**4. Discussion and conclusions**

The aim of this study was to consider the type of practice carried out by language teachers in the area of teaching writing. Specifically, we wanted to look at the components that influence their practice and the theoretical tendencies that teachers hold about the teachinglearning process of writing, as well as their beliefs about their ability or their self-efficacy. Moreover, the study aimed to consider their views on the factors that affect the selfregulation of the teachers' practice in teaching writing.

Given this objective, it is expected that the type of practices that teachers develop in class are determined by and due to certain factors such as: the theoretical concepts they hold about how students learn, their thoughts regarding the effects of this type of instruction, the correction of writing and the different teaching methods (formal, natural, etc.). According to the results obtained and, in general, we can assert that the goal have been met because the project has investigated the role of practice, implemented appropriate tools, as well as used a representative sample of a range of levels of education. However, the hypothesis was only partially confirmed. We can say that the PRAES instrument adequately met the requirements in terms of reliability and validity, allowing for the extraction of data relevant to the study regarding the role of practice. But, the hypothesis was not fulfilled as regards the role of the differential data obtained from teachers, depending on the educational level of students, as no statistically significant differences were obtained, indicating flexibility in the teachers opinion, their theoretical approach, what they say they do or believe about their ability to teach writing, according to the characteristics of students (in this case, the student's progress was taken to be reflected by the year in which they were enrolled).

family subcomponent (p = .038, n ² = .365). For the PRAESPA materials subcomponent (p = .092, n = ². 258), although in this case, the texts subcomponent also comes close to statistical significance (p = .001, n ² = .779), and as does personal self-efficacy (p = .002,

*Figure 3 Personal self-efficacy (low\_high)*

The aim of this study was to consider the type of practice carried out by language teachers in the area of teaching writing. Specifically, we wanted to look at the components that influence their practice and the theoretical tendencies that teachers hold about the teachinglearning process of writing, as well as their beliefs about their ability or their self-efficacy. Moreover, the study aimed to consider their views on the factors that affect the self-

**Family Materials Texts Personal self-efficacy**

**Serie1 Serie2**

Given this objective, it is expected that the type of practices that teachers develop in class are determined by and due to certain factors such as: the theoretical concepts they hold about how students learn, their thoughts regarding the effects of this type of instruction, the correction of writing and the different teaching methods (formal, natural, etc.). According to the results obtained and, in general, we can assert that the goal have been met because the project has investigated the role of practice, implemented appropriate tools, as well as used a representative sample of a range of levels of education. However, the hypothesis was only partially confirmed. We can say that the PRAES instrument adequately met the requirements in terms of reliability and validity, allowing for the extraction of data relevant to the study regarding the role of practice. But, the hypothesis was not fulfilled as regards the role of the differential data obtained from teachers, depending on the educational level of students, as no statistically significant differences were obtained, indicating flexibility in the teachers opinion, their theoretical approach, what they say they do or believe about their ability to teach writing, according to the characteristics of students (in this case, the student's progress was taken to be reflected by the year in which

n²=.626). See Figure 3.

Fig. 3. Personal self-efficacy (low\_high)

**4. Discussion and conclusions** 

they were enrolled).

regulation of the teachers' practice in teaching writing.

The fact that the teachers state that they do the same, believe the same, maintain the same theoretical framework for teaching writing, with the same feelings of ability, regardless of the students' level may have several causes. It may be simply an observation of what is actually expected, which contradicts our hypothesis, and that teachers apply these patterns without considering the characteristics of students. This may be because their training is not specific or because practice in writing instruction is scarce, except in the initial levels, where the mechanical aspects are predominant, which all indicates a lack of self-regulation their practice. But it is possible that, by using such general measures rather than more direct measures of the teachers' actions, which consequently reflects the teachers' social desirability, including their own ideology, beliefs and theories, their views, all of which were very generic.

If the actual teaching of writing to different levels was addressed it may produce might greater differences as it is not possible to teach students of different educational levels in the same way. In this sense, the PRAES would measure the beliefs and wishes more generally than the role of the actual practice. This instrument, which was applied at the margins of the teachers' direct activity, thus reflects components of "trait" rather than "state". What would have happened if teachers had been directly observed in the classroom in their writing instruction with their students from different educational levels? It is expected that they would have demonstrated different strategies, but this possibility must be explored in another study. As for the sample, as well as being representative, relevant and of a broadspectrum (as compared with the samples from other empirical studies), allows for the description of the kind of practice carried out by these teachers, and the gaining of valuable data, although these are, as previously indicated, partly limited.

Concerning the instrument applied, given the review of theoretical and empirical studies published in recent years, one can reasonably assert that the PRAES presents adequate validity and acceptable reliability. However, the questionnaire is the instrument most used in research conducted in this area.

Furthermore, we can ensure that the construction of PRAES demonstrated the selective and representative collection of elements that refer to the opinion or approach components, on the specific behavior carried out by the teachers in the classroom in the teaching of writing composition and the self-efficacy component, as indicated above. It should be emphasized that no published study is known to have researched the four components together. This justifies and affords relevance to this research.

Regarding the statistical analysis and as a contribution to this research study, five factors or components were obtained that, although only partially conform to the structure of the test, do have some overlap with the four components of the PRAES. Firstly, there is an overlap between the general factor, in which the teachers' both personal and general self-efficacy interact with motivation, the family and the classroom activities in the teaching of writing. Secondly, is the factor of self-efficacy and theoretical approach, since the following are interrelated, the natural and formal theoretical approach of the teacher interacts, the skills they develop and the materials used in teaching writing, identifying their personal and general self-efficacy. In addition, the third factor, opinion, interrelates the nature of the theoretical approach to teacher training and the practice developed in the teaching of

Diagnosis of Teachers' Practice in the Teaching of Written Composition 211

awarded to the Director/Main Researcher (J. N. García). We are very grateful to Victoria

*Correspondence* should be addressed to Departamento de Psicología, Sociología y Filosofía. Área Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación. Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071 – León, Spain. Phone: +34-987291041 (university); +34-987222118 (home); +34-652817871 (cell); Fax:

Álvarez, M.; Robledo, P.; García, J.; de Caso, A.; Pacheco, D. & García-Martín, J. (2011).

Psicología y Educación, (Ed.), ISBN 978-84-614-8296-2, Valladolid, Spain. Al-Weher, M. (2004). The effect of a training course based on constructivism on student

Bain, J.; Mills, C.; Ballantyne, R. & Packer, J. (2002). Developing Reflection on Practice

Bandura, A. (2005). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. *Self-Efficacy Beliefs of* 

Bazarra, L.; Casanova, O. & García, J. (2004). *Ser profesor y dirigir profesores en tiempos de* 

De Caso, A.; García, J.; Pacheco, D.; Robledo, P.; Álvarez, M. & García-Martín, J. (2011).

De Caso, A. & García, J. (2006). Relación entre motivación y la escritura. [Relationship

Fidalgo, R.; Torrance, M. & García, J. (2008). The long term effects of strategy-focused

Flórez, A. & Monroy, E. (2008). Autorregulación pedagógica a través de estrategias.

*Teacher Education,* Vol. 32 No.2, pp. 169-184, ISSN 1359-866X.

Group, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 171-196, ISSN 1354-0602.

(Ed.), ISBN 978-84-614-8296-2, Valladolid, Spain.

Metodologías trabajadas y favorecedoras del aprendizaje [Tried methodologies propitiating learning], *Educación, aprendizaje y desarrollo en una sociedad multicultural. Psicología de la instrucción,* pp. 7379-7386, *[Education, learning and development in a multicultural society. Psycology of Instruction],* In J.M. Román Sánchez, M.Á. Carbonero Martín and J.D. Valdivieso Pastor (Comp.), Asociación Nacional de

teacher's perceptions of the teaching/learning process*. Asia- Pacific Journal of* 

through Journal Writing: impacts of variations in the focus and level of feedback. *Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice*, In Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis

*Adolescents.* In Frank Pajares and Timothy C. Urdan (Ed.), pp. 307-337, ISBN

*cambio.* [Being a teacher and leading in a time of change], Narcea (Ed.), ISBN

Componente motivacional, estrategias de aprendizaje e innovación educativa [Motivational component, learning strategies and educational innovation], *Educación, aprendizaje y desarrollo en una sociedad multicultural. Psicología de la instrucción [Education, learning and development in a multicultural society. Psycology of Instruction],* (pp. 7343 -7353)*,* In J. M Román Sánchez, M. Á. Carbonero Martín and J. D. Valdivieso Pastor (Comp.). Asociación Nacional de Psicología y Educación,

between motivation and writing]. *Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología*. Vol. 38, No.

writing instruction for grade six students. *Contemporary Educational Psychology,* Vol.

[Strategies for educational self-regulation]. Alternativas de evaluación en la

Rosa Sturley for her help with the English version.

**6. References** 

9781593113667.

8427714769, Madrid, Spain.

3, pp. 477-492, ISSN 0120-0534.

33, pp. 672-693. ISSN 0361-476X.

+34-987291035 (university). E-mail: jn.garcia@unileon.es.

writing. Similarly, the fourth factorial component of activities in which motivation interacts with the procedures and a material used in the teaching of writing also overlaps with the above. And finally, the planning and review factor, which relates general to selfefficacy with planning and revision practices followed by the teacher in the teaching of writing.

In summary, we can say that these factors allow us to infer the nature of the practice developed by teachers in the area of language. No remarkable facts concerning significant differences in relation to the theoretical concept and strategies applied in the teaching of writing at different stages of infant and primary education were discovered and, therefore, we find low levels of self-regulation of the teachers' practice.

In addition, the curriculum guidelines as described by the royal decrees do not seem to affect this practice, since, according to the results obtained, all teachers appear to act uniformly in terms of the theoretical concepts that guide them. This also indicates that there is no difference in the treatment of learning and teaching of writing in students with and without learning difficulties and/or low performance. When compared with other empirical studies that address the same area we discovered some important contributions of this research study. First, it is the first study of its kind in Spain. Secondly, it is the first to address the four components combined into a single instrument (Opinion, Approach, Classroom behaviors and Self-Efficacy). The other research studies in this field have studied only one or two aspects. Moreover, the sample or study population is fairly representative, in terms of breadth and of educational levels covered because, as noted, the empirical studies reviewed have either poor samples or are focused on the first levels of education. It is important to note the limitations of the study. Among these, we include the lack of data about the performance of these teachers' students in order to establish meaningful relationships between what the teacher teaches and what/how children learn. This issue is to be addressed in a second empirical study. Furthermore, the study was based on questionnaires, and these instruments have certain limitations. It is well known that from the psychological point of view, the acquiescence effect is produced, i.e., the tendency to respond positively to everything that is asked. Although this variable was controlled by introducing different directions in the elements of the instrument it should be monitored more effectively.

Another limitation, also mentioned by other authors, is the lack of direct observation of the teachers' behavior in the classroom to actually verify what they say they do. Overcoming this limitation will require the implementation of further studies. It would be pertinent to verify whether there are differences in teaching methods from other areas. This would be of great interest to detect if they apply the same strategies, both with and without students with learning difficulties, as in the different educational levels.
