myself.

When I try to write my thoughts become messed up, which always makes me

confused. I think I really need to find out more about what I can do to make me a

better writer. (Case 24, week 5)

Others reflected more on peers and classroom interactions that were occurring in the course

of genre-based writing instruction, and considered ways to deal with distractions and begin to

regulate their learning.

Class activity was interesting, but I was quite annoyed by one group member. I am

already trying hard to keep up and she was making it more difficult for me. I have to

find a way to deal with this in class. (Case 90, week 4)

From the second half of the course, these students started to reflect on the learning experience
22
in a positive way and report a very gradual increase in their confidence as L2 writers through

classroom tasks.

I usually feel only difficulty in writing, but today the writing class was interesting

and I was more successful. (…) What I remember the most about this class is the two

class activities, and presenting my work in front of class showed me that I

accomplished them well. (Case 162, week 7)

Their attitudes toward L2 writing began a slight shift leading up the significant change

incident (Figure 2), and in the final weeks they referred to positive changes that were

happening to them as L2 writers as they developed slightly greater independence as writers.

I got to know what writing is and now I want to be better at it. I was able to write by

myself with words that I learned, and that makes me proud of myself as a writer.

(Case 90, week 8).

Despite these positive changes, many learners in this profile continued to respond that L2

writing was a major source of difficulty and anxiety for them. They also talked little about

any concrete future plans to continue to progress as L2 writers.

Striving for Success: The MMM Profile

In the initial weeks of the course, students in the MMM profile all reported

perceptions of L2 writing as being important for them, but they did not offer a detailed reason

why this was the case. Students also considered themselves weak writers partly due to their

level of ability in the L2 itself, and showed a lack of confidence (Figure 3).

Writing is difficult, and there is no easy part about it. I am a poor performer because

I don’t know enough words to write for myself. So I have to look them up in a

dictionary and it takes time. Even after writing something, I am not sure if

expressions or words I wrote are right or wrong, natural or unnatural, which always
23
 makes me anxious or worried. (…) Even though I am working hard and practicing

writing in this class, my writing skill does not seem to be improved. (Case 49, week

1)

Students also reported experiencing some confusion about what they were learning in the

genre-based writing class, including precisely what to focus on to improve their writing

skills, which showed their initial lack of independence as L2 writers.

I had no idea about how to write in this class. It was too challenging for me. (…) The

language exam we take in school consists of multiple choice questions, which has its

answer. However, writing doesn’t have just one right answer so that is why many

students are confused and consider writing difficult. (Case 75, week 2)

However, even though they admitted having difficulties in writing, they were actively

seeking for ways in which to improve their ability to write and their capacity for self-

regulation.

It was helpful to learn about how to organize my writing based on the structure of the

recount genre. It helps my thoughts be organized. (…) And I also felt like reading

examples of this kind of writing because I that way I can learn various expressions

through reading that will help me write better. (Case 13, week 3)

24
Figure 3. Change point analysis of the MMM profile elaborative codes.

Learners’ greater self-awareness and an independent pursuit of ways to achieve

success in L2 writing became the overriding theme in the second half of the course, following

the significant change incident (Figure 3). This coincided with their growing confidence as

L2 writers. For instance, students reflected on what aspects or processes made writing

challenging and actively sought ways to overcome them.

I’ve noticed that while writing, I always stop and think about which words or

expressions I should use for a certain purpose or in a certain context. The times when

I fail to think of or remember the exact way to convey my intended meaning makes

me frustrated. Due to this experience, I realized that I don’t know enough about how

words work when I’m writing, and I decided to learn more about words and try to put

this to use every day. (Case 49, week 6)

A crucial point of comparison worth noting here concerns the way students in this profile

25
responded differently from students in the LLM profile to the identical challenges of the

genre-based writing course. Prior to the course, these students all had a similar lack of control

of the target genre features, and insufficient encounters with model texts. However, although

learners in the MMM profile felt equally frustrated when they experienced difficulties in

writing, they did not give up or resort to avoidance and distancing. Instead, these frustrating

experiences led them to make increased efforts and set achievable plans to improve their

writing skill (Figure 3). This indicates that they exercised a greater degree of self-efficacy

and self-regulation in learning.

A Productive Mindset: The HHL Profile

As with the other clusters, none of the learners in this profile reported any prior

experience in L2 writing. Relative to other participants, they were also not more advanced

language learners. However, unlike the students in other clusters, all students in this HHL

profile reported finding L2 writing both interesting and important, which indicates their early

desire to develop independence as writers.

I’m not confident in writing, so writing is something I want to do more of. It’s very

important for me because I think it’s a way to improve my language ability, and it’s a

way of communicating. (…) If I ever plan to go abroad or have foreign friends, I can

write letters and communicate that way. (Case 112, week 1)

Responses such as these from learners in the HHL profile indicate that they had positive

attitudes to novel information and instructional approaches. They also viewed L2 writing as

an end in itself rather than as an instrumental tool, which allowed them to draw on these

productive appraisals immediately and construct greater confidence as writers.

26
Figure 4. Change point analysis of the HHL profile elaborative codes.

Students in this profile reflected on distinct features of the genre-based writing

instruction even from the earliest lessons (Figure 4). They pointed out that gaining control of

the target genre was not only beneficial in improving their writing skills but also gave them

the desire to improve other language skills

Today I learned that writing is often organized in three parts. It was quite useful to

me, and this is something I can use even when I’m thinking about speaking or to

understand better when reading. We also learned linking words, and now I can

connect sentences using the linking words that I learned in class. (…) I can figure out

a kind of flow in my writing, and I think I can use them even in my adult life, so I

feel I know about writing much better than before. (Case 83, week 3)

Learning about text-organization and the structure of the target genre, analyzing model texts,

composing with group members, and learning the rhetorical features of a genre were all

27
associated with these learners’ classroom experience as L2 writers, and the data indicates

they were active and productive learners with strong beliefs in their ability to learn new and

often challenging things (Figure 4).

A welcome yet somewhat surprising finding was the importance these learners

ascribed to collaborative processes in the L2 writing classroom as a way of gaining greater

independence as L2 writers. This indicates that, at least to some extent the strong individual

self-regulation and self-efficacy these learners exhibited was a function of the group

dynamics and collective levels of these measures.

I became more confident and comfortable as a writer than before by being around

others who are also becoming writers. And, these writing courses made me realize

that we can use each other to help our learning. (…) I used to not pay much attention

to what others are doing because I thought learning was about what I can do. But now

I feel that things like finding the purpose and audience of writing, and making the

structure are not things I can do by myself. Even something like revising my writing

is an important process that I can share with others. (Case 57, week 8)

Towards the end of the course, most of the HHL profile learners—showing two significant

change incidents—were focused on positive reflections of the changes they had experienced

as writers and a determination to continue focusing on goals and build on their existing

confidence as L2 writers (Figure 4).

Final Profiles in Writing

The final detailed profile characteristics are shown in Tables 4 and 5, while a visual

comparison of the three final profiles of learners can be seen in Figure 5.

Table 4
28
Final Cluster Composition

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Sum

n % n % n % N %
Total 15 8.5 92 53 67 38.5 174 100

male 9 60 21 90 51.7

female 6 32 46 84 48.3
Note. The numbers for gender sum vertically, while the total number and percentages in respective clusters sum
horizontally to 100%.

Table 5

Final Profiles Clustering Variable Means

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Tukey’s

F η2
(n = 15) (n = 92) (n = 67) post-hoc tests

L2 Writing Self-
1.94 3.43 4.41 3>2>1 157.44 .64
regulation

L2 Writing Self-
2.60 3.32 4.76 3>2>1 169.19 .66
efficacy

L2 Writing Anxiety 4.51 3.07 1.32 1>2>3 82.56 .49

Ideal L2 Writing
2.98 3.69 4.76
Self
Note. Ideal L2 Writing Self served as the criterion variable for validation and was not used in determining the
clustering solution.
All F-values are significant at the p < .001 level.
df = 2

Compared to the numbers in the initial profile, Tables 4 and 5 show that the students

in Cluster 1 (i.e., the initial LLM profile) sharply decreased from 57 to 15 over the course of

the genre-based writing course. Additionally, the final profile characteristics changed (Table

5; Figure 5), with the largest increases coming in L2 writing self-efficacy and, unexpectedly,

L2 writing anxiety—this cluster thus transformed into a LMH profile. Cluster 2 (i.e., the

initial MMM profile) nearly doubled in size, going from 54 students to 92, and the final

29
profile characteristics show changes in all areas, with the largest development in L2 writing

self-regulation. Cluster 3 (i.e., the initial HHL profile) changed very little in its characteristics

(Table 5), but did gain nine new individuals (having lost five others) bringing the total

number to 67 students. A summary of the movement of learners between profiles, and profile

characteristic changes, can be seen in Figure 6.

Figure 5. Final cluster profile comparison.

30
Figure 6. Cluster movement between initial and final profiles (N = 174). Solid arrows
indicate the number of learners whose cluster membership did not change, while dashed
arrows show the number of learners who moved from the initial profile clusters into different
final profile clusters.

Discussion

In this section we return to the initial purpose of this study—to investigate the role of

various psychological factors within a genre-based L2 writing classroom and examine

31
developmental changes that may take place for these elements through this in-situ analytical

lens. We turn below to a more thematic discussion of participants’ profiles from the rubric of

how genre-based L2 writing influences these productively and highlight some of the

accompanying implications for L2 writing instruction.

Writing Self-regulation and Genre-based L2 Writing

The results of our study show that learners in each profile either developed or

consolidated their ability to regulate important learning processes. Thus, as a pedagogical

approach, genre-based L2 writing instruction appeared to empower the learners to improve

their writing skills by increasing their overall control of the target genre. They did this,

among other ways, by developing greater awareness of criteria for success as writers and of

the target genre conventions, and increasing their attention to immediate task demands and

how their own linguistic resources and choices as writers could support these. The genre-

based L2 writing course also appears to have supported students’ increased independence as

writers as they, for instance, proactively engaged in on-task behavior, monitored their

performance, managed challenges and expanded effort as needed, and accomplished relevant

writing goals.

Working through a series of systematically scaffolded stages in the genre-based

writing classroom may have had a positive influence on students’ self-regulatory capacity as

L2 writers. This scaffolding of students’ progress is built in to the teaching-learning cycle

through the information provided about the target genre, the language resources to construct

the genre, and the sequenced writing tasks that develop learners’ writing abilities. This

support may have helped students to developed effective strategies to self-regulate key

learning processes, which in turn led to their successful completion of linked stages (Csizér &

Tankó, 2017). As this support was gradually removed, students who had developed or
32
consolidated their self-regulatory writing capacities readily increased their control of the

target genre and assumed responsibility for their continuing progress as independent L2

writers. This is also reflected in the notion that learners working together learn more

effectively through shared consciousness, and by working with knowledgeable others

develop a greater understanding of tasks and ideas (Hyland, 2007).

Another potential benefit of the genre approach to L2 writing instruction was that its

assessment tasks may have helped students gain the control of the genre by providing them

with explicit criteria for success which. Genre-based pedagogies integrate teaching and

assessment in direct relation to learners’ writing goals, and based on explicit feedback criteria

(e.g., genre or rhetorical features) can specify student competencies and areas for

improvement. Thus, in examining assessment rubrics and evaluating their own and peers’

writing, these learners became aware of the criteria for successful writing, which may have

helped them plan to perform better in their own writing. Genre-based writing instruction

emphasizes what is valued in writing and makes clear exactly what is expected from students

in any writing task (Hyland, 2016). Knowledge of these objectives and descriptors for

successful performance may have helped the learners gain greater independence as writers,

enabling them to better control their learning.

Writing Self-efficacy and Genre-based L2 Writing

Individuals with low self-efficacy tend to doubt their capabilities, have low

aspirations and weak commitment to the goals they choose to pursue (Usher & Pajares,

2008). In the three student profiles, we too found that the lower students’ self-efficacy was

the more they tended to regard L2 writing as difficult, and to consider themselves poor

performers which increased their sense of discouragement. These learners’ low writing self-

efficacy judgments resulted in them viewing difficult tasks as personal threats and giving up
33
quickly in the face of difficulty. For many other learners in this study, however, the

experiences afforded them through the genre-based writing course might have helped them to

adjust their task appraisals, establish positive task-specific self-beliefs, develop increased

expectancy for success, and engage in increased creative risk-taking. This mirrors past

research findings that the nature of learners’ writing self-efficacy beliefs can affect all aspects

of learning behavior “by influencing the choices they make, the effort they expend, the

persistence and perseverance they exert when obstacles arise, and the thought patterns and

emotional reactions they experience” (Pajares, 2003, p. 140).

Existing scholarship points to several main sources of information that directly foster

learners’ self-efficacy beliefs, and there is ample evidence of the value of doing so in

instructional settings (Mills, 2014). Individuals’ dispositions towards what they are able to do

and what tasks they can accomplish in the process of learning writing can account for their

likelihood of success as writers (Csizér & Tankó, 2017; Piniel & Csizér, 2015). Creating and

maintaining a strong sense of self-efficacy can be accomplished by explicitly addressing and

enhancing students’ beliefs about themselves and their learning capacities, deliberately

structuring learning to maximize opportunities to experience regular success, and visualizing

the success of similar individuals that enables learners to in turn establish effective

comparable goals.

In a genre-based approach, the sequencing of tasks that provide explicit structure for

writing and support while planning or drafting, is designed to build students’ confidence and

writing ability through direct mastery experiences, leading to strong self-beliefs in

individuals’ capacity and competence for writing. Additionally, collaboration with peers and

teachers at key stages in the genre-based L2 writing instruction may have provided students

with the opportunity to observe the successes and capabilities of their peers at similar

proficiency levels. For many of the participants this seemed to induce positive emotions also
34
linked to increased engagement in the writing class. Consequently, these vicarious

experiences may have contributed to students’ expectations of future successful performance

in writing, and for many of them appeared to increase their writing self-efficacy. Thus,

mastery experiences and vicarious experiences are an integral part of genre-based writing

instruction, and our findings show that many of the learners who first regarded themselves as

poor writers began to exhibit positive self-beliefs and even take pride in their performance in

writing in the later stages of the course.

Writing Anxiety & Genre-based L2 Writing

Regardless of the task they are undertaking or the L2 classroom environment, all

language learners may experience anxiety to some extent (Horwitz, 2010), and L2 writing is

no exception. Indeed, the final profiles of all three clusters showed an increase in mean

writing anxiety levels, and students in every profile revealed their difficulties participating in

the genre-based L2 writing class. This increase might be attributed in part to learners’

complete lack of previous L2 writing experience, and most individuals referred to their low

prior knowledge about the target genre, its organization, and language conventions as

explanation for their L2 writing-specific anxiety. Because many students expressed

heightened anxiety due to their unfamiliarity with the writing texts and a lack of knowledge

of the target genre, providing sufficient input about the target genre and its rhetorical,

grammatical, and lexical features can help learners gain familiarity with L2 writing and

relieve their writing anxiety. One way this was done in the current study was through the use

of writing frames which Hyland (2007) refers to as “skeletal outlines used to enable students

to start, connect, and develop their texts appropriately while concentrating on what they want

to say” (p.158). Familiarity, or lack thereof, may be a key ingredient for consideration in

reducing the skill-specific anxieties learners experience (Csizér & Tankó, 2017).
35
 Despite this overall increase, our qualitative data indicate that the support mechanisms

built into genre-based pedagogy played a central role in reducing learners’ apprehension and

negative arousal, and in reducing their learning avoidance behaviors. This would normally be

expected in non-threatening classroom environments. However, learners also continued to

express a desire for increased support from peer group members while on task. Thus, in

instances such as these where the novelty of L2 writing is an anxiety-inducing factor,

increased collaboration may help to build the sense of community and support network that is

fundamental to lowering learners’ writing anxiety and may help them proceed to further

stages of the learning cycle. This corroborates lessons emerging from language learning

psychology research that is more positively-oriented (e.g., MacIntyre, Gregersen, & Mercer,

2016). For instance, L2 learners often experience a reduction in anxiety when they are present

in supportive and constructive classroom environments that tap into their fundamental well-

being and that redirect attention to the positive aspects of their learning experience (Oxford,

2016). Finally, refocusing on L2 writing as a means of communication and tool for greater

participation in the language community can foster more productive mindsets for learners

who may see L2 writing merely as a tool for achieving external targets (compulsory

assessments; competition for college entrance) that appeal little to their self-images. This can

lower their anxiety and empower them as L2 language users.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to examine the psychological processes at play within

the context of genre-based L2 writing instruction. Our data indicate several distinct initial

profiles for the L2 learners who were part of the study and highlight key patterns of change

for each. We discovered that over the course of genre-based L2 writing instruction, the

various profiles were able to develop a stronger capacity for writing self-regulation and to
36
sustain and consolidate their writing self-efficacy. One unique finding, despite the overall

increase in learners’ control of the target genre, was that the final profile of many learners

was characterized by elevated levels of writing anxiety. However, because this was combined

with moderate-to-strong levels of writing self-regulation and writing self-efficacy there may

in fact be instances when anxiety can co-exist in constructive configurations, such as

alongside adequate levels of self-regulation and self-efficacy. Considering our choice of

participants and the context in which this study took place, the results we report on here (i.e.,

the L2 profiles and writing classroom experiences of these respondents) might not be entirely

generalizable and further research in other contexts is necessary.

With regards to our research design, one limitation worth highlighting is that by

adopting an explicit focus on dynamic processes of change and by setting out with the

objective of finding a way to talk about what transpires in L2 writing classrooms

psychologically—even though we did collect measures of learners L2 writing performance as

part of our broader dataset, we were unable to give adequate consideration to qualitative

change in learners’ performance in L2 writing or their writing outcomes. These phenomena

are of central interest to many in the context of L2 genre-based writing instruction, and future

work on this topic could be designed to adopt a dual-focus that examines salient links

between L2 writing-specific measures of performance—such as communicative adequacy,

complexity, accuracy, and fluency—on the one hand, while also taking into account the

influence of prominent psychological constructs (Pelaez-Morales, 2017, p. 13). By extension,

rigorous classroom-based experimental designs that investigate various characteristics of

genre-based L2 writing interventions, in conjunction with psychological indicators of success

in learning and their combined impact on students’ development and performance in L2

writing, would contribute greatly to understanding the psychology of L2 writing. This is a

novel area of research that we feel holds particular promise, but which so far has been
37
explored by only a handful of scholars in our field.

While we do not claim comprehensive classroom connections based on our modest

and non-experimental dataset, several pedagogical implications do suggest themselves. The

first concerns the notion of an L2 learner’s psychological profile. We would suggest that all

learners come to the L2 writing classroom with a multidimensional profile composed of

various psychological factors in unique combinations, and that L2 writing educators might

find it productive to familiarize themselves with learners’ profiles prior to and during the

course of L2 writing instruction. Becoming aware of this would give practitioners actionable

information that allows them to more appropriately support and interact with learners, for

instance, by helping them build a sense of L2 writing self-efficacy or positively regulate their

L2 writing anxiety over time. Writing pedagogy that implements certain targeted approaches

(e.g., classroom techniques which encourage collaborative meaning-making) can positively

influence learners who are struggling and enable them to construct a sense of well-being and

belonging in the writing classroom contexts they find themselves. Future research might

build on these exploratory findings across other socio-educational settings by exploring

similar questions related to situated motivational changes in various language learning

contexts. However, we feel that this study makes a contribution to integrating the study of

individual factors with situative processes, and particularly to understanding how L2 learners

experience motivational changes in the context of genre-based L2 writing.

References

Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and

analysis. New York: New York University Press.

Box, G., Jenkins, G. , & Reinsel, G. (2008). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control

(4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

38
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.) (2014). Task-based language learning:

Insights from and for L2 writing. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Clark, I. (2012). Concepts in composition: Theory and practice in the teaching of writing

(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Chevalier, J., & Buckles, D. (2013). Participatory action research: Theory and methods for

engaged inquiry. New York: Routledge.

Coe, R. (2002). The new rhetoric of genre: Writing political briefs. In A.M. Johns (Ed.),

Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 197–207). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coffin, C., & Donahue, J. P. (2012). Academic literacies and systemic functional linguistics:

How do they relate? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11, 64–75.

Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for

Academic Purposes, 3, 291–304.

Csizér, K., & Tankó, G. (2017). English majors’ self-regulatory control strategy use in

academic writing and its relation to L2 motivation. Applied Linguistics, 38, 386–404.

Devitt, A. (2004). Writing genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner. New York:

Routledge.

Everitt, B., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis (5th ed.). Chichester,

England: Wiley.

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: National Centre for English Language

Teaching and Research.

Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools:

A response to school reforms in the United States. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 20, 45–55.

Gkonou, C., Daubney, M., & Dewaele, J.-M. (Eds.) (2017). New insights into language
39
 anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications. Bristol, England:

Multilingual Matters.

Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). Capitalizing on language learners’ individuality.

Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2016). A dynamic ensemble for second language research:

Putting complexity theory into practice. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 741–

756.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.

Modern Language Journal, 70, 125–132.

Hsieh, P. H., & Kang, H. S. (2010). Attribution and self-efficacy and their interrelationship in

the Korean EFL context. Language Learning, 60, 606–627.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal

of Second Language Writing, 12, 17–29.

Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of

Michigan Press.

Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal

of Second Language Writing, 16, 148–164.

Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Joe, H.-K., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Classroom social climate, self-determined

motivation, willingness to communicate, and achievement: A study of structural

relationships in instructed second language settings. Learning and Individual

Differences, 53, 133–144.

Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. (2005). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster

analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second

40
 Language Writing, 21, 390–403.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). Classroom-oriented research from a complex systems

perspective. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 377–393.

Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language

writing in English. New York: Routledge.

MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (2016). Positive psychology in SLA. Bristol,

England: Multilingual Matters.

Mark, M. (2015). Mixed and multimethods in predominantly quantitative studies, especially

experiments and quasi-experiments. In S. Hesse-Biber & R.B. Johnson (Eds.), The

Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 21–41).

Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Matteson, D., & James, N., (2013). A nonparametric approach for multiple change point

analysis of multivariate data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 109,

334–345.

Mills, N. (2014). Self-efficacy in second language acquisition. In S. Mercer, & M. Williams

(Eds.), Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA (pp. 6–22). Bristol, England:

Multilingual Matters.

Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A reevaluation of the role of anxiety: Self-

efficacy,

anxiety, and their relation to reading and listening proficiency. Foreign Language

Annals, 29, 276–295.

Ministry of Education and Science Technology (2009). 7th Revised National Curriculum.

2009–41. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Science Technology.

Murphey, T., & Falout, J. (2013). Individual differences in the classroom. In C. A. Chapelle

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (Vol. V, pp. 2650–2654). New York:

41
 Wiley-Blackwell.

Myskow, G., & Gordon, K. (2010). A focus on purpose: Using a genre approach in an EFL

writing class. ELT Journal, 64, 283–292.

Oxford, R. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in

context (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Oxford, R. (2016). Toward a psychology of well-being for language learners: The

EMPATHICS vision. In P.D. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Positive

psychology in SLA (pp. 10–87). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of

the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139–158.

Paltridge, B. (2013). Genre and English for specific purposes. In B. Paltridge & S. Starfield

(eds.), Handbook of English for specific purposes (pp. 347–366). Malden, MA:

Wiley.

Park, J., & Hiver, P. (2017). Profiling and tracing motivational change in project based L2

learning. System, 67, 50–64.

Pelaez-Morales, C. (2017). L2 writing scholarship in JSLW: An updated report of research

published between 1992 and 2015. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 9–19.

Piniel, K., & Csizér, K. (2015). Changes in motivation, anxiety and self-efficacy during the

course of an academic seminar. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. Maclntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.),

Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 164–189). Bristol, England:

Multilingual Matters.

Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory,

research, and applications. New York: Routledge.

42
Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system among

Japanese,

Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study In Z. Dörnyei & E.

Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66–97). Bristol,

England: Multilingual Matters.

Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative

review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 79–101.

Tardy, C. M. (2009). Building genre knowledge. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Tardy, C. M. (2011). The history and future of genre in second language writing: A North

American perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 1–5.

Taylor, W. (2000). A pattern test for distinguishing between autoregressive and mean-shift

data. Taylor Enterprises, Libertyville, Illinois.

http://www.variation.com/cpa/tech/changepoint.html.

Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional

models of self-regulated learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 100, 674–

701.

Tsao, J-J. Tseng,W. T., & Wang, C. (2017). The effects of writing anxiety and motivation on

EFL college students’ self-evaluative judgments of corrective feedback.

Psychological Reports, 102, 219–241.

Tseng, W. T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic

learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics,

27, 78–102.

Usher, E., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the

literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78, 751–796.

Wingate, U., & Tribble, C (2012). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for academic
43
 purposes/academic literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37,

481–495.

Woodrow, L. (2011). College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety. System, 39,

510–522.

Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’ genre

awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 20, 111–133.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An

overview and analysis. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated

learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–36).

New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

44
Questionnaire

L2 Writing Self-efficacy

I feel confident about writing in English.

I know how to write well in English.
I write in English with an underlying logical organization.
*If I put in the needed effort I am sure I can become a good writer in English.
I can write essays that are relevant and appropriate to the assignment.
I present my point of view or arguments accurately and effectively when writing in English.
I am sure I can do well on writing courses even if they are difficult.

L2 Writing Anxiety

Just thinking about writing in English makes me feel nervous.

I get too nervous to concentrate when I start writing in English.
I get really uptight right before the writing class begins.
When learning writing in English, I get so nervous I forget things I know.
*I am afraid that the other students might make fun of my English essay if I ask them to
review it.
I get a sinking feeling when I think of trying to complete a difficult writing assignment.
I feel more tense and nervous in writing class than in other classes.
My mind goes blank and I am unable to think clearly when writing in English.

Ideal L2 Writing Self

I can imagine myself studying in a university where all my courses are taught in English.
I can imagine myself communicating with foreign friends or colleagues in English.
I can imagine myself writing in English at work.
I can imagine myself writing in English as if I were a native speaker of English.
I imagine myself as someone who is able to write in English.
I can imagine myself writing e-mails/letters in English fluently.

L2 Writing Self-regulation

I know how to reduce my stress from learning writing in English.

I have special techniques to achieve my learning goals when learning writing in English.
I feel satisfied with my own special methods for reducing the stress of writing in English.
I have special techniques to keep my concentration focused when learning writing in English.
*I persist until I reach the goals that I make for myself when learning writing in English.
*I believe I can achieve my goals more quickly than expected when learning writing in
English.
*I can cope with the stress from learning writing in English immediately.
When it comes to learning writing in English, I think my methods of controlling
procrastination are effective.
*I know how to arrange the environment to make learning more efficient when learning
writing in English.

* Items with an asterisk were excluded from scales to maximize reliability alphas.
Reflective Journal

Date: ____________________ Name: ___________________ Student No. : _______

Please think of everything you did in our writing class today, for example the class content,

the activities, even interacting with your peers or with the teacher.

Step 1: Write about what you experienced in class today.

Step 2: Write about what you thought in class today.

Step 3: Write about how you felt in class today.

Interview Schedule

Date: ___________________

Interviewee Information

1. Can you tell me about any recent writing experiences you have?

2. Can you tell me about yourself as English writer?

3. How important is writing for you as English learner? Can you give me examples?
3a. (If the interviewee answers it’s not important) What do you think is important to you in
school? And why is writing not important to you unlike _____?
3b. Many students think writing is important but say they’re a poor writer. What do you think
about this?

4. Let’s look at your work so far. What do you find easy so far as an English writer or while
writing in English?
4a. Do you have any difficulties or weak points as an English writer or while writing in
English?

5. What changes do you feel happening to you as English writer?

5a. What changes would you like, or do you expect to happen? In other words, to be a good
writer, what change do you think you need?
5b. What do you plan to do about it? Can you give me some examples?

6. Is there anything else that comes to mind that you’d like to tell us?
 Pre- and post-test

My Wonderful Vacation
Class & Student number:________ Name: ___________

Think back of your summer vacation, this year. How was your vacation? Did you have
fun? Draw a picture about your memorable experience you want to share with your
friends.

My picture is about…
__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

Hope you keep enjoying your English class for the rest of this semester!!!^^

View publication stats