A measure of possible sources of demotivation in L2 writing: A scale development and validation study

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Assessing Writing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asw

A measure of possible sources of demotivation in L2 writing: A scale development and validation study Mehmet Karacaa,*, Serhat Inanb a b

Tunahan District, 06824, Eryaman, Etimesgut, Ankara, Turkey Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Hacettepe University, Turkey

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: EWDES Demotivation L2 writing L2 writing demotivation Writing assessment

Writing in L2 is a complex phenomenon in which affective factors play an important role. Among others, demotivation can determine the students’ success in orchestrating the complex writing processes and the quality of their L2 writing texts. Although there is a growing body of research investigating demotivating factors (e.g. teacher, self-confidence, materials and methods) in language education, there is a scarcity of research on L2 writing demotivation. This two-phase study is an attempt to develop and validate a writing demotivation scale. To this end, a total of 551 EF L students participated in the development phase, and a total of 367 EF L students were recruited for the validation phase of the study. An EFA was employed to determine the factor structure of the scale. The results of the EFA revealed a five-factor solution with self-perceived L2 writing competence, teacher practices, attitudinal aspects, writing materials and methods, and teaching/ learning context. In the validation phase, a CFA was performed. The results of the CFA showed that the model fits the data well. Overall, the English Writing Demotivation Scale (EWDES) is psychometrically a reliable and valid instrument that can be used for investigating the L2 writing demotivation.

1. Introduction Writing in English is a multifaceted and multidimensional phenomenon with cognitive, affective, linguistic, and sociocultural dimensions which make it demanding to master (Cumming, 2001; Silva, 1990). In addition, the laborious and recursive nature of writing makes it one of the most challenging skills of second language learning (Hyland, 2003). Because of these aspects of L2 writing, learners need to invest subsequent energy, time, interest, and determination in the process of writing (Kormos, 2012). In EFL contexts, it is more challenging for L2 students to have cognitive and affective engagement in L2 writing process (White & Bruning, 2005). As one of the major affective dimensions, motivation can play an important role in L2 writing instruction and, thus, in writing performance of the students. A plethora of research highlighted the key role of motivation in language learning in general and L2 writing instruction in particular (e.g. Alderman, 1999; Dörnyei, 1994; Karaca, 2018; Zhang, 2016). Relatedly, Alderman (1999) underlined that motivation "leads to possibilities for fostering the development of students' potential" (p. 3). In the same vein, emphasizing the significance of motivation in language education, Dörnyei (1994) described it as "one of the main determinants of second/foreign language achievement" (p. 273). Zhang (2016) accentuated that writing in L2 is cognitively demanding and, thus, necessitates a high level of motivation. Regarding the role of motivation in L2 writing instruction, the participants of Karaca’s (2018) study strongly believed that motivation is essential for effective L2 writing.

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Karaca).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.100438 Received 3 February 2019; Received in revised form 27 August 2019; Accepted 13 November 2019 1075-2935/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Mehmet Karaca and Serhat Inan, Assessing Writing, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.100438

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

Demotivation plays as essential role as motivation in determining the quality of language education. While motivation has a positive influence on learning, demotivation interferes with the learning process and "leads to unsuccessful mastery of English proficiency" (Hu, 2011, p. 88). In the literature, demotivation was defined from different perspectives. Focusing on the external dimension, Dörnyei (2001) defined it as “specific external forces that reduce or diminish the motivational basis of a behavioral intention or an ongoing action” (p. 143). Dörnyei (2001) leaves the internal factors behind while defining demotivation. Addressing this issue, Sakai and Kikuchi (2009) emphasized the importance of internal factors along with the external factors. Demotivation has detrimental effects in language learning in that it can “negatively influence the learner’s attitudes and behaviors, degrade classroom group dynamics and teacher’s motivation, and result in long-term and widespread negative learning outcomes” (Falout, Elwood, & Hood, 2009, p. 403). In addition, according to Zhang (2007) demotivation is “the force that decreases students’ energy to learn and/ or the absence of the force that stimulates students to learn” (p. 213). These definitions revealed that demotivation is a multifaceted concept, but none of them covered the whole picture. Therefore, a definition of demotivation can be synthesized as a gradual process in which certain internal and external factors impede learner’s willingness, enthusiasm, and intention not only to set learning goals and to invest subsequent time, energy, and effort to achieve these goals but also to sustain commitment throughout the process, resulting in the hindrance of learning performance. Demotivation is a contextually-situated and domain-specific process. Regarding L2 writing, it can determine the success of the students in orchestrating the complex writing processes and, in turn, the quality of their writing performance. For this reason, it is essential for teachers to explore and reduce the effects of demotivating factors in L2 writing. In order for teachers to recognize writing demotivation, a definition of this concept is required. Based on the definition of demotivation above, writing demotivation is a gradual process in which certain internal and external factors impede learner’s willingness, enthusiasm, and intention not only to set writing goals and to invest subsequent time, energy, and effort to achieve these goals but also to sustain commitment throughout the writing process, resulting in the hindrance of learning L2 writing. Although there is a growing body of research conducted on demotivating factors in general language learning literature (e.g. Arai, 2004; Falout & Falout, 2005; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009), there exists very little research on writing demotivation. To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, there are only two studies carried out to investigate the demotivation in L2 writing education (i.e. Kao, 2012; Wu, Yang, Scott Chen Hsieh, & Yamamoto, 2019), which are discussed below. In this sense, L2 writing demotivation is uncharted territory and open to be examined for deeper insights. It is more likely to encounter many demotivated EFL students because L2 writing, as a neglected skill especially in EFL contexts, does not play a key role in the education system with a lack of writing skills in both in-class and national exams. Thus, students with insufficient L2 writing instruction can have difficulty in writing assessment practices. Accordingly, it can be stated that those students, in EFL settings, become more prone to writing demotivation. It has been recognized that it is of crucial importance to involve students in the process of assessment for an effective L2 writing assessment. However, it has been lamented that L2 writing is taught by ill-prepared teachers in many countries (Johns, 2009), who may see themselves as language teachers rather than writing teachers (Lee, 1998). Since writing instruction and assessment is a mutually-informing process, any problem in teaching writing can have an effect on writing assessment. As a result, the students may not be equipped with the required knowledge and skills to engage actively in the writing assessment practices. This, in turn, may increase the demotivation level of the learners. For an effective L2 writing instruction and assessment, the affective aspects (in this case demotivation) along with cognitive, linguistic and socio-cultural factors should be handled. However, the notion of demotivation in teaching and assessing L2 writing is underexplored. Therefore, the present study is an important attempt to address this critical gap in L2 writing demotivation literature. To this end, the purpose of this study is to develop and validate a psychometrically reliable and valid scale for measuring demotivation in writing, the English Writing Demotivation Scale (EWDES), which can be used for the investigation of the possible sources of L2 writing demotivation. In this way, this study can increase the readers’ knowledge and understanding of the demotivation, as well as, create recognition of the possible sources of demotivation in L2 writing literature. The EWDES is a valuable opportunity for language teachers to diagnose and gain deeper insights about the demotivated L2 learners in writing classrooms through administering this instrument. In this sense, the exploration of demotivating factors in L2 writing will be an important step toward the development of learner’s writing performance and their more active engagement in the L2 writing assessment process. Therefore, it is important to develop a robust instrument in order to be able to investigate writing demotivation since affective aspects of writing, i.e. demotivation, cannot be observed and measured directly. Equally important, with respect to researchers, the EWDES mainly functions as a window to this almost untouched aspect of L2 writing. In this way, the EWDES will contribute to the theoretical knowledge base of writing demotivation research. Through administering the EWDES in different contexts, the researchers can have a chance to obtain a more complete picture of this complex phenomenon and to compare the results for deeper insights. 2. Review of literature 2.1. Demotivation in language learning Demotivation is a relatively new but fast-growing field of research. Dörnyei (2001) made great attempts to foster the awareness of demotivation, but this phenomenon has not attracted researchers’ attention until recently. He expressed that demotivation constitutes the external forces that negatively influence learner’s motivation in the process of language learning and can hamper his/her willingness to participate in classroom activities. Additionally, he states that some internal factors such as low self-confidence can lead to 2

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

demotivation as well. In relation to these, Ushioda (1998) conducted a study with the participation of 20 Irish students of French. She found that while the learners attributed their success to the intrinsic motives such as personal capabilities, extrinsic demotives such as teaching methods, learning tasks, and coursework pressures were seen as the major cause of their failure. Similarly, many studies strongly favored that demotivation not only constitutes external factors (e.g. teaching context, the teacher, materials, etc.) but also internal factors (e.g. attitude, self-confidence, etc.). In light of these claims, it is clear that this multifaceted phenomenon includes both external and internal factors that hamper learner’s motivation in the learning process. As mentioned above, although, there is a growing body of research conducted on demotivating factors in language learning classrooms regarding both students’ and teachers’ perspectives, there are so few studies in the literature on L2 writing demotivation. It has been emphasized that learner demotivation is one of the main factors which leads to ineffectiveness and failure in English language teaching. Relatedly, Rost (2004, cited in Falout & Falout, 2005) claimed that one demotivating factor can eliminate the positive effects of ten motivating factors. Therefore, investigating the demotivational factors will help L2 writing teachers to develop strategies to keep learners’ motivation and a positive attitude and behavior towards English learning. 2.2. Demotivation in teaching and assessing L2 writing Effective L2 writing performance is closely associated with higher levels of cognitive and affective engagement of the students (White & Bruning, 2005). To engage cognitively, writers need to control many cognitive processes simultaneously (Nunan, 1991). In this respect, L2 writers who have to process these cognitive activities may undergo a cognitive overload (Hayes & Flower, 1980). Regarding affective factors, L2 writing attitude (Shaver, 1990), L2 writing anxiety (Cheng, Horwitz & Schallert 1999), L2 writing selfefficacy (Pajares & Valiante, 2006), L2 writing motivation (Lo & Hyland, 2007) and L2 writing demotivation (Kao, 2012) can play major role in determining students’ engagement in L2 writing. Due to the fact that L2 writing is a laborious and recursive process, students are required to allocate a high level of determination to sustain their motivation in this process. Thus, sustaining motivation is one of the most important factors affecting the success in language learning in general (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Gardner, 2001) and in L2 writing (Wu et al., 2019). L2 writing assessment is one of the main components of L2 writing instruction. Effective writing assessment is “an ongoing process involving both teachers and students, not merely a procedure for assigning a quantitative score to a single product or series of performances” (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005, p. 300). In this process, different writing assessment practices can affect students’ motivation (Huot, 2002; Lee, 2007) and demotivation. Thus, affective aspects of writing have a central role in orchestrating the writing processes in an effective way and the quality of the written product (Kellogg, 1996). 2.3. Possible sources of demotivation in language learning The sources of demotivation were explored through various qualitative and quantitative data collection methods by many researchers (e.g. Arai, 2004; Dörnyei, 1998; Falout & Maruyama, 2004; Falout et al., 2009; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009; Kao, 2012; Wu et al., 2019). One of the earlier studies on the sources of demotivation was conducted by Dörnyei (1998). This study centered specifically on 50 demotivated learners studying either English or German in Budapest. He identified demotivating factors through one-to-one interviews. The researcher employed a stepwise theme-based content analytical procedure in order to identify the most salient sources of demotivation. The results revealed 9 main demotivating factors as (1) The teacher (personality, commitment, competence, teaching method), (2) Inadequate school facilities (the group is too big or not the right level; frequent change of teachers), (3) Reduced self-confidence (experience of failure or lack of success), (4) Negative attitude towards the L2, (5) Compulsory nature of L2 study, (6) Interference of another foreign language being studied, (7) Negative attitude towards L2 community, (8) Attitudes of group members, and (9) Coursebook. This study stimulated a wave of research among researchers, and a growing number of researchers used Dörnyei’s nine demotivation categories in order to develop their own surveys. Nevertheless, these studies mostly focused on demotivation in language teaching and learning in general, rather than demotivation in L2 writing instruction. Based on the pioneering and seminal study carried out by Dörnyei (1998), a number of demotivation scales were developed. There exist some similarities among these demotivation scales. For instance, teacher-related factors were among the most common sources of demotivation in these studies. It is obvious that the teacher plays a central role in the emergence and removal of demotivation in language learners. In addition to teacher-related factors, Table 1 indicates that the self-confidence factor was mentioned in three out of four scales (except for Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009) as another common source of demotivation. The issue of self-confidence, though can be investigated in detail, may have its roots in the nature of learning the target language. To be clearer, it is plausible that because the scales in Table 1 were developed in EFL contexts, the students’ self-confidence in the target language may be lower. In other words, low L2 proficiency leads to reduced self-confidence (Falout & Falout, 2005; Ushioda, 1998). These studies mainly overlap with Dörnyei’s constructs of demotivation excluding two of them which are Compulsory nature of L2 study, and Interference of another foreign language being studied. The possible reason behind the latter factor may be that the participants of other studies may not be learning two foreign languages at the same time while the possible source of the former factor may depend on the students’ perception of the L2 course. The students may not feel under pressure because of the compulsory foreign language course. The sources of demotivation can be investigated under two categories as internal and external factors as mentioned above. In this sense, the investigated studies in the literature revealed that the forces of these two main factors may differ according to the contexts of the studies. A closer look at the studies revealed that while in Falout and Maruyama’s (2004) and Falout et al.’s (2009) studies, internal sources outweighed the external sources, the studies by Sakai and Kikuchi (2009) and Kao (2012) revealed that external sources were more effective on demotivation. However, Falout et al. (2009) included a third category as the Reactive Factors 3

4

594 English majors

Kao (2012)

900 university level EFL students

Falout et al. (2009)

656 Japanese high school students

164 college students (lower proficiency and higher proficiency English language learners)

Falout and Maruyama (2004)

Sakai and Kikuchi (2009)

Participants

Author

Table 1 The scale development studies on demotivation.

Questionnaire, Semi-structured interviews

Questionnaire, Open-ended questions

Questionnaire

Questionnaire, Open-ended prompts

Method

-

Teacher feedback as an external factor was the most demotivating one Self-interest was the strongest among the internal factors English writing demotivation led four negative student behaviors including; discontinuing learning, passive learning, losing interest, losing confidence

- Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles was not the most demotivating factor among both more and less motivated Japanese students - Learning Contents and Materials and Test Scores were the most demotivating factors for, especially, less motivated learners - Less motivated learners found Lack of Intrinsic Motivation more demotivating than other four factors

The main findings of the study were (a) self-confidence, attitudes toward the L2 itself, courses, teachers, and attitudes of group members (in order of most common to least) were the demotivating factors for the lower-proficiency group, (b) regarding the higher-proficiency group, self-confidence was the demotivating factor, whereas other factors were relatively neutral, (c) the degree of demotivation for the higher- and lower-proficiency groups was the same, and (d) it was earlier for lower proficiency group to have negative attitudes towards English than the higher-proficiency group. Regarding open-ended prompts, both groups attributed their demotivation to disappointment in performance, course contents & pace, and teacher. In particular, the high volume of vocabulary was the most common attribution among the learners. - Internal and reactive factors played a more significant role in learning outcomes regarding demotivation than external factors - The Teacher immediacy factor with the highest mean score of the nine factors (M = 4.12) had a positive effect on language learning, suggesting that poor teacher behaviors are not a substantial problem for Japanese EFL learners - The Grammar-translation factor (M = 3.01), which is the dominant pedagogy in language education, poses the largest threat to EFL learners’ motivation

Main Findings

External Factors - Teacher immediacy - Grammar-translation - Course level Internal Factors - Self-denigration - Value - Self-confidence Reactive Factors - Help-seeking - Enjoyment-seeking - Avoidance - Learning Contents and Materials - Teachers’ Competence and Teaching Styles - Inadequate School Facilities - Lack of Intrinsic Motivation - Test Scores Internal Factors - English proficiency and selfconfidence - Writing difficulty - Writing product - Self-interest External Factors - Teacher feedback - Teaching method and content - Teacher personality and attitude - Classroom atmosphere and teaching material - Peer-related factor

- Teachers - Courses - Attitude toward English speaking community - Attitude toward English itself - Self-confidence - Attitude of group members

Constructs

M. Karaca and S. Inan

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

including Help-seeking, Enjoyment-seeking, and Avoidance. Since these sources of demotivation are more related to the internal dynamics, they can be accepted as internal factors. Additionally, it is worth to mention that Kao (2012) and Dörnyei’s (1998) sources of demotivation distributed closely under the two categories (four internal factors vs. five external sources). The aforementioned studies stand as the pillars of the demotivation literature, having various drawbacks, though. Neither of the studies in Table 1 adopted a validation process which is undeniably a vital part of scale development (Brown, 2006). Additionally, there exist certain specific issues with the studies, as well. First of all, the study conducted by Falout and Maruyama (2004) makes significant contributions to the demotivation literature; however, the number of participants (n = 164) may hamper the reliability of the results. Secondly, regarding Sakai and Kikuchi’s (2009) study, it can be criticized that covering only two items in a factor (i.e. Test Scores) is considered as insufficient by researchers in the field (e.g. MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999; Raubenheimer, 2004). Because of this factor with two items, the researchers could have faced problems with identification in the validation process if they had conducted a CFA. Recently and more relatedly to the scope of the current study, in Kao’s study (2012), the number of participants and the development procedure of the study seem satisfactory. Nevertheless, the rotation method employed for the EFA may not be appropriate for the nature of the scale. That is, in scales whose factors are considered to have a possible relatedness to each other, oblique rotation methods (e.g. direct-oblimin) are preferred to orthogonal rotation methods (e.g. varimax) (Byrne, 1998). Therefore, as most other studies in the field (e.g. Falout et al., 2009; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009), Kao’s (2012) study would be more reliable if the oblique rotation was adopted during the EFA. 2.4. Possible sources of demotivation in L2 writing To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, there exists only one empirical scale development study carried out specifically on writing demotivation (i.e. Kao, 2012). In her study, Kao (2012) developed a 56-item writing demotivation scale. Her scale revealed the role of internal and external factors on demotivation in L2 writing. The extracted factors related to L2 writing has undoubtedly contributed to the L2 writing demotivation field. However, her scale can be criticized regarding the choice of rotation method. Additionally, the validity process is another issue of interest. As was the case in many of the previously mentioned studies (e.g. Falout & Maruyama, 2004; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009), the lack of a validation process (i.e. CFA) can undermine the psychometric property of the scale developed by Kao (2012). It is worth to mention that the scale developed by Kao (2012) was used in a recent study by Wu et al. (2019) who studied the flipped writing instruction in relation to its effects on students’ writing demotivation as well as their L2 writing proficiency. Moreover, they explored students’ overall perceptions about online flipped writing instruction. The researchers adapted the “Demotivation Scale” developed by Kao (2012) to explore student’s writing demotivation. Nevertheless, there are certain problems in this adaptation process that cannot be disregarded. It is a rule of thumb that a reliability analysis procedure needs to be executed in the scale adaptation process. However, the mentioned study did not go through this procedure. Furthermore, the researchers eliminated two factors leaving seven factors of the original scale by stating no sound reason. There is no doubt that this negligence damages the original factor structure of the scale. 2.5. Present study Studies conducted on demotivation in general (e.g. Dörnyei, 1998; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009) and in the L2 writing field (e.g. Kao, 2012) made a great contribution to a better understanding of this complex phenomenon. However, there existed a few methodological concerns such as the sample size, types of analyses, relatively lower statistical scores, and so forth. In this respect, there is a need for a more robust scale to explore the possible sources of demotivation in L2 writing. Demotivation is a multifaceted and complex issue. Covering all aspects of demotivation with a scale may not be possible. Therefore, a demotivation scale with a new perspective will be helpful to explore the notion of demotivation in-depth. Additionally, given the domain-specific nature of demotivation, exploring L2 writing demotivation will provide more insightful and helpful information for the stakeholders in L2 writing instruction. More importantly, developing a writing demotivation scale by employing both EFA and CFA is a golden step for addressing the gap of psychometrically sound instruments to further explore this phenomenon in English writing education. 2.6. Research questions 1 What are the demotivating factors in L2 writing in Turkey? 2 Is the EWDES a psychometrically reliable instrument to measure EFL students’ English writing demotivation? 3 Is the EWDES a psychometrically valid instrument to measure EFL students’ English writing demotivation? 3. Methodology This study was designed as a descriptive study with a quantitative methodology. The main purpose of this study was to develop and validate a scale to explore the possible sources of writing demotivation. 3.1. Participants In order to develop and validate the EWDES, the researchers recruited a total of 874 Turkish EFL students from three different 5

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

Table 2 Demographic information of participants of the development phase.

Gender Institution

Grade

n

%

Male Female

84 435

16 84

Gazi U. N. Erbakan U. Sakarya U.

293 123 103

56 24 20

Prep. Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

27 157 175 131 29

5 30 34 25 6

Total

519

100

state universities through convenience sampling. Prospective EFL teachers were recruited for this study because of their English writing education background. In order to obtain more reliable results for the EWDES, the participants are supposed to have adequate L2 writing education background. The participants come from across the country to study in the ELT departments of the mentioned state universities. The participants of this study went through a selection process for university entrance in which their English proficiency was assessed. Since they had a high level of proficiency, the scale was administered in English. They were informed about the aim of the study, and their consent was received. The imbalance between the gender distribution originates from the natural distribution of the students in ELT departments in Turkey. In scale development studies, the number of participants is crucial for reliable results. Given that the aim of this study is to develop and validate a scale, in order to access the highest number of participants, this study adopted a convenience sampling method (Mackey & Gass, 2016). Since the present study was a two-phase study including Development and Validation Phases, the researchers used different datasets for each phase. In other words, the EFA and the CFA were conducted on different data and different participants. The distribution of the participants and their demographic information were summarized in Tables 2 and 3. The first phase of the study aimed to develop the EWDES constituted 519 prospective EFL teachers (84 males and 435 females). The majority of the participants were female (84 %) while only 16 % of them were male. These participants were from three different state universities which are among the well-known Turkish universities. More than half of the participants were from Gazi University (56 %). The rest of the participants were from Necmettin Erbakan (24 %) and Sakarya University (20 %). Regarding their grade, only 5 % and 6 % of the participants were from prep and senior grades, respectively. Thirty percent of the participants were freshmen, and 34 % of them were sophomores. Twenty-five percent of the participants were recruited from junior grade. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 34. The second phase of the study aimed to validate the model of the EWDES. To this end, 355 prospective EFL teachers involved in this phase. Again, because of the natural distribution of gender in ELT departments, the majority of the students were females with a percentage of 83, whereas male students constituted only 17 %. More than half of the participants (54 %) were studying at Gazi University, and 24 % and 22 % were from Necmettin Erbakan and Sakarya Universities, respectively. A small proportion of the participants were prep (5 %) and senior (6 %) students while the majority of the students were freshmen (31 %), sophomores (34 %), Table 3 Demographic information of participants of the validation phase.

Gender Institution

Grade

n

%

Male Female

61 294

17 83

Gazi U. N. Erbakan U. Sakarya U.

190 87 78

54 24 22

Prep. Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

19 111 122 84 19

5 31 34 24 6

Total

355

100

6

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

Fig. 1. The tentative framework for the possible sources of English writing demotivation.

and juniors (24 %). The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 37. 3.2. The development process of the EWDES Since devising a reliable and valid scale is a challenging task (Gillham, 2000), the essential stages should be executed properly. With this in mind, the researchers were guided by Dörnyei (2003) and DeVellis’s (2016) suggestions on scale development in the development process of the EWDES. The development procedure of the EWDES as shown in Fig. 2 involved meticulously designed steps. Initially, the researchers determined the construct (i.e. writing demotivation) to be measured clearly. The draft factors of the EWDES were devised in order to establish the theoretical basis of the study (Farhady, 1995). Because of the weakness of the theory of demotivation, it was a must to develop a tentative theoretical framework regarding writing demotivation (Fig. 1). In the body of the literature, the studies in motivation (e.g. Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011), demotivation (e.g. Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009), L2 writing instruction (e.g. Casanave, 2004; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Hyland, 2003; Manchon, 2012) and writing demotivation (i.e. Kao, 2012) were closely investigated. This systematic review of the literature was an attempt to increase the external and content validity of the EWDES. Accordingly, the researchers developed five tentative constructs as the Writing Teacher, the Nature of Writing, Learner’s Psychological Factors, Learner’s Academic Factors, and Educational Context (Table 4). In the development of the tentative constructs, the cornerstone studies of L2 writing instruction were covered. To be more specific, L2 writing instruction is a multifaceted ability which includes the writing teachers (e.g. Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Hyland, 2003) and learners (e.g. Hirvela, 2004; Kroll, 2003) as two main stakeholders, it is well situated in the literature that writing is a socially situated activity (e.g. Hyland, 2003; Kroll, 2003; Manchon, 2012). L2 writing has a distinctive nature that differentiates from writing in L1 in terms of social, cognitive, cultural, strategic, rhetorical and linguistic aspects (e.g. Hyland, 2003; Uysal, 2008). Kao revealed a perspective on writing demotivation issue with her scale. The factors proposed in the EWDES were found to be in congruent with the nine factors revealed in her study (Table 4). Therefore, it can be claimed that the tentative EWDES factors were built on a sound ground. Based on the five tentative constructs, the preliminary items of the study were originally derived from the literature in order to develop a 108-item pool. With respect to format for assessment, a five-point Likert scale, one of the most common scale formats, was employed as (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neutral, (4) agree, and (5) strongly agree. In order to enhance the face and content validity of the EWDES, two experts in the field of EFL and one expert in the field of assessment and evaluation were consulted for their opinions. The experts provided their opinions on the format and the nature of the items. Next, acting as a dress rehearsal, piloting was conducted with the participation of 110 students from three different state universities. During the piloting process, the participants’ reflection on the comprehensibility of the items were received. These reflections and the expert opinions helped to determine the ambiguities with relevant to the statements. The item pool was revised according to the expert opinions and the pilot study, and the items were reduced to 52. The reduced items were reexamined by the field experts again, and the final revision phase was conducted based on the opinions of the experts. Upon carrying out these processes, the researchers implemented the EWDES for the first (development) phase of the study. 3.3. Data analysis procedures The collected data were analyzed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using SPSS 22 in order to determine the factor structure of the EWDES. Before employing the factor analyses, data screening procedures (i.e. missing data and outliers) were used to 7

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

Table 4 The sources of tentative items and factors. Tentative Factors

Sources

The Writing Teacher

Casanave, 2004 Dörnyei, 1998 Falout & Maruyama, 2004 Grabe & Kaplan, 1996 Hyland, 2003 Kao, 2012 Kroll, 2003 Manchon, 2012 Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009 Uysal, 2008 Weigle, 2002 Alderman, 1999 Dörnyei, 1998, 2001 Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011 Falout et al., 2009 Falout & Maruyama, 2004 Hyland, 2003 Kao, 2012 Kaulaity, 2007 Kormos, 2012 Kroll, 2003 Manchon, 2012 Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009 Silva & Nicholls, 1993 Uysal, 2008 Casanave, 2004 Dörnyei, 1998 Grabe & Kaplan, 1996 Grabe & Zhang, 2013 Hirvela, 2004 Hyland, 2003 Kao, 2012 Kroll, 2003 Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009 Uysal, 2008 Casanave, 2004 Dörnyei, 1998 Grabe & Kaplan, 1996 Hyland, 2003 Kao, 2012 Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009 Uysal, 2008 Casanave, 2004 Dörnyei, 1998 Grabe & Kaplan, 1996 Hyland, 2003 Kroll, 2003 Manchon, 2012 Uysal, 2008 Weigle, 2002

Learner’s Psychological Factor

Learner’s Academic Factor

Educational Context

The Nature of Writing

prepare the collected data for analyses. In order to determine and replace the missing data, the researchers executed the expectationmaximization (EM) algorithm technique via the SPSS. As for the outliers, these extreme cases, which distort the statistical results, were identified through the Mahalanobis Distance method (p < .001). In addition, the EWDES involved both positively and negatively worded items in order to prevent the possible negative effects of ‘acquiescence bias’ (Dörnyei, 2007). The negatively worded items were recoded before the analysis. Then, a principal component analysis was adopted. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1950) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1974) were calculated to ensure the suitability of the data for the EFA. The factor structure of the EWDES was explored through adopting three techniques including the Kaiser criterion (Kaiser, 1960), scree plot (Cattell, 1966), and proportion of variance. Since it was assumed that there was a link among the underlying factors (Byrne, 1998), a principal axis factor analysis with direct-oblimin was used as the rotation method. The cutoff point for the item loadings was set as .30 (Dixon, 2001). Under the light of these criteria, the factors of the EWDES were determined. These hypothetical factors were tested during the analysis of the data, and the results were obtained. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in order to validate the factor structure of the scale via LISREL. Both absolute and incremental fit indices including Chi-Squared test (X2), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Standardized Root 8

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

Fig. 2. The processes of development and validation of the EWDES.

Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), Normed-fit index (NFI), Nonnormed-fit Index (NNFI), and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were used for determining the fit of the model. Hu and Bentler (1999); Kline (2005), and Chin and Todd’s (1995) fit indices criteria were heeded in interpreting the results of the CFA. With respect to the reliability and validity of the scale, the researchers executed several methods. In order to ensure the reliability of the EWDES, Cronbach Alpha was preferred to assess the internal consistency (Mackey & Gass, 2016). As for the validity, the researchers ensured content, face, and construct validity, among others. That is, these different validity types were ensured through a comprehensive review of literature, expert opinions, piloting, and factorial analyses. The steps taken for developing and validating the EWDES were presented in Fig. 2 below. 4. Results The results of the quantitative analysis with descriptive statistics are reported in this section. As a two-phase study, it involves both the results of the development and validation phases. Regarding the former phase, the results of EFA which aimed to explore the factor structure of the EWDES were presented, and the results of CFA in the latter phase based on the confirmation of the factor structure of the EWDES. The following charts and tables depict the descriptive statistics based on the results of the study. While a total of 551 EF L students were recruited for the development phase, a total of 367 EF L students participated in the validation phase of the study. The collected data were screened regarding missing data and outliers before the EFA and CFA. Because the rate of missing data was below 5 %, the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm technique was used to replace the missing data for both phases. Upon replacing the missing data, the researchers examined the outliers of the data. The result of the analysis of the Mahalanobis Distance (p < .001) revealed 32 extreme cases out of 551 cases, leaving 519 cases for the EFA. With respect to CFA, 12 outliers were explored via the Mahalanobis Distance technique (p < .001) and omitted from the dataset in order not to distort the results. This analysis left 355 cases for the CFA. In order to check the sampling adequacy for the EFA, the data were exposed to Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1950) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) (Kaiser, 1974). The results revealed that Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant for the EWDES (X2 (561) = 4512.142, p < .01), indicating that the assumption of sphericity was not violated (Field, 2013). Similarly, the KMO value was .91 which means that the sample size was adequate for the EFA (Field, 2013). In this study, the Principal Axis Factoring was employed for the factor extraction method. In addition, the direct-oblimin technique was used in order to interpret the latent factors since it was assumed that there might be correlations among the factors. In light of the results of the scree plot, Kaiser criterion, and proportion of variance, the number of factors was identified as five. Because of the low loadings and reliability issues, 18 statements were eliminated from the EWDES, leaving 34 items. Regarding factor loadings, they ranged from .34 to .76. With regard to the 9

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

Table 5 Descriptive statistics for English Writing Demotivation Scale (N = 519). No

M

SD

Min

Max

Skewness

Kurtosis

1(%)

2(%)

3(%)

4(%)

5(%)

2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 14 15 16 18 19 22 23 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 40 43 47 48 49 50 51 52

2.49 2.64 2.63 2.99 3.70 2.28 2.35 2.81 3.26 2.29 2.42 2.72 2.73 3.06 3.08 2.24 2.95 2.78 2.73 2.80 3.27 2.63 3.56 2.82 2.99 3.10 1.85 2.87 3.31 2.04 3.02 2.91 1.92 2.55

0.87 0.87 1.17 0.94 1.05 0.88 0.93 1.05 1.09 0.89 1.01 0.88 1.07 1.07 1.15 0.92 1.00 0.97 0.94 1.01 1.13 0.82 1.02 1.09 0.98 1.03 0.92 1.04 1.07 0.89 1.04 0.99 0.97 0.97

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

0.81 0.35 0.43 0.63 −0.65 0.76 0.67 0.28 −0.09 0.86 0.57 0.43 0.29 −0.08 −0.05 0.75 0.06 0.29 0.34 0.31 −0.09 0.43 −0.40 0.31 0.32 −0.03 1.05 0.23 −0.24 0.79 0.06 0.17 1.19 0.47

0.69 −0.20 −0.84 −0.82 −0.33 0.66 0.23 −0.77 −0.79 0.65 −0.24 −0.39 −0.75 −0.96 −1.12 0.41 −0.88 −0.38 −037 −0.82 −1.01 −0.27 −0.63 −0.70 −069 −0.83 0.73 −0.80 −0.83 0.43 −0.97 −0.68 1.27 −0.22

7 7 16 3 3 16 15 8 5 14 17 4 10 6 7 19 6 8 7 6 5 5 2 9 5 5 42 6 5 29 5 5 39 12

50 41 40 31 15 50 48 38 22 54 44 42 38 29 32 49 32 34 37 40 25 44 17 35 28 28 38 36 23 46 32 33 41 42

31 35 16 32 15 23 23 24 29 19 22 33 24 23 17 21 28 34 33 23 22 34 21 27 32 27 14 26 23 16 25 30 11 28

8 15 21 29 43 8 11 24 29 10 13 18 22 34 33 9 29 18 19 25 31 15 41 21 28 32 5 25 36 7 31 25 5 14

4 2 7 5 24 3 3 6 15 3 4 3 6 8 11 2 5 6 4 6 17 2 19 8 7 8 1 7 13 2 7 7 4 4

Note. The standard error of skewness is 0.11; the standard error of kurtosis is 0.21.

reliability of the EWDES, the Cronbach Alpha value turned out to be .91, indicating a very high internal consistency among the items (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018). The Cronbach alpha values of the factors ranged from .72 to .90, which suggests that the EWDES has a highly reliable instrument (Cohen et al., 2018) Descriptive statistics regarding the items are given in Table 5. Based on the mean scores, the most demotivating items were found as the following;

• “Writing skill is not given importance in national examinations in Turkey. (3.70)” • “I hate excessive amount of assignments in my writing classes. (3.56)” • “I am not encouraged to practice writing in English in our educational system. (3.31)” • “Practicing writing through homework assignments is boring for me. (3.27)” • “I think English writing textbooks are boring. (3.26)”; • “I have difficulty in generating various ideas in the process of writing. (3.10)” • “I did very little writing in my previous writing classes. (3.08)” • “Writing skill is neglected in English language teaching. (3.06)” • “I have difficulty in putting my thoughts into language in my writing class. (3.02)” The five factors of the EWDES were named according to two criteria including the nature of items in each factor and literature review. In addition, the tentative factors presented earlier (Table 4) formed a theoretical framework for the structure of the factors and their naming. Accordingly, the Self-Perceived Writing Competence factor refers to students’ perception toward their ability to write (e.g. Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Hyland, 2003; Pollington, Wilcox, & Morrison, 2001). The Teacher Practices factor covers the effects of the teacher as well as teacher-student relationships on students’ L2 writing demotivation (e.g. Kao, 2012; Manchon, 2012; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009; Weigle, 2002). The Attitudinal Aspects factor refers to the source of demotivation stemmed from learners’ negative attitude toward writing (e.g. Alderman, 1999; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Falout & Maruyama, 2004). The Writing Materials and Methods factor refers to the role and effects of instructional materials and methods adopted in teaching L2 writing (e.g. Christophel & Gorham, 1995; Falout & Maruyama, 2004; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009). The Teaching/Learning Context factor focuses on the effects of educational system and classroom practices (e.g. Casanave, 2004; Dörnyei, 1998; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Uysal, 2008). 10

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

Table 6 Descriptive statistics of the demotivating factors. Component name

Number of items

Mean

SD

Skewness

Kurtosis

Self-Perceived Writing Competence Teacher Practices Attitudinal Aspects Writing Materials and Methods Teaching/Learning Context

11 7 6 5 5

2.84 2.53 2.20 3.17 3.15

.65 .64 .60 .72 .71

0.037 0.51 0.46 −0.12 0.015

−0.51 0.33 0.22 −0.26 −0.51

Note. The standard error of skewness is 0.11; the standard error of kurtosis is 0.21.

According to Table 6, the most demotivating factors were found as the Writing Materials and Methods factor with 3.17 mean and the Teaching/Learning Context factor with 3.15 mean. On the other hand, the lowest demotivating factor among the participants of this study was found as the Attitudinal Aspects with 2.20. The EFA results revealed a five-factor structure of the EWDES. The factors with their Eigenvalues are presented in Table 7. These factors accounted for 42.56 % of the variance. The Cronbach Alpha values ranged from .72 to .90 which indicated a high level of reliability. Of the extracted factors, the Self-Perceived L2 Writing Competence factor constituted 11 items with the lowest item-loading as .46. The Teacher Practices factor composed of 7 items being the lowest item-loading .39. The Attitudinal Aspects factor included 6 items, and the lowest item loading was .35. The Writing Materials and Methods factor constituted 5 items with the lowest item-loading as .42. Finally, the Teaching/Learning Context factor involved 5 items, and the lowest item-loading was .43 (Table 8). The validation phase reveals the results obtained from 355 EF L students’ responses to 34-item EWDES. The researchers employed the CFA via LISREL in order to verify the underlying constructs which were identified through the EFA in the first phase of the study. This study adopted a second-order confirmatory factor analysis since it was presumed that there was interrelatedness among the factors of the EWDES (Brown, 2006). While the five factors are the first-order factors, writing demotivation acts as a second-order construct. In this phase, the model-fit indices were calculated in order to determine the goodness of fit of the data. Both absolute (i.e. the relative/normed Chi-Square (X2/df), the RMSEA, the SRMR, the GFI, and the AGFI and incremental (i.e. the NFI, the NNFI, and the CFI) fit indices were employed to evaluate the model fit of the EWDES. The results revealed that the Relative X2 value was 2.01, which was below and suitable for the cutoff criterion (Kline, 2005). The RMSEA value was .045 (90 % CI = .041–.048), which was below the threshold of ≤ .06, and the SRMR had .065, which was lower than the cut-off value of ≤ .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). As for the GFI, and AGFI values, they were .88 and .86, respectively. According to Chin and Todd (1995), these values were close to a good fit. Still, taken together, these values situated at an acceptable level. With respect to incremental fit indices, the NFI value of .93 was greater than the cutoff of ≥ .90, and the NNFI and the CFI values of .96 were above the threshold of ≥.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In light of these findings, it is safe to claim that the model fits the data well (Table 9). 5. Discussion & conclusion The results of the present study revealed that there existed five factors that demotivated Turkish EFL students with varying degrees. These factors were found as; 1) Self-perceived L2 Writing Competence, 2) Teacher Practices, 3) Attitudinal Aspects, 4) Writing Materials and Methods, and 5) Teaching/Learning Context. Considering these results of the study, these factors were mainly in congruent with the results of the previous studies (e.g. Falout et al., 2009; Kao, 2012) and the tentative factors of the earlier phase of this study. The tentative factors developed by the researchers were compared to the extracted factors and a congruence between them was obtained (Fig. 3). The congruence was based on the number of the items from the tentative factors represented in the extracted factors. For instance, five out of seven items in the Teacher Practices factor were originated from the tentative Writing Teacher factor. Similarly, three out of six items in the Attitudinal Aspects factor were originated from the tentative Writing Teacher factor which was still the highest represented factor in the extracted factor. Because during factor analysis some of the items were eliminated, and thus, the nature of the factors was affected, it was a must for the researchers to rename the factors according to the nature of the items covered. Seemingly, unexpected conversion of the tentative Leaner’s Psychological Factors into Writing Materials and Methods factor can stem from the fact that the former was composed of items that referred the learner psychology in terms of various aspects including the effect of materials and methods used in L2 writing. Those items referring materials and methods along with two other related items from different tentative factors were grouped under the Writing Materials and Methods factor. The third and fourth tentative Table 7 The results from the English Writing Demotivation Scale (N = 519). Component name

Eigenvalue

% of variance

Cumulative (%)

ɑ

Self-Perceived Writing Competence Teacher Practices Attitudinal Aspects Writing Materials and Methods Teaching/Learning Context

9.02 3.23 1.94 1.59 1.54

24.97 7.94 3.98 2.88 2.77

24.97 32.91 36.90 39.78 42.56

.90 .81 .76 .72 .73

11

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

Table 8 Factor analysis of English Writing Demotivation Scale. No

Item

F1

Factor One: Self-Perceived L2 Writing Competence (ɑ = .90) 28 I have difficulty in creating well-constructed sentences. 19 I feel I cannot be a good writer. 49 I have difficulty in putting my thoughts into language in my writing class. 38 I have difficulty in generating various ideas in the process of writing. 4 I am confident in writing in English. 11 I do not like writing in English because of my insufficient topic knowledge. 43 I have difficulty in using writing strategies (planning, writing, revising, editing, etc.) in my writing classes. 33 I am good at organizing the text into a meaningful whole. 18 I am good at applying the concepts like thesis statement, topic sentence, cohesive devices, coherence etc. while writing in English. 31 I lost my interest to write in English because of the complex processes. 6 Considering the needs and expectations of readers makes me nervous. Factor Two: Teacher Practices (ɑ = .81) 9 I like my writing teacher. 10 My writing teacher scores my writing assignments fairly. 15 My writing teacher gives clear instruction in the writing classes. 52 My writing teacher encourages me to practice writing in English. 35 My writing teacher gives immediate feedback to my assignments. 2 My writing classroom environment is friendly. 50 The way my writing teacher presents the writing course is boring. Factor Three: Attitudinal Aspects (ɑ = .76) 51 Writing in English is unnecessary for my future life. 26 I find it unnecessary to spend effort to learn about the sociocultural norms and patterns of the target community to write appropriately. 40 My writing teacher makes fun of my errors in the writing classes. 48 My writing teacher gets annoyed when I make a mistake in my writing class. 16 I do not believe in the usefulness of practicing stages of writing such as planning, drafting, revising, editing etc. 30 I am discouraged to write in English because my writing teacher pays more attention to accuracy than fluency in English writing classes. Factor 4: Writing Materials and Methods (ɑ = .72) 32 Practicing writing through homework assignments is boring for me. 34 I hate excessive amount of assignments in my writing classes. 14 I think English writing textbooks are boring. 37 Artificial writing assignments given by my teacher are not interesting for me. 29 Writing topics are not interesting for me. Factor 5: Teaching/Learning Context (ɑ = .73) 22 Writing skill is neglected in English language teaching classes. 7 Writing skill is not given importance in national examinations in Turkey. 5 My teacher skipped the writing part of the course book in my previous English classes. 47 I am not encouraged to practice writing in English in our educational system. 23 I did very little writing in my previous writing classes.

F2

F3

F4

F5

0.768 0.707 0.697 0.686 0.649 0.642 0.576 0.547 0.537 0.524 0.463 0.705 0.692 0.652 0.589 0.483 0.464 0.390 0.686 0.605 0.579 0.548 0.507 0.348 0.615 0.601 0.479 0.467 0.420 0.684 0.507 0.447 0.441 0.429

Table 9 The results of the Model Fit Indices. Fit Indices

Values

2

Relative X (Chi-Square/df) RMSEA (90 %) SRMR GFI AGFI NFI NNFI CFI

2.01 .045 (.041–.048) .065 .88 .86 .93 .96 .96

factors were melted in the Self-perceived L2 Writing Competence factor. When the nature of the items in the tentative factors considered this situation is not surprising. Regarding the fifth factor, there was a full congruence with minor revision. In line with the results revealed in Kao’s (2012) study, students’ own perceptions regarding their writing competence were found as an important factor affecting their demotivation in L2 writing in the present study. Because writing skill is a neglected aspect of language learning both in L1 and L2 in the Turkish educational context (Gökalp & Gonca, 2001; Inal, 2006), Turkish EFL students can regard their self-perceptions towards their writing competence as one of the sources of their demotivation in L2 writing. Furthermore, the fact that writing is included in neither L1 nor L2 national exams may lead the students to disregard this skill, and this, in turn, may hamper their perceptions toward their writing competence. 12

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

Fig. 3. The congruence between the tentative and extracted factors.

Teacher-related factors were found as another salient demotivating factor in demotivation literature (e.g. Arai, 2004; Falout & Maruyama, 2004; Kao, 2012; Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009; Zhang, 2007). For instance, in her study, Kao (2012) found that three of the nine demotivating factors were related to teacher practices. In line with the results in Kao’s (2012) study, the Teacher Practices appeared as an influential factor in writing demotivation in this study. As expected in the Turkish context which is claimed to have a teachercentered educational environment, the teacher practices are quite influential on students’ language learning process. It has been well recognized that attitude is of paramount importance in language learning (Dörnyei & Csizer, 2002; Dörnyei, 1998). Within this context, it is quite predictable that attitudinal aspects can have an important impact on L2 writing demotivation. In this study, the Attitudinal Aspects was found to be an influential factor on learners’ demotivation in L2 writing. However, compared to other factors extracted in this study, the Attitudinal Aspects factor was found to be the least effective factor on L2 writing demotivation. In demotivation studies conducted in Japan, Hamada and Kito (2008) found that low achievers started to develop negative attitudes towards English earlier than high achievers. In light of this, it can be discussed that since the participants of the present study have a high level of language proficiency, they may have a positive attitude towards L2 writing. Therefore, it is safe to claim that the Attitudinal Aspects factor has the lowest mean score in affecting writing demotivation. As stated above, because of the negligence of writing skill in Turkey, teachers may use inappropriate methods and materials to teach L2 writing, and, thus, pre-service teachers might not have received sufficient training on the methods and techniques toward teaching L2 writing. Therefore, the Writing Materials and Methods is among the factors that affect L2 writing demotivation of Turkish EFL learners. In this respect, it can be discussed that without being provided a sufficient writing training, the learners are overloaded with assignments. This situation was underscored with the item “I hate excessive amount of assignments in my writing classes.” with a 3.56 mean score which again indicates that students mostly answered this item coding 4 or 5 in the EWDES. This result was consistent with the results of Sakai and Kikuchi (2009) in which one of the demotivating factors was learning contents and materials. Similarly, among others, the teaching method and content factor was an influential demotivating factor in Kao’s (2012) study. The Teaching/Learning Context factor refers to the political and environmental elements of education which is one of the main issues of debate in education. The stakeholders in education such as teachers, parents, students, and politicians, etc. agree on the insufficient education system in Turkey. Although it is unclear that this insufficiency is real or perceived, its existence is a commonly agreed problem. Within this context, it is not surprising that the Teaching/Learning Context was considered as an effective factor in L2 writing demotivation. This result is consistent with the findings of Kao’s (2012) study in which the classroom atmosphere and teaching material was an important source of writing demotivation among the university students. In the language education system of Turkey, the language teaching practices are mainly guided by multiple-choice high-stake assessment with negligence of writing in L2. Confirming this fact, the highest mean score in this study, belongs to the statement “Writing skill is not given importance in national examinations in Turkey.” with 3.70, revealing that most of the students were agree or strongly agree with the statement. Overall as it is the case in Dörnyei’s (1998), Sakai and Kikuchi’s (2009), and Kao’s (2012) studies, in this study, the external factors were more prominent compared to the internal ones. Among the factors extracted in our study, three of them were external (Teacher Practices, Writing Materials and Methods, and Teaching/Learning Context) while two of them were internal factors (SelfPerceived Writing Competence and Attitudinal Aspects). The fact that some other studies (e.g. Falout & Maruyama, 2004) found a higher number of internal factors than the external ones may stem from the contexts of the studies. In conclusion, items with the highest mean scores (3 or above mean score) gathered under three factors as the Teaching/Learning Context (4 items), the Writing Materials and Methods (3 items), and the Self-Perceived L2 Writing Competence (2 items). The possible reason for this distribution may stem from the language policies in Turkey. Within this context, the methods and materials incorporated into the L2 writing instruction can contribute to the learners’ demotivation. Based on this, the learners can perceive themselves as incompetent which, in turn, can lead to an increase in their L2 writing demotivation, as well. The remaining two factors which demotivated learners less compared to other factors are the Teacher Practices and the Attitudinal Aspects. It can be claimed that since the writing skill is not taught as a separate course, if not neglected, in the Turkish context, the teacher practices may not be considered at the forefront of demotivation by the participants compared to other factors. As for the Attitudinal Aspects factor, the possible reason behind its relative influence on writing demotivation may be explained as since the participants of this study have higher proficiency, their negative attitude toward L2 writing may be lower (Hamada & Kito, 2008). 13

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

5.1. Limitations & implications This study has several limitations. Since it was a cross-sectional study in which students’ perceptions were gathered at one point in time, the changes in demotivation levels of students over a period of time (Ushioda, 1998) cannot be predicted. Therefore, a longitudinal study might be conducted to see this change. Another limitation is related to the data collection nature of the study. Because it is a quantitative and exploratory study based on students’ self-reports, in-depth information can be obtained by using qualitative data collection methods besides the EWDES. Future studies can be carried out to identify the reasons behind the sources of writing demotivation by using different data collection methods such as focus group interviews. Besides, L2 writing demotivation can be investigated from the perspectives of teachers as well. Then, for more insightful understanding and knowledge, a comparative analysis of students’ and teachers’ perceptions of sources of writing demotivation can be performed. It is also important to replicate this study in different educational settings to better verify the EWDES because demotivation has contextual nature. In this way, the EWDES will contribute to the theoretical knowledge base of writing demotivation research. Through administering the EWDES in different contexts, the researchers can have the chance to get a clear picture of this complex phenomenon and to compare the results for deeper insights. Given the fact that there is a scarcity of research on writing demotivation which is one of the main determinants of learner’s writing performance, among others, the EWDES is an important opportunity for language teachers to diagnose and gain deeper insights about the demotivated L2 learners in writing classrooms through administering this instrument. In this sense, the exploration of demotivating factors in L2 writing will be the first step toward the development of learner’s writing performance. Demotivation is such a powerful obstacle to students’ writing performance that one demotivating factor can eliminate the positive effects of ten motivating factors (Rost, 2004, cited in Falout & Falout, 2005). It is plausible that reducing the level of demotivation can promote student motivation (Gorham & Christophel, 1992). Pedagogically, they can take the necessary measures including adjusting their teaching methods and materials, the learning environment along with taking action towards the psychological aspects of writing such as developing a positive attitude and self-confidence and creating a secure and motivating atmosphere in the process of L2 writing instruction. This study revealed that L2 writing materials and methods and teaching/learning context can have a negative influence on learners’ affective engagement. Policymakers can reevaluate the language policies relevant to L2 writing skill to improve the quality of writing education. Equally important, policymakers need to recognize that the negligence of L2 writing in the educational system can demotivate students. Therefore, they should pay more attention to L2 writing instruction, especially in EFL contexts. Note An earlier version of this study was presented as an oral presentation at “EATAW 2015 8th Biennial Conference of the European Association for the Teaching of Academic Writing”. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 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. References Alderman, M. K. (1999). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Arai, K. (2004). What “demotivates” language learners?: Qualitative study on demotivational factors and learners’ reaction. Bulletin of Toyo Gakuen University, 12, 39–47. Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 77–85. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. Chin, W. W., & Todd, P. A. (1995). On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modelling in MIS research: A note of caution. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 237–246. Christophel, D., & Gorham, J. (1995). A test-retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education, 44, 292–306. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). London; New York: Routledge. 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. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dixon, J. H. (2001). Factor analysis. In B. H. Munro (Ed.). Statistical methods for health care research (pp. 303–329). (4th ed.). New York: Lippincott. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 273–284. Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117–135. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research. New York: Routledge.

14

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M. Karaca and S. Inan

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (2002). Motivational dynamics in second language acquisition: Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23, 421–462. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Falout, J., Elwood, J., & Hood, M. (2009). Demotivation: Affective states and learning outcomes. System, 37, 403–417. Falout, J., & Falout, M. (2005). The other side of motivation: Learner demotivation. In K. Bradford-Watts, C. Ikeguchi, & M. Swanson (Eds.). JALT2004 Conference Proceedings. Falout, J., & Maruyama, M. (2004). A comparative study of proficiency and learner demotivation. The Language Teacher, 28(8), 3–9. Farhady, H. (1995). Research methods in applied linguistics. Tehran: Payame-Noor University Press. 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. Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Dörnyei, & Schimidt (Eds.). Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 1–19). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai Press. Gillham, B. (2000). Developing a questionnaire. New York, NY: Continuum. Gökalp, G., & Gonca, A. (2001). Derslikten Günlük Yaşama Edebiyat Eğitimi. Türkbilig 2000/I Türkoloji Araştırmaları185–202. Gorham, J., & Christophel, D. M. (1992). Students' perceptions of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Quarterly, 40(3), 239–252. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London and New York: Longman. Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 9–24. Hamada, Y., & Kito, K. (2008). Demotivation in Japanese high schools. JALT 2007 Conference Proceedings, 168–178. Hayes, J. R., & 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: Lawrance Erlbaum Assoc. Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. 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. Hu, R. (2011). The relationship between demotivation and EFL learners’ English language proficiency. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 88–96. Huot, B. (2002). (Re)-articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Logan: Utah State University Press. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Express. Inal, S. (2006). İngilizce Yazılı Anlatım Dersinin Sorunları Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 2(2), 180–203. Johns, A. (2009). The future of second language writing instruction. Paper Presented at the Symposium on Second Language Writing. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36. Kao, T.-N. R. (2012). Factor analysis of English writing demotivation among Central Taiwan University students. Unpublished Master’s thesis,Taichung, Taiwan: Providence University. Karaca, M. (2018). The development, validation, and implementation of an inventory on English writing teachers’ beliefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Ankara, Turkey: Gazi University. Kaulaity, M. (2007). Writing beliefs among Navajo college freshmen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,USA: Arizona State University. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.). The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403. Kroll, B. (Ed.). (2003). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lee, I. (1998). Writing in the Hong Kong secondary classroom: Teachers’ believes and practices. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 61–76. Lee, I. (2007). Assessment for learning: Integrating assessment, teaching, and learning in the ESL/EFL writing classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 199–213. Lo, J., & Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 219–237. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. 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. Nunan, D. (1991). Understanding language classrooms: A guide for teacher-initiated action. Prentice Hall Internat. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.). Handbook of writing research (pp. 158–170). New York, NY: Guilford. Pollington, M. F., Wilcox, B., & Morrison, T. G. (2001). Self-perception in writing: The effects of writing workshop and traditional instruction on intermediate grade students. Reading Psychology, 22(4), 249–265. Raubenheimer, J. (2004). An item selection procedure to maximize scale reliability and validity. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(4), 59–64. Sakai, H., & Kikuchi, K. (2009). An analysis of demotivation in the EFL classroom. System, 37, 57–69. Shaver, J. P. (1990). Reliability and validity of measures of attitudes toward writing and toward writing with the computer. Written Communication, 7(3), 375–392. 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., & Nicholls, J. G. (1993). College students as writing theorists: Goals and beliefs about the causes of success. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 281–293. Rost, M. (2004). Gernerating student motivation. A paper presented at the Longman Teacher Training Tour. Ushioda, E. (1998). Effective motivational thinking: A cognitive theoretical approach to the study of language learning motivation. In E. A. Soler, & V. C. Espurz (Eds.). Current issues in English language methodology (pp. 77–89). Spain: Universitat Jaume I, Catello de la Plana. 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. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. White, M. J., & Bruning, R. (2005). Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 166–189. Wu, W. C. V., Yang, J. C., Scott Chen Hsieh, J., & Yamamoto, T. (2019). Free from demotivation in EFL writing: The use of online flipped writing instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–35. Zhang, L. J. (2016). Reflections on the pedagogical imports of western practices for professionalizing ESL/EFL writing and writing-teacher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(3), 203–232. Zhang, Q. (2007). Teacher misbehaviors as learning demotivators in college classrooms: A cross-cultural investigation in China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Education, 56(2), 209–227. Dr. Mehmet Karaca holds a PhD degree from Gazi University, ELT Department. Currently, he is working as an English teacher in a private school. He participated in many international conferences such as the SSLW 2014, the Biennial EATAW 2015 Conference, IAWE Conference in 2015, and SBATEYL Conference in 2017. Serhat Inan completed his MA at Gazi University, ELT Department in 2016. He is pursuing his PhD at Hacettepe University. He participated in many international conferences in the field such as the SSLW 2014, the Biennial EATAW 2015 Conference, IAWE Conference in 2015, and SBATEYL Conference in 2017.

15