Content uploaded by Habtamu Gebrekidan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Habtamu Gebrekidan on Jul 14, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching
Volume 8, Number 1, pp: 107-122, June 2024
e-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672
DOI: 10.30743/ll.v8i1.8949
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 107
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
A PHENOMENOGRAPHIC STUDY ON EFL TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS
OF TEACHING WRITING
Habtamu GebreKidan1, Assefa Zeru2
1Department of English Language and Literature,
Wollo University, Dessie Ethiopia
2Department of Foreign Languages and Literature,
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
E-mail: habtamug2011@gmail.com
Received: 2024-02-20 Accepted: 2024-05-24 Published: 2024-06-29
Abstract
Teachers’ conceptions and approaches to teaching have stronger influence
on students’ learning orientations and learning outcomes. This research
aimed at examining English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’
conceptions of teaching writing by adopting qualitative research design
with interpretative ontological and epistemological assertions. To this end,
16 EFL teachers working at Wollo University, Dessie Campus were involved
in semi-structured interviews arranged to explore the different ways that
EFL teachers understand teaching writing. The interviews transcribed
verbatim and analyzed using phenomenographic data analysis scheme. As
the results of the study revealed, six qualitatively different conceptions of
teaching writing were identified: (1) awareness-raising, (2) equipping, (3)
mimicking, (4) co-writing, (5) practicing, and (6) inspiring conceptions of
teaching writing. Three dimensions of variation such as conceptions of
writing, locus of teaching writing and beliefs in acquisition of writing skills
were discovered to show hierarchical relationships among the categories
from simplistic (surface) conceptions of teaching to sophisticated (deep)
conceptions of teaching writing. Accordingly, inclusiveness and complexity
of teaching conceptions increased as we moved from Category 1 to
Category 6. Equipping and practicing conceptions were found to be the
most frequently reported conceptions of teaching writing, but institutional
and contextual factors adversely impacted the feasibility of practicing
conceptions of teaching in EFL writing classes. The findings generally
revealed EFL teachers’ tendency to surface conceptions of teaching writing.
The study have implications to depict teachers’ orientation to create
educational environments that foster deep conceptions and approaches to
teaching and learning writing skills at Ethiopian universities.
Keywords: EFL teachers’ beliefs; teaching conceptions; approaches to teaching writing.
1. Introduction
In any teaching context, teachers play significant role to nurture a well-functioning
learning environment. Hence, a well thought out curriculum, methodology and teaching
material would not serve their purpose if the classroom teacher could not orchestrate them
A Phenomenographic Study on EFL Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching Writing, Habtamu Gebrekidan, Assefa
Zeru
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 108
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
appropriately. Accordingly, teacher factor is considered indispensable by assuming not only
the teachers’ content knowledge but also their conceptions and approaches to teaching. In
the 3p models of learning by Biggs and Moore (1993) as cited in Dart, et al. (2000: 263),
teaching conception is considered as an element of the context of teaching that has
bidirectional relationship with both student characteristics and students’ approaches to
learning.
Conceptions of teaching, therefore, is defined as “the belief held by teachers about
their preferred ways of teaching and learning” (Chan and Elliott, 2004: 819 as quoted in Qi,
2022: 316). Teaching conceptions are also viewed as the philosophical foundations of
teaching behaviors and activities in the classroom (Freeman and Richards, 1993; Aypay,
2010; Richards and Lockhart, 1994: 58). Teachers manage their professional practice on the
basis of their assumptions of teaching. In line with this idea, Biggs and Tang (2007: 15) state,
“how effectively we teach depends first on what we think teaching is”. However, conception
of teaching has been an issue of academic discussion predominantly in the field of EFL/ESL
teacher-education programs (Qi, 2022: 316). Yet, teaching conceptions have considerable
effects on every teacher’s views of language teaching and their adoption of different
language teaching approaches.
Teachers’ conceptions of teaching influence their adoption of teaching strategies
(Lam and Kember, 2006: 694; Kember, 1997: 255; Gao and Watkins, 2002: 61 ; Qi,2022: 316;
Xu, 2012: 1399). Researches have also shown the relationship between conceptions of
teaching and approaches to teaching (Trigwell and Prosser, 1996). As teaching conceptions
reflect teachers’ values, worldviews, and philosophies of teaching, teachers’ conceptions and
beliefs indisputably influence their teaching tendencies. Teaching tendencies are reflected
on teachers’ pedagogical decisions and classroom practices. According to Kember and Kwan
(2000), teaching tendencies can be skewed towards two contrasting approaches to teaching:
content-centered and learning-centered approaches to teaching. These contrasting teaching
approaches are also referred to as teacher-focused and student-focused approaches to
teaching (Trigwell et.al 1974 as cited in Gibbs and Coffey 2004). Content- centered or
teacher-focused teaching approach emphasizes transmission of structured set of knowledge.
On the other hand, learning-centered or student-focused-teaching approach emphasizes
helping students learn by facilitating learning. Especially, in Higher Learning Institutes (HLIs)
where self-directed, independent and out-of class learning is promoted, teachers’
conceptions of teaching play pivotal role to determine students’ learning orientation and
learning outcomes as well. In line with this idea, Biggs (1999: 61) states that teaching
conceptions cue teachers’ teaching effectiveness. Gracio, et al. (2023: 1-3) also highlight the
effects of teachers’ conceptions of teaching on the quality of students’ learning. Despite
conceptions of teaching having a range of implications to teaching quality and effectiveness,
they remain implicit and relegated from scholarly communications (Putnam & Borko, 2000
as cited in Colombo and Priori, 2016). Especially in language teaching, the relegation of
teachers’ conceptions of teaching is claimed by Freeman and Richards (1993) as follows:
Conceptions of language teaching and the work of language teachers
which shape the multiple activities in the field of second language
instruction are generally tacit and often go unquestioned.
Even if conceptions of language teaching appear to be implicit and “unquestioned”,
they are inevitable parts of the teaching and learning process because teachers cannot work
Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching
Volume 8, Number 1, pp: 107-122, June 2024
e-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672
DOI: 10.30743/ll.v8i1.8949
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 109
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
without some kind of teaching assumptions. Yet, teachers may not always be conscious of
their own conceptions of teaching (Gow and Kember 1993 as cited in Biggs and Tang 2007:
15; Farrell 2016 as cited Kariminzadeh and Langaroudi, 2019: 157). No matter how teachers
appear to be unaware of the theoretical assumptions of their teaching, they cannot work as
a teacher without having conceptions of teaching. That is why, Peikoff (1991: 1) states
“…man by his nature as a conceptual being, cannot function at all without some form of
philosophy to serve as his guide.”
As researches and teaching experiences proven, teaching writing in EFL context is
complex, challenging and problematic (Kong, 2018: 285; Nezakatgoo, 2011: 231; Kalra,
Sundrarajun & Komintarachat, 2017: 293; Pouyan, Heydarpour & Aghajanzadeh, 2016: 124).
One of the reasons for the complexity of teaching EFL writing is lack of adequate information
about “teachers’ knowledge base of writing” (Lee, 2010 as cited in Kong, 2018: 285). The
other attribute for the complexity of teaching EFL writing is teachers’ lack of sufficient
knowledge on how students write in languages other than their mother tongue
(Khanalizadeh and Allami, 2012: 334). Additionally, teaching EFL writing requires “high
competence in language” and expertise level knowledge “to respond to students’ writing”
(Ferris, 2007 as cited in Uddin,2014: 64). He further argues that in the absence of any
professional development program that synchronizes teachers’ conceptions of teaching, the
teachers’ personal experiences as a learner and their intuition play active role to determine
their teaching approaches. Accordingly, understanding EFL teachers’ conceptions of and
approaches to teaching writing in Ethiopian HLIs is expected to give clear insight about the
nature of teachers’ beliefs and their current classroom practices.
As far as the researchers’ knowledge is concerned, no previous study examine EFL
teachers’ conceptions of teaching writing using phenomenographic data collection and
analysis scheme. Accordingly, this study is designed to answer the following research
questions:
1. What are the different ways that EFL teachers understand teaching writing skills?
2. How the different categories of descriptions are related one another hierarchically?
3. What is the general tendency of EFL teachers’ conceptions and approaches to teaching
writing in an outcome space?
2. Literature Review
2.1 Conceptions of Teaching EFL Writing
Conceptions of teaching is defined as “the belief held by teachers about their
preferred ways of teaching and learning” (Chan and Elliott, 2004, p.819 as quoted in Qi,
2022, 316). Accordingly, teaching conceptions are the philosophical foundations of teaching
behaviors and activities in the classroom (Freeman and Richards 1993; Aypay, 2010; Richards
and Lockhart, 1994 p.58). Teachers manage their professional practice on the basis of their
assumptions of teaching. In line with this idea, Biggs and Tang (2007, p.15) state, “how
effectively we teach depends first on what we think teaching is”. However, conceptions of
teaching has been an issue of academic discussion predominantly in the field of EFL/ESL
teacher-education programs (Qi, 2022, p.316). Yet, teaching conceptions have considerable
effects on every teacher’s views of language teaching and their adoption of different
language teaching approaches.
A Phenomenographic Study on EFL Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching Writing, Habtamu Gebrekidan, Assefa
Zeru
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 110
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
In 1990’s the emergence of constructivism as a philosophical movement instigated
two contrasting conceptions of teaching and learning: traditional and constructivist
(Westwood, 2004, pp.20-22; 2008, pp.3-5). Changes in general education also have effects
on changes in EFL/ESL methodologies. As a result, two contrasting perspectives of language
teaching started to appear in ESL pedagogy: product- oriented and process- oriented view of
language (Smith 1996 as cited in Qi, 2022, p.316). He made further illustrations of the
theoretical models. The theoretical basis of product -oriented teaching model views
language as an entity to be learned, and the teaching and learning of language skills
emphasized mastering desecrate language items. On the other hand, in process-oriented
view, language is considered as an activity to be used in different communication contexts.
Thus, the focus of teaching and learning is considered to be communication and meaning
rather than accuracy and form.
The effects of conceptions of teaching on the nature of instructional decisions as well
as actual teaching practices have been established in the literature even though the issue
still invites more empirical research. In general, the works of Kember and Kwan (2000), Lam
and Kember (2006), and Gibbs and Coffey (2004) have shown the effects of teachers’
conceptions of teaching on the nature of teaching and learning practices. Similarly,
researchers in English Language Teaching (ELT) have also shown the effects of conceptions of
teaching on instructional practices and assessment schemes in language teaching in general
and teaching writing in particular (Tagle,et.al ,2017,P.188; Xu, 2012, 1397 ; Mc Carthey,
1992; Borg, 2001, P.187 )
2.2 Approaches to Teaching EFL Writing
Teachers’ conceptions of teaching influence their adoption of teaching strategies
(Lam and Kember, 2006, p.694; Kember, 1997, p.255; Gao and Watkins, 2002,p.61 ;
Qi,2022,p.316; Xu, 2012, p.1399). Researches have also shown the relationship between
conceptions of teaching and approaches to teaching (Trigwell and Prosser, 1996). As
teaching conceptions reflect teachers’ values, worldviews, and philosophies of teaching,
teachers’ conceptions and beliefs indisputably influence their teaching tendencies. Teaching
tendencies are reflected on teachers’ pedagogical decisions and classroom practices.
According to Kember and Kwan (2000), teaching tendencies can be skewed towards two
contrasting approaches to teaching: content-centered and learning-centered approaches to
teaching. These contrasting teaching approaches are also referred to as teacher-focused and
student-focused approaches to teaching (Trigwell et.al 1974 as cited in Gibbs and Coffey
2004). Content- centered or teacher-focused teaching approach emphasizes transmission of
structured set of knowledge. On the other hand, learning-centered or student-focused-
teaching approach emphasizes helping students learn by facilitating learning.
The two general assumptions of language teaching and learning are also reflected on the
approaches to teaching EFL writing: product- oriented and process- oriented teaching
approach. However, methodological limitations of each approach and the intention to have
blended approaches to teaching writing resulted in the integration of two additional
alternative approaches to teaching writing, genre-approach and process-genre approach to
teaching writing ( Bedgar and White, 2000,p.157). On the basis of the objectives of the
research, reviews of the two contrasting approaches, namely the product- oriented
approach and the process-oriented approach, were made.
Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching
Volume 8, Number 1, pp: 107-122, June 2024
e-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672
DOI: 10.30743/ll.v8i1.8949
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 111
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
The basic characteristics of product- oriented and process- oriented approaches of
teaching writing have been presented on the basis of the reviews made by Bedgar and
White (2000); Klimova (2013); Ouidani and Baghdadi (2022), Accordingly, product- oriented
approach is a text based and traditional approach that emphasizes teaching discrete
linguistic skill. Language form is given attention rather than the content. Authoritative texts
are also presented to students in order to imitate or adapt the linguistic forms. According to
Pincas (1982b as cited in Bedgar and White, 2000, p.153) product based approach
emphasized linguistic knowledge such as appropriate use of vocabulary, syntax and cohesive
devices. On the other hand, process – based approach, which most of the teachers claimed
to employ in their classroom, incorporates lots of the features of constructivist conceptions
of teaching (Graham and Harris, 1994, p. 275). Process based writing focuses on the stages
of the writing process such as planning, writing, revising and editing. The students learn
writing in their effort to meet a certain communication goal. Accordingly, writing activities
give due attention to collaborative-group writing, peer editing, drafting and rewriting, and
teacher-student conferencing.
3. Research Method
3.1 Design of the Study
This research employed a qualitative research design, specifically emphasizing the
phenomenographic data analysis framework. This methodological choice aimed to deeply
investigate the varying ways EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers understand and
approach the task of teaching writing.
The qualitative research design was chosen to allow for a comprehensive exploration
of the participants' subjective experiences and perceptions. This approach enabled the
researchers to capture the nuanced and complex nature of teaching writing in EFL contexts.
Qualitative methods are particularly effective in education research for uncovering the
underlying beliefs, attitudes, and practices of educators, which are often deeply embedded
in their professional identities and instructional approaches.
Phenomenography, as a specific data analysis framework within the qualitative
paradigm, focuses on mapping the different ways individuals experience, conceptualize,
perceive, and understand various phenomena. In this study, phenomenography was
employed to identify and categorize the distinct ways EFL teachers conceive of teaching
writing. This framework is adept at revealing the qualitative differences in conceptions,
thereby providing a structured means to understand the diversity in teaching practices and
beliefs. By using phenomenography, the study aimed to highlight the range of conceptions
held by EFL teachers regarding writing instruction. This approach facilitated the identification
of commonalities and differences in teaching practices, offering a detailed account of the
various strategies and pedagogical approaches used by teachers. The insights gained from
this analysis are expected to contribute significantly to the field of language education by
informing teacher training programs, curriculum development, and policy-making.
3.2 Participants
The participants of the study were 21 EFL teachers (7 MA holders, 6 MA plus doctoral
courses, and 3 PhD holders) having the experiences of teaching writing to undergraduates at
Wollo University. From all the 21 teachers, 16 were chosen purposively for in-depth
A Phenomenographic Study on EFL Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching Writing, Habtamu Gebrekidan, Assefa
Zeru
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 112
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
interview because Trigwell (2000 as cited in Khan, 2014: 39) recommended 15 to 20
participants as a bench-mark for samples in phenomenographic studies.
3.3 Data Collection Process
An appropriate way of collecting data about “peoples’ conceptions of a given
phenomenon” is using open- ended interview” with some probing questions (Larsson and
Holmstrom, 2007: 56). Interview questions were partly modeled from related works such as
Kong (2018). The interviews focused on letting teachers narrate their perceptions, beliefs,
and practices of teaching writing to undergraduates. The interview sessions lasted a total
about 272 minutes, and an average interview session lasted for about 17 minutes. During
data collection, the researchers employed systematic probing into the participants’
experiences in two ways. The first one was being neutral while participants’ narrated their
teaching experiences. The second one was asking follow-up questions that initiated
participants to speak more about their experiences. The aforementioned interviewing
strategies were recommended by Sin (2010: 314) in order to improve the validity of
phenomenographic studies. Moreover, as Larsson and Holmstrom (2007) suggested, there
were attempts to tune interviews only with the interviewees’ lived-experiences, not
assumed ones. Additionally, the participants were interviewed at convenient time and
venue after establishing friendly relationships and making clear the objectives of the
research.
3.4 Data Analysis
The data analysis was done in accordance of the seven steps of phenomenographic
data analysis framework of Sjöstörm & Dahlgren (2002 as cited in Khan 2014: 38-39).
1. Familiarization: reading and rereading of the transcripts in order to get insights about
the nature and the range of teachers’ responses.
2. Compilation: emphasizing in-depth reading of responses in order to look for patterns of
similarities and differences. The data as a whole have been compiled to one data sheet
in order to make the analysis easy and manageable.
3. Condensation: data condensation was done by reducing irrelevant, redundant and
unrelated elements of the transcription.
4. Preliminary grouping: excerpts that communicate an essence related with a certain
assumptions of teaching were identified and grouped together. The categorization was
made on the basis of the essence of the excerpts as a coding scheme, so the essence can
be observed from a single line up to extended narration of teaching experiences.
5. Preliminary comparison of categories: the preliminary categories of descriptions
merged and renovated during the preliminary comparison of categories.
6. Naming Categories: naming and renaming of categories followed through constant
comparison and renovation of the emerged categories of descriptions.
7. Outcome space: similarities and differences of categories were sought in order to show
the hierarchical relationship of categories in the outcome space, and structural and
referential relationships were discovered. The frequency distribution of the teachers’
responses were also identified and revealed in the outcome space. However, the spiral
nature of the analysis scheme and the difficulty to move from one step to the other
linearly should be taken in to account.
Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching
Volume 8, Number 1, pp: 107-122, June 2024
e-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672
DOI: 10.30743/ll.v8i1.8949
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 113
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
Figure 2. Spiral and Cyclic Nature of the Seven Steps of Phenomenographic Data Analysis
3.5 Rigor and Trustworthiness
A phenomenographic study needs establishing rigor and trustworthiness (Khan,
2014: 39; Entwistle, 1997: 127). As phenomenographic studies claim non-dualistic
ontological and epistemological assertions, it is mandatory to delineate the researchers’ role
in the data collection and analysis processes. Merriam (2002: 5) states that “the researcher
is the primary instrument” in qualitative research, and the researcher should identify and
control the adverse effects of researcher bias and subjectivity in order to enhance the rigor
and trustworthiness of the research. Accordingly, researchers have employed different
strategies to limit the adverse effects of bias during data collection and analysis process. As
recommended by Entwistel (1997: 132), researchers refrained from misdirecting and leading
respondents to react in a certain way. In the case of very general and unclear responses,
researchers requested further clarification and additional explanations.
Reliability in phenomenographic researches can be checked in two ways: inter-coder
reliability check and dialogic reliability check (Akerlind, 2005 as cited in Khan, 2014: 40). In
this study, dialogic reliability check was preferred because the data analysis scheme
necessitates seven iterative and cyclic steps. Accordingly, one researcher worked as a maker
and the other researcher as a checker of the analysis, especially during the classification of
emerging categorization. However, the data analysis was done collaboratively to avoid bias.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Results
4.1.1 EFL Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching Writing
Based on the phenomenographic analysis of the teachers’ interviews, six categories
about teachers’ conceptions of teaching writing were identified: (1) awareness- raising (2)
equipping (3) mimicking (4) co-writing (5) practicing, and (6) inspiring conceptions of
teaching writing.
Familiarization
compilation
condensation
preliminary
grouping
preliminary
comparison of
categories
Naming
categories
Outcome Space
A Phenomenographic Study on EFL Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching Writing, Habtamu Gebrekidan, Assefa
Zeru
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 114
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
Category 1: Awareness- raising Conceptions of Teaching Writing
The first category was teaching that focused on raising students’ awareness of the
writing process. The prime role of the teacher was conceived of as helping students know
more about how to write. The teacher seemed to inform the students about the complex
features of learning to write. Thus, teaching focuses on letting students acquire knowledge
about how to do the writing.
T9: “That is one mechanism ,and most of the time I simply theoretize them that means at
least to address the concept what it means what does a certain content related to writing is.
Still it is theoretical”
T2: I always let them know that they should bring some kind of thought which can be used to
enrich their writing. But allowing them or letting them walk through that kind of ...the thing
that I am telling you is taught through some kind of theoretical not on practice on practical
basis. It is because like I said the situation, in which we are in, does not allow us. All I have to
do is raise their awareness.” T2
Categories
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
Key
features
Awareness
- Raising
Equipping
Mimicking
Co-writing
Practicing
Inspiring
Conceptions
of writing
Cognitive
(domain
level:
knowledge)
Linguistic
and
Cognitive
(domain
level:
comprehe
nsion)
Linguistic
and
Cognitive
(domain
level:
Application)
Linguistic,
cognitive
(domain
level:
analysis
&synthesis)
and Social
Linguistics,
cognitive
(domain
level:
analysis &
synthesis),
social
Linguistic,
Cognitive
(domain
level:
evaluation)
social
Locus of
teaching
Writing
How to do
writing,
theoretical
issues of
writing, no
direct
writing
Explicit
teaching
of writing
conventio
ns and
patterns;
controlled
activities
Imitating
models
and doing;
guided
and
controlled
writings
Communic
ation,
conveying
meaning,
practice
group
writing
Communic
ation,
conveying
meaning,
practice
writing in
class
Strategies
and self-
awareness;
Out –of-
class
practice
Beliefs in
acquisition
of writing
skills
Increasing
knowledge
about
writing
Increasing
knowledge
of rules
and
patterns
Imitating
model
writings
Sharing
experiences
and
knowledge
Practicing
writing on
individual
basis
Learning by
independent
and self -
regulated
practice
Table 2. Variations in the categories of descriptions of conceptions of teaching writing
Category 2: Equipping conceptions of teaching writing
The second category was equipping learners with fundamental writing skills and
knowledge such as rules, conventions and patterns. Accordingly, teachers appeared to
emphasize the rules of the language, such as grammar, mechanics, spelling, and sentence
patterns. Moreover, the teacher emphasizes teaching structure of sentences, paragraphs
and essays. The teacher focuses on teaching the patterns of development or organization
Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching
Volume 8, Number 1, pp: 107-122, June 2024
e-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672
DOI: 10.30743/ll.v8i1.8949
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 115
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
of a piece of writing, such as introducing controlling ideas, organizing supporting details,
transitions, and conclusions.
T3: “So, most of the time, I taught this writing skill and also I am teaching writing still now
that mean basically within the grammar contents. That mean you know grammar is the rule ;
it governs the language, and most of the time the formal language must be focused with
what the rule based.”
T2: “as you know like the course we take the course we give has something to do with
mechanics. I taught basics so basics requires preliminary things like dealing with the
mechanics first”
Category 3: Mimicking Conceptions of Teaching Writing
The third category of description was mimicking or modeling exemplary writings
chosen by the teacher. Teachers believed that students could easily learn writing skills by
imitating model writings. Students are supposed to copy structures, organizations,
approaches, and diction. Mimicking is different from equipping because it mimics students
engagement in some kind of writing. The teacher may have a role in dragging the students’
attention to the feature(s) that the teacher wants to pay attention to.
T4:“There after I give them samples. The samples mostly I may write them on the board and
we discuss. Which one of this sentence is topic sentence, which one is supporting and which
one is a concluding sentence? We repeatedly do not only one sample but many samples.
Then I encourage my students produce the same way.”
T15: “I give them input and sometimes though they have been given all these opportunities
all these things you can find some students unable to in writing naïve naïve in writing you
know what I do is I give them model sample paragraphs sample sentences so that they can
produce”
Category 4: Co -writing conceptions of teaching writing
Teachers with co-writing or collaborative conceptions of teaching writing conceive
that students learn writing by way of sharing ideas, experiences, and resources. Teachers
employ different levels and patterns of interaction to meet different teaching objectives.
Sometimes teachers use collaboration only at the prewriting stage to give students the
opportunity to exchange ideas that enrich their subsequent individual writing. At other
times, students work in groups to get feedback from peers, and work in groups to select one
and revise it in groups for final assessment. There are also occasions where students work in
groups from selecting a topic to proof- reading.
T5: “I let students involve in group task at the prewriting stage”
T7: “if you have got a large class, you do not expect to see everyone to evaluate them as a
group normally group assignments in the classroom just to follow these processes there is a
limit of time. They come up with this written material. It does not matter whether it is good
or bad. What they have to do is follow the procedures and see that writing it takes time.”
Category 5: Practicing Conceptions of Teaching Writing
Teachers with practicing conceptions of teaching writing believe that writing should
be taught by giving individuals the opportunity to write and rewrite. These teachers
A Phenomenographic Study on EFL Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching Writing, Habtamu Gebrekidan, Assefa
Zeru
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 116
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
emphasize practicing writing and rewriting to meet communication goals and to convey
meanings. Practicing conceptions of teaching writing has many similarities to the co-writing
conceptions of teaching writing. However, they are distinct in terms of the level of writing
opportunities provided on an individual basis. Accordingly, teachers who favored practicing
conceptions of teaching writing conceived that learners would benefit more from
opportunities to practice writing on an individual basis.
T9: “ And it also needs frequent practice like it is a very challenging skill in order to acquaint
or be acquainted with the rules”
T13: “writing needs daily activity you have to write a paragraph a sentence every day. If you
come in such a ways it is possible improve the writing skills but when you see the actual or
the real event what is happening now in not just doing in such a way. ”
Category 6: Inspiring Conceptions of Teaching Writing
Teachers’ with inspiring conceptions of teaching writing believe that students learn
writing when they get the inspiration to get involved in independent and out –of class
writing. Teachers appear to focus on familiarizing students with tasks and activities that
enhance writing habits even outside the confines of the classroom context. Accordingly,
teachers appear to promote holistic view of student learning and development since they
believed that the time-bound courses could not bring the desired change on students’ skills
and knowledge.
T16: “ I inspire my students especially when I teach paragraph writing because in paragraph
writing in essay writing… when I teach them I tried to make highly to inspire…I invite
students to bring something to read in the classroom or to read by themselves to exercise
how can you describe something I give for them especially titles I give to them how can you
describe your ex friends I inspire just I make them to be inspired .”
T6: “In my view teaching writing in this very short time is very difficult. One thing that I
personally prefer is taking writing outside the classroom. There are different scenarios’ that
we can use. For example, using the technology like the google docs, social medias”
4.1.2 Relationships among the Categories
The six categories have structural and referential components that clearly showed
the hierarchical relationships among the categories. (Refer to: Table 3). Three features that
showed the referential components of the categories were discovered by comparing and
contrasting distinctiveness of the categories. Accordingly, conceptions of writing, locus of
teaching writing, and beliefs in acquisition of writing skills have shown the distinctiveness of
the six categories.
First, the conceptions of writing or the knowledge bases of writing reflect three
distinct bases of knowledge: cognitive, linguistic, and social (Kong, 2018). Category 1 focused
on the cognitive aspects of writing. However, the cognitive domain seemed to be restricted
on “knowledge” level. Categories 2 and 3 appeared to focus on both the cognitive and
linguistic aspects of writing, but they were different in the cognitive domains. The former
focuses on “comprehension” but the later emphasizes “application. Categories 4, 5, and 6
encompass the cognitive, linguistic, and social aspects of writing.
Second, the locus of teaching writing is another feature that shows distinctions
among the categories. Consequently, Category 1 specifically appeared to emphasize letting
Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching
Volume 8, Number 1, pp: 107-122, June 2024
e-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672
DOI: 10.30743/ll.v8i1.8949
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 117
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
students learn how to do writing in theory. Category 2, on the other hand, focuses on letting
students know the basics of writing by explicit teaching of writing conventions and patterns.
Category 3 emphasizes imitating models and performing guided and controlled writing
activities. Category 4 and 5 emphasized communication, conveying meaning and in-class
practice. However, Category 4 seemed to highlight group -writing and Category 5 appeared
to adhere to individual writing. Category 6, the most sophisticated conception, focuses on
teaching strategies such as self-awareness, out-of-class practice, and making students
independent writers.
Third, beliefs about the acquisition of writing skills show teachers’ preferred ways of
teaching writing. Teachers in Category 1 believed that students benefited from knowledge of
how to write. Teachers in Categories 2 and 3 also believed that explicit teaching and
imitating rules and patterns helped students learn writing. On the other hand, teachers in
Categories 4, 5 and 6 believed that sharing experiences, writing on an individual basis, and
self-directed engagement in writing helped students learn writing skills properly.
Table 3. Referential and Structural Components of the Categories of Description
Referential
component
Structural component
Surface
conceptions
Deep
Conceptions
Level of complexity
Awareness-raising
Category 1
Simplistic , teaching about writing
( teaching does not involve direct writing)
1 & equipping
Category 2
Somewhat complex than category 1;
teaching rules and patterns , doing controlled
writings
2 and mimicking
Category 3
Complex and developed than category 2 ;
writing by imitating models
3 and co-writing
Category 4
Complex and developed than category 3;
writing in group using writing procedures
4 and practicing
Category 5
Complex and developed than category 4;
gives writing opportunity on individuals basis
5 and inspiring
Category 6
The most sophisticated
The structural relationships of the categories show the degree of complexity and
inclusiveness of the six categories. Accordingly, the six categories were categorized into two
structural components: surface conceptions and deep conceptions of teaching writing. Three
categories of description (Categories 1, 2, and 3) were classified as surface conceptions of
teaching writing because they focused on transmitting knowledge and imitating rules and
patterns from the works of others. On the other hand, the remaining three categories of
description (Categories 4, 5, and 6) were considered as deep conceptions of teaching writing
because they focused on helping students’ learn by interacting one another, engaging in
consistent practice and developing strategic and independent thinking skills.
4.1.3 Distribution of Categories in the Outcome Space
The participants conceptions of teaching tended writing tended to reflect more than
one category of descriptions. To demarcate the most frequently mentioned category and the
other supplementary categories, two distinct symbols (“√ “and “∆”) were employed. These
symbols have been used in a phenomenographic study by Chen, et al. (2021). The symbol “√
A Phenomenographic Study on EFL Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching Writing, Habtamu Gebrekidan, Assefa
Zeru
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 118
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
“ is used to show a teacher identified with the given category of description, and the symbol
“∆”, on the other hand , is used to refer to the most frequently mentioned category ( Refer
to Table 4).
As the results in the outcome space revealed, the most frequently reported
conception of teaching writing by most of the participant teachers was Category 2
(equipping conceptions of teaching writing) (n=7). The second most frequently reported
conception of teaching writing was Category 5 (Practicing conceptions of teaching writing).
However , practicing conception appeared to be less feasible due to different contextual
constraints such as large class size, students’ background, students’ interest and motivation,
resources, time given for writing, teachers’ work load, the design of teaching materials and
assessment scheme prompted by the department. Additionally, Category 6 (inspiring
conceptions of teaching writing) is the most sophisticated of all the teaching conceptions
that accommodate the features of all recognized teaching conceptions. This appeared to be
consistent with the philosophical and methodological orientations of teaching in HLIs.
However, only two teachers (n=2) were identified as having inspiring conceptions of
teaching writing. From these results we can deduce that EFL teachers foster surface
approaches to teaching writing.
Table 4: Teachers’ Conception of Teaching writing Frequency Distribution
Teachers
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
T1
(0)
∆√ (4)
(0)
√ (1)
(0)
√ (1)
T2
√ (3)
∆√ (4)
(0)
(0)
√ (1)
(0)
T3
(0)
∆√ (4)
(0)
(0)
√ (2)
(0)
T4
√ (2)
∆√ (5)
√ (1)
√ (1)
√ (5)
(0)
T5
√ (1)
√ (1)
√ (2)
√ (1)
∆√ (3)
(0)
T6
(0)
√ (1)
√ (2)
(0)
√ (2)
∆√ (2)
T7
√ (1)
√ (2)
∆√ (4)
√ (4)
√ (4)
(0)
T8
√ (1)
√ (2)
√ (1)
(0)
∆√ (7)
(0)
T9
√ (5)
√ (3)
√ (3)
√ (5)
∆√ (3)
√ (1)
T10
√ (2)
√ (2)
√ (2)
(0)
∆√ (4)
(0)
T11
√ (4)
∆ √ (6)
√ (3)
(0)
√ (4)
(0)
T12
√ (1)
∆ √ (7)
(0)
√ (1)
√ (6)
√ (1)
T13
√ (2)
√ (1)
(0)
√ (3)
√ (3)
∆√ (4)
T14
(0)
√ (2)
(0)
(0)
∆√ (7)
(0)
T15
√ (2)
√ (1)
√ (2)
∆ √ (8)
√ (3)
(0)
T16
(0)
∆ √ (4)
(0)
(0)
√ (2)
√ (1)
Total
∆= 0 (25)
√= 11
∆ = 7 (49)
√=16
∆=1 (20)
√=9
∆= 1 (24)
√= 8
∆ =5 (56)
√= 15
∆= 2 (10)
√=6
4.2 Discussion
The study aimed at examining the different ways that EFL teachers understand
teaching writing in the context of Ethiopian HLIs. As the findings revealed, six categories of
descriptions were identified: awareness-raising, equipping, mimicking, co-writing, practicing
and inspiring conceptions of teaching writing. No previous study has come up with these six
categories of descriptions. However, the essence of the majority of the individual categories
can be revealed in the literature about theories and the approaches to teaching in general
and teaching writing in particular. The ideas of the teaching approaches have discretely been
found in the works of (Entwistle, 2000: 5; Hyland’s, 2003: 12; Nunan, 1991: 86-87; Bedgar
Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching
Volume 8, Number 1, pp: 107-122, June 2024
e-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672
DOI: 10.30743/ll.v8i1.8949
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 119
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
and White, 2000; Klimova, 2013; Ouidani and Baghdadi 2022 Graham and Harris, 1994 as
cited in Bekele, 2011: 39).
Examining the hierarchical relationships among categories was the second research
question. The six categories of descriptions have shown peculiarities in three aspects of
teaching writing: conceptions of writing, locus of teaching writing, and beliefs in acquisition
of writing skills. The structural relationships of the categories showed two contrasting
conceptions of teaching: surface conceptions and deep conceptions of teaching writing. This
result was found to be consistent with the literature about conceptions and approaches to
teaching in general. Accordingly, the findings appeared to be parallel with traditional and
constructivist conceptions of teaching by Qi (2022), content-centered and learning-centered
approaches by (Kember and Kwan, 2000) and teacher-focused and student-focused
approaches to teaching (Trigwell et.al 1974 as cited in Gibbs and Coffey 2004).
Categories identified are not found mutually exclusive, so individuals can have a
range of logically connected and hierarchical teaching conceptions. To that end, categories
have become increasingly student-oriented, self-directed, holistic and learning-oriented as
we move up from category 1 to category 6. In addition, the level of students’ engagement in
direct writing has increased, so the most sophisticated conceptions of teaching have given
more freedom to students to develop independent, self-regulated, strategy-based
orientations to learn writing. In line with this, Ramsden (1992: 81), stated that deep
approaches are encouraged by “teaching and assessment methods that foster active and
long-term engagement with learning tasks”.
The third research question aimed at examining the tendency of EFL teachers’
conceptions and approaches to teaching writing in the outcome space. As the results
revealed, most of the teachers have equipping conceptions of teaching writing. The teaching
approach appeared to emphasize language rules and conventions. Similarly, Kong’s (2017,
2018) findings revealed that Chinese EFL teachers conceived writing as a linguistic activity,
but they appeared to disregard the social and communicative aspects of writing. On the
other hand, category 5, practicing conceptions of teaching writing, was found the second
most frequently revealed conceptions of teaching. It was also found to be part of the
teaching conception of almost every teacher. The results appeared to be paradoxical, but
the possibility of having multiple conceptions of teaching at a time (Armin and Siregar, 2021;
Gao and Watkins,2002: 74) and the possibility of misalignment of beliefs and actual practices
could be possible attributes of the paradoxical results. The disparity and tension between
EFL teachers’ conceptions (beliefs) of teaching writing and their actual practices have also
been reported by different researchers such as (Habtamu, 2018; Milketo, 2012; Uddin,
2014).
Generally, category 1, awareness-raising, and category 3, mimicking conceptions of
teaching writing were found to be part of the teaching conceptions of the majority of the
participants. On the contrary, category 6, inspiring conceptions of teaching writing, was
found to be less familiar among the participants. Practicing conceptions also appeared to be
less feasible due to contextual constraints in the teaching context. Co-writing conceptions of
teaching was also considered as a way to make teaching writing in large classes manageable.
From all the aforementioned dynamics, we can deduce EFL teachers’ tendency to foster
surface and product–oriented approaches to teaching writing. The findings appeared to
reveal the pressing influence of traditional conception of teaching on teachers’ conceptions
and approaches to teaching writing. In line with this idea, Biggs and Tang (2007: 17) state,
A Phenomenographic Study on EFL Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching Writing, Habtamu Gebrekidan, Assefa
Zeru
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 120
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
“the view university teaching as transmitting information is so widely accepted” and
“teaching rooms and media are specifically designed for one-way -delivery.”
5. Conclusions
Six categories of descriptions about EFL teachers conceptions of teaching writing
were identified, and the categories appeared to have hierarchical relationships from
simplistic to sophisticated conceptions of teaching writing. Accordingly, Categories 1, 2, and
3 (awareness-raising, equipping, and mimicking conceptions respectively) were considered
surface approaches to teaching writing. Categories 4, 5, and 6 (co-writing, practicing, and
inspiring conceptions) were considered deep approaches to teaching writing. An increase in
the category levels revealed an increase in the students’ engagement in strategic, self-
regulated, and out-of-class learning and practice. Accordingly, Category 6, inspiring
conception, is the most sophisticated conception that shows all the aforementioned features
of deep approaches to teaching. However, inspiring conception of teaching writing is among
the least revealed conceptions of teaching writing in the outcome space. Practicing
conception and co-writing conception were also frequently observed in the majority of
teachers’ conceptions of teaching writing, but most teachers clearly demarcated their beliefs
and actual practices. Thus, the findings revealed that teachers tended to use surface
conceptions of teaching writing.
References
Akerlind, G. S. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods.
Higher Education Research and Development. 24(4), 321-334.
Armin, D. S. & Siregar, P. A. M. (2021). EFL teacher’s pedagogical beliefs in teaching at
Indonesian university. Journal Tarbiyah, 28(2), 82-93.
Aypay, A. (2010).Teacher education students‘ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions
about teaching and learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences.2 (2599-2604).
Badger, R. & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal,
54(2), 153-160.
Bekele, B. (2011). Promoting self-regulated learning in efl writing classes: Effects on self
believes and performances. AAU. (Unpublished PhD Dissertation).
Biggs, J. B. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education
Research and Development, 18(1), 57-75.
Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university (3rd ed). Berkshire:
Open University Press.
Chen, M., Chai, C-S, Jong, Ms-Y., & Jiang, My-C. (2021). Teachers’ conceptions of teaching
chinese descriptive compositions with interactive spherical video- based virtual
reality. Frontiers in Psychology, 12: 591708, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.591708.
Colombo, L. & Priori, M. (2016). How do faculty conceptions on reading, writing and their
role in the teaching of academic literacies influence their inclusive attitude. Iiha
Desterro, 69(3), 2175-8026.
Dart, B. C., Burnett, P. C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., & Smith, D. (2000).
Students’ conceptions of learning, the classroom environment, and approaches to
learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 262-270.
Entwistle, N. (1997). Introduction: Phenomenography in higher education. Higher Education
Research and Development. 16(2), 127-134.
Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching
Volume 8, Number 1, pp: 107-122, June 2024
e-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672
DOI: 10.30743/ll.v8i1.8949
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 121
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
Entwistle, N. (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: Conceptual
frameworks and educational contexts. Teaching and Learning Research Programme.
University of Edinburgh. Paper Presented at the ESRC Teaching and Learning Research
Programme, First Annual Conference.
Freeman, D. & Richards, J. C. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and the education of second
language teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 193-216.
Gao, L. & Watkins, A. D. (2002). Conceptions of teaching held by school science teachers in
p.r. china: identification and cross-cultural comparisons. International .Journal of
Science Education, 24(1), 61-79.
Gibbs, G. & Coffey, M. ( 2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching
skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students.
Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87-100. SAGE Publications.
Gracio, L., Aguiar, H., Pires, H., & Carapeto. (2023). Teaching and quality of teaching:
Conceptions of higher education professors in Sao Tome and Principe. Frontiers in
Education. 8: 1144147. doi=10.3389/feduc.20231144147.
Graham, S. & Harris, K. (1994). Implications of constructivism for teaching writing to
students with special needs. The Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 275-289.
Habtamu, S. (2018). The Practice of process approach in writing classes: Grade eleven
learners of Jimma Preparatory and Jimma University community preparatory school
in focus. International Journal of English and Literature, 9(5), 39-49.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karimzadeh, F. & Langaroudi, J. (2019). A correlational study of efl teachers’ beliefs and
students’ class participation in bandar abbas language institutes. Journal of Applied
Linguistic and Language Research, 6(2), 157-171.
Kalra, R., Sundrarajun, C., & Komintarachat, H. (2017). Using portfolio as an alternative
assessment tool to enhance thai efl students writing skill. Arab World English Journal
(AWEJ), 20(8), 292-302.
Karabinar, S. ( 2014). Writing Approaches of Student Teachers of English. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(2), 1-16.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualization of the research in to university academics’
conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3)255-275.
Kember, D. & Kwan. (2000). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationships to
conceptions of good teaching. Instructional Science, 28, 469-490 .
Khan, S. H. (2014). Phenomenography a qualitative research methodology in Bangladesh.
International Journal on New Trends in Education and their Implications, 5(2), 1309-
6249.
Khanalizadeh, B. & Allami, H. (2012). The impact of teachers’ beliefs on efl writing
instruction. Theory and Practices in Language Studies, 2(2), 334-342.
Klimova, B. F. (2013). Approaches to the teaching of writing skills. International conference
on education and educational psychology (ICEEPSY). Procedia–Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 112, 147-151.
Kong, Y. (2017). Chinese tefl teachers’ conceptions of writing: A partial credir model analysis.
European Journal of Educational Sciences, EJES, 4(4), 1857-6036.
Kong, Y. (2018). Teachers’ conceptions of writing: A case of china. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 8(3), 285-294.
Lam, B. H. & Kember, D. (2006). The relationships between conceptions of teaching and
approaches to teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice.12 (6), 693-713.
A Phenomenographic Study on EFL Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching Writing, Habtamu Gebrekidan, Assefa
Zeru
https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy 122
Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus
Larsson, J. & Holmstrom, I. (2007). Phenomenographic or phenomenological analysis: Does it
matter? Examples from a study on anesthesiologists’ work. International Journal
Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 2(1), 55-64.
Melketo, T. A. (2012). Exploring tensions between english teachers’ beliefs and practices in
teaching writing. The International HETL Review, 2, 98-114.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. In S.B. Merriam &Associates
(Eds), Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis, San
Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
Nezakatgoo, B. (2011). The effects of portfolio assessment on writing of efl students.
English Language Teaching, 4(2), 231-241.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. A text book for teachers. New York:
Prentice Hall.
Ouidani, Y. E. & Baghdadi, S. Y. (2022). Main approaches to teaching writing in EFL/ESL
contexts: A literature review. International Journal of Innovative Science and
Research Technology, 7, 524-533.
Peikoff, L. (1991). Objectivism the philosophy of ayn rand. New York, Penguin Group USA
INC.
Qi, H. (2022). Conceptions about teaching and learning held by EFL teachers and learners’ in
China. Open Journal of Social Science. 10, 314-325.
Pouyan, S., Heydarpour, M. & Aghajanzadeh, G. ( 2016). The effect of guided writing
strategy on iranian intermediate efl learners’ writing improvement. Modern Journal
of Language Teaching Methods, 6(8), 124-131.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Richards, J. C. & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Sin, S. (2010). Considerations of quality in phenomenographic research. International Journal
of Qualitative Methods, 9(4), 305-319.
Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1996). Changing approaches to teaching: A relational perspective.
Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 275-284.
Uddin, M. E. (2014). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and its reflection on the practice in
teaching writing in efl tertiary context in bangladesh. European Journal of Educational
Science, 1(3), 58-80.
Xu, L. (2012). The role of teachers’ beliefs in the language teaching-learning process. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 2(7), 1370-1402.
