Investigating Turkish teachers' views and practices on writing instruction in secondary schools: A mixed-methods study

This mixed-method study examines problems, practices, and suggestions associated with writing education in Turkish language courses. The study involved 96 Turkish teachers working in secondary schools. Using the responses from teachers, the results of the survey were presented on the basis of dimensions such as teachers' competencies in teaching writing, students' habits and competencies in writing, and teacher education programs' adequacy. Additionally, the study examined the additional support teachers provide to students with writing difficulties and the evidence-based practices they employ. This study found Turkish teachers participating in the study to have poor writing practices. The teaching of writing was problematic on several levels, including teacher training and student and teacher competence. Furthermore, teachers reported that secondary school writing instruction was unrelated to teacher training. It was also reported that students often lacked writing habits and had below-average writing skills. Despite the importance of evidence-based practices in effective writing instruction, teachers were deficient in providing additional support to students with writing difficulties. Last but not least, teachers' self-efficacy in evidence-based writing was not influenced by gender, educational background, school location, age, or years of teaching experience. The results point to the necessity of continuous improvement in writing education.


Introduction
Writing is crucial to thinking, making sense, and generating knowledge.The fact that individuals need the act of writing to meet the multiple demands of tasks in various content areas throughout their educational lives, to learn specific content, to present what they have learned, and to participate effectively in the information society in which they are members makes this tool important for academic success, social, and professional development (Fidalgo et al., 2017).In addition to serving an essential function in lifelong learning and living as productive citizens (Mo et al., 2014), writing is integral to the intellectual and emotional development, personal experiences, and social identity of people (Hyland, 2010).All these benefits make developing learners' writing skills one of the primary goals of education.The teaching of writing in Türkiye, however, focuses primarily on teaching information rather than developing students' skills (Karadüz, 2014).
The use of traditional teaching methods in writing classes continues to prevail despite significant curriculum changes in Turkish (Gündüz & Şimsek, 2011).While Turkish teaching programs adopt a process-oriented approach to writing education, textbook applications remain product-oriented (Hamzadayı, 2019).Insufficient time and constraints related to the content of writing activities and the environments in which writing takes place prevent students from developing their writing expression skills as they should (Baştuğ & Demirgüneş, 2016).According to the results of a national pilot study on writing conducted by the Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2020), Identification and Measurement of Turkish Language Proficiency in Four Skills Project, 7th-grade students struggled with writing.There were only 5.3% of students in the highest assessment category in writing, with an average performance level of 46.7% in formatting sentences, paragraphs, and text.Hence, teachers play an important role in improving this negative image of writing and improving writing instruction.In the case of writing instruction, teachers organize it by integrating resources and rules (Cheung & Jang, 2019) and guide it with their personal beliefs, skills, and decisions (Rietdijk et al., 2017).The process of teaching writing, however, is complex and challenging because of the components involved in the act of writing and the different variables involved.As part of overall communication, writing is known to have a multi-layered structure that involves multiple skills and strategies, as well as cognitive, physical, emotional, and social processes (Myers et al., 2016).Learning within this structure requires the learner to evaluate the writing process, establish multiple writing goals, consider the target audience and text characteristics, apply skills and strategies that support writing, determine the conditions that support writing, manage working and long-term memory, affective responses to writing, interact with peers, pay attention, and regulate the writing process (Harris & McKeown, 2022).Students can only achieve this if they are provided with effective writing instruction.This is the point where teachers should develop a theoretical perspective on writing instruction.

The Role of the Teacher in Teaching Effective Writing
A highly effective writing teacher performs a series of strategically and flexibly linked instructional actions and organizes these actions and activities in a way that facilitates student interaction (Gadd & Parr, 2017).Furthermore, these teachers are capable of conducting formative assessments, creating an environment that promotes learning, demonstrating success criteria clearly, aligning learning activities with learning objectives, and demonstrating intentional instructional actions, such as modeling, instructing, asking questions, providing feedback, explaining, explaining, and guiding.In addition, they can adjust the course to meet the needs of their students and be consistent, meaningful, linked, and systematic in their teaching practices (Parr & Limbrick, 2010).
To design effective writing didactics and reflect this in their practice processes, Bouwer et al. (2022) argue that teachers should specialize in three areas: knowledge about writing, didactic knowledge and skills, and pedagogical knowledge and skills.Knowledge about writing includes topics such as what writing instruction aims to teach, what students should know and do, the functions of writing, text types and their characteristics, writing models and their basic understanding, what good writers do in the writing process, how writing skills are developed, and what motivational factors affect this development, as well as what teachers and other stakeholders think about writing (pp. 37-38).This area largely overlaps with the framework proposed by Graham et al. (2015), which draws on research-based writing practices.It states that students' writing knowledge consists of knowledge about the subject matter of writing, its nature, and how words convey meaning.Knowledge of writing can therefore be viewed as a prerequisite for effective writing instruction.In addition to knowledge, guidance (e.g., instruction, materials, and writing tasks) can help students succeed (Rietdijk et al., 2017).In Bouwer et al.'s (2022) classification, this refers to the other domain of expertise, didactic knowledge and skills.Didactic knowledge and skills include knowing and using effective strategies (explaining, modeling, collaborative practice, independent practice, etc.), assisting students in setting clear writing goals and evaluating their writing processes, and knowing when, how, and to whom feedback should be given.Additionally, it requires the ability to describe a good writing task, assess students' writing skills, evaluate the quality of the text, differentiate writing instruction based on student needs, provide learning supports, and use one's teaching methods and evidence-based practices.Combined with the theoretical framework referred to as evidence-based writing practices [EBWP], which is intended to improve the quality of writing instruction, these elements exhibit great consistency (Graham & Harris, 2017;Graham et al., 2015;Graham et al., 2012;Graham & Perin, 2007;Harris & McKeown, 2022;Troia, 2014;Troia & Olinghouse, 2013).It is necessary to use EBWP mechanisms (Troia & Olinghouse, 2013) in effective writing instruction since they combine the best available research with practice-based expertise in the context of student characteristics, values, and preferences.
For teachers to effectively teach, however, they need pedagogical content knowledge, which is a combination of content knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge about classroom practice (Rietdijk et al., 2017).As defined by Bouwer et al. (2022), this competency area includes teachers' beliefs about writing and how those beliefs affect writing instruction, students' thoughts about writing and how those thoughts affect motivation, and how to increase students' motivation to write (p. 37-38).It also discusses establishing a constructive and safe writing environment where students can express themselves and write.In addition to defining the competencies teachers should possess when teaching writing, this three-part structure provides an explanation of what makes effective writing instruction.
Teaching writing also exhibits the multidimensionality inherent in writing.To improve students' writing performance, teachers must approach this instructional process carefully and purposefully.The identities and communicative practices of learners in their personal and social lives, as well as the interests of the teacher, the ways in which writing is taught, the curriculum, and the nature of the writing task, all affect writing practices, products, and processes (Ball & Ellis, 2008).Furthermore, writing instruction can differ when it comes to writing goals, actions taken to achieve those goals, values, norms, physical and social arrangements, and teacher and student abilities (Bañales et al., 2020).The school's intellectual climate and methodological practices, students' experiences and future needs, teachers' knowledge, preferences, expertise, and resources, and the relationship between writing instruction and the immediate social context may drive specific changes in writing instruction (Hyland, 2010).It is also possible to differentiate this instruction based on social and cultural factors, curricula, how these programs are implemented, regulations on instructional time, course duration, teachers' educational background, and teacher licensure frameworks.

Factors Affecting Writing Instruction
Writing instruction is influenced by social, cultural, and political dynamics (Landis, 2003).Activity theory offers explanations for the various factors influencing writing at this point.An activity system therefore has many variables, including the distribution of activities among actors, the conventions that govern the activities in the system, policies, and rules, as well as the social context, external funding sources, pedagogical knowledge of teachers, and motivational tools they use to motivate students to write (Fisher, 2017).The curricula and implementation of these programs in different countries can influence writing instruction.In some countries, such as Norway (Hertzberg & Roe, 2016), writing is integrated into all undergraduate courses, but in Türkiye, this is not the case.Writing is taught in Turkish secondary schools only as a compulsory subject in Turkish and as an elective in Authorship and Writing Competence.As opposed to countries where schools are autonomously governed by elected boards and have the right to interpret and implement the national curriculum according to their context, Türkiye has a more centralized system.The Turkish curriculum, which includes writing instruction, is applied throughout the country as a standard.It has been shown by the research of the Eurydice network (Eurydice, 2013), which tries to understand and explain how the different education systems in Europe are organized and function, that primary teachers in most European countries are independent in terms of teaching content and methods.Most countries allow teachers to choose their own teaching methods.It is an important aspect of teaching that differentiates it.This dynamic, however, is not the only dynamic that can be used to differentiate writing instruction.In addition, research shows that countries have different regulations when it comes to instructional time and course duration.In OECD countries, local authorities, schools, teachers, and/or students have varying degrees of freedom in arranging instructional time and choosing subjects.It is, for example, up to local authorities, schools, and/or teachers to decide how much time is allocated to each compulsory subject in countries and economies such as England, the Netherlands, and the Flemish Community of Belgium (OECD, 2021), whereas in Türkiye, this is decided by the Ministry of Education and implemented in every school as a standard.In Türkiye elementary school, the first and second grades teach for 10 hours, the third and fourth grades for 8 hours, the fifth and sixth grades for 6 hours, and the seventh and eighth grades for 5 hours.Additional to this, the elective writing course Authorship and Writing Skills includes two hours per week for 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th graders.In the secondary level, 35 hours of instruction are provided, 29 of which are required and 6 of which are elective.Each grade level has a 40-minute instructional duration.In Turkish classes, teachers may spend varying amounts of time teaching and writing.
Teachers' use of instructional time, teachers' perceptions of professional qualifications, and the frequency with which they incorporate effective instructional practices vary across countries, according to the Teaching and Learning International Survey [TALIS].Among the factors contributing to the differences are pre-service and in-service training, school climate, motivational factors, practices related to diversity and equity, and educational policies.In TALIS 2018, Türkiye had the second-highest percentage of teachers with a bachelor's degree among OECD countries with 92.3%; however, the number of teachers with a master's degree was well below the OECD average.Only 6.3% of teachers in Türkiye have master's degrees, and 0.2% hold a doctorate (Çelikdemir, 2019).Despite the fact that many European countries have developed teacher qualification frameworks that define the skills and competencies that teachers are expected to possess, there is a considerable difference between these frameworks in terms of their forms, values, and elements (Eurydice, 2013).According to the Digital Education in Schools in Europe Report, digital literacy is defined among the general competencies of teachers in about two-thirds of the countries.Türkiye, however, does not have such a competency area within the mentioned framework (Eurydice, 2019).In Türkiye, the teaching profession requires professional knowledge (subject knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of legislation), professional skills (educational planning, creating learning environments, managing the teaching and learning process, measurement and evaluation), attitudes and values (national, spiritual, universal values, dealing with students, communication and cooperation, personal and professional development (MoNE, 2017)."Effective use of information and communication technologies in the teaching and learning process" is the only indicator attributed to teachers' digital competencies (MoNE, 2017, p. 14).

Rationale and Importance
It is necessary to outline the framework of writing instruction in all countries and identify teachers' views, beliefs, and practices regarding writing instruction, since factors affecting writing instruction differ from country to country.It is expected that findings on topics such as teacher and student competencies, writing habits, preferred activities, and EBWP will contribute to a better understanding of the writing instruction process.
This research contributes to the existing literature (Applebee & Langer, 2011;Bañales et al., 2020;Brindle et al., 2016;Coelho, 2020;De Smedt et al., 2016;Gilbert & Graham, 2010;Graham et al., 2014;Graham et al., 2021;Hsiang & Graham, 2016;Kuhlemeier et al., 2013) in some aspects.As Bañales et al. (2020) noted, an accurate conceptualization of world-class writing practices by educators, policymakers, and researchers will be possible if additional research examines teachers' writing practices and beliefs reported across various countries and continents.These studies are essential to determine what writing skills, processes, or knowledge are taught to students, what methods are used to teach writing, whether technology is used to teach writing, and whether teachers evaluate their students' writing development (Cutler & Graham, 2008).However, whether teachers use the writing instruction practices that are effective in academic research needs to be studied in the context of writing instruction.In this way, we can draw conclusions about the overall structure, context, currency, functionality, and competence of teachers in teaching writing in the classroom as well as identify the causes of existing deficiencies.
Writing instruction and a specific aspect of instruction have been discussed in the literature from the perspective of Turkish teachers.These studies (Aydın, 2022;Bilgin, 2018;Çalışkan & Sur, 2022;Kokkokoğlu, 2021;Tağa & Ünlü, 2013;Tok & Ünlü, 2014) examine problems of different dimensions, especially among students and teachers, and make some recommendations.It is also possible to include specific topics such as Turkish teachers' assessment and evaluation practices (Damar, 2016) and awareness of writing strategies (Esendemir, 2019).Unlike these, this study contains more recent and comprehensive findings.The study was designed using a mixedmethods approach and included international literature to assess the problems of writing instruction.A similar study by Yamaç and Öztürk (2018) examined elementary school teachers.This is the first study to examine Turkish secondary school teachers' use of EBWP and to develop a measurement tool to determine their self-efficacy.Results of the study were based on a small sample size.As a result, there is no national characteristic to the research.In spite of this, the study provides an essential framework for clarifying what areas Turkish language teachers need to improve in order to improve their writing skills.

The Aim
The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of writing instruction in Turkish language teaching in secondary schools in Türkiye.In line with this primary objective, quantitative and qualitative research questions were developed.The quantitative dimension of the study will address the following questions:  How do Turkish teachers describe their students' writing routines and habits? How do Turkish teachers define their students' writing competencies?The questions addressed in the qualitative dimension of the research are as follows:  What problems do Turkish teachers believe they are ill-equipped to teach writing? What difficulties (students' weaknesses) do Turkish teachers encounter in the student dimension? What are the thoughts and suggestions of Turkish teachers regarding teacher education (preparation programs)?

Research Design
A mixed-methods approach was used in this study to identify Turkish teachers' views and current practices regarding writing instruction.A mixed method involves collecting both quantitative (closed-ended) and qualitative (open-ended) data, integrating the two sets, and drawing certain conclusions from them to clarify the research question (Creswell, 2021).In this study, quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously using a concurrent triangulation mixedmethods design (Creswell, 2021).Data diversity was created by adding open-ended questions to most of the questions presented to participants as quantitative premises.To assess the overall quality of mixed methods studies, data diversity is widely recommended (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2015).It was stated in the relevant literature (Creswell, 2021;Creswell et al., 2015) that a balanced use of quantitative and qualitative data was intended to overcome the shortcomings of these data alone for confirming and strengthening the findings and providing a much more comprehensive explanation of the problem.

Participants
This study involved 96 Turkish teachers actively working in private or public schools affiliated with the MoNE.Study participants were excluded if they taught Turkish, but had a different specialization, or if they worked only in administration, even if their specialty was teaching Turkish.A description of the teachers participating in the study is presented in Table 1.Table 1 shows that the average age of Turkish teachers is 32.6 years (SD = 6.1; 22-51).The age range with the largest participation is 31-35 (k = 24).70.8% (k = 68) of teachers are female and 29.2% (k = 28) are male.The average tenure of teachers is 9.5 years (SD = 6.47; 1-29).The average number of hours per week of teachers teaching Turkish only is 22.02 (SD: 5.85; 6-34).54% (k = 52) of teachers work in elementary schools, 27.1% (k = 26) in secondary schools, and 18.8% (k = 18) in schools in the third service region.65.6% (k = 63) of teachers teach in schools in urban areas and 2. .Method 34.4% (k = 33) in rural areas.While 82.3% (k = 79) of teachers teach Turkish in more than one grade level, the percentage of teachers teaching Turkish in a single grade level is 17.7% (k = 17).84.4% (k = 81) of teachers have a college degree, and 15.6% (k = 15) have a graduate degree (master's, doctorate).

Survey
This study used survey questions to gather data about Turkish secondary school teachers' preferred practices in teaching writing, their activities, and their perceptions of teaching writing.Additionally, teachers' theoretical and methodological competencies in teaching writing, their use of EBWP, and their provisions for students with writing difficulties were also surveyed.This form was formulated using writing studies and surveys from various countries.Based on the theoretical framework of this study, these questions aim to identify students' writing habits.Moreover, a comprehensive literature review was undertaken in the area of Turkish writing instruction.
The draft questionnaire was reviewed and modified at various intervals.Two experts in the field reviewed the final draft of the survey to ensure its content validity.Following the experts' feedback, the survey was sent to three Turkish secondary school teachers as part of a pilot study.Three teachers commented on whether the survey items were clear enough, whether they were appropriate for the study, and how long it took to complete.The survey was restructured according to teachers' suggestions, and some items' sentence structures and four items in the sample form were removed.The average completion time for the three teachers was 21 minutes.The created survey was presented to teachers electronically.
The majority of questions were designed to allow teachers to ask open-ended questions.In this way, the frequency of preference for particular applications was determined.Most questions used Likert-type responses, as well as "fairly, mostly, moderately, somewhat, not at all," or a similar meaning.Frequencies and percentages are used to describe the distribution of the data obtained from the survey.In creating the subheadings of the survey, the theoretical and practical framework of writing instruction was considered.In the survey, 42 questions are asked about a variety of topics (demographics, general professional information, teacher education programs, in-service training, teacher competence, students' writing skills and habits, the amount of time spent on writing and teaching, the frequency with which EBWP is used, difficulties in writing), as well as the support provided to students, preferred activities, feedback, evaluation, and suggestions).

Open-ended questions
The survey included five open-ended questions.The first relates to the explanation of teachers' categorical assessments of the adequacy of teaching in teacher education programs.In this context, it was asked, "What suggestions would you make for writing instruction in teacher education programs?".The second open-ended question was "What difficulties do you encounter in teaching writing?"This question was associated with the survey question "Do you encounter difficulties in teaching writing?"Other open-ended questions were, "What aspects of teaching writing do you feel are inadequate?" and "What do you feel are your strengths in teaching writing?."To identify methods and techniques of teaching writing, pre-writing activities, and web-based technology use, these open-ended questions were asked in conjunction with Likert-type questions.What are your suggestions for teaching writing in secondary schools?" was the fifth open-ended question.This question was asked to holistically interpret the responses to all of the questions in the survey, identify many dimensions considered to be a problem in writing instruction, and develop a deeper understanding of what improvements in this dimension might look like.Recognizing that teachers may not have all the theoretical knowledge about EBWP and most support services for students with learning disabilities, the questions in this section are not phrased in an open-ended format.In order to clarify the findings in this section, additional analyses were conducted (analysis of scale data) to identify the factors that influence teachers' self-efficacy when implementing EBWP.

Evidence-based writing practice self-efficacy scale
In addition to the survey, the Evidence-Based Writing Practice Self-Efficacy Scale (EBWPSE) has been developed specifically for this study.The scale is composed of two factors and 11 items.Factors include strategies/methods and regulating writing environments/conditions.In the use of strategies/methods factor, there are seven items: review, feedback, goal setting, self-regulation, working on good writing models, teaching different types of texts, and performing pre-writing activities.Writing environment/conditions regulation refers to actions without a direct strategy that has been shown to improve writing instruction.These include creating a motivating writing environment, routines that ensure frequent writing, arrangements that allow for collaborative writing, and technical arrangements.The scale took the form of a five-point Likert scale.There were five response categories on the scale: always (5), usually (4), sometimes (3), rarely (2), and never (1).The highest score that can be obtained on the scale is 55, and the lowest score is 11.Accordingly, 11 ≤ TP < 26 low, 26 ≤ TP < 41 medium, and 41 ≤ TP ≤ 55 high indicate self-efficacy in implementing EBWP in writing instruction.
EBWP, research-based writing instruction, and good practices in writing instruction were reviewed extensively during the development of the scale.In this context, studies with evidencebased and generalizable findings such as meta-analyses and theoretical studies (Graham & Harris, 2017;Graham et al., 2015;Graham et al., 2012;Graham & Perin, 2007;Harris & McKeown, 2022;Troia, 2014;Troia & Olinghouse, 2013) were reviewed.Furthermore, Turkish instructional programs published since 2005 were screened for their explanations and achievements in writing instruction.As a result of this screening, a pool of 29 items was created.Eight experts in Turkish teaching and learning methodology evaluated the item form based on the theoretical framework and expression.Using Lawshe (1975) as a guide, each item was given a content validity ratio (CVR).Accordingly, four items that were below the lowest CVR value (.78) reported for eight experts at the  = .05significance level were removed from the form.The mean CVR value of the remaining 25 items was determined to be .94.Therefore, it was assumed that the content validity of the form was given.
Exploratory factor analysis.Exploratory factor analysis was conducted using SPSS 22.0.Following the assumptions of factor analysis, we tested whether the sample was sufficient and whether the distribution was normal.As a result of the analysis, a KMO value of .87 was calculated.In cases where the KMO value is above .70,the sample is assumed to be sufficient for conducting an exploratory factor analysis (Bryman & Cramer, 2004).At the same time, the result of Bartlett's test for sphericity was statistically significant ( < .05).On this basis, factor analysis was performed for the data set.To reveal the factor pattern of the scale, the Maximum Likelihood and Direct Oblimin techniques were chosen.The Direct Oblimin is a technique that is preferred when a large data set is not available, and the factors are believed to be related (Field, 2009).This preference was made because it is believed that the factors in this scale, which were created to determine teachers' selfefficacy in implementing EBWP, may be related.
As a result of the analysis, there was a structure with 11 items and two factors that explained 55.9% of the total variance.Regarding total variance, this value is above 50%, which was set as the minimum value by Streiner (1994).The first factor explained 41.4% (eigenvalue: 4.56) of the total variance and the second factor explained 14.42 (eigenvalue: 1.59).Each sub-factors explained at least 5% of the total variance in the scale, and the eigenvalue was at least 1%.It can be said that these values are quite good (Seçer, 2015).
The literature states that the loading value of each item should be at least .40,and the difference between the loading values between two or more factors should be more than .10(Field, 2009).Eight items were excluded from the scale because they overlapped.Finally, a two-dimensional scale with 11 items and factor loadings ranging from .54 to .87 was developed (Appendix 1, 2).According to the content of the items in the factors, the first factor was titled use of strategies/methods, and the second was titled regulation of writing environment/conditions.As a result of the reliability analysis, Cronbach's alpha value for the entire scale was calculated to be .86.This value is .84(7 items) for the first factor and .8(4 items) for the second factor.Büyüköztürk (2014) says that the alpha value should be greater than .70.Thus, the obtained values show that the reliability of the scale and its subfactors are high.When the item overall statistics were examined, it was found that removing an item from the scale had no significant effect on the reliability estimate.All item-total statistics were positive and above .30(Field, 2009), which is the minimum value (see Appendix 3).In addition, the difference between the mean of the 27% who scored the highest on the scale (M = 48.45)and the mean of the 27% who scored the lowest (M = 29.19)was also statistically significant ( <.05).All of these results indicate that the scale is a reliable measurement tool that provides information about teachers' self-efficacy regarding EBWP.
Confirmatory factor analysis.Confirmatory factor analysis (Field, 2009) was conducted to determine the structure and relationship between the latent variables underlying the data tested.AMOS was used for the analysis.According to the model established as a result of the analysis (Appendix 4), the explanatory factor power of the items varies between .51 and .81.Since standardized regression coefficients are expected to be close to or above .70,it can be said that these values are acceptable.It is statistically significant ( <.001) at the level of all items that represent its latent variable.The goodness-of-fit indices were examined to determine the extent to which the model created fits the data.Perfect fit for  2 /df ≤ 2 (Kline, 2011), ≤ .05for RMSEA (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), ≥ .95for CFI (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), ≤ .05for RMSEA (Brown, 2006).≥ .90good fit for GFI, NFI (Hooper et al., 2008), ≥ .90good fit for IFI, TLI, ≥ .90perfect fit for AGFI (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), RMR for the value <.08 are values that indicate a good fit (Brown, 2006).In addition, an SRMR ≤ .05indicates excellent fit, and a value between .05 and .10indicates good fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).When assessed against these criteria, it appears that the model created fits the data well ( 2 /df = 1.336,CFI = .975,RMSEA = .046,GFI = .936,NFI = .909,IFI = .975;TLI = .975.968; AGFI = .902;RMR = .072;SRMR = .054).Thus, the two-factor structure of the scale was confirmed.

Analysis of the Data
The means and standard deviations of the responses to the Likert-type questions on writing instruction given by teachers in the context of teaching Turkish in secondary schools were calculated.Among the five-point Likert-type questions in the survey, those with a mean less than 3 were assumed to indicate a critical problem, and the comments focused on them.In addition, SPSS 22 software was used to assess whether some variables influenced teachers' self-efficacy.First, normality tests were conducted.The skewness coefficient and kurtosis coefficient of teachers' selfefficacy scores for evidence-based writing were −0.36 and −0.29, respectively.Furthermore, the zstatistics obtained by dividing the skewness and kurtosis coefficients by their standard errors yielded −1.46 and -0.598, respectively.As suggested in the literature (Hair et al., 2013), most of the variables examined in the study showed values between −1 and +1 in terms of skewness and kurtosis.These variables were gender (skewness: −0.43 to −0.28; kurtosis: −0.61 to −0.21), graduation status (skewness: −0.34 to −0.65; kurtosis: −0.39 to 0.55), school location (skewness: 0.56 to 0.41; kurtosis: −0.42 to 0.12).Grade level (skewness: −1.05 to −0.24; kurtosis: −0.37 to 0.81), in-service training (skewness: −0.44 to −0.54; kurtosis: −1.06 to 0.39), and age (skewness: −0.92 to 0.03; kurtosis: −1.06 to 0.21) is very close to the range of −1 and +1, but also meets the condition of ±1.5 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), which is also reported as acceptable values.Years of teaching experience (skewness: −0.75 to 0.18; kurtosis −2.02 to 0.41) is within the range of ±1 for skewness and ±2 (George & Mallery, 2010), which is also an acceptable value for kurtosis.The z-statistics for the sub-dimensions of all variables are also within the range of ±1.96 recommended in the literature (Büyüköztürk, 2014).Therefore, all skewness, kurtosis, and z-statistics show that the data are normally distributed.Therefore, independent samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance were performed on the data.
Teachers' responses to the open-ended questions designed to identify teachers' suggestions for teacher education and writing instruction in general, difficulties encountered in the student dimension, and perceived weaknesses and strengths in writing instruction were subjected to content analysis.MAXQDA 2022 software (VERBI Software, 2021) was used to analyze these qualitative data.Using the software, codes and subcodes were arranged and categorized hierarchically in a network structure.The frequencies of the codes are also included in the diagrams created.

Students' writing routines and habits
Table 2 presents results regarding teachers' knowledge of their students' writing habits, the percentage of students who regularly write outside the classroom, and the frequency with which students use computers to write.As seen in Table 2, 53.1% of teachers indicated that they were very aware of their students' writing habits, while 23.9% were utterly aware.Only 5.2% of teachers said they were somewhat aware.No teacher claims to be unaware of it.The level of awareness of teachers is above average (M = 3.95; SD = 0.79).However, the overall percentage of teachers who reported that at least half of their students write outside the classroom is only 18.8%.The percentage of teachers who reported that at least 6 out of 10 students write regularly is only 13.5%.10.4% of teachers said their students never write outside the classroom, 32.3% said only 10% and 20.8% said only one in five students write.Table 3 also shows that 38.5% of teachers never have their students use computers to write.The percentage of teachers who do it several times a year is 29.2%, while those who do it once a month account for 8.3% of all teachers, 6.2% of those who do it once a week, and 2.1% of those who do it at least once a day.

Students' writing competencies
A summary of teachers' assessments of their students' writing competencies can be found in Table 3. Table 4 shows that 6.2% of teachers label all their students as very poor writers unable to meet even the minimum writing standards.Teachers also indicated that 46.8% of their students fall into this category.

Time spent on writing and teaching
Table 4 shows the ratio of instructional time spent on operations (learning-teaching, guidance/order, administrative procedures) and language skills (reading, writing, speaking, listening, grammar).Table 4 shows that 69.4% of teachers reported that they devote at least 70% of their teaching time to the learning and teaching process.In addition, 35% of teachers indicated that they devote at least half of their teaching time to guidance and order, and 28.4% perform administrative tasks.However, 43.8% of teachers devote at least half of their teaching time to reading, 34.4% to grammar, 32.3% to listening, 30.2% to speaking, and 30.2% to writing.The percentage of teachers devoting half of their instructional time to writing is low compared to other learning areas.16.7% of teachers devote 10% of their instructional time to writing instruction, 34.4% devote 20%, and 13.5% devote 30%.These data indicate that approximately two-thirds of teachers devote 30% of instructional time to writing instruction.
The results regarding the frequency of writing tasks that require writing more than one paragraph, which is another indicator of time devoted to writing and writing instruction, are presented in Table 5. Note. 10 or more (5), 7-9 (4), 4-6 (3), 1-3 (2), Never (1); *How many times a month do you give your students tasks that require them to write more than one paragraph?
Table 5 indicates that only 4.2% of teachers frequently assign their students writing tasks requiring more than one paragraph.A total of 10% of teachers assign their students such tasks frequently and often.Only 2.1% of teachers reported never giving their students extended writing tasks.The highest percentage (45.8%) is accounted for by teachers who give these tasks at an intermediate level (4-6 times per month).Based on all the data, it is evident that the frequency of writing tasks requiring more than one paragraph is below average (M = 2.67; SD = 0.79).

Teachers' competencies in teaching writing
Turkish teachers' use of teaching methods and techniques (methodology), feedback types, webbased technologies (technology integration), and instruments with clear criteria for measurement and evaluation is shown in Table 6.Table 6 shows that 8.3% of Turkish teachers believe that they are fully competent in teaching methods and techniques.The majority of teachers (55.2%) believe they are highly competent in this subject.Although no teacher indicated they were not competent, 7.3% of participants described themselves as somewhat competent.A general assessment shows that Turkish teachers' methodological competencies are between the moderately competent and very competent categories (M = 3.64; SD = 0.74).Table 7 includes another result related to the feedback teachers give.According to this result, almost all teachers prefer teacher feedback as a feedback type in writing instruction more than other types (M = 4.64; SD = 0.71).Moreover, self-feedback (M = 3.53, SD = 1.18) and peer feedback (M = 3.42; SD = 1.11) are moderately preferred.Computer/online/electronic feedback is the least used type of feedback (M = 2.24; SD = 1.32), with only 18.7% of teachers indicating that it is used all the time or most of the time.So much so that 45.8% of teachers never use feedback.
Another result in the table shows that 23.9% of teachers do not employ web-based technologies in the writing classroom.Those who utilize these technologies to some extent account for 31.2% of all participants, while the total percentage of those who use these technologies most of the time and always is 20.9%.These values show that the use of technologies by Turkish teachers is not at the desired level (M = 2.46; SD = 1.15).The last result in Table 7 refers to using tools with clear criteria in teachers' measurement and evaluation.According to this result, 9.4% of teachers report rarely using tools (rubrics, portfolios, etc.) with clear assessment criteria when assessing student work.The percentage of teachers who use these tools in every assessment is only 2.1%.
Table 7 contains results on supporting students with writing difficulties which is defined as another area of teacher competence.The results in Table 7 show that 27.1% of teachers provide additional writing instruction to students with writing difficulties using technology, 18.8% provide additional short lessons, 17.7% provide additional modeling/guided writing practice, 16.7% do additional training with peer writing opportunities, 14.6% use of a graphic organizer, 11.4% provide additional grammar practice.The only type of support that more than half (53%) of the teachers always provide is additional encouragement.When evaluating the sum of support rates given always and most of the time, it appears that support for revising the task (shortening, simplifying, reducing complexity) is the most prominent.This type of support is often preferred by 77% of teachers.It is followed by additional information about the benefits and function of writing (76.1%), additional encouragement (75%), freedom in choosing topics (71.8%), and additional work to reduce grade anxiety (71.8%).The mean scores ranged from 2.78 to 4.17.
Presenting different types of activities and writing assignments to students is also an issue considered in teacher competency.The corresponding results can be found in Table 8.According to Table 8, creative writing (f = 75), writing stories (f = 74), free writing (f = 70), writing poems (f = 61), completing texts (f = 58), text exercises (f = 57) are teachers' preferred activities.Least preferred are hypothetical writing (Say..., Suppose....), writing based on a self-regulated strategy (f = 1), writing a monolog (f = 1), writing a research report (f = 3), pair activities (f = 3), digital story (f = 4), warm-up exercises (f = 4), concept network (f = 8), mind map (f = 9), role play (f = 9), sentence expansion ( f = 10), writing a dialog (f = 10).This shows that these activities are not among the top 10 activities that at least 90% of teachers do in their writing classes.One of the questions that should be answered in the study is how often teachers use EBWP.Table 9 shows the results in this regard.
As can be seen in Table 9, Turkish teachers always and most prefer: teaching the structure of narrative texts (79.1%), linking writing activities to daily life (72.9%),teaching basic writing skills (spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, etc.) (72.9%), teaching the basic elements of different literary genres (70.9%), teaching the structure of informative/expository texts (69.8%), teaching students the words they use to develop their texts (68.7%), writing summaries (67.7%), using a process-oriented approach to writing (65.6%), providing written feedback on students' work (64.6%), setting specific writing goals for students (64.6%), establishing routines that create a motivating writing environment for students (64.6%), teaching students to self-regulate the writing process (63.5%), teaching note-taking strategies (63.5%), using graphic organizers (60.4%).In terms of mean scores, narrative text structure (M = 4.13; SD = 1.02) and teaching basic writing skills (M = 4.02; SD = 1.1) are the preferred practices.On the other hand, a certain percentage of teachers need to incorporate some evidence-based practices into writing instruction.For example, 32.3% of teachers gave no place to word processors (Word, etc.), 14.6% to technology, and 13.5% to peer feedback.Results indicate that almost all EBWPs are moderately preferred, but student use of word processors is not the preferred practice of teachers (M = 2.6; SD = 1.4).

Writing instruction given in teacher education programs
Turkish teachers' views about the adequacy of instruction in teacher education programs are presented in Table 10.The results in Table 10 show that 3.1% of teachers consider the writing training they receive in teacher education to be completely adequate, and 25% of teachers consider it to be mostly adequate.On the other hand, 22.9% of the teachers think that the training they receive is largely inadequate, and 9.4% think that it is not.It does not consider teachers' writing instruction adequacy to be even at a medium level (M = 2.89; SD = 0.99).

Quantitative results on the effect of different variables on teachers' self-efficacy in implementing the EBWP
As part of this study, Turkish teachers' self-efficacy in implementing EBWP was examined.The factors considered in this study included their gender, location of the school in an urban or rural setting, whether or not they had received in-service training in the previous year, and their age and teaching experience.The results of the t-test involving gender, school status, and in-service training are shown in Table 11.
As can be seen in Table 11, although the mean scores of female teachers (M = 40.34)are higher than the mean scores of male teachers (M = 37.96), this difference is not statistically significant (t(94) = 1.035;  > .05).Thus, gender does not significantly affect teachers' self-efficacy in implementing EBWP.Similarly, the difference between the mean scores of teachers who have a college/graduate degree (M = 39.2) and the mean of teachers who have a graduate or doctoral degree (M = 41.5) is not statistically significant (t(94) = −0.718; >.05).In addition, although the mean scores of teachers working in urban areas (M = 40.01)are higher than the mean scores of teachers working in rural areas (M = 38.9),this difference is also not statistically significant (t(94)= 0.517;  >.05).There is no statistically significant difference between the scores of teachers Based on the results in Table 12, teachers' self-efficacy in using EBWP does not differ statistically significantly by agev(F(4.91)=1.353;p >.05).In addition, the amount of time teachers spend in their profession does not significantly affect their self-efficacy (F(4.91)= 0.491; p >.05).

Qualitative Results
An analysis of Turkish teachers' teacher education results was included in the qualitative dimension of the study.These include their teaching about writing, suggestions for teaching writing in secondary schools, difficulties they encounter when teaching writing about students, and elements they perceive as weak and strong when teaching writing.Findings under the headings writing competency of students, teacher competency in teaching writing, and appropriateness of teacher education programs are directly related to the quantitative findings.Furthermore, some themes relate to quantitative findings about time spent on writing and writing instruction, preferred activities, EBWP, and prescriptions under the heading recommendations for teaching writing in secondary schools.

Student-related difficulties of teachers in writing classes
Turkish teachers reported encountering some difficulties when teaching students' writing.A variety of factors influenced teachers' views on this issue, including cognitive factors (knowledge dimension), affective factors, behavioral routines (habits), general competencies, and sociocultural factors.A schematic representation of this classification can be found in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Difficulties encountered in teaching writing (learner)
Figure 1 shows that the most questions are asked about cognitive elements.According to teachers, students' cognitive deficits prevent them from writing well.The internal and external structure of the text are affected by these deficits.One of the problems with the internal structure is the students' inability to come up with ideas because they lack imagination and creativity.A second problem is the lack of basic writing skills among students.Among the other problems mentioned were lack of vocabulary, short texts, a lack of the desired level of language and expression, inability to write a coherent text, a lack of originality, an inability to form good sentences, an inability to plan the text, some grammatical errors, a lack of a topic, and repetition.In terms of the external structure, the most commonly mentioned problem is that many typos appear in students' texts.In addition to not being able to provide notebooks and layouts, teachers also mentioned not being able to write well and using incorrect punctuation.Students' lack of interest and motivation in writing is the biggest problem in the affective elements, another category.This is the most frequently mentioned problem area of teachers' difficulties in teaching writing.Affective elements include fear of making mistakes due to lack of confidence, stereotypical prejudice and resistance to writing, lack of persistence in writing, and fear of being evaluated.Behavioral routines (habits), general competencies, and sociocultural elements receive fewer views than cognitive and affective elements.There are a number of sociocultural factors that contribute to students' difficulties in developing writing and reading habits, behavioral routines, basic language skills, academic achievement and readiness, general competencies, inadequate social development, and inability to transfer local spoken language to writing.These difficulties are seen by Turkish teachers as obstacles to successful writing instruction (see Appendix 5).

The issues teachers feel ill-equipped to deal with when teaching writing (weaknesses)
The issues for which teachers feel inadequately equipped when teaching writing are shown in Figure 2.

Figıre 2
The issues teachers feel ill-equipped to deal with when teaching writing (weaknesses) As shown in Figure 2, teachers' weak areas when it comes to teaching writing were assessed in three areas.These are knowledge and skills specific to writing, managing the learning and teaching process, and personal characteristics.The specific skills in writing stand out compared to the other titles because of the number and variety of views included in them.Some Turkish teachers believe that they are not good enough to motivate their students to write.Using different techniques, methods, and strategies in teaching writing, diversifying activities, encouraging creativity and imagination, putting theoretical knowledge into practice, using different materials, planning the writing process, mastering different types of texts, conducting writing preparation activities, understanding the logic of spelling rules, the concept of error correction, and creative writing activities are among the issues that the teachers indicated as weaknesses.When we look at the codes in the category of managing the learning and teaching process, we find that there are teachers who feel they are not well equipped in terms of giving feedback, using time, determining activities that are appropriate for the level, supporting the teacher, and making teaching fun.Keeping up with current developments in the scientific field and changing the grammar rules and writing nicely were the elements included in the personal characteristics category (see Appendix 6).

Suggestions for teaching writing in Turkish teacher education programs
Turkish teachers' suggestions for teacher education programs for writing instruction are summarized in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Suggestions for teaching writing in Turkish teacher education programs
According to Figure 3, Turkish teachers' proposals for teacher education programs are discussed under course content and policy/regulations/regulations.Teachers indicated that content should include application-oriented lessons teaching writing.Additionally, they discuss the methods, techniques, and strategies that can be used to teach writing.Additionally, teachers emphasize teaching students about different types of texts and their structures.Topics suggested by teachers include teaching different ways to provide feedback, presenting the theoretical framework, using technology in writing instruction, including ways to encourage motivation to write and support students with writing difficulties, implementing interactive applications, teaching how to edit written texts, observing students' work, integrating activities with reading skills, providing opportunities for observation and experience, developing problem-solving skills, and improving the formal aspect of writing.Curriculum updates (course information packets) are the most frequently recommended topic in the policy/regulation/regulatory rubric.According to Turkish teachers, the current curriculum should be compatible with secondary school writing instruction, have a practical/realistic/lifelike structure, be responsive to regional conditions, be elaborated, and incorporate innovations.The policy/regulation suggestions include increasing the number and credits of writing instruction courses, student-centered education, a greater emphasis on writing, writing training for teachers of all disciplines, a focus on materials development studies, the use of experts, and the diversification of the environment where writing instruction takes place (see Appendix 7).

Suggestions for teaching writing in secondary schools
Turkish teachers make some suggestions to education administrators and teachers to make secondary school writing instruction more qualified and efficient.These suggestions are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Suggestions for teaching writing in secondary schools
According to Figure 4, teacher suggestions were examined in two separate subcategories: Learning and teaching process and assessment.The learning and teaching process includes certain suggestions on the general writing approach, implementation of activities/exercises, and consideration of affective elements.The most recommended item under the heading of the general writing approach is to set aside time for writing instruction.Following this is applying technology, doing activities appropriate to the level, relating activities to daily life, and providing a variety of methods and materials.As for making activities/applications, it is recommended to do ten different activities and practices, including writing exercises, applications to improve writing skills, applications to improve vocabulary, writing workshops, and text completion studies.In the category of considering affective elements, another subcategory of the teaching-learning process, recommended topics include exciting activities, encouraging students to write, and implementing motivating practices.The most recommended topics in the assessment category are using feedback in assessment processes and reducing multiple-choice exams.
The topics suggested by teachers are divided into four subcategories: curriculum/course materials, general regulations, teacher training, and assessment and evaluation.The curriculum/course materials title includes increasing the number of source materials, diversifying activities, revising textbooks, updating curriculum, increasing the number of sample texts, and making subjects interesting.The title of general regulations includes topics such as offering writing as a separate course, increasing the hours for reading books in schools, having writing exercises in other lessons, providing a separate lesson for writing in Turkish classes, and conducting a needs analysis for writing.In teacher education, emphasizing writing and writing instruction in the undergraduate curriculum and providing hands-on training, examinations, and national assessments for writing skills only are among the recommended assessment and evaluation topics (see Appendix 8).

Discussion
Using Turkish teachers' views and preferred practices, this study explored the current state of teaching writing in secondary schools in the context of teaching Turkish.The study's quantitative findings provide insight into various issues such as students' writing habits and writing competencies, time devoted to writing and writing instruction, activities preferred in writing instruction, and teachers' competencies in writing instruction.The study also examines Turkish teachers' self-efficacy in using DBT and the variables affecting it.In addition, the qualitative findings of the study provide an explanation for the quantitative results related to students' writing competencies and teachers' teaching of writing.

Students' Writing Skills and Habits
It has been shown in the current study that students' writing skills are not at a satisfactory level.The majority of teachers indicated that at least 50% of their students could not meet the minimum writing standards.About three out of four teachers reported that at least half of their students have below-average writing skills.The study found that students are far from the desired level, not only in writing skills but also in writing habits.This is because one-third of teachers reported that only 10% of their students have writing habits outside the classroom.
Qualitative results of the study revealed a lack of interest/motivation in the student dimension of writing instruction, spelling errors, lack of basic writing skills, inability to develop ideas due to lack of imagination and creativity, lack of basic language skills, fear of making mistakes, inability to write well, prejudice against writing, writing habits.Research has shown that students have difficulty developing ideas, using inadequate vocabulary, expressing themselves clearly, using punctuation marks incorrectly, writing in short sentences, and planning texts.Numerous studies conducted in Türkiye support these findings (Aydın, 2022;Bilgin, 2018;Çalışkan & Sur, 2022;Tağa & Ünlü, 2013;Tok & Ünlü, 2013).Specifically, the present study identified problems including low desire and motivation, low vocabulary, poor writing habits, spelling and punctuation errors, and inability to plan.
The fact that studies in the international literature (e.g., Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA, 2022]; Brindle et al., 2016;U. S. National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012;Parr & Jesson, 2016; The United Kingdom's Department for Education, 2012) have reached similar conclusions indicates that the fact that students' writing skills and interest in writing do not develop at desired levels is not specific to a particular region, student profile, or curriculum.This suggests that the lack of development of students' writing skills and interest in writing at the desired level is not attributable to a particular region, student profile, or curriculum.Considering that writing is a minimum requirement at all grade levels and that curriculum demands writing increase as learning becomes more complex, it is inevitable that not being able to write at even a minimum standard will have a negative impact both in school and after school (Wyatt-Smith & Jackson, 2020).On the other hand, the fact that teaching writing is a global problem does not mean that the causes of these problems are the same.The teachers' suggestions for teaching writing reported in the current study allow us to conclude the causes of this problem.
Although not elaborated upon in the context of this research question, some of the teachers whose views were solicited point to the elementary school level as the cause of this problem.According to this view, neglecting certain elements that should be taught as basic knowledge and developed as skills at the elementary level affects teaching writing to secondary students.
On the other hand, prioritizing a teaching approach focused on improving reading skills at the primary school level and not allocating enough time to the theoretical and practical aspects of writing may have paved the way for such a result.Not providing additional support to students who have difficulties in writing, not making arrangements that will contribute to the development of students' writing habits, and putting the affective aspect of writing into the background can be counted among the reasons.At this point, more emphasis should be placed on the components of effective writing instruction and how to improve students' writing habits and motivation.Research should also be done on providing students with information that will form the basis of their writing and ensure its continuity and what kind of support can be offered to students who currently need to gain this informational framework.On the other hand, the fact that the focus of instruction is on improving reading skills in elementary school and not enough time is spent on the theoretical and practical aspects of writing, that additional support is not provided to students who have difficulty writing, that provisions are not made to help develop students' writing habits, that the affective aspect of writing is relegated to the background, that scientific developments in writing instruction are not taken into account, and that problems arising from the curriculum and materials may have paved the way for such an outcome.At this point, more emphasis should be placed on the components of effective writing instruction and how to improve students' writing habits and motivation.In addition, research should be done on providing students with information that will form the basis of their writing and ensure its continuity and what kind of support can be offered to students who do not currently have this information framework.

Time Allotted to Writing and Teaching Writing
To implement high-quality instructional practices, it is essential to maximize classroom time.According to the OECD, teachers devote 78% of their classroom time to teaching and learning, 13% to organizing the classroom, and 8% to administration (OECD, 2019).In terms of actual teaching and learning time, Türkiye has the lowest average at 72% (OECD, 2019).More than 30% of teachers in the current study reported spending less than 70% of their classroom time on learning and teaching processes.In addition, the study found that writing takes up less time than reading, grammar, and listening.Two-thirds of teachers devote up to 30% of their lesson time to writing, which is less time consuming than speaking.These results are quite remarkable.As a result, students may be less likely to take advantage of opportunities like feedback, practice, and collaboration if instructional time is not well spent on writing instruction.The development of a strategic approach by teachers in this regard, as well as the amount of time devoted to actual teaching and learning, contributes to finding solutions to several negative aspects that are currently among the problems associated with writing instruction (not giving students enough time to write, assuming writing is a non-class activity).
The results of the present study also show that the frequency with which students are given writing tasks that require them to write more than one paragraph is also below average.The percentage of teachers who give their students such tasks frequently and often is only 10%.This result suggests that a theoretical or practical dimension lacking in the classroom is not compensated for outside the classroom.However, in order to master a skill, it must be practiced regularly and consistently.Based on this idea, it is obvious that students should spend more time writing to improve their writing skills.The U.S Institute of Education Sciences (IES) guide for training students to become proficient writers states that this time should be at least 30 minutes for kindergarten students and 60 minutes for elementary students (Picou, 2020).From this point of view, even the results reported in the present study at the secondary level are far from this minimum standard.The aforementioned result is in line with the study of Yamaç and Öztürk (2018), who found that the time allocated for writing and writing instruction is insufficient.The United States (Brindle et al., 2016;Cutler & Graham, 2008;Gilbert & Graham, 2010;Picou, 2020), the Netherlands (Henkens, 2010;Kuhlemeier et al., 2013), Norway (Graham et al., 2021), Flanders (De Smedt & Van Keer, 2017;De Smedt et al., 2016), Brazil (Coelho, 2020), Chile (Bañales et al., 2020), Beijing, Macau, and Taipei City (Hsiang & Graham, 2016) indicate that writing and/or writing instruction is not given the time they need.Alternative approaches should be used to utilize instructional time more effectively to overcome this problem.Before using these approaches, it is crucial to consider the classroom learning culture, resources, and student characteristics.

Teachers' Competencies in Teaching Writing
An essential finding of this study, which looks at Turkish teachers' competencies in teaching writing in different ways, is that 90% of the teachers have difficulties teaching writing.However, about 40% of the teachers indicated that they often or always have these difficulties.Although Turkish teachers indicated that they have above-average competence in the methods and techniques of teaching writing, only 8% of them believe that they have this methodological competence.The finding that Turkish teachers' competence in writing instruction methodology is not at the desired level is also found in various studies (Esendemir, 2019;Tağa & Ünlü, 2013).In addition to methodology, another area of competence in which teachers are not at the desired level is the variety of feedback.According to the study results, teachers give less space to different types of feedback, such as peer feedback and self-feedback, than to teacher feedback.Electronic/online feedback is never used by almost half of the teachers.In addition, the study's qualitative findings revealed that while teachers categorically say they prefer the type of teacher feedback the most, they are not fully capable of providing feedback.This is an important issue for writing instruction.After all, it is widely recognized that feedback closes the gap between a student's current progress and intended learning goals and can be a very effective tool for instruction.In this context, feedback must be multifaceted and include different types of feedback, such as peer assessment and self-assessment (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).Teachers should effectively design feedback processes in their classrooms and enable students to effectively use feedback information to improve the quality of their learning.Essentially, this involves shifting the teacher's role from information provider to fostering students' feedback literacy (Molloy et al., 2020, p. 537).This can be achieved by enhancing teachers' feedback skills through various training sessions.Finally, teachers must incorporate electronic feedback, as crowded classrooms and limited instructional time can result in an inability to provide feedback to each student face-to-face.Electronic feedback can increase the amount of feedback students receive on their written work and provide an opportunity to find solutions to teachers' time constraints (Lam, 2021).
Another important finding from the study is that teachers need to utilize technology to teach writing.Only one in five teachers indicated that they often or always integrate technology into writing instruction.However, among EBWP, use of technology and student use of word processing programs are the least preferred uses.These findings, which can be evaluated in the context of technology use in writing instruction, are also supported by several qualitative findings.While writing stories is the most preferred writing activity, the fact that digital stories are among the least frequently used activities, and the additional teaching of writing through the use of technology in supporting students with writing difficulties is another type of support with the lowest average, illustrates this situation.In this context, technology is not currently integrated into writing instruction.This negative picture of technology use coincides with the results of different studies.In one of them, Yamaç and Öztürk (2018) found that technology is not effectively used in writing instruction by 3rd and 4th-grade elementary teachers and that most teachers practice writing on computers and keyboards several times a year or not at.This problem is also described in the studies of international literature.USA (Applebee & Langer, 2011;Graham et al., 2014), UK (Dockrell et al., 2016), andFlemish Belgium (De Smedt et al., 2016).According to the research, teachers cannot regularly integrate technology into their writing instruction.In this regard, it is necessary to develop technological and pedagogical content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2008) so that teachers can successfully integrate technology into writing instruction.
Another study finding is that about 40% of teachers do not use tools such as rubrics, score tables, and portfolios with clear assessment criteria, not even at a moderate level.This finding, which points to a problem in the assessment of written work, is consistent with studies in the literature.Karatay and Dilekçi (2019) found in their qualitative study that Turkish teachers, in their opinion, are not good at measuring and assessing their writing skills, including their opinion in the assessment of written work, and using traditional assessment tools instead of instruments such as rubrics and portfolios.In another study, Kokkokoğlu (2021) concluded that most of the teachers he surveyed assess students' writing skills only through exams.The OECD report also indicates that teachers in Türkiye prefer closed and short assessments such as quizzes and multiple-choice questions and are not confident in using performance-based assessments such as portfolios, research, or writing (Kitchen et al., 2019).In addition, the results of the survey conducted by OECD TALIS indicated that Türkiye is the country that spends the least amount of time on monitoring, regulating, and assessing studies (Demirci-Celep, 2019).At this point, it is important to develop teachers' assessment skills.This is a prerequisite for teachers to successfully introduce and implement alternative assessment forms (Koh & DePass, 2019).In this regard, developing teachers' assessment repertoires and helping them implement a process-and criterion-based assessment approach to writing instruction should be a priority.
The qualitative dimension of the study contains detailed findings on the problems teachers feel overwhelmed with when teaching writing.High on the list of these problems are motivating students to write, using different methods/techniques/strategies, and diversifying activities.Fostering creativity and imagination, transferring theoretical knowledge into practice, using various materials, providing feedback, using time effectively, keeping up with current scientific developments, supporting instruction, planning the writing process, and mastering different types of texts are other issues that stand out.Various studies conducted in Türkiye (Bilgin, 2018;Çalışkan & Sur, 2022;Damar, 2016;Esendemir, 2019;Kokkokoğlu, 2021;Tağa & Ünlü, 2013;Tok & Ünlü, 2014;Yamaç & Öztürk, 2018) contain similar findings related to proficiency.The problems reported in these studies focus on issues such as using different methods, strategies, techniques, and materials and giving feedback.Similar studies in the international literature (Applebee & Langer, 2011;De Smedt & Van Keer, 2017;Dockrell et al., 2016;Graham et al., 2021;Inspectie van Het Onderwijs, 2021;Parr & Jesson, 2016;Peterson & McClay, 2014;Ralli et al., 2022;Smidt et al., 2011;Wyatt-Smith & Jackson, 2020) draw a similar framework for missing teacher competence.This framework includes several elements, from knowledge of writing instruction and the ability to set specific goals to giving feedback and using instruments to assess writing development.

Support Status for Students with Writing Difficulties
Another issue explored in the study is support for students with writing difficulties, which is considered an essential component of teacher competence in writing.The study found that most of these supports are provided at a moderate level, but some teachers do not prefer some types of support.These include teaching additional writing skills using technology and providing additional writing opportunities with peers.The fact that only type of support that more than half of the teachers always give is that of giving the student an extra incentive/encouragement, and when the averages are evaluated, only four of the fifteen different types of support (additional incentive/encouragement for the student, additional information about the benefits and function of writing, revision of the assignment/task, freedom to choose the topic) are given most often, which shows that Turkish teachers are not at the desired level in this regard.These inadequacies of teachers can be explained by the fact that this subject is not adequately addressed in the teaching content of teacher education programs, and applied studies are not conducted.The fact that the course content is mainly geared toward typical students means that many prospective teachers and instructors are unable to develop a theoretical and practical understanding of the subject.In this context, expanding the curriculum to include the support that can be given to students with writing difficulties is a functional solution to the problem.

Teachers' Incorporation of Evidence-based Practices and Their Preferred Activities
The implementation of EBWP plays a vital role in writing instruction and in the development of students' writing skills (Graham & Harris, 2017).Based on this idea, the study also examined teachers' self-efficacy in using evidence-based practices and the variables that may influence this self-efficacy.Two important findings emerged.First, there is much less room for some evidencebased practices.These include apps that allow students to use word processors when writing, technology in the classroom, and apps that provide opportunities for peer feedback.However, nearly a quarter of Turkish teachers do not use strategies for planning/drafting, revising, and editing at even a moderate level.At this point, there is a great difference between the studies conducted in the field of writing instruction and classroom practice, and a common language on this topic has not yet been found.This study will contribute to the formation of this common language by looking at the approaches and strategies whose effectiveness have been studied in scholarly research from both theoretical and practical perspectives, providing teachers with theoretical and practical training on EBWP and encouraging teachers to adopt these practices.
The second major finding of the study is that the variables of gender, education status, location of schools, age, and years of teaching experience do not have a statistically significant effect on teachers' self-efficacy in EBWP.For this reason, it is important to examine different variables that have the potential to influence Turkish teachers' use of EBWP.
In the present study, the practices and activities preferred by Turkish teachers were identified in terms of their contribution to teachers' interpretive competence and their use of EBWP.Turkish teachers generally use relatively few activities that stimulate students' thinking skills at a high level, with a few exceptions, such as creative writing.However, another noteworthy aspect is that more emphasis is placed on specific traditional genres, such as stories and poems, and less on genres and tasks, such as argumentative and critical writing, research reports, and guided and hypothetical writing.Also, multi-component procedures that emphasize the strategic aspect of writing, such as self-directed writing, were rarely favored by teachers.These findings are also found in several studies on the same topic.For example, Gilbert and Graham (2010) found that teachers in the U.S. rarely favored activities such as persuasive writing, informative and explanatory writing, and research writing.The strategic aspect of writing and especially strategies such as planning, revising, and editing, are not adequately addressed in the U.S. (Kiuhara et al., 2009), Norway (Graham et al., 2021), and Greece (Ralli et al., 2022).
In the general analysis of the results, we find that the teachers position themselves at different levels of competence in teaching writing, with a much clearer difference in some areas of competence.This situation leads to a difference between teachers in terms of the potential to contribute to the teaching of writing.In other words: While some students receive more qualified writing instruction, others receive relatively inferior instruction.As noted in this study, the tendency of teachers to use activities with which they are conceptually familiar and for which there are examples in previous curricula or course materials indicates the need to develop a repertoire of activities, exercises, and writing assignments.At this point, it would be appropriate to increase the source materials, design and diversify learning environments to accommodate a variety of writing activities, and focus on the application aspect of writing in education and training.The scope of writing instruction should be expanded to include alternative writing tasks and examples of different text types and structures.

Suggestions for Teaching Writing in Turkish Teacher Education Programs
Only 3% of Turkish teachers believe writing instruction in teacher education programs is fully adequate.Looking at the general average, we find that teachers believe this instruction's adequacy is not even at a moderate level.The survey results indicate that teachers need to receive in-service training on writing and writing instruction at the desired level.Only 3.1% of the teachers surveyed indicated that they had participated in such in-service training.This is an important issue.After all, increasing the efficiency of education depends mainly on the quality of teacher training, and in this way, all students can have access to quality education (OECD, 2005).This teaching should be multi-faceted, ranging from macro-level policy issues to micro-level challenges in shaping practice (Tan et al., 2021).The qualitative findings of the study suggest that the teaching of writing in teacher education is far from multi-faceted.Teachers believe that the theoretical content taught in the teaching of writing in Turkish teacher education programs is not sufficient to solve the problems encountered in this field.
Studies on a similar topic in Türkiye (Kokkokoğlu, 2021;Yamaç & Öztürk, 2018) show parallels to these findings.In one of these studies, Kokkokoğlu (2021) found that 92% of the Turkish teachers whose opinions he surveyed felt that the knowledge they had acquired in their professional careers contributed more to their writing practice than the knowledge they had acquired in their undergraduate studies.In another study, Yamaç and Öztürk (2018) found that 38% of the teachers surveyed thought that pre-service training in writing instruction was weak and inadequate, and 55% thought that in-service training and courses were weak and inadequate.In the study by Esendemir (2019), Turkish teachers attributed their difficulties in teaching writing to inadequate basic training in theory and practice and a lack of in-service training.Studies outside of Türkiye (Brindle et al., 2016;Gilbert & Graham, 2010;Coelho, 2020;Cutler & Graham, 2008;Graham et al., 2014;Myers et al., 2016) contain similar findings.According to Gilbert and Graham (2010), 65% of elementary teachers in the United States believe that their teacher education does not prepare them for teaching writing or prepares them very little.
In a general assessment, the current research findings provide a solution-oriented, comprehensive roadmap for what steps should be taken to improve teacher education.In this direction, Turkish teachers mainly emphasize the importance of updating teacher education curricula, increasing the number of courses on writing instruction in these programs, offering more writing exercises, teaching different methods/techniques/strategies, and conducting studies on text types.At this point, it is necessary to give more importance to writing instruction in undergraduate courses and make this subject a sustainable structure by providing teachers with applied training.

Turkish Teachers' Suggestions for Teaching Writing
Turkish teachers' suggestions for teaching writing vary.These suggestions, each pointing to a problem area, were examined under the headings of the learning/teaching process, general regulations, curriculum/course materials, teacher training, and assessment and evaluation.One of the most frequently recommended items is to spend more time on writing instruction.Among the issues suggested by teachers is that exciting activities should be conducted in the writing classroom.As reported in various sources, writing is not exciting for many students.This is one of the most critical problems Turkish teachers face in the writing classroom.One of the teachers who participated in the research said about his difficulties in teaching writing, "Is it all right if I tell you instead of writing?"The statement is a concrete example of this situation.In this context, it is essential to make arrangements to make the act of writing, which is not interesting or attractive.As in the teachers' proposals, this is possible with the arrangements that need to be made in different dimensions, from the implementation of the activities to the general approach to writing, from teacher training to course materials and assessment and evaluation.These arrangements include considering affective elements in teaching writing, focusing on practice, updating the curriculum, increasing the number of resource materials, and associating activities with daily life.Making applications to improve writing knowledge, giving more place to writing and writing teaching in undergraduate programs, and using technology in writing teaching are some of these regulations.

Limitations
A limitation of this study is the interpretation of the general view of writing instruction based on data collected by survey and scale.Teachers' views of their competence, preferred activities, EBWP, and the support they provide to students with writing difficulties may differ from what is done in the classroom.Therefore, verifying these self-reports through classroom observations will contribute more to the reliability and generalizability of the study.Due to the large sample size and the fact that the participants work in schools in different parts of Türkiye, the mentioned process could not be done in this study.However, the way, conditions, and context of implementing the problems expressed by the teachers may also have some differences.Depending on the teachers' identities, there is always the possibility that not all participants perceive the items in the same way, and the differences in these interpretations may have affected the research findings.Given the various purposes of writing, the multiple contexts of use, and the diverse backgrounds and needs of those who want to learn to write, it can be argued that studies of this nature should be considered within a broader framework of analysis and understanding (Hyland, 2010).Future studies guided by this framework will also highlight specific issues that remain at the conclusion level in the current study.
On the other hand, only 7% of Turkish teachers who participated in the study worked in private schools.This fact could have influenced the research results.This is because the difference in the number of students per teacher between public and private educational institutions in Türkiye is noticeable (OECD, 2021).In addition, there are also some social, cultural, and physical differences in public schools.For example, according to the Ministry of National Education Strategic Plan 2019-2023, there are differences between regions and provinces regarding the number of students per classroom.Although it has shown a decreasing trend over the years, the number of students in about 20% of all branches of secondary schools is above 30 (MoNE Department of Strategy Development, 2019).These may affect opportunities such as individualized instruction, guidance, and feedback in writing.However, the tendency to use computer and Internet technologies may not be the same among Turkish teachers working in public and private schools.Since the numerical distribution of teachers working in public and private schools is not balanced, this situation could not be investigated in the current study.

Conclusion
This study provides a general picture of secondary writing instruction in Turkish classes.The study results reveal that students' and teachers' competencies in writing instruction should be increased.Accordingly, teachers must develop various areas of competence, especially in methodology, assessment and evaluation, feedback, technology integration, supporting students with learning difficulties, and EBWP.Developing writing habits and more time for writing and writing instruction are among the issues that teachers should prioritize.The study discussed students' difficulties in various dimensions of writing from teachers' perspectives.In this context, increasing students' interest and motivation in writing is one of the issues that teachers emphasize.Moreover, it is considered that the suggestions teachers address to teacher education programs, teachers, and educational administrators add more depth to the quantitative results and highlight the current problems in writing.The fact that the study was designed with a mixed method and that it included a measurement tool in determining teachers' self-efficacy in implementing EBWP are also aspects that will contribute to the literature.The findings, broadly consistent with studies conducted outside of Türkiye, support the theoretical notion that the problems encountered in teaching writing are too broad to be limited to a specific geography or student group.
Funding: No funding source is reported for this study.

Declaration of interest:
No conflict of interest is declared by author.

Table 2
Students' writing routines and habits *What do you know about your students' writing habits?; **Indicate the percentage of your students who have the habit of writing outside of class (evaluate this in comparison to the total number of students who have taken the Turkish course); ***How often do your students practice writing on the computer (laptop, desktop, tablet, etc.) as part of their Turkish class?

Table 3
Note. *On average, what percentage of your students do you think belong to the following categories?(Proportion their total to 100.); **Students who do not meet even the minimum writing requirements; ***Students who meet all or nearly all writing standards.

Table 4
Time spent on writing and teaching Note.*Approximately what percentage of class time do you devote to the following activities?(Proportion their total to 100.); **All learning and teaching, including assessment and evaluation; *** Approximately what percentage of instructional time do you devote to instruction and activities in the following language skills/learning areas?(Proportion their total to 100.)

Table 5
Frequency of writing tasks that require writing more than one paragraph

Table 6
Competence levels of teachers in relation to some sub-areas of writing instruction Note: Fairly (5), Mostly (4), Moderately (3), Somewhat (2), None (1); *Indicate that you are proficient in methods and techniques of teaching writing; *******Indicate how often you prefer to use the following types of feedback in the writing classroom.(Check 5 if you use them most often and 1 if you never use them.);***How often do you practice pre-writing activities?; **** Indicate how you use webbased technologies in your writing instruction.;***** How often do you use tools (rubrics, grading tables, portfolios, etc.) with clear assessment criteria when assessing student work?

Table 7
Additional support and strategies for students with writing difficulties Note.Fairly (5), Mostly (4), Moderately (3), Somewhat (2), None (1); *Indicate how often you use additional support and strategies for students with writing difficulties.(Check 5 for most frequent use and 1 for never used); M=Mean.

Table 10
Turkish teachers' views about the adequacy of teaching in teacher education programs Note.Fairly (5), Mostly (4), Moderately (3), Somewhat (2), None (1); *Do you think the training you receive in Turkish teacher education programs (Faculty of Education, Institute, etc.) is sufficient to teach writing?

Table 11
least one in-service training in the last year and the scores of teachers who did not participate in any in-service training during this period (t(94)= −1.059;  >.05).In addition to these variables, see Table12for the results of the one-way analysis of variance designed to determine if the scores for teachers' self-efficacy in implementing EBWP differed significantly by age and years of teaching experience.