<record>
  <header>
    <identifier>oai:eurokd.com:article/2215</identifier>
    <datestamp>2026-10-15</datestamp>
  </header>
  <metadata>
    <oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/">
      <dc:title>Toward Reflective Authorship in Publication-Oriented EFL Writing: A Longitudinal Study of Indonesian Undergraduates’ Reflective Journals</dc:title>
      <dc:relation>Volume 56</dc:relation>
      <dc:creator>Seful Bahri</dc:creator>
      <dc:creator>Sri Wuli Fitriati</dc:creator>
      <dc:creator>Nina Sofiana</dc:creator>
      <dc:subject>EFL Academic Writing</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>Learner Feedback Literacy</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>English For Research Publication Purposes (ERPP)</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>Student Reflective Journals</dc:subject>
      <dc:subject>Reflective Authorship</dc:subject>
      <dc:description>&lt;p style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Cambria', serif;"&gt;Writing an article for publication requires students to deal with both writing and research decisions. The study followed 35 Indonesian EFL undergraduates during 16 meetings of a Research Method in ELT course and examined how their reflective attention and writer positioning changed. After every meeting, the students wrote a reflective journal, resulting in 560 entries and 3,920 responses to the recurring prompts. The analysis generated six interrelated themes and showed changes across three project phases. Early reflections focused mainly on research purpose, topic feasibility, models and writing criteria. During article development, students gave more attention to literature synthesis, methodological alignment, data work, and relationships among article sections. In the final phase, some students showed greater attention to manuscript integration, revision, evaluative judgment, and future academic writing. However, workload, anxiety, methodological difficulties, and the need for guidance remained. Reflective authorial positioning became more visible, but guided participation also increased. These findings suggest that reflective authorship developed through responsible interdependence, as students took greater responsibility for writing decisions while continuing to use academic, social, and technological support.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
      <dc:publisher>Language Teaching Research Quarterly</dc:publisher>
      <dc:date>2026-07-26</dc:date>
      <dc:type>Text</dc:type>
      <dc:identifier>https://api.eurokd.com/Uploads/Article/2215/ltrq.2026.56.09.pdf</dc:identifier>
      <dc:identifier>https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2026.56.09</dc:identifier>
      <dc:language>en</dc:language>
      <dc:coverage>Pages 184–206</dc:coverage>
    </oai_dc:dc>
  </metadata>
</record>