ELTIN JOURNAL:
Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia
p-ISSN 2339-1561
eAeISSN 2580-7684
EFL WRITING INSTRUCTION: INVESTIGATING BELIEFPRACTICE GAPS IN KARAWANG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
Neyla Shakira Fadillah1.
Sumarta2.
Sidik Indra Nugraha3 12110631060099@student.
ac, 2sumarta@fkip.
indranugraha@staff.
UNIVERSITAS SINGAPERBANGSA KARAWANG
Received: September 30, 2025.
Accepted: March 10, 2026
ABSTRACT
Writing instruction is considered one of the most challenging aspects in EFL learning, as it requires a complex process.
Because of this complexity, teachersAo beliefs are central to determining how writing is taught, guiding choices of strategies, classroom activities, and Yet, research consistently shows that these beliefs are not always fully enacted in practice, resulting in mismatches shaped by contextual realities.
This study investigated mismatches between EFL teachersAo beliefs about writing instruction and their actual Conducted as a qualitative descriptive case study, the research involved two English teachers at a junior high school in Karawang.
Data were gathered through semistructured interviews and classroom observations and analyzed thematically.
The findings revealed that teachers believed effective writing instruction should involve pre-writing activities, the use of models, process-based writing, skill integration, collaboration, prioritizing content and vocabulary, and motivational feedback.
However, classroom observations showed these beliefs were not consistently implemented.
Several mismatches were identified, particularly in pre-writing activities, models, revision stages, collaborative writing, and feedback practices.
These were influenced by contextual constraints such as limited instructional time, classroom management demands, and exam-oriented teaching These findings highlight the gap between teachersAo pedagogical beliefs and classroom practices and the need for instructional support.
Keywords: TeachersAo beliefs.
Writing instruction.
Classroom practice.
Mismatch.
EFL
INTRODUCTION
TeachersAo beliefs are widely recognized as powerful determinants of classroom decisionmaking and pedagogical practices.
In the context of writing instruction, beliefs serve as the underlying framework that guides teachers in selecting methods, designing activities, and providing feedback to learners.
Beliefs about writing are generally associated with the view that writing is not an instant product but a recursive and developmental process, requiring stages such as prewriting, drafting, conferring, revising, editing and publishing (Johnson & Westkott, 2.
When teachers believe in process-oriented writing, they are more likely to integrate activities such as brainstorming, collaborative drafting, and revision tasks into their Fadillah.
Sumatra & Nugraha: EFL Writing Instruction: Investigating Belief-PracticeA Such beliefs reflect their conviction that students learn best through active engagement in the writing process rather than through rote exercises.
However, beliefs alone do not guarantee consistent classroom practice.
Previous studies reveal that teachers often face difficulties in translating their pedagogical orientations into daily instruction.
Borg .
and Buehl & Beck .
argue that mismatches frequently occur because teachersAo practices are mediated by external factors, including time limitations, curriculum demands, and classroom management challenges.
For example.
Hsieh & Chuang .
reported that although teachers in Taiwan strongly valued writing as a communicative skill, they often relied on controlled tasks due to examination pressure.
Similarly.
Cheng et al.
, .
found that teachers endorsed revision in principle but rarely implemented it, constrained by large class sizes and heavy workloads.
While these challenges have been documented in various contexts, little is known about how such mismatches manifest in Indonesia.
Writing remains one of the most difficult skills to teach in Indonesian junior high schools, where students often struggle with vocabulary, grammar, and text organization.
Yet, few studies have examined how Indonesian EFL teachersAo beliefs about writing instruction align with their actual practices.
Therefore, this study aimed to investigate: .
teachersAo beliefs about the most effective way to teach writing, and .
the mismatches between these beliefs and their actual practices.
addressing these aims, the study contributes to a better understanding of the complex relationship between teacher cognition and instructional realities.
METHOD
This study employed a qualitative descriptive case study design to explore teachersAo beliefs about writing instruction and the mismatches between those beliefs and their classroom As Creswell .
explains, qualitative research is concerned with understanding social or human problems through detailed descriptions of participantsAo perspectives in their natural settings.
A case study was chosen because it allows for an in-depth examination of a bounded system (Yin, 2.
The research was conducted in a junior high school in Karawang, chosen due to its accessibility and active implementation of English instruction.
The site was chosen due to its accessibility and its active implementation of English Two English teachers participated in the study.
They were purposively selected based on their teaching experience, their involvement in writing instruction, and their availability for both interviews and classroom observations.
Their dual role as lesson planners and classroom instructors made them suitable participants for examining the potential mismatches between pedagogical beliefs and instructional practices.
Two instruments were employed to collect data: semi-structured interviews and classroom The semi-structured interviews were conducted with both teachers before classroom observations.
This method was chosen because it provided flexibility for participants to elaborate on their ideas while ensuring coverage of predetermined themes such as pre-writing strategies, use of models, process writing, collaboration, and error Interviews were conducted in Indonesian to ensure clarity of expression, recorded with consent, and transcribed verbatim for analysis.
Classroom observations were then carried out to document actual teaching practices.
Each teacher was observed during two sessions of 45 minutes following the schoolAos regular English lesson schedule.
Field notes were taken to capture instructional strategies, teacherAestudent interaction, and classroom management, providing data for comparison with interview responses.
ELTIN Journal: Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia.
Volume 14/No 1.
April 2026 The data were analysed using Braun & Clarke .
six-step thematic analysis.
The process began with familiarization with the data through repeated readings of interview transcripts and observation notes, followed by generating initial codes to identify meaningful units of These codes were then organized into themes, which were reviewed and refined to ensure coherence with the dataset.
Finally, the themes were defined and reported through a narrative that integrated interview excerpts and observation results.
Triangulation between interviews and observations enhanced the credibility of the findings, while researcher reflexivity was maintained to reduce bias.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Based on thematic analysis of interview transcripts and classroom observations, two major themes emerged: .
teachersAo beliefs about the most effective way to teach writing instruction and .
mismatches between these beliefs and actual classroom practices.
TeachersAo Beliefs about the Most Effective Way to Teach Writing Instruction The interview findings reveal that both teachers hold several key beliefs about effective writing instruction in the EFL classroom.
Their perspectives emphasize the importance of structured guidance, skill integration, and supportive classroom practices in facilitating studentsAo writing development.
These beliefs can be categorized into five main themes: .
Using Pre-Writing Activities as Idea-Processing Strategies, .
Using Models and Examples as Instructional Hooks, .
Teaching Writing as a Systematic Process, .
Integrating writing with other language skills, .
Encouraging Collaborative Writing as Supportive Practice, and .
Prioritizing Content and Vocabulary over Grammar, .
Handling Errors through Motivational Feedback.
The following subsections elaborate on each of these beliefs based on the teachersAo explanations and supporting interview data.
Using Pre-Writing Activities as Idea-Processing Strategies Both teachers emphasized the importance of pre-writing activities as the foundation of writing instruction.
They believed that brainstorming, outlining, and mind mapping were essential for transforming vague thoughts into structured plans.
To illustrate how pre-writing activities facilitate studentsAo idea generation.
Teacher 1 described the use of brainstorming as an initial step in the writing process:
AuAnother strategy is brainstorming, where students generate ideas before they begin Sometimes, they can express ideas in Indonesian first before transferring them into English.
Ay (T.
Teacher 2 also emphasized planning but from a more structural perspective:
AuI ask students to create an outline so that their ideas are more organized.
Then, they are given time to brainstorm or mind map to expand their ideas.
Ay (T.
Teacher 1Aos use of L1 for brainstorming shows a clear recognition of studentsAo cognitive struggles in generating ideas in a second language.
Translanguaging, allowing students to begin with Indonesian, is an effective strategy to bridge the gap between their existing knowledge and the target language.
This practice reflects the idea that guided support helps learners develop their writing ability gradually.
As claimed by Alwasilah .
that incorporating structured can enhance students' confidence and proficiency in writing.
Fadillah.
Sumatra & Nugraha: EFL Writing Instruction: Investigating Belief-PracticeA Similarly, teacher 2Aos emphasis on outlining demonstrates a strong focus on organization and cognitive structure.
By encouraging students to prepare an outline and expand their ideas through brainstorming or mind mapping, the teacher provides a clear framework that helps students manage the complexity of writing tasks.
This practice aligns with Keen .
, who notes that pre-writing is a crucial stage in the process approach, where students experiment with ideas before addressing issues of grammar and organization.
Moreover.
Hsieh & Chuang .
found that brainstorming helps students feel more prepared and less anxious about starting their drafts, confirming its positive effect on student confidence.
Thus, prewriting significantly improve EFL studentsAo writing skill (Ebadijalal & Moradkhani, 2.
Using of Models and Examples as Hooks Both teachers expressed the belief that students need concrete models of writing to guide their work, serving as "hooks" to capture studentsAo attention and provide examples of effective writing.
This belief was reflected in Teacher 2Aos explanation that providing writing models helps students understand how English texts are structured:
AuIn my opinion, the most effective way is to provide examples firstA many students are still unfamiliar with how to write properly in English.
Ay (T.
Teacher 1 reinforced the use of models with more focus on analysis:
AuAanalyzing examples of good writing, organizing ideas systematically, and guiding students through the steps of writing until they produce a complete text.
Ay (T.
Teacher 2Aos approach is grounded in the idea that exposure to models reduces uncertainty about writing expectations.
Providing authentic examples allows students to grasp genrespecific conventions such as structure, style, and organization.
Teacher 1Aos belief goes deeper, advocating not just the presentation of models but their deconstruction, engaging students in a more analytical exploration of writing features.
This belief resonates with Cheng & Zhang .
, who found that the use of models significantly improves studentsAo genre awareness and writing ability.
Additionally.
Walls & Johnston .
emphasize that active engagement with models, rather than passive observation, promotes metacognitive awareness of text structure and linguistic features.
Thus, modeling is crucial for effective writing instruction (Gadd & Parr, 2025.
Villarreal & Lazaro, 2.
Teaching Writing as a Systematic Process Both teachers emphasized the importance of writing as a process, comprising stages such as drafting, revising, and editing, rather than expecting students to produce a finished product This perspective was reflected in Teacher 1Aos explanation of how writing should be implemented through a series of structured stages:
AuWriting should be taught as a process.
Drafting, revising, and editing are essential stages to prevent students from feeling overwhelmed.
Ay (T.
Teacher 2 reinforced this idea:
AuThe process includes drafting, revising, and editing.
Only after going through these stages can students produce a complete and meaningful text.
Ay (T.
ELTIN Journal: Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia.
Volume 14/No 1.
April 2026 The statements indicate that the teachers emphasized that writing is a developmental process, and their belief reflects an understanding that writing is not a one-off product but an ongoing journey of reflection and improvement.
Teacher 1Aos point about preventing students from feeling overwhelmed indicates that process writing serves as a scaffolding strategy, reducing the cognitive and emotional load on students as they refine their work.
These beliefs align with the widely adopted process writing approach by Wang .
that emphasizes drafting, revising, and editing as essential stages in writing development.
In addition.
Qiu et al.
, .
also found that process writing increases studentsAo confidence as they become more comfortable experimenting with ideas.
Integrating Writing with Other Language Skills Both teachers expressed a belief that writing should not be taught in isolation.
They viewedlistening, reading, and speaking activities as integral to enriching studentsAo writing, providing both input and opportunities for rehearsal.
This perspective was reflected in Teacher 1Aos explanation of how integrating other language skills can support students during the writing process:
AuListening to songs or stories can inspire ideas, reading provides models, and speaking allows students to express ideas orally before writing them down.
Ay (T.
Teacher 2 shared a similar strategy:
AuI ask students to read short passages first, then they can discuss them in groups before starting to write.
This way, their ideas are richer.
Ay (T.
The statements indicates that the teachers recognized that writing benefits from being interwoven with other language skills.
Listening and reading serve as input sources, enriching studentsAo vocabulary and understanding of genre conventions.
Speaking, on the other hand, allows students to express and rehearse their ideas before committing them to paper, reducing cognitive overload, and helping them organize their thoughts.
This approach demonstrates a holistic view of language learning, where writing is not isolated but connected to other skills that contribute to overall language proficiency.
This belief is supported by Bentahar and Cranker .
, who advocates for skill integration in language Ng et al.
, .
also confirmed that integrating speaking and reading activities before writing results in more coherent and well-developed texts.
TeachersAo beliefs reflect an understanding that writing benefits from interaction with listening, reading, and speaking, as these skills provide the necessary linguistic input and rehearsal opportunities.
Encouraging Collaborative Writing as Supportive Practice Both teachers emphasized the value of collaboration in the writing process, believing that pair or group work helps students exchange ideas and build confidence.
This perspective was reflected in Teacher 1Aos explanation of how collaborative activities support students during the writing process:
AuPair or group writing is very helpful.
Students can freely share ideas, collaborate, and feel more comfortable expressing their thoughts.
Ay (T.
Fadillah.
Sumatra & Nugraha: EFL Writing Instruction: Investigating Belief-PracticeA Teacher 2 also agreed:
AuPair or group writing is very beneficial.
Students can revise each otherAos work and inspire one another.
Ay (T.
The statements show that teachers saw collaborative writing to ease cognitive load and foster By sharing ideas and receiving feedback from peers, students not only gain new perspectives but also become more comfortable with their writing.
This approach is rooted in the belief that writing is a social process, where interaction and feedback are crucial for developing both textual quality and learner motivation.
Li .
found that collaborative writing instruction significantly improves both writing quality and learner motivation.
Prioritizing Content and Vocabulary before Grammar Both teachers emphasized that writing instruction should prioritize content and vocabulary before focusing on grammar.
They viewed grammar as important but felt that it should be refined after the content is firmly established.
This perspective was reflected in Teacher 1Aos explanation of the priorities in teaching writing:
AuThe focus of writing instruction includes content, genre structure, and vocabulary.
Grammar is usually emphasized last.
Ay (T.
Teacher 2 agreed:
AuThe focus is on content and vocabulary.
grammar usually comes last since it is the most difficult.
Ay (T.
This belief reflects a communicative approach to writing, where meaning and message take precedence over form.
Both teachers recognized that students need to first develop their ideas and use appropriate vocabulary to express those ideas before worrying about grammatical accuracy.
This approach minimizes anxiety and allows students to engage with writing in a more fluid and confident way.
This aligns with findings by Hsieh & Chuang .
, who demonstrated that delaying grammar correction fosters greater student Hsiang et al.
, .
also support this belief, noting that focusing on ideas and vocabulary first encourages students to express themselves without the fear of making grammatical mistakes.
This method aligns with the process writing approach, where content and fluency are prioritized, and grammar is introduced later as students develop their writing Handling Errors with Motivation Both teachers emphasized a preference for motivational rather than punitive error correction They believed that providing encouragement and feedback helps students learn from their mistakes.
This perspective was reflected in Teacher 1Aos explanation of how feedback is delivered during the writing process:
AuI usually give motivation and praise when students attempt to write, even if there are mistakes.
Afterwards.
I conduct reflection together with the students.
Ay (T.
ELTIN Journal: Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia.
Volume 14/No 1.
April 2026 Teacher 2 also shared:
AuI usually give praise and then reflect with students to find out why they had Ay (T.
This belief reflects a growth mindset approach, where errors are seen as opportunities for learning rather than failures.
Both teachers understood that praise and reflection help students maintain motivation and develop resilience in their writing.
Encouraging students to engage with their mistakes in a positive way fosters a supportive classroom environment where learning is seen as a process of trial, error, and improvement.
This approach aligns with Buehl & Beck .
, who emphasize the importance of motivational strategies in sustaining student engagement.
Sakrak-Ekin & Balgikanli .
also found that supportive feedback enhances student confidence and persistence, encouraging them to take risks in their writing.
The teachers' beliefs here support the broader framework of growth mindset in education, where mistakes are framed as part of the learning process.
Mismatches between Beliefs and Actual Classroom Practices Although the teachers expressed clear beliefs about effective writing instruction, classroom observations revealed that these beliefs were not always consistently reflected in their actual Several discrepancies emerged between the teachersAo stated pedagogical views and what occurred during classroom instruction.
These mismatches were influenced by contextual factors such as limited instructional time, curriculum demands, and classroom management challenges.
The following subsections present the main areas where these inconsistencies appeared, including pre-writing activities, the use of models and examples, process writing, collaborative writing, and error-handling practices.
Pre-Writing Mismatch Although both teachers expressed strong beliefs about the importance of pre-writing activities, classroom observations indicated that these strategies were not consistently implemented during the lessons.
Pre-writing activities such as brainstorming, outlining, or mind mapping were expected to help students generate and organize ideas before writing.
however, their application in practice appeared limited.
Observation data showed that Teacher 1 occasionally conducted brief brainstorming activities, often allowing students to translate their ideas from Indonesian into English.
In contrast.
Teacher 2 tended to omit the pre-writing stage and asked students to start writing immediately.
AuTeacher 2 directly asked students to begin writing without providing brainstorming or outlining activities.
Ay (Field notes.
This finding indicates a discrepancy between the teachersAo stated beliefs and their classroom Although both teachers acknowledged the importance of pre-writing activities in supporting studentsAo idea development, these strategies were not always implemented consistently during instruction.
One possible explanation is that practical constraints, such as limited instructional time or classroom management considerations, may lead teachers to prioritize the completion of writing tasks rather than allocating time for planning activities.
As argued by Phipps and Borg .
that the systemic pressures of time constraints and workload often result in practices that contradict teachersAo ideal beliefs.
This finding echoes Qiu et al.
, .
, who observed that even when teachers valued pre-writing, it was often abandoned due to limited lesson time.
The exam-driven nature of the curriculum also Fadillah.
Sumatra & Nugraha: EFL Writing Instruction: Investigating Belief-PracticeA contributes to a product-oriented approach, further undercutting the implementation of process-based strategies.
Model and Example Mismatch Teacher 1 consistently used models, but Teacher 2 replaced them with formulaic prompts.
AuTeacher 2 provided students with 5W 1H questions instead of model texts.
Ay (Field notes.
This mismatch can be interpreted as workload and curriculum pressure influencing teacher Teacher 2 may have turned to prompts because they are quicker to implement and easier to manage within tight lesson schedules.
This suggests that even though Teacher 2 valued models, the practical constraints of the classroom led to the use of more formulaic approaches, which are easier to assess and less time-consuming.
Cheng & Zhang .
found that teachers often rely on formulaic prompts in high-pressure environments, despite knowing the value of authentic models.
Process Writing Mismatch While both teachers believed in the importance of drafting, revising, and editing, the revision stage was often skipped in practice.
Classroom observations revealed differences in how the two teachers implemented the use of models in writing instruction.
While Teacher 1 consistently provided model texts as references for students.
Teacher 2 tended to replace them with formulaic prompts rather than presenting complete examples of writing.
AuTeacher 1 asked students to write a draft but did not allocate time for revision.
Ay (Field notes.
The omission of revision highlights the institutional bias toward product-oriented writing.
When classroom time is limited and students are focused on producing finished texts, teachers may forgo revision to meet curriculum goals or assessment deadlines.
Similar mismatches in process writing have been noted by Wei & Zhang .
, who found that revision is often the most neglected stage in writing instruction.
The study also highlights how institutional pressures, such as exam-based assessments, can contribute to the erosion of process-based pedagogical practices.
Collaborative Writing Mismatch Classroom observations revealed differences in how collaborative writing was implemented by the two teachers.
While Teacher 1 occasionally incorporated group writing activities.
Teacher 2 tended to rely on individual writing tasks rather than encouraging peer AuTeacher 2 asked each student to write individually without any peer collaboration.
Ay (Field notes.
This finding indicates a discrepancy between the teachersAo expressed beliefs about the value of collaboration and the instructional practices observed in the classroom.
Although both teachers acknowledged that collaborative writing can support idea exchange and increase studentsAo confidence.
Teacher 2Aos preference for individual writing suggests a greater emphasis on efficiency and ease of monitoring studentsAo work.
Managing collaborative ELTIN Journal: Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia.
Volume 14/No 1.
April 2026 activities may be perceived as more challenging, particularly when teachers need to supervise multiple groups and ensure equal participation among students.
This tendency may also be influenced by contextual factors such as large class sizes and the demands of exam-oriented instruction.
In such contexts, individual tasks are often considered easier to organize and assess within limited instructional time.
Phipps and Borg .
argue that institutional constraints, including classroom management challenges and assessment demands, can shape teachersAo instructional decisions and sometimes lead to practices that differ from their stated pedagogical beliefs.
This finding aligns with Prastikawati et.
, .
that classroom realities, including resource constraints, class size, and time limitations, posed significant challenges to implementing ideal assessments.
Error-Handling Mismatch Classroom observations revealed that although both teachers expressed a preference for motivational feedback, their actual feedback practices often relied on direct correction.
AuTeacher 1 corrected studentsAo grammar errors directly on the board without discussing possible revisions with students.
Ay (Field notes.
This finding indicates a discrepancy between the teachersAo stated belief in providing supportive and motivational feedback and the feedback strategies implemented during classroom instruction.
Instead of engaging students in reflective discussion about their errors, the teacher tended to correct mistakes directly, focusing primarily on identifying and fixing grammatical inaccuracies.
This tendency is consistent with research on feedback practices in EFL contexts.
Sakrak-Ekin and Balgikanli .
suggest that under instructional pressure, teachers often rely on feedback strategies that allow for faster processing and grading.
Ferris .
explains that while direct correction can help students notice and fix specific linguistic errors, it may reduce opportunities for learners to reflect on their writing and actively engage in the revision process.
Therefore, combining correction with explanation or guided revision is often recommended to support deeper learning and long-term writing development.
The findings discussed above reveal several areas where teachersAo stated beliefs were either reflected in or differed from their classroom practices.
To provide a clearer overview of these patterns.
Table 1 summarizes the relationship between teachersAo beliefs and the instructional practices observed in the classroom.
Fadillah.
Sumatra & Nugraha: EFL Writing Instruction: Investigating Belief-PracticeA Table 1.
The Summary of TeachersAo Beliefs and Classroom Practices Aspect TeachersAo Beliefs Classroom Practices Pre-writing Brainstorming, outlining, and T1: Minimal brainstorming and mind mapping considered translation.
crucial to organize ideas.
T2: Pre-writing skipped entirely.
Use of models Models and examples are T1: Consistently used model essential for scaffolding texts.
studentsAo writing.
T2: Relied on 5W 1H prompts, no authentic texts.
Writing as a process Writing include T1:
Drafting drafting, revising, and editing revision omitted.
to build confidence.
T2: Focused only on final Integration of skills Writing should relate to Both integrated reading and and discussion before writing tasks.
Collaboration Pair/group writing fosters T1: Applied group writing idea sharing, confidence, and activities.
peer revision.
T2: Assigned individual writing Content & Prioritized and Both emphasized content and vocabulary first.
grammar vocabulary before grammar, refined at later stages.
consistent with beliefs.
Error handling Supportive and motivational Both relied mainly on direct feedback preferred over correction, punitive correction.
motivational feedback.
CONCLUSION
This study investigated teachersAo beliefs about effective writing instruction and examined how these beliefs were reflected in their actual classroom practices.
The findings revealed that the teachers held several pedagogical beliefs that emphasized the importance of prewriting activities, the use of models and examples, writing as a systematic process, the integration of writing with other language skills, collaborative writing practices, prioritizing content and vocabulary before grammar, and providing motivational feedback when addressing errors.
However, classroom observations indicated that these beliefs were not always consistently implemented in practice.
Several mismatches were identified, particularly in the implementation of pre-writing activities, the use of models, the revision stage of process writing, collaborative writing activities, and error-handling strategies.
These discrepancies suggest that contextual constraints such as limited instructional time, classroom management challenges, and exam-oriented instructional demands may influence teachersAo instructional decisions.
The findings highlight the complex relationship between teachersAo pedagogical beliefs and classroom realities.
While teachers may hold theoretically informed beliefs about effective writing instruction, the extent to which these beliefs are enacted in practice is often shaped by institutional and contextual factors.
This study therefore underscores the importance of providing teachers with adequate institutional support and professional development opportunities to help them align their instructional practices with their pedagogical beliefs.
ELTIN Journal: Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia.
Volume 14/No 1.
April 2026 Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations.
The research involved a limited number of teachers within a specific educational context, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings.
Future research could involve a larger sample of teachers and explore additional contextual factors that influence the relationship between teachersAo beliefs and classroom practices in writing instruction.
REFERENCES