Developing an academic writing creativity and self-efficacy among Indonesian TVET instructors: Evaluating an online genre analysis-based academic writing workshop

Abstract This study designed a five-session online Academic Writing Workshop to help 27 Indonesian TVET instructors prepare the Introduction and Method sections of their publication manuscripts. The instructors’ academic writing creativity and self-efficacy were evaluated and analysed statistically before and after the workshop, using a Rasch-based t-test to examine the workshop’s impact. The findings revealed that there was statistical difference between TVET instructors’ academic writing creativity and self-efficacy before and after attending the academic writing workshop (Mann—Whitney U = 0.00, n1 = n2 = 27, p < 0.05) with a relatively small effect size (r < 0.3). The instructors did benefit from the workshop, albeit with relatively limited improvements in aspects of academic writing self-efficacy. Particularly, it was reported that they had increased ability to find ways to overcome their writing difficulties (logit value = 55.10), and to accept or reject feedback they had received (logit value = 53.35). Unfortunately, TVET instructors were unlikely to benefit from the development of their academic writing creativity, and more specifically, the utilization of technology to support their academic writing and creativity. Besides the need for sustainable, genre-based academic writing workshop planning and application, providing a long-term commitment to academic writing education, with provision, personalised, and sustainable writing and technological support for scholarly writing for publication from expert and related governing institution should be made to promote effective ways of promoting career and professional development for TVET instructors.


Introduction
Getting published in peer-reviewed journals has become a requirement for career and academic success for scholars, researchers, and post-graduate students (Flowerdew, 2015(Flowerdew, , 2019;;Flowerdew & Habibie, 2022;Mulyono & Artarini, 2021).In the Indonesian context of career and professional development, publication is also used as a requirement for promotion or career advancement for school teachers (KemenPan, 2009) and technical and vocational education and training (TVET) instructors.Specifically, for the TVET instructors, this policy of scientific publication in a peerreviewed journal is a relatively recent development following the enactment of the Regulation of the Ministry of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform of the Republic of Indonesia, No. 82, Year 2020(KemenPan, 2020).Instructors working in state TVET centres are required to publish their papers in national indexed and peer-reviewed journals as part of the criteria for their career promotion (Ministry of Labour, 2022), which must demonstrate the specific interventions they made during their teaching activities.
A body of literature has suggested that academic writing is a complex and sophisticated process because it involves particular language use, high-level grammar, and intricate phrasal organization to facilitate informational purposes, an impersonal style, and the exclusion of narrative features (Maamuujav et al., 2021).Citing some earlier studies, Ansarifar et al. (2018) assert that academic writing is also characterized by complex clause construction with dense non-clausal phrases and intricate noun phrases, while at the same time reporting a relative deficiency of clause elaboration.Unfortunately, many Indonesian scholars, teachers, instructors, and students lack sufficient knowledge and competence in academic writing, demonstrating their inability to develop argumentative texts (Antara et al., 2016;Aunurrahman et al., 2017;Husin & Nurbayani, 2017), as well as to have difficulty with highly-level academic structure, grammar, and spelling (Antara et al., 2016;Husin & Nurbayani, 2017).This academic problem is further exacerbated by a limited understanding of the academic writing genre and its associated rhetorical moves, organization, and structures (Arono et al., 2019;Arsyad et al., 2016;Sanjaya et al., 2015).Having limited knowledge and competency regarding the academic writing genre, the publication requirements can lead to considerable pressure on Indonesian TVET instructors, as has been experienced by many scholars in the country (Sanjaya et al., 2015).
Academic writing workshop has been common alternative for many Asian countries (e.g.Cargill & O'Connor, 2006;Cargill et al., 2012;Chen & Wang, 2016;Hsu & Liu, 2019) as well as the Indonesian government institutions, universities, schools and other education bodies to help researchers, lecturers, school teachers, and instructors, to address publication challenges (e.g.Arono et al., 2019;Cargill et al., 2017;Hartono & Arjanggi, 2020;Mulyono & Artarini, 2021).Particularly, genre-based academic writing instruction have been widely adopted as an instructional strategy to promote students' learning success in academic writing courses or workshops.A study by Cargill and O'Connor (2006), for instance, found that the genre-analysis workshop in particular could promote high levels of participation and increased confidence when writing academic papers.Although the effectiveness of the workshop was not formally assessed, the study proposed a genre-pedagogical approach to academic writing workshops.Another study by Hsu and Liu (2019) documented the blended English genre-based writing instruction workshop to enhance graduate students' academic writing and skills.Specifically, the study aimed to help the students understand and enhance their competence related to genre-structure and language use of the introduction and method sections.Although the students were shown to be benefited from the workshop, students were shown to have insignificant improvement and were not able to completely the expected result.In the Indonesian context, Cargill et al. (2017) conducted a workshop to enhance Indonesian scholar' authoring skills for publication, and to develop publication skills and materials for graduate students at a public university.Despite the advantages that the participants received from the workshop mentoring sessions and the materials in addition to their improved self-confidence of writing for publication, there was no evidence that suggest the effectiveness of the workshop to enhance their academic writing skills.
The current paper aims to describe an online genre analysis-based academic writing workshop, and situate it within relevant theoretical perspectives.Specifically, we seek to answer two formulated research questions below: (1) Do Indonesian TVET instructors' participation and engagement in an online genre analysisbased academic writing workshop have an impact on their academic writing creativity and self-efficacy?
(2) To what extent do the instructors' academic writing creativity and self-efficacy improve after participating in the workshop?

Genre analysis in the current academic writing workshop
In the current workshop, the genre-based analysis pedagogy was incorporated in order to raise the awareness of novice writers about the features of academic writing genre and the language used to facilitate the development of their own writing (Hsu & Liu, 2019;Swales, 1990).In his seminal works, Swales (1990Swales ( , 2004) offers a genre-analysis framework that helps novice writers to identify and understand the schematic structure of academic genres, based upon the rhetorical organisations or organisational patterns of academic texts.Some authors (e.g.Burgess & Cargill, 2013;Hsu & Liu, 2019;Ruiying & Allison, 2003) suggest the concept of rhetorical moves as discourse and semantic units employed to represent particular communication functions that reflect the writers' intentions.Burgess and Cargill (2013) perceived the term "move" to reflect the strategic use of particular language aiming to achieve specific effects upon readers.In our workshop context, the rhetorical moves of the introduction section of the IMRAD (Introduction, Method, Result and Discussion) research paper structure were introduced and taught during the workshop.In particular, the moves were used as an analysis framework that helps the TVET instructors to identify the similarities and differences of the introduction and method sections from example research papers presented during the workshop (Cargill & O'Connor, 2006).
A sufficient amount of information about the final assignment or the workshop output criteria was provided earlier to the participants so that they had an understanding of the expected academic text they should produce at the end of the workshop (Li & Hu, 2016;Mulyono & Artarini, 2021).Li and Hu (2016) argued that, by providing the participants with information concerning the genre expectations before attending an academic writing course, they could serve as writing guidelines, help to foster their writing confidence and improve their writing performance.Unfortunately, due to the limited time available for the workshop, the main emphasis of discussion and writing exercise was primarily given to the introduction section.This choice was taken in consideration of the critical role of an introduction section to appeal to readers and therefore encourage them to read the entire article (Arsyad et al., 2016).
Many studies have been conducted to analyse the rhetorical moves of the introduction section in research articles across disciplines (e.g.Adnan, 2009;Arsyad et al., 2016;Kashiha & Marandi, 2019;Nicholson et al., 2018;Swales, 1990), with the most commonly adopted model being Swales (1990) Creating a Research Space (CaRS) Model.Swales (1990) points out that the introduction section should address two critical issues concerning the significance of the topic and the research topic, proposing three moves to present these two issues; move 1 -Establishing a Territory, move 2 -Establishing a Niche, and move 3 -Occupying the Niche.Unfortunately, according to Swales, the CaRS model may be expressed differently according to the particular research environments.Furthermore, the rhetorical features of the introduction sections in research articles can vary across languages, leading to writing styles that do not meet expectations of academic genres (Arsyad et al., 2016).Studies of research articles written by Indonesian academics have provided evidence of the inconsistent use of rhetorical moves in the introduction sections, restricting them to address the objectives of the articles (Adnan, 2009;Arsyad, 2001;Arsyad et al., 2016Arsyad et al., , 2020;;Mirahayuni, 2002) and often resulting in rejection by mainstream peer-reviewed journals (Arsyad et al., 2016).For instance, Arsyad's (2001) earlier study found that many Indonesian academics were unable to effectively convince their readers and adequately justify their research project.The lack of a literature review and the inability to situate the research project within the wider context of global discourse were two main issues that need to be addressed (Arsyad et al., 2016;Mirahayuni, 2002).
Our academic writing workshop, designed for instructors working at Indonesian government-run TVET Centres across the country, was run by the Directorate of Instructor and Training Personnel Development, Ministry of Labour, Republic of Indonesia and was first initiated in 2019.For the 2022 workshop, activities were delivered online to help contain the spread of COVID-19 and bring together a larger, more dispersed group of participants from all Indonesian provinces.The primary purpose of the workshop was to improve instructors' writing creativity and self-efficacy when developing the introduction and method sections of an academic paper and to ensure that the relevant genre requirements were met.Writing creativity in this paper is concerned with the writer's ability to choose among language features and form variations, allowing them to maintain the originality of their expressions (Allison, 2004;Evans, 2013) and achieve the expectations of the academic genre.The concept of writing self-efficacy is deployed to reflect the instructors' confidence in their ability to effectively communicate their ideas and thoughts through written discourse.Self-efficacy in an academic writing setting is evidenced by the instructors' belief in their ability to utilize linguistic knowledge, self-regulation, memory, writing performance, and information organization to produce quality scholarly text (Teng & Wang, 2023).With the emphasis being placed on the rhetorical moves of the introduction section, the present study adopted Arsyad's (2001)

Methodology
The current study aimed to address two formulated research questions: (1) Do Indonesian TVET instructors' participation and engagement in an online genre analysis-based academic writing workshop have an impact on their academic writing creativity and self-efficacy? and ( 2) to what extent do TVET instructors' academic writing creativity and self-efficacy improve after participating in the workshop?To this end, a quantitative research with a one-group quasi-experimental design was adopted as the research design of the current study.This type of research design was chosen because it enables the researchers to examine the effect of the academic writing workshop on TVET instructors' creativity and self-efficacy in a single group without random assignment to treatment or particular control conditions (Fan & Ye, 2022;Kim & Steiner, 2016).According to Fan and Ye (2022), a one-group quasi-experimental design can be considered as an appropriate alternative when random assignment of sample participants and randomised experiments are not feasible to address in the study context.In the current study, the TVET instructor participants received an intervention of a genre-based academic writing instruction during the workshop, designed to cultivate their academic writing creativity and self-efficacy.The instructors' academic writing creativity and self-efficacy were evaluated both before and after attending the workshop to ascertain the value of academic writing workshop they attended.

Participants
The current study involved one of the four academic writing workshop cohorts in which the selected group purposefully was taken as an intact class of research participants.The selection of an intact group was done because all the participated TVET instructors had been assigned by the Career guidance for government training instructors bureau, Directorate of Instructor and Training Personnel, Ministry of Labour, Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, and thus, modifying the participants were not feasible for the current study context.Moreover, the inclusion of the intact group for the current study purpose may not interfere with the regular academic writing workshop curriculum and classroom practice, thus avoiding potential disruption of teaching and learning practices in the classroom contexts (Cohen et al., 2018;Fan & Ye, 2022).Nevertheless, the application of an intact group sample should be taken with caution, as the selected group may present certain characteristics that could lead to bias when compared to other samples (Cohen et al., 2018).
The selected group of the study participant comprised 34 Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) instructors from different state TVET centres in Indonesia, belonging to different disciplines.However, data from 27 of these instructors could be used for the present study, as they had completed the study questionnaire both pre-and post-workshop.The TVET instructors were 19 males, and eight females; with 8 participants aged below 30 years old, 12 between 30 and 40 years old, 5 between 40 and 50 years old, and two above 50 years old.All the participants acknowledged that they had an academic writing course during their previous university study.Many instructors had bachelor's degree (N = 19), some with diploma degree (N = 5) and few with master's degree (N = 3).Despite their educational background, the participants had little experience of research and academic writing.As the participants acknowledged in the introductory session of the workshop, the research and academic writing experience they had was limited to their university final assignments.

Data collecting instruments and analysis
To investigate changes in instructors' creativity and academic writing self-efficacy, an Academic Creativity and Self-Efficacy (ACSE) scale was distributed to participants before and after an online genre-based academic writing workshop.The 34 ACSE items, in combination with four demographic information components, were developed by combining the Situated Academic Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (SAWSES) constructs offered by Mitchell et al. (2021), i.e., "writing essentials", "creativity identity" and "relational reflective writing", with our own developed "technology use to support writing and writing creativity" scales.Consent to utilise the data was obtained from participants as they submitted their responses.
The collected data from the survey was analysed using a quantitative method to assess any change in the TVET participants' academic writing creativity and self-efficacy resulting from the intervention given.Four stages of quantitative analysis were adopted and applied.In the first stage, data were tabulated and screened for missing values, which were not found.In order to enable Rasch-analysis in the following stage, the ordinal data was converted to log-odd-units (logits) to maintain the same interval of the data (Kreijns et al., 2020;Mulyono et al., 2020;Ningsih et al., 2021) in order to calibrate between the participant person measures and the survey item measures (Hoi, 2020).In the second stage, the Academic Creativity and Self-Efficacy (ACSE) scale was subjected to the reliability assessment both before and after the workshop sessions, aiming to examine if the level of internal consistency, stability, and dependability of the data collecting instruments, i.e. the ASCE scale.Jhangiani et al. (2020) suggest that the internal consistency of the measurement or data collecting instruments would reflect the consistency of the study participants' responses across the items on the measurements or the instruments.Participants' agreement on such the instrument items could indicate the instruments to have the same underlying construct (Jhangiani et al., 2020, p. 97).The analysis of the current study instrument yielded Cronbach's Alpha scores of 0.99 (before) and 0.98 (after the workshop).These results indicate that there was strong agreement among the participants regarding the items the ACSE scale before and after the workshop, reflecting a very high degree of internal consistency of the scale (Cohen et al., 2018;Jhangiani et al., 2020).This implied a potential utility in measuring the academic writing creativity and self-efficacy among Indonesian TVET instructors.By consistently capturing the intended constructs both pre-and post-workshop, the findings suggests a reliable tool for assessing the critical components associated with academic writing competency.Nonetheless, the high internal consistency as found in the reliability analysis cannot always be taken as a sole indication of the scale's validity or its accurate assessment of the predetermined constructs.Future studies thus should address the issue by further exploring the link between the ACSE scale scores and other associated measures of academic writing creativity and self-efficacy.
Descriptive and inferential statistics were done in the fourth stage to address the first research question.To examine the level of TVET instructors' level of academic writing creativity and selfefficacy, the instructor person logit values before and after attending the workshop were consulted to the mean and standard deviation values, and then classified into three categories: low, moderate and high level.This was done by evaluating the logit data in reference to the logit values of the person data (Rusland et al., 2020).Furthermore, Rasch-based t-test statistical analysis was done to assess any changes in participants' academic writing creativity and self-efficacy as a result of their participation in the workshop.Finally, Rasch Person-Item Wright map analyses was performed to help answer the second research question.In this stage, the distribution of the item logit values for the four ACSE sub-scales were analysed, including the distribution of "writing essentials" (WE), "relational reflective writing" (RW), "creativity identity" (CI), and "technology use to support writing and writing creativity" (TUWC) sub-scales.The training documents concerning the online activity record, writing task activity, and assignment completion were also assessed to help us clarify the findings from the quantitative findings.

Findings and discussion
Genre-analyses based academic training and workshop has been known as an effective workshop instruction design that helps scholars, teachers, instructors, and university students to effectively communicate their ideas in a scholarly written discourse environment.In the current study, we evaluated whether the application of five-sessions of online genre-analysis based workshop could help nurture TVET instructors' creativity and self-efficacy in writing a scholarly text for publication purposes.Our analysis of the logit data from the person values revealed that attending a one-off academic writing workshop has the potential to facilitate slight improvements in TVET instructors' academic writing self-efficacy.

The impact of TVET instructors' participation and engagement in an online genre analysis-based academic writing workshop on their academic writing creativity and selfefficacy
The first research question concerned whether TVET instructors' participation and engagement in an online genre analysis-based academic writing workshop would affect their academic writing creativity and self-efficacy.To address this, the quantitative data gathered from a selfadministered survey using the ACSE instrument before and after the instructors' participation in the workshop was analysed through descriptive and inferential statistics.As previously discussed, the conversion of the raw scores into log-odd units (logits) from the data before and after the workshop had been done to facilitate a Rasch-based statistical analysis.Table 1 summarises the descriptive statistics of the logit data before and after the workshop, and Table 2 presents the level of the TVET instructors' academic writing creativity and self-efficacy.
Table 1 presents the mean and standard deviation of the data before and after the academic workshop.As shown, both the person and item statistics demonstrate an increase in mean and standard deviation, with a stable separation value.As suggested earlier, the logit values of the person data were classified into three categories in order to examine the level of TVET instructors' academic writing creativity and self-efficacy; low, moderate and high (see Table 2).As evident in Table 2, although there were no statistically significant differences between the levels, the number of TVET teachers increased in the low and moderate levels, but not the high level.
To follow up this finding, Rasch-based t-test statistical analysis was carried out to examine if the logit data of the person values before and after the academic writing workshop were statistically different.In the current study, a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to investigate changes in TVET instructors' creativity and academic writing self-efficacy due to the nonnormal distribution of the data (W = 0.909, p < 0.01).As shown in Table 3, the Mann-Whitney U test applied to the Rasch person-measure logit data before and after the workshop (see Table 3) revealed that the two distributions were statistically different (Mann-Whitney U = 0.00, n 1 = n 2 = 27, p < 0.05) with a relatively small effect size (r < 0.3).The findings indicate that there was a slight change of the TVET instructors' academic writing self-efficacy after attending the workshop.
The current study findings reaffirm the findings of earlier studies, suggesting that a one-off academic writing workshop might not effectively improve the participants' knowledge and competence of scholarly writing for publication (see Cargill & O'Connor, 2006;Cargill et al., 2012;Hsu & Liu, 2019;Mulyono & Artarini, 2021).In the Indonesian context, despite the value  of academic writing mentoring and supervision, the type of one-off academic writing workshops can only lead to an increase in participants' attitudes and confidence towards scholarly writing for publication (Arono et al., 2019;Cargill et al., 2017).Similar conditions were also reflected in other one-off education workshops in the Indonesian teacher professional development contexts (e.g.Ningsih & Mulyono, 2019;Zulaiha et al., 2020).In a previous study by Arono et al. (2019), for example, it was observed that writing mentoring could be an effective strategy to ensure that workshop participants adhere to the instructions they had received from writing instructors during the course, such as implementing rhetorical moves in their research articles.Other studies (i.e.Cargill et al., 2017) suggest that mentoring activities should include academic writing supervision, guidance on how to manage difficulties in writing scholarly texts for publication, and clarification of the publication process.Cargill et al. (2017) believe that such mentoring activities have been demonstrated to increase participants' confidence in gaining a better understanding of the issues they encountered when writing, and enable them to address them using their own expertise and proficiency.

The value of online genre-based academic writing workshop for TVET instructors
The second research question examined the extent to which TVET instructors' academic writing creativity and self-efficacy enhanced following their participation in the workshop.To address this question, Rasch Person-Item Wright map analyses were performed by examining the distribution of the item logit values for the four ACSE sub-scales, including "Writing Essentials" (WE), "Relational Reflective Writing" (RRW), "Creativity Identity" (CI), and "Technology Use to Support Writing and Writing Creativity" (TUWC).Two Rasch Person-Item Wright maps were developed that indicate the distribution of the item logit values for the four ACSE sub-scales before and after the academic writing workshop (see Figure 2).Each map was divided into two parts, with the person logit values on the left side and the item logit values on the right.The vertical line was ranged from the most difficult item to respond to the easiest item to respond, indicated by a number of measurements, such as mean (M), one standard deviation of the item mean (S), and two standard deviations of the item mean (T).These measurement points were used to classify the ASCE items into three difficulty levels: low, moderate, and high.
As seen in Figure 1, the instructors only exhibited improvement in writing essential aspect, namely the ways in which they sought to overcome their writing difficulties (Q34, logit value = 55.10), and in the relational reflective writing aspect, concerning their decision to accept or reject writing feedback (Q33, logit value = 53.35).The other creativity aspects remained unchanged before and after attending the workshop.TVET instructors were unlikely benefited in developing their academic writing creativity, and in particular, of using technology to support their academic writing and creativity.
These findings have indicated that the one-off online genre-based academic writing workshop of the current study was unable to promote the academic writing creativity and self-efficacy among TVET instructors, except their ability to address academic writing difficulties and making decision towards the writing feedback they received from their tutors.The lack of such promotion in the workshop might predict the TVET instructors' level of academic writing performance.This is due much research providing sufficient evidence about the strong correlation between academic writing self-efficacy and academic writing performance (Golparvar & Khafi, 2021;Pajares, 2003;Teng & Wang, 2023).Convincingly, the ability of TVET instructors to identify their academic writing difficulty and make decisions concerning the writing feedback they received might indicate their self-regulation capability in writing, showing potential in terms of metacognitive strategies, such as academic writing planning and evaluation, as suggested by Golparvar and Khafi (2021).One of the issues that the TVET encountered regarding their lack of academic writing self-efficacy concerned with little exposure and sustainable academic writing support they received from their work institutions, making them difficult to develop their academic writing competences.In the current study, most TVET instructors mentioned to have attended an academic writing course and had the experience of conducting a small research during their university studies.They also acknowledged that they had very little exposure to academic writing and research since their graduation from the university.Limited academic writing practices might also contribute to their lack of academic writing creativity and self-efficacy.The current study findings reaffirm the findings of earlier studies, suggesting that a one-off academic writing workshop might not effectively improve the participants' knowledge and competence of scholarly writing for publication (see Cargill & O'Connor, 2006;Cargill et al., 2012;Hsu & Liu, 2019;Mulyono & Artarini, 2021).In the Indonesian context, despite the value of academic writing mentoring and supervision, the type of one-off academic writing workshops can only lead to an increase in participants' attitudes and confidence towards scholarly writing for publication (Arono et al., 2019;Cargill et al., 2017).Similar conditions were also reflected in other one-off education workshops in the Indonesian teacher professional development contexts (e.g.Ningsih & Mulyono, 2019;Zulaiha et al., 2020).
In the current study, most TVET instructors mentioned to have attended an academic writing course and had the experience of conducting a small research during their university studies.However, they acknowledged that they had very little exposure to academic writing and research since their graduation from the university.Therefore, there is a need for ongoing support for academic writing in the form of regular writing courses to help them improve their knowledge and competence in this field.Both academic writing instructors and workshop organiser should be aware that one-off academic writing workshops alone are insufficient to promote substantial improvements in TVET instructor participants' scholarly writing competences as shown in the current study's findings.Cargill et al. (2017) have argued that many university lecturers felt that a five-day workshop was insufficient to hone their academic writing skills and that regular training sessions were required in order to reinforce and remind them of what they had learned from the workshop.Whilst academic writing is considered a complex and sophisticated process (Ansarifar et al., 2018;Maamuujav et al., 2021), it is crucial that the participants prepare for the workshop with an article draft and a sufficient level of motivation to gain the most benefit (Cargill et al., 2017).Moreover, to optimise the participants' learning and writing improvements, more sustainable mentoring and support should be provided, as well as allowing better allocation of time for academic writing practice (Mulyono & Artarini, 2021).Some studies (i.e.Cargill et al., 2017) suggest that mentoring activities should include academic writing supervision, guidance on how to manage difficulties in writing scholarly texts for publication, and clarification of the publication process.In a previous study by Arono et al. (2019), for example, it was observed that writing mentoring could be an effective strategy to ensure that workshop participants adhere to the instructions they had received from writing instructors during the course, such as implementing rhetorical moves in their research articles.Cargill et al. (2017) believe that such mentoring activities have been demonstrated to increase participants' confidence in gaining a better understanding of the issues they encountered when writing, and enable them to address them using their own expertise and proficiency.Assessment of the writing text produced by the participants at the end of the workshop along with scores, should be imposed to drive the attention and focus from the participants to the workshop materials and activities that accordingly, would grow their solid motivation during the academic writing activities (Hsu & Liu, 2019).

Conclusion and limitation
In the current study, we developed an online academic writing workshop TVET instructors with academic writing genre structure and language use for the introduction and method sections of research articles.To this end, the workshop integrated the genre-analysis based writing instruction and was implemented in five-session workshop attended by 34 TVET instructors.Of all the TVET participants, only 27 completed the survey and the analyses was made accordingly.Although the effectiveness of the workshop was not assessed, the results of the current study revealed that the workshop had a limited impact on the TVET instructors regarding writing essential and relational reflective writing.After attending the academic workshop, the instructors demonstrated increased ability to find ways to overcome their writing difficulties, as well as to accept or reject the writing feedback they had received.However, the TVET instructors were unlikely to benefit from the development of their academic writing creativity, and more specifically, the utilization of technology to support their academic writing and creativity.Overall, this study contributes to scholars and educators in understanding the incorporation of genre-analysis based instruction in an academic writing workshop.Furthermore, the findings can be used by the government, universities, and education institutions when arranging such an academic writing workshop.Specifically, providing a long-term commitment to academic writing education, with provision, personalised, and sustainable support for scholarly writing for publication from expert and related governing institution should be made to promote effective ways of promoting career and professional development for TVET instructors (Cargill et al., 2012(Cargill et al., , 2017;;Hanauer & Englander, 2013).
Problem-Justifying Project (PJP) model, which was a revised version of Swale'ss (1990) CaRS model.According to the PJP model, the introduction section of a research article is developed using four moves: Move 1 -Establishing a shared background of knowledge; Move 2 -Establishing the research field; Move 3 -Justifying the current research; and Move 4 -Announcing the current research.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Wright map of the respondents' responses to the instrument constructs.Note: WE = writing essential, RW = relational reflective writing, CI = creative identity, and TUWC = technology usage to support writing and writing creativity.