CC BY-ND
0
https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2024.13056
Self-Efficacy (SE) and Motivation of the Indonesian Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) in Writing Articles for Publication: The Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) Perspective
Dedi Turmudi ®, Muhammad Ihsan Dacholfany ®, Ummi Rasyidah ®
Universitas Muhammadiyah Metro, Indonesia
Citation: Turmudi D., Dacholfany M.I., & Rasyidah U. (2024). Self-Efficacy (SE) and motivation of the Indonesian Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) in writing articles for publication: The Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) Perspective. Journal of Language and Education, 10(1), 115-132. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2024.13056
Correspondence:
Dedi Turmudi,
e-mail: tdeditur@gmail.com
Received: October 01, 2021 Accepted: March 15, 2024 Published: March 30, 2024
ABSTRACT
Background: Writing articles is inevitable for Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) at the university level, and many studies reported writing articles for publication. However, self-efficacy (SE) and motivation in writing scientific articles by higher education teachers remained unexplored compared to the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT).
Purpose: This study explored self-efficacy (SE) as well as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (IM & EM) in writing articles for publication by Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) in the light of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). Furthermore, it measured how prior empirical evidence and current findings are presented in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT).
Method: The design used qualitative descriptive content data from an ethnographic study, and 21 Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) of English in Indonesia with specific characteristics were purposively selected. The participants constituted state and private universities in Java, Sumatra, Borneo, and Celebes. Data were collected through questionnaire, in-depth interviews, and electronic observation. The participants were then requested to complete a Google Form, and directly interviewed electronically and physically. The questionnaire data were subsequently addressed in the in-depth interview. This study utilised the Criteria Content Analysis (CCA) method and exploratory-provisional coding to analyse the transcription data. Results: The results showed that self-efficacy (SE) features were mainly related to profession, self-development, and attributes of Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs). Furthermore, self-esteem, expertise markers, and a way to learn dominated intrinsic motivation (IM), while appreciation, shaping expertise, and seeking dignity dominated the extrinsic. The findings were in the high order of affective skills (HOAs) with valuing (A3) and internalising (A5). The study had practical implications that writing for scholarly publications should inevitably be part of the curriculum in higher education, and grants should increase to maintain the internalisation of Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) in producing articles. In addition, the results contributed to the theoretical implication that HOAs, valuing, and internalising dominated roles in creating quality articles at any level.
KEYWORDS
Bloom's digital taxonomy, High order affective skills, Intrinsic motivation, Extrinsic motivation, Self-efficacy, Teacher Educator Authors
INTRODUCTION
Producing academic publications is essential to the scientific endeavours of higher education (HE), and Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs), as well as students in various countries, engage in this industry. Turmudi's (2020a) reported that
writing for publication has become the predominant aspect of professional endeavours worldwide. To write articles, Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) require self-efficacy (SE) and motivation because both factors play a crucial role in determining the direction of action, whether positive or negative (Lunenburg, 2011).
Individuals who possess self-efficacy (SE) have strong motivation, leading to high-quality work. However, the features of self-efficacy (SE) and motivation in the context of Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) remain unexplored.
Individuals without self-efficacy (SE) show low motivation with poor performance or misconduct (Magogwe et al., 2015). This study focused on self-efficacy (SE) and motivation in writing scholarly manuscripts, and addressed the theories of autonomous and regulated motivation, as described by scholars in self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan&Deci, 2000). Previous research on self-efficacy (SE) and motivation has extended to include several factors related to writing essays, creative and academic writing, as well as publishing papers. Therefore, there were discrepancies, and this study aimed to fill the gaps as a contribution to literature.
The trend of previous research shows that writing for publication is widely seen as an academic responsibility and commitment to all countries and higher education institutions. The countries mentioned are China, Taiwan, Iran, Egypt, Korea, USA, Hong Kong, and Poland (Turmudi et al., 2020b; Zheng & Guo, 2019; Chien, 2019; Maniati & Jalilifar, 2018; Shehata & Eldakar, 2018; Kim, 2018). Producing articles for publication fulfils a dual purpose by functioning as students evaluation as well as a duty and means of career progression for Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs).
Writing for publication has been studied as a duty and means of career building, but the trend includes other variables than self-efficacy (SE) and motivation. Some studies reported writing procedure, pre-writing, during writing, post-writing activities, and solving challenges in writing articles for publication (Turmudi, 2020b; Turmudi et al. (2020c; Jiang et al.,2017; Zheng & Guo, 2019; Chien, 2019; Lei & Hu, 2019; Maniati & Jalilifar,2018; Hyland, 2016; Rathert & 0kan,2015; and TEFLIN Journal, 2012). The trend also includes skills in writing for publication (Turmudi et al.,2020c; Humphreys & Wy-att, 2014; Komarraju & Nadler, 2013; Mascle, 2013; McKinley, 2013). Most of the studies used confirmatory and explanatory rather than exploratory, and included students rather than lecturers (TEAs). Hence, all reviewed trends leave gaps in self-efficacy (SE) and motivation variables, designs, participants, instruments, data analysis, and data-finding natures (Miles, 2017).
Numerous studies were conducted on self-efficacy (SE), and how the genre-based approach (GBA) enhanced academic writing was explained, while the current study primarily explored the characteristics of self-efficacy (SE) and motivation (Wardhana, 2022). The results showed that the genre-based approach (GBA) improved academic writing proficiency and self-efficacy (SE), therefore, the current study perpetuated this suggestion. Umamah et al. (2022) showed the use of self-regulated writing (SRW) procedures to enhance writing outcomes. The results confirmed the importance of SRW
strategies and explained individual differences, while the current study seeks otherwise. A similar report by Nikce-vic-Milkovic et al. (2022) showed self-regulated learning (SRL) and sociodemographics in academic writing proficiency. The current study found academic writing and self-efficacy (SE) as attributes of personal variables and a significant predictor in the writing process. However, the results confirmed a correlation between self-regulated learning (SRL) and sociodemographics in academic writing proficiency, while the current study explored otherwise. Yicai and Xueai (2021) showed the correlation between self-efficacy (SE) and English writing performance, while the current study investigated self-efficacy (SE) features and affective categories in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). Furthermore, Blankenstein et al. (2019) studied how self-efficacy (SE) beliefs and intrinsic motivation (IM) for academic writing and research are developed. The results showed multiple variables self-efficacy (SE) , which were the opposite of the current study. Hence, this study presented the similarity in the publication self-efficacy (SE) despite different directions. Turmudi (2020c) presented four distinct characteristics in writing for publication, namely activities, difficulties, solutions, and skills. However, the variables did not include self-efficacy (SE) and motivation, and the current study offered novelties. Mirovic and Knezevic (2018) investigated the awareness of Serbian experts' standards and conventions for writing articles in English and the strategies to overcome writing problems. The results showed perceptions and strategies for solving problems in writing articles, while the current study revealed the needed self-efficacy (SE). The results of Mirovic and Knezevic (2018) and the current study explored the details of strategies and self-efficacy (SE), except for the affective domain in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). Using the findings of recent studies (Wardhana, 2022; Umamah et al., 2022; Nikcevic-Milkovic et al., 2022; Yicai & Xueai, 2021; Blankenstein et al., 2019; Mirovic & Knezevic, 2018), it was concluded that self-efficacy (SE) has been examined from different perspectives and the current study adds new insights to existing knowledge of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT).
Regarding self-efficacy (SE), scholars examined intrinsic motivation (IM) variables in writing. Alzubi and Nazim (2024) analysed the relationship between intrinsic motivation (IM), attitudes, and writing skills. The study significantly validated the association between intrinsic motivation (IM), attitudes, and writing proficiency. Therefore, the study was stated to be confirmatory, while the current study proposed an exploration of intrinsic motivation (IM) and clustered it in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). Chen (2021) investigated students' motivation with higher proficiency (HP) in L2 collaborative writing and identified the influencing elements. The findings were different because motivation grows from beliefs and practices. Therefore, the current study explored intrinsic motivation (IM) and labelled it with the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) rather than unveiling the cause and effect on scholarly writing. Wang (2021) examined the relationship
between Achievement Motivation and State Anxiety (AMSA) in the context of Creative Writing Performance (CWP). The results validated AMSA and CWP, while the current study used exploratory and classified motivation as intrinsic and extrinsic with the cluster in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). Banegas et al. (2020) examined the relationship between authenticity and motivation in writing for publication and found that the genuineness of the audience served as a stimulus for more proficient student-teachers. Both investigations showed a convergent exploratory approach, however, the current study categorised «motivation» based on intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics. Turmudi et al. (2020) investigated perception, motives, contribution types, and time ranges in publication and found that Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) were motivated by various internal and external factors. The current study found that the survey produced a preliminary investigation and seeks more prevalent findings.
Lei and Jiang (2019) investigated university faculty members producing research articles by addressing motivation, language choice, differences, and disciplinary background. The results showed the swift proliferation of English as the prevailing language for publication, and the perception of its advantages reflected a complex and nuanced comprehension of why Chinese scholars chose to publish scholarly work in English. The current study challenged the findings of Lei and Jiang (2019) under self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Blankenstein et al. (2018) examined self-efficacy (SE) belief and intrinsic motivation (IM) for various tasks, and found the concept of motivation, but the current study distinguished motivation into two categories, namely intrinsic and extrinsic. Therefore, it was stated that the current study builds upon the earlier work on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) by organising evidence in the context of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). It was concluded that the current study seeks novelties to prior papers as outlined in recent surveys (Alzubi & Nazim,2024; Chen, 2021; Wang, 2021; Banegas et al.,2020; Lei & Jiang,2019; Blankenstein et al.,2018; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The analysis of this study supported self-determination theory (SDT) and confirmed intrinsic motivation (IM) (Deci & Ryan, 2008), which is a component of autonomous motivation, including intrinsic and extrinsic.
Extrinsic motivation (EM) is the reverse of intrinsic, which was comprehensively analysed in prior studies to show the disparities. Previous investigations showed few commonalities primarily centred around the variable of motivation (Chen, 2021; Banegas et al., 2020; Lei & Jiang, 2019). Some expressed intrinsic (Alzubi & Nazim, 2024; Blankenstein et al., 2018) and achievement motivation (Wang, 2021), while Deci and Ryan (2008) showed the significance of both in-
trinsic and extrinsic within self-determination theory (SDT) which includes autonomous and controlled. It was found that the sole comparable terminology, intrinsic motivation, was present in earlier investigations by Alzubi and Nazim (2024) and Blankenstein et al. (2018). However, the studies had different corresponding variables, such as writing proficiency (Alzubi & Nazim, 2024), composing argumentative essays in an academic context (Chen, 2021), performance in creative writing (Wang, 2021), writing for publication (Banegas et al., 2020), academic writing (Blakentein et al., 2018), and research articles (Lei & Jiang, 2019).
The current study provided a rationale for extrinsic motivation, and it can be stated that the present investigation on extrinsic motivation (EM) amended previous survey (Alzubi & Nazim, 2024; Wang, 2021; Lei & Jiang, 2019; Blakentein et al., 2018), with certain limits. Through comparison and analysis of recent studies (Alzubi & Nazim, 2024; Chen, 2021; Wang, 2021; Banegas et al., 2020; Lei & Jiang, 2019; Blankenstein et al., 2018; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), it was confirmed that distinctive characteristics of motivation have been identified and classified as regulated motivation within the context of Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Therefore, the current study suggested that the results supported previous findings. This article traced how Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) of Indonesia perceive writing articles, their motivation, and how self-efficacy (SE) is viewed in the affective domain of Bloom's Digital Taxonomy1. The objectives were (1) to explore how Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) perceive their writing for publication, (2) to disclose what motivates Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) to write articles concerning intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, (3) to determine the category of self-efficacy (SE) and motivation in the affective domain of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). The current study tried to answer the research questions for the body of knowledge by exploring (1) How do Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs)explain their activities of writing articles for publication? (2) What motivates them to keep writing articles, seen from intrinsic and extrinsic motivation? and (3) How does the concept of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) categorise self-efficacy (SE) and motivation?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Writing Articles for Publication
Writing articles for publication was addressed in the context of Indonesia's higher education (HE) in the global education community. According to Garrido (2017), the context comprises place, actors, and actions. The study occurred in the English Department of State and private universities in Indonesia with an A or B in accreditation. The actors were Teach-
1 Churches, A. (2009). Bloom's Digital Taxonomy. Edorigami. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228381038_Bloom's_Digital_Tax-onomy
er Educator Authors (TEAs), locally known as dosen, and the action included writing articles for publication. Therefore, writing was defined as the simultaneous production of research papers for publication in renowned journals, such as Scopus, and World of Science (WoS), that Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) need to produce every semester of the teaching cycles. Publishing articles is part of the duty of Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) including teaching and education (45%), research and publication (35%), public service (10%), and supporting activities (10%)2. As Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) have obligations to publish articles, the higher the academic rank, the more reputable articles are required, for example, Scopus Q1, Q2, and WoS. Underwriting articles lay critical variables of self-efficacy (SE) and motivation to make the articles finally published (Pajares, 2003). The definition of writing articles for publication provides a preview of the scope and focus of this study.
Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs)
Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) refer to university teachers in Indonesia's Education System. These individuals are locally called «dosen» or, in English, «lecturer» instead of 'professor' in other countries (UU No 14 tahun2005). They have different academic ranks ranging from base to top such as (1) assistant professor, (2) junior associate professor, (3) senior associate professor, and (4) professor3. Each rank requires a different quality and quantity of published articles. Therefore, writing articles for publication is a prime responsibility after teaching duty, and it is routine work to do for a semester. The current study used the various academic ranks of lecturers from state and private universities in 4 main islands, namely Java, Sumatra, Borneo, and Celebes.
Self-Efficacy (SE)
The current article used self-efficacy (SE) for perception and belief, and it was adapted from a previous study (Pa-
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
jares, 2003). Self-efficacy (SE) is a social cognitive or learning theory that refers to an individual's belief in their ability to accomplish a specific task (Lunenburg, 2011). Self-efficacy (SE) originated from past performance, miscellaneous experiences, verbal advice, and emotional signs (Lunenburg, 2011), and is essential because it determines whether a positive or negative action happens. The TEAs' self-efficacy (SE) was explored because a good attitude can lead to a well-motivated one, or a bad attitude can cause wrongdoings (Magogwe et al., 2015). Self-efficacy (SE) was categorised according to the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) in the current study. Recent studies provided empirical evidence of self-efficacy (SE), which was synthesised from several surveys (Wardhana, 2022; Umamah et al., 2022; Nikcevic-Milk-ovic et al., 2022; Yicai & Xueai, 2021; Blankenstein et al., 2019; Mirovic & Knezevic, 2018). It was concluded that self-efficacy (SE) had been sufficiently addressed, therefore, the current study added new insights into self-efficacy (SE), which were compared and contrasted in the discussion.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (IM &EM)
Motivation is defined as the enthusiasm for carrying out a task, and when perception is possessed, the motivation is more apparent (Alzubi & Nazim, 2024; Chen, 2021; Wang, 2021; Banegas et al., 2020; Blankenstein et al., 2018; Lei & Jiang, 2019; Deci &Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Sujatha & Kavitha, 2018). Consequently, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (EM) can be identified. Intrinsic motivation (IM) is a significant and primary characteristic (van Blankenstein et al., 2019), and is the term used to describe the excitement that comes from within an individual to engage in an activity (Luik & Lepp, 2021). Meanwhile, extrinsic motivation (EM) is enthusiasm for doing a task triggered by external factors (Deci &Ryan, 2008). Scholars stated that many factors, including self-efficacy (SE) and interest affected motivation (Luik & Lepp, 2021). In addition, a belief or perception leads
2 Kepmen-Penyebutan-JA-Dosen-dalam-Bahasa-Inggris.pdf, Pub. L. No. 164/M/KPT/2019, 1 (2019).
3 Ministry of Education and Culture (2014) Permendikbud-RI no-143-tahun-2014-juknis-pelaks-jabfung-pengawas-dan-angka-kreditnya. https://peraturan.go.id/id/permendikbud-no-143-tahun-2014
to a clear motivation for both intrinsic motivation (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM).
Scholars stated that the motivation variable is part of self-determination theory (SDT), as Deci and Ryan (2008) theorised. The central differentiation is between autonomous and controlled motivation, where autonomous motivation (AM) consists of Intrinsic motivation (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM). Individuals carry out a task due to the value and internalise it as characters. Meanwhile, controlled motivation (CM) consists of external and interjected regulation, as defined by Deci and Ryan (2008). According to scholars, individuals engage in specific actions because they are motivated by external variables such as the desire for rewards or the fear of punishment. These external motives include seeking approval, avoiding embarrassment, maintaining self-esteem, and being driven by personal interests (Deci & Ryan, 2008).
five compelling domain verbs are receiving and responding phenomena, valuing, organising, and internalising values8. Beneath these five categories is a list of compelling verbs from low to high order of affective as applied in a dissertation (Turmudi, 2020c). The entire verbs are later used to categorise the types of essences in both self-efficacy (SE) and motivation. The empirical and theoretical gaps in self-efficacy (SE) and motivation were addressed to provide insightful novelties. Therefore, this study explored how Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) of English in Indonesia perceive, what motivates them to publish, and how both variables are categorised from perspective. Shaded by the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT), this study aimed to fill the gaps by exploring self-efficacy (SE), intrinsic and extrinsic features, and their cluster in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). This action is a road map to share knowledge with scientists (Pho & Tran, 2016) in the ELT context (Chien, 2019) and shape expertise in academic writing (Chernick, 2012).
Bloom's Digital Taxonomy (BDT)
There were numerous reasons why the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) was picked as a theory to examine self-efficacy (SE) and motivation. The Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) was the third amendment refining the initial ideas developed4 called Bloom Revised Taxonomy (BRT) by scholars5 who had amended the original Bloom's Taxonomy (Munzenmaier & Rubin, 2013). The amendment of domains focused on the cognitive part, and the rest of the affective and psychomo-tor domains remained the same as BRT's. The use of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) in the current study has empirical justification, as reported in numerous articles (Netol-icka & Simonova, 2017). The undebatable factor is that the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) is also called the Learning Objectives (LO), and academics apply this to measure three domain levels and learning outputs. The Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) is used because writing articles for publication is part of the life-long learning of Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs). Moreover, the current era is a digital age that Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) need to uphold (Keshavarz & Ghoneim, 2021).
Affective Domain (AD) in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT)
Since the study objects are self-efficacy (SE) and motivation (M), the correlated domain is the affective domain (AD). The model cited is not from the work of Churches6 but from the list of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT)7. Moreover, the
METHOD
Research Design
This study used qualitative ethnography method as proposed by Creswell (2014), and employed specific criteria to explore self-efficacy (SE) and motivation of English Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) in Indonesia. The goal was to explore how and why Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) perceive writing articles. The objectives were to determine features of self-efficacy (SE), as well as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Furthermore, self-efficacy (SE) with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (EM) were scaled based on whether they belonged to a low or high order of affective skills.
Participants
The participants were from higher education and were English teacher authors who have published articles on platforms like National Journal (NJ), National Accredited Journal (NAJ), International Journal (IJ), and International Reputable Journal (IRJ). A purposive sampling technique was used to select 38 participants through the official website of Pangkal-an Data Perguruan Tinggi, known as forlap Indonesian Higher Education Ministry9. However, only 21 were recruited for in-depth interview, and were Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) of English with different backgrounds including gender (G), age category (AC), origin (O), university type (UT), teaching experience (TE), academic rank (AR), number of publication
Churches, A. (2009). Ibid.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2000). Bloom's revised taxonomy: Cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. https://www.celt.iastate.
edu/instructional-strategies/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-taxonomy/
Churches, A. (2009). Ibid.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2000). Ibid.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2000). Ibid.
https://pddikti.kemdikbud.go.id/dosen
4
6
7
9
Table 1
Participants'Identity and Productivity
RC G AC O UT TE AR NP TJ ALP
R1 F 51-over Sumatra State 29
R2 F 51-over Sumatra State 30
R3 M 31-40 Sumatra State 6
R4 F 41-50 Java State 13
R5 F 41-50 Java State 17
R6 F 31-40 Sumatra State 11
R7 M 41-50 Java State 15
R8 M 41-50 Borneo State 18
R9 M 41-50 Borneo State 17
R10 F 41-50 Borneo State 18
R11 F 31-40 Borneo State 16
R12 F 41-50 Java Private 10
R13 F 31-40 Java Private 10
R14 M 41-50 Java Private 20
R15 M 31-40 Java State 9
R16 M 31-40 Java Private 3
R17 F 41-50 Java State 5
R18 M 50-over Sumatra State 33
R19 F 50-over Sumatra State 32
R20 F 41-50 Java State 11
R21 F 21-30 Java State 6
Note. (RC=Respondent Codes)
(NP), type of journal (TJ), and an average length of publication (ALP). The academic ranks were based on the terms in the official acts, and the total number of participants is described in Table 1.
Instruments
This study used a questionnaire and an in-depth interview (Hyland, 2016), selected as the initial input because the data type was numeric. Reliability was tested in Excel 2019 using Cronbach's alpha, indicating good reliability with a value of 0.737, surpassing the reference value of 0.70. The questionnaire was a primary short quantitative data in Google Form explored in the in-depth interview. The contents included identity and affiliation, teaching histories, and publication records, as described in Table 1. Furthermore, an in-depth interview was used to perpetuate data from questionnaires and conducted to explore the qualitative content data assigned to the research questions. The interview prompt questions were; "(1) How do you perceive writing articles for publication as self-efficacy (SE)? What does it mean? (2) What motivates you to keep on writing articles for publica-
Junior Associate Professor (L) 25 NJ 1-6
Senior Associate Professor (LK) 5 NAJ 7-9
Assistant Professor (AA) 2 NAJ 1-6
Assistant Professor (AA) 4 NAJ 7-9
Junior Associate Professor (L) 4 Mix 10-12
Junior Associate Professor (L) 8 NAJ 1-6
Junior Associate Professor (L) 4 IRJ 1-6
Junior Associate Professor (L) 10 IRJ 10-12
Junior Associate Professor (L) 2 IRJ 1-6
Senior Associate Professor (LK) 7 IRJ A year >
Junior Associate Professor (L) 7 Mix 7-9
Junior Associate Professor (L) 15 Mix 7-9
Assistant Professor (AA) 4 Mix 10-12
Junior Associate Professor (L) 3 NJ 10-12
Junior Associate Professor (L) 5 mix 1-6
Lecturer (TP) 4 NJ 1-6
Lecturer (TP) 2 Mix A year >
Professor (Prof) 9 Mix 1-6
Senior Associate Professor (LK) 5 Mix 10-12
Junior Associate Professor (L) 4 Mix A year >
Assistant Professor (AA) 3 Mix 1-6
tion? Which one belongs to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation?» Both instruments were created and validated by research questions (self-validated), blueprints (self-validated), two expert judgments (external validation), and a pilot study to build trustworthiness.
Data Collection and Analysis
The questionnaire and in-depth interview were extracted as primary data with official ethical clearance. Subsequently, an official request was sent to the university with a copy of the content to the dean, head of department, chair of the English study program, and the targeted Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs). The participants were contacted through WhatsApp with a backup using an email address to fill out the online questionnaires in Google Form. The responses were analysed to determine whether the target participants met the criteria. Furthermore, the eligible Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) were requested to schedule interview, and were interviewed at their universities. A list of in-depth interview questions, an android recorder, and paper notes with a pen were provided to assist instruments, and the primary
data were recorded in Mp3 file. The process of data collection lasted for six months because all the eligible Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) reside in the four main islands of Indonesia. Also, publication records were electronically observed in Google Scholar and SINTA Ristekdikti profiles to confirm the questionnaire and the interview data. The interview produced content data, hence Criteria Content Analysis (CCA) theory was used. The data transcription of the 21 participants was in English through interviews, and rigorous procedures were followed to obtain the desired data in 13 detailed steps. Subsequently, the data were transcribed, reviewed, coded, categorised, and clustered using a content category analysis (CCA) (Matthew et al., 2014) through a three-stage process, namely comprehensive, topical-oriented, and hypothesis-oriented. The final process was qualitative criteria analysis, while the Criteria Content Analysis (CCA) categories were self-efficacy (SE), as well as extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The participants and content data were coded differently as shown in Table 2. The coding of the participants was with «R1, R2, R3...» as an ethical clearance practice. Meanwhile, the content coding was with IM for intrinsic motivation (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM) for extrinsic. The order was IM1, IM2, IM3..., EM1, EM2, EM3, and more.
Table 2 shows the participants and the content data coding, which were inserted at the beginning of the tabulation. The data were then recapped and categorised based on the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) of the affective domain. Supporting softwares such as MS Office 365 and Mende-ley Desktop version 1.19.4 referencing tool.win32-exe were used to consolidate all data processing, citing, and display.
RESULTS
The current study aimed to find the three research questions, and the content ideas were listed in a quantitative analysis to determine the overall frequency of thoughts. However, the quantitative graphics were not presented, and tables of qualitative findings were based on Criteria Content Analysis (CCA). The following is the result of qualitative evidence based on the Criteria Content Analysis (CCA).
Table 2
Participant and Data Coding System
Table 3 shows that different respondents reported self-efficacy (SE) with different frequencies, where 47.61% of respondents accumulated the highest self-efficacy (SE), and believed that it was an inevitable duty or obligation and responsibility. Furthermore, 38.9% believed self-efficacy (SE) to be the best way to learn something, and 19.04% believed it to be a marker of Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) .
R2 is a female Teacher Educator Author, aged over 51, with 30 years of teaching experience and an associate professor. R2 described self-efficacy (SE) in writing as follows:
Writing is vital for Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) because it reflects our knowledge. We seek knowledge, summarise it, and share it with others. It is quite beneficial, especially for our students. I often use the results of my studies to support my lectures as they are beneficial, although they are mini research. The mini research intends to make use of it. When I conduct a study, it is related to my subject in lecture. For instance, I teach comparative literature literary criticism for both subjects, and I find both valuable (R2).
R10 is a female TEA, aged over 40 with 18 years of teaching experience and is an associate professor. The following self description was made:
«Writing journals should be our passion. When I started as a lecturer, it was to teach students, so I should change my mindset. However, writing articles in social and natural sciences is different. The social science authors had to play with the language. For example, when we had a souvenir of a flash drive, the wrapping should be beautiful for Westerners. That is for social science authors.»
«On the other hand, for the natural science authors, the flash drive was as it was. I just wrapped it with plastic and handed it over to the receiver. It was more to the point; the paper could be 5-6 pages. Nevertheless, for social science authors, it was impossible to happen; the same paper might be 25 pages. That was what I found challenging. English is a foreign language, and people see the good side of us from wrapping it up. When we see studies in Q1 and Q2, we can do that. However, the paper presented is beautiful. That was the point where we were defeated. It was the aspect that demotivated us to write articles» (R-10).
The following self-efficacy (SE) findings provided qualitative evidence of intrinsic motivation (IM). All respondents reported their IM with at least one IM and a maximum of five. This evidence showed that the respondents had a basis impetus, but in different quantities.
Respondents' Coding Content Coding Combination
Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation (IM) (EM) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
R6, R7, R8, R9, R10 R11, R12, R13, R14, R15 R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21
IM-1, IM-2, IM-3, etc.
R6-IM-1 R11-IM-1 R16-IM-1
EM-1, EM-2, EM-3, etc.
R6-EM-1 R11-EM-1 R16-EM-1
R1-IM-1, IM-2 R1-EM-1, EM-2 R6-IM-1, EM-2 R11-IM-1, EM-1 R16-IM-1, EM-1
Table 3
Criteria Content of Self-Efficacy (SE)
No Criteria content of self-efficacy (SE) F %
An inevitable duty or obligation, a responsibility 10 47.61
Best way to learn, update knowledge, and improve teaching and students' output 8 38.09
Marker attributes of TEAs 4 19.04
Marking their identity for TEAs 3 14.28
Beneficial for TEAs 3 14.28
An effective way of sharing knowledge 3 14.28
Interesting, challenging, deliberate 3 14.28
Central life for TEAs 3 14.28
The difference in any field of study 3 14.28
Due to experiencing gaps between theories and practices 2 9.52
As self-actualisation and passion 2 9.52
A demand for lecturing and sharing knowledge 2 9.52
A great work for TEAs 2 9.52
A need for career promotion 2 9.52
A part of Professional Development 2 9.52
A burden than teaching 2 9.52
A follow-up of teaching and research 2 9.52
Marking a great civilisation 1 4.76
May inspire people 1 4.76
A boredom healer 1 4.76
Voters 59
Table 4
Criteria Content of Intrinsic Motivation (IM) Qualitatively
No Criteria content category on intrinsic motivation (IM) F %
A part of personal pride or self-esteem 8 38
A marker of expertise qualification 8 38
A way of learning something 7 33
A way of contributing to knowledge or impact factors 6 29
A method of sharing ideas 4 19
A form of sharing expertise 4 19
Usefulness or benefitting 4 19
A way to solve problems 3 14
Indicating personal traits 3 14
Voters 47
Table 4 shows that different respondents preferred all intrinsic motivation (IM) categories. The highest was a part of personal pride or self-esteem by 38% of respondents, and the second was a marker of expertise qualification by 38%. The third was a way of learning something by 33%, while the fourth was a way of contributing knowledge by 29%. The rest of the motivation was by less than 20% of respondents. Some categories might be similar but had a different context when analysed.
Table 5 shows that all respondents reported their motivation in different features. The highest extrinsic motivation (EM) was appreciation and financial support, as stated by 100% of respondents. The second was profession demand or shaping expertise, with 33%. The third was seeking dignity or self-esteem, with 33%, and the fourth was an obligation from the government, with 29%. The fifth was career promotion, with 24%, and the last was contributing to knowledge with 19% of respondents.
R-8 is a male TEA, aged over 40 with 18 years of teaching experience and an associate professor. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations were described as follows:
«The first one is satisfaction when you write. Even though I am not a writing man, I also like to write. Writing is not my hobby, and neither is reading. By writing a thing, you are urged to read and write. As I told you, the motivation is that writing is a big job. You must struggle and spend time and effort more than the job that you do in your daily teaching and running programs. That is investing your time and your ideas. By writing, I fulfil satisfaction; I update my knowledge. If I do not get the thing, why bother writing? Because writing is struggling. So, that is why if I were the rector, the dean, or the minister, I think I must put the reward in terms of a sum of money. Research is essential, but the proof is a publication. So, why don't you spend much money on publication? What the government must do is spend the money. The government should increase the money for publication. We must decide the level of publication: unrecognised, unaccredited journals at the National level and a good journal at the National level. However, it is a good recognition of the journal. They have a list of journals; level one is the fundamental level of journal at a national level, and level two is until the international journal is indexed. They must provide money and support these different levels with different funds. I found no reward from Campus, although I got my article published in a reputable journal publisher. Our rector said, 'yes' be rewarded, but «no» reward (R-8).
The Table of self-efficacy (SE), intrinsic (IM), and extrinsic motivation (EM) shows that all respondents reported their EM with at least one EM and a maximum of four. This means the respondents have a fundamental motivation, although in different quantities. The EM may reflect reliance on stimulants when writing articles for publication. The list of qualitative evidence is presented in the following Table.
Table 5
Extrinsic Motivation Qualitatively
R-19 is a female TEA, aged over 50 with 32 years of teaching experience and is an associate professor. The intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were described as follows:
My intrinsic motivation is like what I told you before. I want to let others know something good from my experiment, and I want people to be affected by my writing. Of course, from external to get a credit point. I got an incentive from DIKTI and UNILA, which allowed me publish the article for free. Also, I got a 10 million grant from DIKTI in 1999. However, I wanted to know if that would be rewarded. I never think about extrinsic motivation, and I try to write. I fulfil what I want to know if there is another significant effect (R-19).
When self-efficacy (SE), intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation (EM) categories are presented, they are clustered into the affective domain in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). Nevertheless, the cognitive and psychomotoric domains were not applicable since self-efficacy (SE) and motivation were in the affective domain10. The only domain was affective, ranked from low to high order affective skills. It was reported by (Turmudi, 2020b), with sub-domains of affective such as receiving phenomena, responding phenomena, valuing, organising, and internalising values (A1 to A5).
Table 6A shows various affective domains of self-efficacy (SE). The most effective was valuing (A3) with 161.90% of the respondents and in the high order of affective. The second was internalising values (A5) with 57% and in the HOAs. Both A3 and A5 showed that HOAs dominated self-efficacy (SE) of Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs). The rest of the affective domains were represented by responding phenomena (A2) with 47% and receiving phenomena (A1) with 14.28%. A1 and A2 were in the low order of affective (LOAs).
No Criteria content category of extrinsic motivation (EM) F %
Gaining appreciation and financial support 21 100%
Developing professional demand or shaping expertise 7 33%
Seeking dignity or self-esteem 7 33%
Doing obligation from the government 6 29%
Improving career promotion 5 24%
Contributing knowledge 4 19%
Voters 50
Anderson, L W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2000). Ibid.
Table 6A
Table of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) for self-efficacy (SE)
Affective Domain
Frequency
Percentage
Level of BDT
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
3 10 34 0 12
14.28% 47.61% 161.90%
57.14%
LOAs LOAs HOAs
HOAs
Table 6B
Table of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) of Intrinsic Motivation (IM)
Affective Domain
Frequency
Percentage
Level of BDT
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
12 0 18 0
17
57.14% 0
85.71 % 0
80.95%
LOAs
HOAs
HOAs
A2 A3 A4 A5
0 18 0
17
0
85.71 % 0
80.95%
HOAs
HOAs
Table 6C
Table of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) of Extrinsic Motivation (EM)
Affective Domain
Frequency
Percentage
Level of BDT
A1
0%
0
A2 18
A3 21
A4 0
A5 11
Table 6B shows the affective domain of intrinsic motivation (IM). The most effective domain was valuing (A3) with 85.71% and in the HOAs. The second was internalising values (A5), with 80.95% in the HOAs. Both A3 and A5 showed that HOAs dominated the intrinsic motivation (IM). The rest of the affective domains were represented by receiving phenomena (A1) with 57% in the low order of affective (LOAs).
Table 6C shows various affective domains of extrinsic motivation (EM). The most effective domain was valuing (A3) with 100 % and in HOAs. The second was responding phenomena (A2), with 85.71%, and in the low order of affective (LOAs). The rest of the affective domain presented internalising values (A5) with 52% in the HOAs. Both A3 and A5 showed that the high order of affective highly dominated extrinsic motivation.
DISCUSSION
The results showed variants of self-efficacy (SE), intrinsic, and extrinsic motivation (EM) with twenty types of self-effi-
85.71 % LOAs
100% HOAs
52.38% HOAs
cacy (SE) (59 voters as shown Table 3), nine forms of intrinsic (47 voters as shown in Table 4), and six features of extrinsic motivation (EM) (50 voters as presented in Table 5), which are more than previous studies.
Self-Efficacy (SE)
Out of 59 self-efficacy (SE) voters, most were inevitable obligation, responsibility (47.61%), and the best way to learn, update knowledge, as well as improve teaching and students' output (38.9%).» The rest variants were less than 20% (n-21). The answers cover 20 types of self-efficacy (SE) as responses to the following questions, namely "How do you perceive the activities of writing articles for publication regarding self-efficacy (SE)? What does it mean?» Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) revealed unexpected perceptions, for example, «inevitable obligation and a responsibility» (Table 3 no 1). About one-third of TEAs expressed «the best way to learn, update knowledge, and improve teaching and students' output» as shown in Table 3 no 2. Both examples did not meet theorists claim that self-efficacy (SE) is a belief in successfully performing a particular task (Lunenburg, 2011). Moreover,
the critical point of self-efficacy (SE) is «belief», which is essential for Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) since it affects a person's rational features and emotional reaction configuration (Yicai & Xueai, 2021). Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) might misunderstand the question as the dominant answer was perception in general. The rest of the 20 self-efficacy (SE) (Table 3) were identical to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The previous five years research was reviewed to ascertain the evidence on "self-efficacy" by presenting similarities and differences (Wardhana,2022; Umamah et al., 2022; Nikcevic-Milkovic et al.,2022; Yicai & Xueai, 2021; Blankenstein et al.,2019; Mirovic & Knezevic, 2018). Firstly, Wardhana (2022) found that the genre-based approach (GBA) positively affected scholarly writing and students' HOTs. The paper addressed "self-efficacy" and broader participants for future surveys, while the current study showed self-efficacy (SE) variants and ranked them in HOAs. The findings of Wardhana (2022) were positive and explanatory in explaining genre-based approach (GBA) and HOTs, while the current study was supportive and exploratory (table 6A). Both studies are different in genre-based approach (GBA) and HOTs as cognitive domains and HOAs as affective. The current study suggested theoretical self-efficacy (SE) and affective order features in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT), however, there were constraints. A solid concept of self-efficacy" needs further confirmation before Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) are asked about this question. Secondly, a prior study by Umamah et al. (2022) found that 58 EFL university students were highly aware of using self-regulated writing (SRW) strategies and have a standard contribution. The findings of Umamah et al. (2022) were confirmatory and confirmed the importance of SRW strategies and explained individual differences that might not significantly influence the SRW strategies. Meanwhile, the finding in the current study was exploratory, to determine "self-efficacy features (table 3) and the degree of affective order in the concept of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) (table 6A). The findings contributed novelties in features of self-efficacy (SE) and order of affective in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). However, this study had limitations in comparing distinctive writing types, namely argumentative essay versus scholarly writing. Nikcevic-Milkovic et al. (2022) found no difference between students' L1 and L2 writing proficiency. Even though the study addressed self-efficacy (SE), it functioned as an attribute of personal variables and a significant predictor in the writing process, and not as a data type. The current study addressed self-efficacy (SE) and employed the reciprocal direction nature of findings. It was concluded that there were no identical findings with no justification on whether results were amending or enriching. This study showed weaknesses because academic proficiency and scholarly writing have different generic structures and organisations. Yicai and Xueai (2021) found no correlation between self-efficacy (SE) and the performance of writing English essay. Consequently, both shared minor similarities, with self-efficacy (SE) being a central variable as a predictor. Yicai and Xueai (2021) findings confirmed the correlation among vari-
ables of "self-efficacy on English writing performance, while the current study explored "self-efficacy features (table 3) and the affective order in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) (table 6A). There was a supporting evidence of self-efficacy in relation to the existing knowledge, but with weaknesses because essay performance and scholarly writing have different generic structures and organisation. Blankenstein et al. (2019) stated that enactive mastery and positive social interdependence promoted self-efficacy (SE) and feelings of relatedness promoted intrinsic motivation (IM) for writing. Both studies used self-efficacy (SE) as a variable with a divergent focus. The previous survey focused on growth, while the current study explored the types. Furthermore, it shared significant differences in the findings because Blankenstein et al.'s study (2019) was confirmatory. It was then concluded that both studies shared a similar self-efficacy (SE) variable, and the novelty was in the importance of self-efficacy (SE) from another direction. Mirovic and Knezevic (2018) found awareness of Serbian experts' standards and conventions of writing articles in English and the strategies to overcome challenges, which included proofreading, language reuse, social strategies, and language specialists. The study showed perceptions and strategies for solving problems in writing, while the current study revealed self-efficacy (SE) efficacy types (Table 3). The findings in both Mirovic and Knezevic (2018) and the current study were details of strategies and self-efficacy (SE) types (table 3) except for the affective domain in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) (Table 6A). Nevertheless, the current study had limitations because self-efficacy (SE) features need to shrink similar ideas. Summarising the findings of recent studies (Wardhana, 2022; Umamah et al., 2022; Nikcevic-Milkovic et al., 2022; Yicai & Xueai, 2021; Blankenstein et al., 2019; Mirovic & Knezevic, 2018), it can be concluded that self-efficacy (SE) has been examined from different perspectives. Therefore, this current study has made novel contributions to the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) and the limitations [1004].
Internal or Intrinsic Motivation (IM)
The current study identified nine characteristics of intrinsic motivation (IM) and six types of extrinsic while addressing the second research question. The aggregate of intrinsic motivation (IM) was 47 voters, as shown in Table 4. Most of the studies on intrinsic (IM) focused on factors such as self-esteem (38%), expertise or certification (38%), learning process (37%), and the impact of imparting knowledge (29%). The other issues are insignificant but are worth mentioning. All answers met the expectation based on the assigned questions despite being limited, namely «What motivates you to keep on writing articles for publication? Which one belongs to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation?.» Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) revealed detailed intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (EM) (Table 4 & 5). All answers met self-determination theory (SDT), namely autonomous motivation (Deci &Ryan, 2008; Ryan &Deci, 2000). It was observed that Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) might under-
stand the question as the dominant answer and were free from external pressure. The current and previous studies on intrinsic motivation (IM) were compared and contrasted but limited to the past five years (Alzubi & Nazim, 2024; Chen, 2021; Wang, 2021; Banegas et al., 2020; Blankenstein et al., 2018; Lei & Jiang, 2019) except two sources (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Alzubi and Nazim (2024) showed that (1) highly intrinsically motivated students with writing choices can improve their writing skills, (2) female students had higher intrinsic motivation (IM) with their self-assigned writing topics than male, (3) intrinsically motivated students prefer the descriptive writing genre. The study revealed a correlation between intrinsic motivation (IM), attitudes, and writing skills. In contrast, the current study showed IM features rather than the correlation. It was justified that Alzubi and Nazim (2024) was confirmatory, while the current study was exploratory to identify «intrinsic motivation (IM) landscapes» (Table 4) and the corresponding classes in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) (Table 6B). This study supported the importance of IM in previous survey and classified affective order in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT), but it had limitations because scholarly writing is different, and correlation cannot meet exploration.
Chen (2021) showed three critical aspects that influenced students' motivation in collaborative writing, namely understanding of collaborative writing, past beliefs and experiences of pair/group work, and perceived worth of the role in partnership. The results were different because motivation grows from beliefs and practices, therefore, the current study explored intrinsic motivation (IM) rather than unveiling the cause and effect on scholarly writing. The findings of Chen (2021) are in accordance with the current study's objective of investigating evidence of motivation. However, they presented more details and categories of intrinsic motivation (IM) (Table 4) and the class in affective order in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) (Table 6B). The current study provided a unique novelty of intrinsic motivation (IM) (Table 4) and the affective order in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) [Table 6B]. [123], but was limited in the failure to consider the unique characteristics of students when creating collaborative writing activities for instructional or assessment objectives. Wang (2021) showed that students with lower worry tended to perform better in creating creative writing. The results validated the correlation between Achievement Motivation and State Anxiety (AMSA) with Creative Writing Performance (CWP). This study found no similarities in the IM features but differences in the direction. The current study adopted an investigative method and classified motivation as "intrinsic" (Table 4) and the subcategories in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT)(Table 6B). It was concluded that the current study expanded on the previous surveys on Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) by presenting evidence within the framework. There were limitations since it did not explore
the impact of students' anxiety on L2 creative writing but focused on scholarly writing.
Banegas et al. (2020) examined authenticity and motivation in writing for publication. The study showed that the authenticity of the audience functioned as a motivating factor for more advanced student teachers. Most student teachers and tutors engaged in motivational constructive interaction triggered by a change in tutors' teaching practices with the possibility of publishing. There were similarities in exploratory as a paradigm and writing for publication. The findings of banegas et al. (2020) were limited in variants, while the current study ategorized motivation into "intrinsic" (table 4) and the classes in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) (table 6B). It was found that both surveys shared convergent exploratory, and the current study enriched literature in "motivation" with features of intrinsic motivation.[141]. The limitation of the current study was the need to investigate the ongoing impact of writing for publication on the English language ability, identity, or professional growth of student-teachers and tutors.
Turmudi et al. (2020) showed that Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) were motivated by internal and external factors such as personal growth, advancement in their field, institutional requirements, pursuit of recognition, fulfilment, duties, and professional expectations. Hence, this study found a shared sense of motivation and article for publication, which correlated with the principles of self-determination theory (SDT), including autonomous and regulated motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), as well as intrinsic and extrinsic (Legault, 2016). This surpassed the earlier study on SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and the novelty was visible. However, there were limitations in focusing on heterogenous Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) instead of homogenous with high publication in Scopus.
Lei and Jiang (2019) stated that the rapid expansion of English as the dominant language for publishing and the belief that it is beneficial indicates a complicated and multifaceted understanding of why the Chinese publish scholarly work in English. The study found that motivation had a significant positive impact on authoring scientific articles, confirming the hypothesis. However, the current study ategorized motivation into "intrinsic and extrinsic", as well as contributed to the understanding of the characteristics of intrinsic motivation (IM) (Table 4 and Table 5) and the respective classes in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) (Table 6B), making it an exploratory analysis. The study undermined earlier survey on Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the grouping of emotional organisation in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT).
Blankenstein et al. (2018) found that enactive mastery and positive social interdependence enhanced self-efficacy (SE) belief for research on intrinsic motivation (IM). The results of Blankenstein et al. (2018) were consistent with the find-
ings of the current study, which categorised motivation as «intrinsic and extrinsic» (Table 4 and Table 5) and the affective order in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) (Table 6B), with one focusing on confirming existing theories and the other exploring new ideas. The current study also built upon the previous survey by adding information about intrinsic motivation (IM) (Table 4), applying self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), and categorising motivation divisions in the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). However, it has limitations because it did not clarify whether intrinsic motivation (IM) facilitate or impede self-efficacy (SE). Based on recent studies (Alzubi & Nazim, 2024; Chen, 2021; Wang, 2021; Banegas et al., 2020; Lei & Jiang, 2019; Blankenstein et al., 2018; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), the relationship between intrinsic motivation (IM) and various factors has been examined. The analysis supported self-determination theory (SDT), which is precisely the concept of intrinsic motivation (IM) (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Some scholars have contended that individuals can internalise Intrinsic Motivation (IM) through the influence of Extrinsic (EM) (Legault, 2016).
External or Extrinsic Motivation (IM & EM)
The current study suggested six types of extrinsic motivation (EM) with a total of 50 voters, and most findings in extrinsic (EM) showed gaining appreciation, namely financial support (100%), shaping expertise (7%), and seeking dignity (7%). The rest were minor, with less than 6 %, and all answers met the expectation based on the assigned questions despite being limited. The interview questions were (1) What motivates you to keep writing articles for publication? Which one belongs to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation?.» Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) disclosed detailed extrinsic motivation (EM) despite being limited. All answers accommodated controlled motivation including external regulation, where external rewards or punishments and introjected regulation influenced behaviour. Hence, action was partially internalised and driven by seeking approval, avoiding shame, contingent self-esteem, and ego (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Previous five years studies (Alzubi & Nazim, 2024; Chen, 2021; Wang, 2021; Banegas et al., 2020; Lei & Jiang, 2019; Blankenstein et al., 2018; Deci &Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000) that provided evidence with similarities and differences were compared. The studies shared minor motivation similarities but shared motivation in general (Chen, 2021; Banegas et al.,2020; Lei & Jiang, 2019), while a few shared specific motivations such as intrinsic (Alzubi & Nazim, 2024; Blankenstein et al., 2018) and achievement motivation (Wang, 2021). Deci and Ryan (2008) showed both intrinsic and extrinsic under the coverage of "self-determination theory (SDT)" which shelters autonomous and controlled motivation. Previous studies also shared distinct counterpart's variable such as writing skills (Alzubi & Nazim, 2024), writing of argumentative essay (Chen, 2021), Creative Writing Performance (Wang, 2021),
11 Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. Ibid.
publication (Banegas et al., 2020) academic writing (Blak-entein et al., 2018), and research article (Lei & Jiang, 2019). The findings were challenged, and it was concluded that the current study of extrinsic motivation (EM) contributed to previous confirmatory surveys (Alzubi & Nazim, 2024; Wang, 2021; Lei & Jiang, 2019; Blakentein et al., 2018) with limitations. Lastly, by comparing and contrasting extrinsic motivation (EM) (Alzubi & Nazim, 2024; Chen, 2021; Wang, 2021; Banegas et al., 2020; Lei & Jiang, 2019; Blankenstein et al., 2018; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), the results of previous studies were confirmed, which mentioned various attributes of motivation.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (EM) in the Light of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT)
The third research question showed that the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) incorporated self-efficacy (SE), intrinsic (IM), and extrinsic motivation (EM) in the affective domain (AD). The meanings were equivalent in text form to the Bloom Revised Taxonomy (BRT) as defined by Anderson and Krathwohl11. Therefore, the existing evidence of SE, IM, and EM, was associated with AD and categorised into five levels, A1 to A5, ranging from low to high HOAs. The primary influential self-efficacy (SE) was the valuing phenomena (A3), which accounted for 161.90% of the HOAs, followed by the internalisation of values (A5), at 57% and directed towards HOAs (Table 6A). Conversely, the least of self-efficacy (SE) was observed in responding phenomena (A2), accounting for 47.61%, and receiving phenomena (A1), for 14.28%, both falling within the category of LOAs. This evidence cannot be compared to the previous investigations because the experts did not utilise the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) in their research (Afacan Adanir et al., 2020; Turmudi et al., 2020; Saiful, 2020; Hilton et al., 2020; Majhi et al., 2018; Deng & Yuen, 2012;). Secondly, concerning self-efficacy (SE), intrinsic motivation (IM) led to clearly differentiated degrees of expertise in specific domains compared to all other elements. The primary determinant in the IM category was the valuing phenomena (A3), which accounted for 85.71% and associated with HOAs. Additionally, the internalisation of values (A5) contributed 80.95% and in HOAs. The least compelling aspect of intrinsic motivation (IM) was the receiving phenomena (A1), which had 57.14% and in low order of affective (LOAs). This evidence was different from the earlier investigations since the academics in those studies did not focus on the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT) (Afacan Adanir et al., 2020; Turmudi et al., 2020; Saiful, 2020; Hilton et al., 2020; Majhi et al., 2018; Deng & Yuen, 2012). The final and most crucial extrinsic motivation (EM) was valuing phenomena (A3), which had 100% voters and in HOAs. Responding phenomena (A2) had 85.871% voters and in LOAs (Table 6C). The least significant affective domain was internalising phenomena (A5), accounting for 52.38%, and in HOAs. The previous surveys did not examine the Bloom Digital Taxon-
omy (BDT), but the current study enhanced the existing understanding (Afacan Adanir et al., 2020; Turmudi et al., 2020; Saiful, 2020; Hilton et al., 2020; Majhi et al., 2018; Deng & Yuen, 2012;). Therefore, it was concluded that the findings supported the connection between the low and HOAs, indicating the significance of Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) .
There are few limitations, including the use of an ethnographic study with digital observation through Google Scholar, SINTA, Scopus Profile, and face-to-face interviews. Future studies may use an ethnographic study with a mixed method to obtain data and participants observation. Furthermore, this study employed 21 Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) of English, such as assistant professors and professors. Future studies may use homogenous Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs), such as associate professors or professors from the English Department and other disciplines. The data were manually obtained by transcribing the recorded interviews, which took long and repeated transcription process. Future studies may use N-Vivo or qualitative data analysis (CDA) software to secure the accuracy of the content data. Lastly, it was challenging to differentiate similar ideas as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (EM) or self-efficacy (SE).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this study showed the types of self-efficacy (SE), and the most dominant factors were profession, self-development, and attributes of Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs). The forms of self-efficacy (SE) were in the HOAs with valuing (A3) and internalising (A5) of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). Furthermore, this study provided empirical features of intrinsic motivations (IM), and the most dominant factors were self-esteem, expertise markers, and a way to learn. The most empirical intrinsic motivations (IM) was in the HOAs valuing (A3) and internalising (A5) of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). The study provided empirical extrinsic motivation (EM) forms for obtaining appreciation, shaping expertise, and seeking dignity. The most dominant factors were valuing (A3) and internalising values (A5) in the level of HOAs of the Bloom Digital Taxonomy (BDT). In addition, high order of affective dominated the findings for all variables but have implications.
The current study is in ELT and EFL contexts, which implies some theoretical and practical consequences. The higher education authorities need to keep accommodating writing
for scholarly publication in the current curriculum. Furthermore, writing scholarly publications should be a sequential part of academic writing and an exclusively core part of the post-thesis writing phase. The government should increase the stimulant of grants to maintain the tradition of writing to get internalised by any Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) in the Indonesian context. However, in the broader context, it is tolerable to precede what perception should be maintained to keep the motivation behind writing scientific works. Future studies may replicate this study by employing mixed methods and more Teacher Educator Authors (TEAs) with various levels of reputable publication, such as in Scopus and WoS.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are grateful to Universitas Muhammadiyah Metro and Universitas Pasir Pangaraian for funding the data collection. The authors are also grateful to Universitas Negeri Malang (UM) for providing access to obtain quality articles from Scopus-indexed Journals.
DECLARATION OF COMPETITING INTEREST
None declared.
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTION
Dedi Turmudi: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Supervision; Writing -original draft; Writing - review & editing.
Ihsan Dacholfani: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Supervision; Writing - original draft; Writing - review & editing.
Umi Rasyidah: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Supervision; Writing -original draft; Writing - review & editing.
REFERENCES
Adanir, G. A., ismailova, R., Omuraliev, A., & Muhametjanova, G. (2020). Learners' perceptions of online exams: A comparative study in Turkey and Kyrgyzstan. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4679
Alzubi, A. A. F., & Nazim, M. (2024). Students' intrinsic motivation (IM) in EFL academic writing: Topic-based interest in focus. Heliyon, 10(1), e24169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24169
Board of Editors TEFLIN Journal. (2012). Writing for international publication: An interview with Nugrahenny T. Zacharias, Han-doyo P. Widodo, and Willy A. Renandya. TEFLIN Journal, 23(2), 115-129. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v23i2/115-129
Chen, W. (2021). Understanding students' motivation in L2 collaborative writing. ELT Journal, 75(4), 442-450. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab027
Chernick, V. (2012). How to get your paper accepted for publication.Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, 13(2), 130-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prrv.2011.02.004
Chien, S.-C. (2019). Writing for scholarly publication in English for Taiwanese researchers in the field of English Teaching. SAGE Open, 9(3), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019870187
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macro theory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182-185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
Deng, L., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2012). Understanding student perceptions and motivation towards academic blogs: An exploratory study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 48-66. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.883
Garrido, N. (2017). The method of James Spradley in qualitative research. Enfermería: Cuidados Humanizados, 6, 43-48. https://doi.org/10.22235/ech.v6iEspecial.1450
Hilton, J., Hilton, B., Ikahihifo, T. K., Chaffee, R., Darrow, J., Guilmett, J., & Wiley, D. (2020a). Identifying student perceptions of different instantiations of open pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(4), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i4.4895
Humphreys, G., & Wyatt, M. (2014). Helping Vietnamese university learners to become more autonomous. ELT Journal, 68(1), 52-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct056
Hyland, K. (2016). Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System, 59, 116-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.05.002
Jiang, X., Borg, E., & Borg, M. (2017). Challenges and coping strategies for international publication: perceptions of young scholars in China. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), 428-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1049144
Keshavarz, M., & Ghoneim, A. (2021). Preparing educators to teach in a digital age. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 22(1), 221-242. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i1.4910
Kim, E. J. (2018). Scholarly publishing in Korea: Language, perception, practice of Korean university faculty. Publishing Research Quarterly, 34, 554-567. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-018-9602-3
Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter? Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 67-72. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.lindif.2013.01.005
Legault, L. (2016). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 2416-2419). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8
Lei, J., & Jiang, T. (2019). Chinese university faculty' s motivation and language choice for scholarly publishing. Iberica, 38, 51-74.
Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2019). Doctoral candidates' dual role as student and expert scholarly writer: An activity theory perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 54, 62-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.12.003
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2017). Relating beliefs in writing skill malleability to writing performance: The mediating role of achievement goals and self-efficacy. Journal of Writing Research, 9(2), 97-124. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2017.09.02.01
Luik, P., & Lepp, M. (2021). Are highly motivated learners more likely to complete a computer programming MOOC? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 22(1), 41-58. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i1.4978
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and performance. International Journal of Management Business and Administration, 14(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507999103901202
Magogwe, J. M., Ramoroka, B. T., & Mogana-Monyepi, R. (2015). Developing student-writers self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Academic Writing, 5(2), 20-28. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v5i2.132
Majhi, S., Baral, S., & Maharana, B. (2018). Perceptions of scholarly publishing in open access routes: A survey of LIS professionals in Odisha. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2117.
Maniati, M., & Jalilifar, A. (2018). Strategies for publishing in English journals: A study of the perceptions of Iranian scholars. Learned Publishing, 31(4), 355-365. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1186
Mascle, D. D. (2013). Writing self-efficacy and written communication skills. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 216-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569913480234
Matthew B., M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2015.975966
McKinley, J. (2013). Displaying critical thinking in EFL academic writing: A discussion of Japanese to English contrastive rhetoric. In RELC Journal (vol. 44, issue 2, pp. 195-208). https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688213488386
Miles, D. A. (2017, August). A taxonomy of research gaps: Identifying and defining the seven research gaps. In Doctoral student workshop: Finding research gaps-research methods and strategies, Dallas, Texas, 2017.
Mirovic, I., & Knezevic, L. (2018). Writing research articles in English: Perception and practice of Serbian writers. Scripta Manent, 13, 84-96.
Munzenmaier, C., & Rubin, N. (2013). Perspectives on Bloom's Taxonomy: What is old is new again. The E-learning Guild Research, 1-14.
Netolicka, J., & Simonova, I. (2017). SAMR model and Bloom's digital taxonomy applied in blended learning/teaching of general English and ESP. Proceedings of the 2017 International Symposium on Educational Technology (pp. 277-281). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISET.2017.68
Nikcevic-Milkovic, A., Balenovic, K., & Brala-Mudrovcic, J. (2022). Self-regulated learning and sociodemographic factors in students' L1/L2 writing proficiency. Journal of Language and Education, 8(1), 100-116. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.11581
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308222
Pho, P., & Tran, T. (2016). Obstacles to scholarly publishing in the social sciences and humanities: a case study of Vietnamese scholars. Publications, 4(3), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4030019
Rathert, S., & Okan, Z. Z. (2015). Writing for publication as a tool in teacher development. ELTJournal, 69(4), 363-372. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv029
Saiful, J. A. (2020). Mobile teacher professional development (MTPD): Delving into English teachers' beliefs in Indonesia. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(4), 143-160. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i4.475
Shehata, A. M. K., & Eldakar, M. A. M. (2018). Publishing research in the international context: An analysis of Egyptian social sciences scholars' academic writing behaviour. Electronic Library, 36(5), 910-924. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2017-0005
Sujatha, R., & Kavitha, D. (2018). Learner retention in MOOC environment: Analysing the role of motivation, self-efficacy, and perceived effectiveness. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 14(2), 62-74. https://www.learntechlib.org/pZ184685/
Turmudi, D. (2017). Rethinking academic essay writing: Selected genres in comparison. Premise Journal, 6(2), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.24127/pj.v6i2.1052
Turmudi, D. (2020a). English scholarly publishing activities in the industrial revolution 4.0: What, why, and how? English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 3(1), 52-63. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v3i1.1890
Turmudi, D. (2020b). The experience and capability of the teacher-educator authors (TEAs) of Indonesia in writing articles for publication in the light of the Bloom's digital taxonomy [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universitas Negeri Malang. http://repository.um.ac.id/263331/
Turmudi, D., Saukah, A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2020c). How do teacher-educator authors (TEAs) experience their professional development through writing for publications? International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 13(2), 965-988.
Umamah, A., Khoiri, N. El, Widiati, U., & Wulyani, A. N. (2022). EFL university students' self-regulated writing strategies: The role of individual differences. Journal of Language and Education, 8(4), 182-193. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.13339
van Blankenstein, F. M., Saab, N., van der Rijst, R. M., Danel, M. S., Bakker-van den Berg, A. S., & van den Broek, P. W. (2019). How do self-efficacy beliefs for academic writing and collaboration and intrinsic motivation (IM) for academic writing and research develop during an undergraduate research project? Educational Studies, 45(2), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1446326
Wang, H. (2021). Exploring the relationships of achievement motivation and state anxiety to creative writing performance in English as a foreign language. Thinking Skills and Creativity, pp. 42, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100948
Wardhana, D. E. C. (2022). Exploring the impact of process-genre approach on learners' academic writing and higher order thinking skills. Journal of Language and Education, 8(2), 140-153. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12537
Yicai, H., & Xueai, Z. (2021). A study of the relationship between non-English majors' vocabulary knowledge and English writing self-efficacy. International Journal of Liberal Arts and Social Science, 9(6), 65-76.
Zheng, Y., & Guo, X. (2019). Publishing in and about English: challenges and opportunities of Chinese multilingual scholars' language practices in academic publishing. Language Policy, 18(1), 107-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-018-9464-8
APPENDIX 1
Questionnaire (F)
Overview
This questionnaire is sent to you who have specific characteristics (as determined in the research method) in writing articles for publication, covering identity, experiences in publication, and consent.
Direction for respondents:
1. fill out the blank as requested.
2. Choose the option that best fits your situation.
3. your name and email will not be published. *required
Email address*
1. Full Name *
2. Academic Ranks*
o Instructor (TP) o Expert Assistant (AA) o Lector (L)
o Associate Professor (LK) o Professor (Prof)
3. Mobile /WA*
4. Age Category*
o 21-30 years o 31-40 years o 41-50 years o Over 51 years
5. First year of teaching at higher education (year only)
6. Subject of teaching
o English and teach in the English Language o Non-English but taught in English language or Bahasa Indonesia
7. How many articles have been sent to certain journal publishers up to this survey?
8. How many of them are officially published in total?
9. What category of those published articles do they belong to?
o National Journal (NJ) o National Accredited Journal (NAJ)
o International Journal (IJ) but not indexed in Scimago or Scopus o International (Reputable) Journals Indexed in Scimago or Scopus o Mixed above.
10. How long did it take for you to get those published articles (average)?
o 1-6 months o 7-9 months o 10-12 months o More than a year
11. If you are selected, what mode of the interview will you choose?
o Face to face o WhatsApp call o Phone / mobile call o Yahoo Messenger call o Skype call
12. Is it acceptable to be paid as formal appreciation?
o Yes o No
13. If yes, please attach your bank account. (Name of Bank and Account Number on behalf of you)
I am willing to complete the questionnaire (Agree or Disagree) and state that all the input data are correct. Accordingly, I am okay with following the next step of this study or getting an interview to explore more data from a targeted participant.
o Agree o Disagree
Date of Submission
mm/dd/yyyy
Thank you very much.
