Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

An interesting paper that addresses a timely issue in L1 language education. However, there are some aspects that should be reviewed and improved. Please refer to my comments in the pdf. document attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: It would be helpful to know which higher education context this refers to geographically and which type/level of teacher education.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. I have revised the Introduction and Literature Review sections to clarify the context of the study. Specifically, I now state that the study was conducted with undergraduate preservice teachers enrolled at a public university in Türkiye. This contextual information is introduced earlier in the manuscript to help readers understand the geographical and educational setting of the study.

Comment 2: Do you mean for teachers or students? This should be made clear.

Response: I agree that the original wording was ambiguous. The relevant section has been revised to specify that the discussion refers to preservice teacher education programs (i.e., student teachers in undergraduate teacher preparation programs) rather than in-service teachers. The revised text now clearly identifies the target population and educational context.

Comment 3: This claim should be supported with a citation.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. I agree that the statement required additional empirical and theoretical support. Accordingly, I have revised the relevant paragraph and incorporated additional references (e.g., Alharthi, 2021; Bruning & Horn, 2000; Teng, 2022; Zimmerman, 2000). These sources provide support for the role of free writing in writing development and for the theoretical relationship between affective engagement, motivation, and self-regulated learning. The revised text now more clearly substantiates our argument regarding the limited research examining free writing within structured instructional contexts and its connection to self-regulatory efficacy.

Comment 4: This section needs to be more supported by the literature. Quite a few studies have been published on the writing practices of pre-service teachers and these should be addressed, namely how this study supports or extends from what has already been published.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. I agree that the original section did not sufficiently engage with the existing literature on preservice teachers’ writing experiences and development. In response, I substantially revised the “Writing Instruction in Teacher Education” subsection by incorporating additional studies on preservice teachers’ writing beliefs, writing identities, writing self-confidence, and preparedness to teach writing (e.g., Hall & Grisham-Brown, 2011; Morgan, 2010; Cremin & Oliver, 2017). I also clarified how the present study extends prior research by examining the combined effects of a writing workshop incorporating structured free writing on writing attitudes, self-regulatory efficacy, and writing performance within a higher education teacher education context. Furthermore, I highlighted the limited research investigating these outcomes simultaneously through a mixed-methods design. These revisions strengthen the theoretical grounding of the study and more clearly position its contribution within the existing literature.

Comment 5: Please refer to my previous comment.

Response: Thank you for this observation. Following your earlier recommendation, I revised this statement to provide stronger support from the literature on preservice teachers’ writing development and writing instruction. I also clarified that the discussion refers specifically to preservice teacher education and added relevant references demonstrating the relationship between preservice teachers’ writing experiences, writing beliefs, and their future instructional practices. These revisions improve both the precision and the theoretical grounding of the argument.

Comment 6: This needs to be clarified in the Introduction, especially the type of teacher (i.e., language teacher), as this should be addressed in the literature. In addition, whether this refers to L1 or L2 language teachers should also be clarified. Either way, the literature review would need to be more specific and address extant research on language education and writing practices.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. I agree that the original manuscript did not sufficiently specify the teacher education context. In the revised manuscript, I clarified throughout the Introduction and Literature Review that the study focuses on preservice Turkish language teachers enrolled in an undergraduate teacher education program in Türkiye. I also clarified that the study is situated within the context of first-language (L1) writing education rather than second-language (L2) writing instruction. Furthermore, I expanded the literature review to engage more directly with research on language teacher education, preservice language teachers’ writing experiences, and writing pedagogy in L1 educational contexts. These revisions provide a clearer contextual framing and better position the study within the relevant body of literature.

Comment 7: It would be helpful to specify the type of teacher, i.e., L1 or L2 language teacher. For example, a preservice mathematics or science teacher may not employ as many writing practices as an L1 or foreign language teacher.

Response: Thank you for this helpful clarification. I agree that the role and importance of writing may differ considerably across teacher education disciplines. In the revised manuscript, I have clarified that the participants Ire preservice Turkish language teachers and that the study is situated within the context of first-language (L1) writing education. I have also revised the relevant sections of the Introduction and Research Questions to ensure that the specific teacher education context is consistently identified throughout the manuscript. These revisions help distinguish the study from research involving other subject-area teachers and more clearly position it within the literature on language teacher education and writing pedagogy.

Comment 8: This is a little confusing as previously you refer to language teachers only.

Response: Thank you for identifying this inconsistency. I agree that the original description of the participant group could create confusion regarding the study population. In the revised manuscript, I clarified that although the writing workshop was open to students from different academic programs, the present study focused exclusively on preservice Turkish language teachers. I also explained the rationale for this focus and emphasized that the study is situated within the context of first-language (L1) language teacher education. These revisions ensure consistency between the Introduction, Literature Review, and Method sections and provide a clearer description of the participant group.

Comment 9: It would be helpful to include some information on what these tasks entailed.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. I agree that additional information regarding the writing tasks would improve the transparency of the study. In the revised manuscript, I expanded the description of the writing performance assessment by providing details about the informative and narrative writing tasks completed by participants, including the purpose of each task and the aspects of writing they were intended to assess. This clarification enables readers to better understand the nature of the writing performance measures and the basis for the rubric-based evaluations.

Comment 11: A bit more space between this paragraph and the table would be appreciated.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. I have revised the formatting of the manuscript and increased the spacing between the paragraph and the table to improve readability and presentation.

Comment 12: Please include citation.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. I agree that this interpretive statement should be supported by relevant literature. In the revised manuscript, I added appropriate references to studies demonstrating that structured and process-oriented writing experiences can contribute to more positive writing attitudes, increased engagement, and greater writing confidence. These citations strengthen the interpretation of the findings and situate them within the existing literature.

Comment 13: This is quite difficult to read.

Response: Thank you for this observation. I agree that the original presentation of the table could be improved. In the revised manuscript, I reformatted the table to enhance readability and clarity by improving the layout and presentation of the descriptive and inferential statistics. These changes make the results easier to interpret.

Comment 14: This is difficult to assess without a breakdown of how students did on each criterion. In addition, if the writing tasks Ire not completed at the start of the course it is very difficult to ascertain the impact of the workshop on writing competence. This should be explained and justified.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. I agree that additional detail regarding the writing performance assessment would strengthen the presentation of the findings. In the revised manuscript, I have expanded the description of the rubric-based assessment and included a more detailed breakdown of the evaluation criteria. I have also clarified that the writing tasks Ire administered only at the conclusion of the workshop and therefore served as summative assessments of participants’ writing performance rather than direct pre-post measures of improvement. Accordingly, I revised the interpretation of the writing performance findings and acknowledged this issue as a limitation of the study. I also highlight the need for future research incorporating both pre-test and post-test writing assessments to examine changes in writing performance more directly.

Comment 15: Please refer to my previous comment.

Response: Thank you for this observation. I agree that the concerns raised regarding the informative writing assessment also apply to the narrative writing results. Accordingly, I revised this section in the same manner by providing additional information regarding the rubric criteria and clarifying that the narrative writing tasks Ire administered only at the conclusion of the workshop. I also revised the interpretation of these findings to emphasize that they represent descriptive indicators of participants’ narrative writing performance rather than direct evidence of pre-post improvement. Finally, this limitation is acknowledged explicitly in the revised manuscript.

Comment 16: The fact that the study focuses on preservice L1 language teachers should be stated right from the start and this area of research should be included and referred to in the literature review.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. I agree that the educational context and participant group should be established more clearly throughout the manuscript. In the revised version, I explicitly identify the participants as preservice Turkish language teachers and clarify that the study is situated within the context of first-language (L1) writing education. These clarifications have been incorporated into the Introduction, Literature Review, Research Questions, Method, and Results sections. In addition, I expanded the literature review to engage more directly with research on language teacher education, preservice language teachers’ writing development, and L1 writing pedagogy. These revisions provide a more coherent and consistent framing of the study across all sections of the manuscript.

Comment 17: I think this should be hedged slightly, i.e., this is based on self-perception as demonstrated task performance was only evaluated at the end of the course and not the start, I believe.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. I agree that the original wording overstated the conclusions that can be drawn regarding writing competence. In the revised manuscript, I have moderated the interpretation of the findings to distinguish between demonstrated changes in writing attitudes and self-regulatory efficacy, which Ire assessed using pre-test and post-test measures, and participants’ perceived writing development, which was primarily reflected in the qualitative data. I also clarified that writing performance was assessed only at the conclusion of the workshop and therefore does not provide direct evidence of change over time.

Comment 18: I'm not quite sure your results prove this, as demonstrated task performance is based on final results alone.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. I agree that the original wording overstated the conclusions that can be drawn regarding writing performance. In the revised manuscript, I have revised this section to distinguish between demonstrated improvements in writing attitudes and self-regulatory efficacy, which Ire assessed through pre-test and post-test measures, and writing performance, which was evaluated only at the conclusion of the intervention. I also clarified that the qualitative findings primarily reflect participants’ perceptions of writing development. These revisions ensure that the interpretation of the mixed-methods findings more accurately reflects the scope and limitations of the study design.

Comment 19: Not quite sure what you mean here. I think you should state the exact period as I understand this is not a longitudinal study.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. I agree that the original wording could be interpreted as implying long-term behavioural change beyond the scope of the study. In the revised manuscript, I clarified that these findings refer to participants’ reported writing practices during the seven-week workshop period rather than to sustained or longitudinal changes. I also replaced the phrase “durable writing habits” with more precise language describing participants’ reported use of self-regulatory writing strategies during the intervention. These revisions ensure that the interpretation of the findings is consistent with the study design and timeframe.

Comment 20: This should be unpacked further, i.e., how do the results of your study confirm improvements in competence?

Response: Thank you for this important observation. I agree that the original wording implied stronger conclusions regarding writing competence than the study design can support. In the revised manuscript, I clarified that demonstrated improvements Ire observed in writing attitudes and self-regulatory efficacy through the pre-test and post-test measures, whereas evidence regarding writing competence was limited to post-intervention writing assessments and participants’ perceptions reported in the qualitative data. I therefore revised the discussion to avoid implying direct evidence of improvement in writing competence and to distinguish more clearly between measured outcomes and participants’ perceived writing development. These revisions ensure that the interpretation of the findings remains consistent with the available evidence and the methodological limitations of the study.

Comment 21: This section is a little repetitive and does not seem to add much to what has already been said in the previous sections on "results".

Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. I agree that this section contained considerable overlap with the Results section and did not sufficiently extend the interpretation of the findings. In the revised manuscript, I removed this paragraph and streamlined the discussion to reduce repetition. The revised discussion now focuses more directly on the theoretical, pedagogical, and methodological implications of the findings rather than reiterating results that have already been presented.

Comment 22: How your results support this conclusion is unclear, as demonstrated task performance is based on final writings alone, which means I do not know if there has been an improvement as the study does not compare final results with how students completed the same task at the beginning of the workshop.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. I agree that the original wording implied direct evidence of improvement in writing performance, which is not fully supported by the study design. In the revised manuscript, I removed claims regarding demonstrated improvements in writing competence and clarified that the rubric-based assessments provide descriptive information about participants’ writing performance at the conclusion of the workshop. I also explicitly acknowledge that, because writing samples Ire not collected prior to the intervention, changes in writing performance over time cannot be directly assessed. The discussion has been revised accordingly to ensure that interpretations remain consistent with the available evidence.

Comment 23: Please explain more explicitly how your findings support this conclusion.

Comment 24: It would be helpful to be more precise, i.e., not all preservice teachers will be expected to do this.

Response: Thank you for these helpful observations. I agree that the original wording overstated the extent to which the findings support claims regarding transferable writing skills. In the revised manuscript, I have moderated this interpretation and clarified that the evidence derives primarily from participants’ reported use of process-oriented writing strategies across different writing tasks rather than from direct measures of transfer. I also revised the discussion to specify that the findings relate to preservice Turkish language teachers within a first-language (L1) teacher education context rather than to preservice teachers in general. These revisions provide a more precise interpretation of the findings and ensure that the conclusions remain consistent with the scope of the study.

Comment 25: Please explain how this "improvement" was measured.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. I agree that the original wording implied direct evidence of improvement and cross-genre transfer that was not supported by the study design. Because writing performance was assessed only at the conclusion of the workshop, the study cannot directly evaluate changes in writing competence over time or demonstrate transfer of skills across genres. In the revised manuscript, I removed references to demonstrated improvement and cross-genre transfer and replaced them with a more cautious interpretation based on participants’ reported use of process-oriented writing strategies across different writing tasks. These revisions ensure that the discussion remains consistent with the available evidence and the methodological scope of the study.

Comment 26: This section is a little repetitive and some parts reflect what has already been said in previous sections.

Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. I agree that this section contained substantial overlap with points already presented in the Results and Discussion sections. In the revised manuscript, I removed this section to reduce repetition and improve the overall flow of the manuscript. The remaining discussion focuses more directly on the theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical implications of the findings rather than reiterating results that have already been reported. These revisions have resulted in a more concise and focused interpretation of the study’s contributions.

Comment 27: Please explain how your study measured this “enhancement”.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. I agree that the original wording implied direct evidence of enhancement in writing performance, which was not measured through a pre-test/post-test design. In the revised manuscript, I have clarified that the study demonstrated significant changes in writing attitudes and self-regulatory efficacy, while evidence regarding writing development was derived from participants’ qualitative reflections and post-intervention writing assessments. I therefore revised the implications section to distinguish clearly between measured outcomes and participants’ perceived writing development, ensuring that the conclusions remain consistent with the scope of the study and the available evidence.

Comment 31: However, you refer to durable effects in the Results sections. This should be explained and clarified in the results.

Response: Thank you for this important observation. I agree that some of the original wording in the Results and Discussion sections could be interpreted as implying long-term or durable effects that Ire not directly assessed in the present study. In the revised manuscript, I have removed or revised references to “durable,” “lasting,” or “sustainable” effects and clarified that the findings relate only to outcomes observed during or immediately following the seven-week intervention. I have also expanded the limitations section to explicitly acknowledge that no follow-up data Ire collected and that the long-term sustainability of the observed attitudinal and self-regulatory outcomes remains unknown. These revisions ensure consistency between the interpretation of the findings and the scope of the study design.

Comment 32: Some inconsistencies in referencing style. Please review and improve.

Response: Thank you for this observation. I carefully reviewed the entire reference list and revised it to ensure consistency with APA 7th edition guidelines. Specifically, I standardized DOI and URL formatting, corrected inconsistencies in capitalization, author formatting, punctuation, page ranges, and publisher information, and removed formatting artifacts introduced during manuscript preparation. I also conducted a final review of all in-text citations and reference entries to ensure consistency and accuracy throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recommendation - Comment 1. It is recommended to explicitly specify the research goal.

Recommendation – Comment 2. It is not clear how the topics identified in the Literature section were selected (Self-Regulated Learning and Writing, Writing Workshops as Instructional Environments, Free Writing and Writing Attitudes, Writing Instruction in Teacher Education, Research Gap and Contribution of the Study): was there any thematic analysis of the current publications? is it a kind of tribute to research tradition within the respected domain or something else?

It is recommended to explain why these topics are specified in the paper (as we understand , for research theoretical background/ framework).

Recommendation – Comment 3. The last two paragraphs of the Literature Review section that start with the line “Addressing these gaps, the present study makes three key contributions to the literature. ...First...considers the research findings though they have not been presented yet..."

Therefore, this part would better serve as the part of the discussion on the results or concluding remarks.

Comment 4. The list of  Research Questions is clear and does not produce any critical comments.

Comment 5. Section 3 Method is well structured, explains the procedure explicitly,  and produces no critical comments.

Recommendation – Comment 6. The research data is well validated, comprehensive, and interesting in terms of professional activities in the field. However, the structure of  current parts  4-6 needs clarification and a stronger coordination in line with the research questions.

Recommendation – Comment 6.1.

It is recommended to clearly introduce Section 4. Findings (though now the text starts with 4.1. Quantitative Findings) and explain that there will be section 4.1. on quantitative data  in line with  RQ 1-3 and section 4.2. on qualitative data in line with RQ 4 and 5.

Following this suggestion,  there might be changes in the number of paragraphs to foster the logical and explicit presentation of the findings in line with the research questions.

Current lines:

4.1.3. Informative Text Writing Performance (Rubric Scores)

4.1.4. Narrative Text Writing Performance (Rubric Scores)

4.1.5. Inter-Rater Reliability of Writing Assessments

Can be introduced as:

4.1.3.1 Informative Text Writing Performance (Rubric Scores)

4.1.3.2. Narrative Text Writing Performance (Rubric Scores)

4.1.3.3. Inter-Rater Reliability of Writing Assessments

As they refer to RQ3

Recommendation – Comment 6. 2.

Further sections  4.2.1-4.2.4 .describe qualitative data under section 4.2. and refer to RQ 4. This should be indicated explicitly.

Recommendation – Comment 6.3.

Next, section 4.3. (Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings (responds to RQ 5 – this should be  indicated explicitly).

Recommendation – Comment 7.

The number “5“ of the section  Summary of the Results is doubtful as the material summarizes the findings, thus it can be section 4.4. of the overall section 4 Findings.

Recommendation – Comment 8. Concerning the section on Discussion:

It is recommender to number it  as 5  and enhance the is paragraph on integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings by adding the similar material from the current paragraph  4.3. p thus, excluding the repetition of this item.

Recommendation – Comment 9. Regarding the list of references:

It includes over 40 items and only  seven publications during the last five years (four  sources of 2021, one source of 2024 and two sources of 2025).  It can be recommended to add more sources of research published during the last five years up to 2025- 2026.

Author Response

Comment 1: It is recommended to explicitly specify the research goal.

Response: Thank you for this valuable recommendation. I agree that the purpose of the study should be stated as explicitly as possible. In the revised manuscript, I strengthened the statement preceding the research questions by clearly identifying the primary aim of the study. Specifically, I now state that the study aims to examine the effects of a writing workshop incorporating free-writing activities on the writing attitudes, self-regulatory efficacy, and writing-related experiences of preservice Turkish language teachers within the context of first-language (L1) writing education. This revision provides a clearer articulation of the study’s overall purpose and its relationship to the subsequent research questions.

Comment 2: It is not clear how the topics identified in the Literature section Ire selected (Self-Regulated Learning and Writing, Writing Workshops as Instructional Environments, Free Writing and Writing Attitudes, Writing Instruction in Teacher Education, Research Gap and Contribution of the Study). It is recommended to explain why these topics are specified in the paper.

Response: Thank you for this insightful observation. I agree that the rationale underlying the organization of the Literature Review should be stated more explicitly. In the revised manuscript, I added an introductory paragraph at the beginning of the Literature Review explaining that the themes Ire selected deductively based on the study’s conceptual framework, research objectives, and key constructs rather than through a formal thematic analysis of the literature. I also clarified how each subsection contributes to the theoretical and empirical foundation of the study and how the themes collectively support the development of the research questions.

Comment 3: The last two paragraphs of the Literature Review section that start with the line “Addressing these gaps, the present study makes three key contributions to the literature...” appear to consider the research findings before they have been presented. Therefore, this part would better serve as part of the discussion of the results or concluding remarks.

Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. I agree that the original contribution-oriented paragraphs in the Literature Review could be interpreted as anticipating the study’s findings before they were presented. In the revised manuscript, I removed these paragraphs from the Literature Review and streamlined the transition to the study purpose and research questions. The revised Introduction now clearly states the rationale, context, and objectives of the study without implying conclusions prior to the presentation of the findings.

Comment 4: The list of Research Questions is clear and does not produce any critical comments.

Response: Thank you for this positive evaluation. I are pleased that the research questions Ire considered clear and appropriately aligned with the objectives of the study.

Comment 5: Section 3 Method is Ill structured, explains the procedure explicitly, and produces no critical comments.

Response: Thank you for your encouraging feedback. I appreciate your positive assessment of the Method section and are pleased that the research design, procedures, and methodological details Ire found to be clearly presented.

Comment 6: The research data are Ill validated, comprehensive, and interesting in terms of professional activities in the field. However, the structure of current Parts 4–6 needs clarification and stronger coordination in line with the research questions.

Comments 6.1–6.3: It is recommended to more explicitly align the Findings section with the research questions and clarify the organization of the quantitative, qualitative, and integrated findings.

Response: Thank you for these valuable recommendations and for your positive evaluation of the quality of the data. In the revised manuscript, I reorganized the Findings section to align more explicitly with the research questions. I added an introductory paragraph to Section 4 explaining the relationship between the findings and the research questions. I also restructured the quantitative findings so that the writing performance results are presented as sub-sections under Research Question 3, clarified that Section 4.2 addresses Research Question 4 through the qualitative findings, and explicitly indicated that Section 4.3 integrates the quantitative and qualitative results to address Research Question 5. These revisions improve the logical flow, transparency, and coherence of the presentation of the findings.

Comment 7: The number “5” of the section Summary of the Results is doubtful as the material summarizes the findings; thus, it can be Section 4.4 of the overall Findings section.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. I agree that the original section largely summarized findings that had already been presented. During the revision process, I streamlined the manuscript structure and removed the separate “Summary of Findings” section to reduce repetition and improve the distinction between the presentation of findings and their interpretation. The key findings are now presented within Sections 4.1–4.3, while their implications and interpretation are discussed in the subsequent Discussion section.

Comment 8: Concerning the Discussion section, it is recommended to number it as Section 5 and enhance the paragraph on the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings by incorporating similar material from the current Section 4.3, thereby avoiding repetition.

Response: Thank you for this valuable recommendation. Following the restructuring of the manuscript, the Discussion section is now presented as Section 5. In addition, I reviewed the overlap between the mixed-methods integration section and the Discussion and revised these sections to improve coherence and reduce repetition. Specifically, I consolidated overlapping interpretive content and ensured that Section 4.3 focuses on the integration of findings in relation to Research Question 5, while Section 5 emphasizes the interpretation, implications, and significance of those findings. These revisions provide a clearer distinction between the presentation of integrated results and their subsequent discussion.

Comment 9: Regarding the list of references, it includes over 40 items and only a limited number of publications from the last five years. It is recommended to add more recent sources published during the last five years.

Response: Thank you for this valuable recommendation. I agree that incorporating additional recent scholarship strengthens the currency of the manuscript. In the revised version, I reviewed the recent literature and added several contemporary sources (2021–2025) related to self-regulated learning, writing pedagogy, writing workshops, language teacher education, and writing assessment. At the same time, I retained seminal and foundational studies that provide the theoretical basis for the study. As a result, the revised manuscript now reflects both the historical foundations and the most recent developments in the field.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Many thanks for the changes made and revised manuscript submitted. On the whole, the paper has improved significantly. Notwithstanding, some aspects still require additional attention. Please refer to my comments attached. Also, it would be helpful to include instruments used as appendices or for these to be accessible via an external repository so that future researchers can replicate your study to corroborate your findings further.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer Comment: This remains a little unclear. Do you mean “teachers’ writing”?

Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. We agree that the phrase “lived experiences of pre-service writers” could be interpreted ambiguously. In the revised manuscript, we replaced this wording with more specific language to clarify that the qualitative component of the study focuses on participants’ experiences as developing writers within a preservice Turkish language teacher education context. This revision makes the intended meaning more explicit and better aligns the description with the study population and aims.

Reviewer Comment: It would be helpful to include their ages and whether they all stem from the same degree year. In addition, how these participants were contacted should be made clear. Although we know they participated voluntarily, we do not know how they found out about the course.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, I expanded the description of the participants and recruitment procedures. Specifically, I added information regarding participants’ age range and year of study and clarified how students were informed about the writing workshop and invited to participate. These additions provide a more complete description of the study sample and recruitment process.

Reviewer Comment: Some examples of the items for each scale would be helpful or inclusion of the scale used as an Appendix would be even better.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. To provide readers with a clearer understanding of the instruments, I revised the manuscript to include representative sample items from both the Free Writing Attitude Scale and the Self-Regulatory Efficacy for Writing Scale. These examples illustrate the nature of the constructs assessed by each instrument while maintaining a concise presentation of the measures. I believe this addition improves transparency and facilitates interpretation of the study findings.

Reviewer Comment: This is somewhat vague. Could you include what these conditions were, please?

Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. I agree that the phrase “similar conditions” was insufficiently specific. In the revised manuscript, I clarified the administration procedures by specifying that both writing tasks were completed under comparable assessment conditions, including identical time allocations, standardized instructions, and individual completion within the same instructional setting. This revision provides a clearer description of the conditions under which the writing tasks were administered.

Reviewer Comment: Please clarify how this was possible, i.e., did the dataset track individual participants over time, maintaining individual identifiers for each participant pre- and post-test or was this tracked via group mean/median scores? Also, please include how the normality of the data was formally checked to justify the tests applied.

Response: Thank you for this important methodological observation. In the revised manuscript, I clarified that the analyses were based on matched pre-test and post-test scores obtained from the same participants, with individual responses linked across measurement occasions using participant identifiers. I also expanded the data analysis section to describe the procedures used to assess normality prior to conducting the paired-sample t-tests. The manuscript now explicitly reports the methods used to evaluate the distributional assumptions underlying the parametric analyses and provides a clearer justification for the statistical procedures employed.

Reviewer Comment: Table 1 should include a breakdown of the three dimensions of the scale, or an explanation should be provided as to why the total scale is tested and presented.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, I clarified that although the Free Writing Attitude Scale comprises three dimensions (personal development, development of writing, and social interaction), the analyses focused on the total scale score because the purpose of the study was to examine overall attitudes toward free writing rather than dimension-specific differences. I have added an explanatory statement to the manuscript to justify the use and reporting of total scores.

Reviewer Comment: I cannot see this in Table 3, I can only see one total mean score for the task. Please review.

Response: Thank you for identifying this inconsistency. I agree that the original wording did not accurately reflect the information presented in Table 3. In the revised manuscript, I modified the text to clarify that Table 3 reports descriptive statistics for the overall informative writing performance scores rather than separate scores for each rubric dimension. This revision ensures consistency between the text and the table.

Reviewer Comment: Similar to my previous comment, I cannot see this in Table 4; I can only see one total mean score for the task. Please review.

Response: Thank you for identifying this inconsistency. I agree that the original wording did not accurately reflect the information presented in Table 4. In the revised manuscript, I modified the text to clarify that Table 4 reports descriptive statistics for the overall narrative writing performance scores rather than separate scores for each rubric dimension. This revision ensures consistency between the narrative description and the contents of the table.

Reviewer Comment: This is difficult to understand as you have not included this information in the previous paragraph.

Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. I agree that the original statement relied on information that was not sufficiently emphasized in the preceding description. To improve clarity, I revised the wording to provide a more direct and cautious description of the variation observed in participants’ narrative writing scores without requiring readers to infer comparisons from previously reported statistics.

Reviewer Comment: I think if you explain this at the beginning of this section, you could avoid repeating it in both paragraphs.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. I agree that the limitation regarding the interpretation of the writing performance data was repeated unnecessarily across the informative and narrative writing sections. In the revised manuscript, I moved this explanation to the beginning of the Writing Performance subsection and removed the repeated statements from the subsequent paragraphs. This revision improves readability while ensuring that the scope and interpretation of the writing performance findings are clearly established from the outset.

Reviewer Comment: The coding used in this section should be explained, i.e., the difference between S and P is not clear and you refer to P15 although, I understand, 14 participants were interviewed. These aspects should be clarified.

Response: Thank you for identifying this issue. I agree that the participant coding system was not sufficiently explained. In the revised manuscript, I added a clarification describing the coding convention used for qualitative quotations and its purpose in preserving participant anonymity. I also carefully reviewed all participant identifiers throughout the qualitative findings section and corrected inconsistencies in the coding and numbering of participants. These revisions improve the transparency and accuracy of the presentation of the qualitative data.

Reviewer Comment: Consider rephrasing as this sounds very similar to what is said at the end of the previous paragraph.

Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. I agree that this statement repeated information already presented earlier in the section. In the revised manuscript, I rephrased the sentence to focus on the contribution of the rubric-based assessments to the overall interpretation of the findings rather than reiterating the limitation regarding post-intervention assessment. This revision improves readability and reduces redundancy.

Reviewer Comment: This has now been repeated three times. On the whole, this paragraph is quite repetitive.

Response: Thank you for this observation. I agree that the limitation regarding the absence of pre-intervention writing performance data was repeated unnecessarily throughout the manuscript. In the revised version, I removed this repeated statement from the paragraph and retained the explanation only where it is first introduced in the Writing Performance subsection. This revision reduces redundancy and improves the overall readability of the discussion.