8713 29680 1 PB
8713 29680 1 PB
8713 29680 1 PB
Dandan Zhang*
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR), Malaysia
*
Corresponding author: Joanna Tjin Ai Tan; [email protected]
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
94
1. Introduction
Writing is considered to be one of the most essential inventions and possessing a
good proficiency in writing techniques is important in every aspect of life
(Gilbert, 2010). With the ever-increasing interconnectedness between countries
and international exchanges becoming more frequent, English, as the most
widely spoken language, has occupied an increasingly important position in
teaching and learning around the world; thus, English writing ability has been
receiving more attention. Besides cultivating an ability to generate and organize
ideas, English writing practice can foster students’ analytical and critical
thinking, reinforcing their learning and reflecting their ability to study (Khalil,
2018). “Writing well in English is not only an art rather the academic and social
success of students is based on their proficiency and competency in writing
skills” (Akbar et al., 2018, p. 7).
Despite its importance, English writing has always represented a weak link for
college students in their English learning process. Research has shown that
English writing remains a challenging task that causes problems for EFL
students (Astrid et al., 2019; De Silva, 2015; Hanh & Tinh, 2022; Wang, 2015;
Zaghlool, 2020). A large number of EFL college students encounter difficulties in
making their language work in a paragraph, such as constructing a
grammatically correct sentence, or choosing appropriate vocabulary to link and
convey their ideas (Mukminin et al., 2015; Makmur et al., 2016).
This study contains four sections. The first section provides a general
introduction. Next, the second section describes the details of the review process
before the third section presents the research results. Finally, the conclusion is
presented in the fourth section.
2. Methodology
2.1 Search strategy
To synthesize and analyze literature on the interventions implemented to
improve university students’ EFL writing competence, the researcher performed
a systematic review, which followed the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2009).
Studies related to the relevant topic were selected in this paper.
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
related keywords were included, such as university students, pedagogy,
teaching, intervention, EFL writing, and ESL writing; these were combined with
“OR” within each group of keywords, and with “AND” between those groups.
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
Figure 1: Diagram of article selection for the systematic review
Of the selected studies, nineteen employed a mixed methods approach while the
remaining twenty-three adopted a quantitative method. In addition to the
writing test, which was used in all the studies, other instruments included
(open-ended) questionnaires [1, 3-4, 6, 8-12, 14, 18, 21, 24, 27, 32, 35, 37, 40],
interviews [4, 17, 19, 25, 26, 31- 33] students’ task performances, logs, language
samples from learning platform [5, 19, 21] as well as teachers’ journals, notes and
observation [21] to provide necessary data for analysis and discussion.
Though not all the studies reported the source of their test paper and most of the
studies under review selected different test papers and rubrics for measurement,
some of them shared the same. For instance, six studies [2, 6-7, 13, 20-21] used
the Oxford Quick Placement Test to measure students’ English proficiency level
before the experiment and six studies chose IELTS writing tasks [8, 12, 20-21, 26,
35, 37] during the treatment. In addition, six studies [4, 6, 18, 23, 26, 41]
employed the rubric from Jacobs et al. (1981) for measurement.
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
3.2 Participants
The forty-two studies in this review were all conducted in Asian countries stated
in Figure 2, specifically China (n=10) [10, 15, 23, 25, 32, 36-37, 40-42], Iran (n=10)
[6-7, 12-13, 20-21, 26, 28, 38, 39], Saudi Arabia (n=5) [2-4, 9, 34], Vietnam (n=3)
[17, 31, 35], Taiwan China (n=2) [14, 24], Spain (n=2) [5, 16], Iraq (n=2) [1, 22],
Yemen (n=1) [29], Thailand (n=1) [33], Sri Lanka (n=1) [11], Philippine (n=1) [8],
Pakistan (n=1) [30], Malaysia (n=1) [18], Korea (n=1) [19], and India (n=1) [27].
Additionally, the participants in the included studies were mainly from the
abovementioned countries.
While four of the studies [11, 17, 38, 42] did not report any information related to
participants’ grades, and only nine studies [3, 9, 12-14, 21, 24, 30, 34] mentioned
the participants’ ages, which was approximately between 17 and 23, ten studies
[2, 6, 8, 15-16, 19, 25, 28, 33, 36] involved participants in their first year of
undergraduate study, eleven studies [10, 20, 23, 26, 27, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40]
focused on second-year students and seven studies [1, 5, 7, 18, 22, 29, 41] had
participants who were senior students in their third year of study. Indeed,
participants in Alharthi’s (2021) [4] study were from various grades, including
freshmen and sophomores as well as advanced EFL learners.
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
[17], History [17], Islamic studies [17], and business [9]. The remaining studies
(n=7) [2-3, 5, 7, 18, 24, 34] did not report the major subjects of the participants.
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
Table 1: Literature matrix of relevant studies
Sampling
Authors Country Duration Sample size Intervention Design
method
Abbas and Al-bakri (2018) simple random IG: 40;
Iraq 15 weeks Paired writing technique quantitative research
[1] sampling CG: 38
IG: 21; Explicit instruction of
Alawerdy and Alalwi simple random
Saudi Arabia over 5 weeks conjunctions as cohesive mixed research
(2022) [2] sampling CG: 22
devices
simple random IG: 23;
Aldossary (2021) [3] Saudi Arabia 8 weeks Collaborative writing quantitative research
sampling CG: 23
stratified IG: 35;
Alharthi (2021) [4] Saudi Arabia 13 weeks random Free writing mixed research
CG: 45
sampling
purposive IG: 40;
Andujar (2016) [5] Spain 6 months Mobile instant messaging mixed research
sampling CG: 40
convenience IG: 24; Weblog-based process
Azari (2017) [6] Iran not mentioned mixed research
sampling CG: 19 approach
stratified IG: 30;
Baghbadorani and Self-regulated strategy-
Iran not mentioned Random quantitative research
Roohani (2014) [7] CG: 30 based instruction
Sampling
convenience IG: 48;
Barrot (2020) [8] Philippine one semester Facebook-based e-portfolio mixed research
sampling CG: 41
IG: 31; Flipped classroom
Chatta and Haque (2020) cluster
Saudi Arabia not mentioned instruction through mixed research
[9] sampling CG: 32
Blackboard
Cheng and Zhang (2021) convenience IG: 36; Provision of comprehensive
China 9 weeks quantitative research
[10] sampling CG: 36 written corrective feedback
stratified IG: 36;
De Silva (2015) [11] Sri Lanka 6 months random Writing strategy instruction quantitative research
CG: 36
sampling
one- IG: 30;
Emotional intelligence
Ebrahimi et al. (2018) [12] Iran educational- not mentioned quantitative research
CG: 13 enhancement
year
one semester IG: 27; quantitative research
Fathi and Rahimi (2022) convenience
Iran (about 16 Flipped classroom
[13] sampling CG: 24
weeks)
Fu et al. (2019) [14] Taiwan, China 18 weeks convenience IG: 38; Mind mapping-based mixed research
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
sampling CG: 36 contextual gaming approach
IG1: 43;
purposive Concept-based approach to
Fu and Liu (2022) [15] China 16 weeks IG2: 21; quantitative research
sampling teaching genre
CG: 24
Ghouali and Cecilia (2021) probability IG: 21;
Spain 4 months Moodle-based assessment quantitative research
[16] sampling CG: 21
purposive IG: 29;
Hanh and Tinh (2022) [17] Vietnam 10 weeks Peer-review checklist mixed research
sampling CG: 29
cluster IG: 30;
Ismail et al. (2012) [18] Malaysia over 8 weeks IQ-Write program mixed research
sampling CG: 30
IG: 11; Collocation learning
purposive
Kang (2019) [19] Korea 16 weeks through a Web- mixed research
sampling CG: 13
Concordancer
Approx. 4 convenience IG: 67;
Karami et al. (2018) [20] Iran Electronic portfolio quantitative research
months sampling CG: 67
convenience IG: 84;
Karami et al. (2019) [21] Iran 16 weeks Electronic portfolio mixed research
sampling CG: 67
cluster IG: 45; Cognitive prospective
Khalil (2018) [22] Iraqi not mentioned quantitative research
sampling CG: 45 FLOW teaching strategy
convenience IG: 24; Structured small-group
Li and Zhang (2021) [23] China 16 weeks quantitative research
sampling CG: 24 student discussion
convenience IG: 35; A flipped contextual game-
Lin et al. (2018) [24] Taiwan, China 11 weeks mixed research
sampling CG: 33 based learning approach
IG: 26; Data-driven learning
Luo (2016) [25] China not mentioned not mentioned activities with the assistance mixed research
CG: 22
of BNCweb
Mazloomi and Khabiri purposive IG: 30;
Iran 3 months Self-assessment mixed research
(2018) [26] sampling CG: 30
Mekala and Ponmani purposive IG: 58; Direct written corrective
India 14 weeks quantitative research
(2017) [27] sampling CG: 58 feedback
Naghdipour and Koc purposive IG: 33; Writing instruction within
Iran 32 weeks mixed research
(2015) [28] sampling CG: 35 the process genre approach
Nassar and Al Tameemy simple random IG: 18;
Yemen not mentioned Written peer feedback quantitative research
(2021) [29] sampling CG: 18
stratified IG: 25;
Nusrat et al. (2019) [30] Pakistan 12 weeks random Indirect written feedback quantitative research
CG: 25
sampling
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
convenience IG: 35; Collaborative writing based
Pham (2021) [31] Vietnam not mentioned mixed research
sampling CG: 27 on writing process approach
convenience IG: 39; An AWE-aided assessment
Sun and Fan (2022) [32] China 16 weeks mixed research
sampling CG: 34 approach
Suthiwartnarueput and simple random IG: 80; Using line as an alternative
Thailand 1 month mixed research
Ratanakul (2018) [33] sampling CG: 80 channel
cluster IG: 42; De Bono’s six thinking hats
Swamy et al. (2019) [34] Saudi Arabia not mentioned quantitative research
sampling CG: 38 activity
convenience IG: 19;
Truong (2022) [35] Vietnam 9 weeks Process-genre approach quantitative research
sampling CG: 19
purposive IG: 66; Digital multimodal
Xu (2021) [36] China 18 weeks quantitative research
sampling CG: 30 composing (DMC)
purposive IG: 35; Self-regulated learning-
Yang et al. (2022) [37] China over 15 weeks quantitative research
sampling CG: 35 based teacher feedback
Zaini and Mazdayasna IG: 20; Computer-assisted language
Iran 1 semester not mentioned quantitative research
(2014) [38] CG: 24 learning
Zaini and Mazdayasna IG: 24;
Iran 1 semester not mentioned Computer-based instruction quantitative research
(2015) [39] CG: 20
Zhang and Cheng (2021) convenience IG: 36; Comprehensive written
China 16 weeks mixed research
[40] sampling CG: 36 corrective feedback
Zhang and Zhang (2021) convenience IG: 24; Fostering stance-taking as a
China 8 weeks quantitative research
[41] sampling CG: 22 sustainable goal
IG: 32; Connectivism model in
convenience online course platform
Zhou (2017) [42] China 16 weeks quantitative research
sampling CG: 32 within blended learning
mode
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
3.4 Research outcomes
3.4.1 Teaching instruction intervention
Thirteen studies explored the influence of interventions related to teaching
instruction; these can be divided into the macro instruction intervention group (n=7)
and the micro instruction intervention group (n=6).
3.4.1.1 The macro instruction
The macro instruction intervention referred to the traditional or improved teaching
approach during the teaching process.
Truong (2022) [35] revealed that the process-genre approach helped students achieve
better writing performance, especially in the dimensions of “coherence and
cohesion” and “grammatical range and accuracy”; furthermore, it strengthened their
general writing self-efficacy from the perspective of conventions, writing ideation as
well as self-regulation, enhancing both awareness and behaviors of their writing
autonomy.
Fu et al. (2019) [14] used a contextual gaming approach on the basis of mind
mapping, which helped students generate diverse ideas and produce positive
thoughts and feelings. It also led to improved writing performance in fluency and
elaboration although this had limited effect. On the whole, it was considered to be
beneficial and interesting.
Khalil (2018) [22] taught using the FLOW strategy, which helped students make
considerable progress in using writing skills to modify their compositions, and other
skills acquired through creative thinking abilities, such as fluency and originality,
thereby strengthening learners’ ability to write essays.
For enhancing students' initiative in classroom activities and helping create an active
atmosphere, six thinking hats activity was employed and commended in the study of
Swamy et al. (2019) [34]. Moreover, the strategy assisted students to comprehend a
topic from different perspectives, employ creative thinking skills and draw logical
conclusions, improving their writing, speaking and cognitive skills.
Baghbadorani and Roohani (2014) [7] followed the model of self-regulated strategy
development (SRSD) and found it significantly effective to cultivate EFL learners’
persuasive writing ability, such as “the format and content, organization and
coherence, sentence construction and vocabulary in writing” (p. 235). In particular, it
helped them understand writing strategies, use metacognitive knowledge and self-
regulation skills to monitor, and obtain an optimistic sense of self-efficacy in writing.
After conducting writing strategy instruction, De Silva (2015) [11] concluded that
students were trainable to efficiently use writing strategies, as their ability to use
these strategies as well as their writing performance (such as the overall organization
and cohesion) increased significantly after being taught the strategy.
Emphasizing the skill of stance-taking as a sustainable goal, Zhang and Zhang (2021)
[41] stated that explicit stance instruction enhanced students’ comprehension and
selection of stance in their writing, boosting their academic writing performance.
Students reportedly exhibited progress in “challenges concerning stance-taking, such
as single-voiced, subjective, and underuse of expansive stance” (p. 16), but this was
limited in terms of the regulation of external voices.
Ebrahimi et al. (2018) [12] improved students’ writing through enhancing their
emotional intelligence, stating that writing skill is dependent upon the writer’s
emotions throughout the whole writing process. Writing about their emotions and
incorporating frequent use of emotional words via consciousness-raising regarding
their feelings helped students understand their own feelings and consequently
increased their EQ, significantly improving their writing skills.
Finally, Alharthi (2021) [4] explored free writing, which enabled EFL learners to
make connections between their ideas by choosing their own topics, while improving
students’ writing performance in grammatical aspects, such as subject-verb
agreement, vocabulary selection, spelling and punctuation. The strategy helped them
write effortlessly while focusing only on the writing conventions and improving
their writing skills.
3.4.2 Feedback-based intervention
Four studies contained peer feedback [19, 30] or teacher feedback [26, 38] during the
intervention while the other groups contained direct feedback [27], indirect feedback
[30] and comprehensive feedback [10, 40].
Furthermore, Mazloomi and Khabiri (2018) [26] combined teacher feedback with self-
assessment (SA). With proper feedback and instructions from the teachers, SA
greatly assisted students to improve their writing ability and language proficiency,
helping them optimize learning process and establish goals for future study.
Similarly, Yang et al. (2022) [37] turned to self-regulated learning-based (SRL-based)
teacher feedback, which was found to positively promote EFL students’ use of SRL
writing strategies “with goal-oriented monitoring, knowledge rehearsal, feedback
handling, interest enhancement, text processing, idea planning, motivational self-
talk, and emotional control” (p. 1). Also, it seemed to play a more effective role in the
content, language and vocabulary than in language use.
Two of the selected studies [10, 40] concurred that comprehensive feedback helps
students to perform better in writing accuracy and fluency, with a statistically
significant correlation over time, but does not promote their sentence complexity.
Additionally, Cheng and Zhang (2021) [10] reported that WCF also has a limited
effect on improving content and organization in students’ compositions.
According to Abbas and Al-bakri (2018) [1], the paired writing technique could
effectively improve the quality and quantity of EFL students' compositions, as well
as speaking and communication, and lessened their writing anxiety to some extent,
as it provided students with additional opportunities to share and learn from peer
review and feedback.
Conducting research on collaborative writing, Li and Zhang (2021) [23] found that
the effect of cooperative prewriting discussions was statistically crucial in promoting
students’ progress in EFL writing in terms of “the content, organization, vocabulary
and language use” (p. 1), but not in the mechanics. Similarly, Pham (2021) [31]
proposed that collaborative writing facilitated students’ writing fluency by
motivating them to write more words collaboratively compared to individual
writing. Moreover, students expressed positive attitudes towards the approach and
asserted that they could learn more good ideas and writing styles by contributing to
the shared essays, while also enjoying a more motivating classroom environment.
Luo (2016) [25] adopted data-driven learning activities with assistance of BNCweb,
helping students to perform significantly better in writing fluency and accuracy but
not in writing complexity, toward which learners showed a positive attitude.
Azari (2017) [6] applied a weblog to the process approach and demonstrated its
positive effect on the content and the organization, although it was less successful in
improving language use, vocabulary, and the mechanics of writing. It also helped
students more easily find their learning paths but did not transform them into fully
autonomous learners. More research was recommended to confirm the relation
between students’ autonomous learning and writing performance development.
Zhou (2017) [42] studied the use of the connectivism model on an online course
platform within blended learning mode, which helped to promote a self-learning
environment and constant interaction, significantly improving students’ English
writing competence “in terms of content relevance, content sufficiency, organization
structure and language expression” (p. 1060) as well as strengthening students'
critical thinking.
4. Conclusion
Traditional approaches to writing instruction were identified as not meeting the
needs of learners and teachers (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996), so researchers have been
exploring various ways to help improve learners’ writing competence. This
systematic review identified research articles from the last decade that have studied
interventions aimed at improving university students’ EFL writing competence and
found that the traditional teaching methods are no longer simply followed. Based on
the review, four different types of interventions were classified, most of which have
been reported as having a positive effect on students’ writing in terms of content and
format, organization and coherence, vocabulary and sentence construction.
Furthermore, such interventions have strengthened students’ autonomous learning,
cooperative ability and critical thinking, though some have shown limited effects on
certain aspects. Knowledge of the interventions applied in a range of studies over the
last decade, and particularly their impact, could provide valuable insights to
educators, especially higher education English teachers, enabling them to select
appropriate and effective measures to help their students to improve their writing
competence. Furthermore, it is hoped that this review will provide inspiration to
educators or researchers to conduct further related and in-depth experiments to
explore more effective measures to help students improve their EFL writing.
5. References
Abbas, S. H., & Al-bakri, S. A. (2018). The effect of pair writing technique on Iraqi EFL
university students' writing performance and anxiety. Arab World English Journal,
9(2), 23-37. http://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no2.2
Akbar, M., Pathan, H., & Ali Shah, S. W. (2018). Problems affecting L2 learners’ English
writing skills: A study of public sector colleges Hyderabad city, Sindh, Pakistan.
Language in India, 18(5), 7–26.
Alawerdy, A. S., & Alalwi, F. S. (2022). Enhancing English as a foreign language university
students' writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An
experimental study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1053310
Aldossary, K. S. (2021). The impact of collaborative writing on EFL learners' writing
development: A longitudinal classroom-based study in Saudi Arabia. Arab World
English Journal, 12(3), 174-185. http://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol12no3.12
Alharthi, S. (2021). From instructed writing to free-writing: A study of EFL learners. SAGE
Open, 11(1). doi:10.1177/21582440211007112
Andujar, A. (2016). Benefits of mobile instant messaging to develop ESL writing. System, 62,
63-76. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.07.004
Astrid, A., Marzulina, L., Erlina, D., Harto, K., Habibi, A., & Mukminin, A. (2019). Teaching
writing to EFL student teachers: Teachers' intervention and no teachers' intervention
through peer feedback writing techniques. Universal Journal of Educational Research,
7(9), 1901-1908. http://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070908
Azari, M. H. (2017). Effect of weblog-based process approach on EFL learners’ writing
performance and autonomy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(6), 529-551.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1329214
Baghbadorani, E. A., & Roohani, A. (2014). The impact of strategy-based instruction on L2
learners’ persuasive writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 235-241.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.412
Barrot, J. S. (2020). Effects of Facebook-based e-portfolio on ESL learners' writing
performance. Language, Culture & Curriculum, 34(1), 95-111.
http://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2020.1745822
Chatta, B. S., & Haque, M. I. (2020). Improving paragraph writing skills of Saudi EFL
university students using flipped classroom instruction. Arab World English Journal
(AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL (6). 228- 247. http://doi.org/10.24093/awej/call6.15
Cheng, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Sustaining university English as a foreign language learners'
writing performance through provision of comprehensive written corrective
feedback. Sustainability, 13(15). http://doi.org/10.3390/su13158192
De Silva, R. (2015). Writing strategy instruction: Its impact on writing in a second language
for academic purposes. LANGUAGE TEACHING RESEARCH, 19(3), 301-323.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541738
Ebrahimi, M. R., Khoshsima, H., & Zare-Behtash, E. (2018). The impacts of emotional
intelligence enhancement on Iranian intermediate EFL learners writing skill.
International Journal of Instruction, 11(1), 437-452.
http://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11130a
Fathi, J., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Examining the impact of flipped classroom on writing
complexity, accuracy, and fluency: A case of EFL students. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 35(7), 1668-1706. http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1825097
Fu, Q.-K., Lin, C.-J., Hwang, G.-J., & Zhang, L. (2019). Impacts of a mind mapping-based
contextual gaming approach on EFL students’ writing performance, learning
perceptions and generative uses in an English course. Computers and Education, 137,
59-77. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.005
Fu, Z., & Liu, Y. (2022). Promoting L2 writing development via a concept-based approach to
teaching genre: A sociocultural intervention study in Chinese EFL writing
classrooms. Language Teaching Research. http://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221114363
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth, N. H: Heinemann.
Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in Grades 4–6: A
national survey. Chicago Journals, 110(4), 494–518. http://doi.org/10.1086/651193
Ghouali, K., & Cecilia, R. R. (2021). Towards a Moodle-based assessment of Algerian EFL
students' writing performance. Porta Linguarum, (36), 231-248.
http://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.v0i36.17866
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R.B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York, NY: Longman.
Hashemnezhad, H. & Hashemnezhad, N. (2012). A Comparative Study of Product, Process,
and Post-process Approaches in Iranian EFL Students' Writing Skill. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 722-729. http://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.4.722-72
Hanh, L. T. T., & Tinh, B. T. (2022). Applying peer-review checklist to improve Vietnamese
EFL university students’ writing skills. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research, 21(5), 166-181. http://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.5.9
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 12 (1), 17-29. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8
Ismail, N., Hussin, S., & Darus, S. (2012). The Effects of IQ-write program online composing
guide towards ESL tertiary students' writing performance and interest. International
Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 8(4), 107-117.
Jacobs, H. L., Zingraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., & Hartfiel, V. F. (1981). Testing ESL
composition: A practical approach. Rowley: Newbury House.
Johns, A. M. (Ed.). (2002). Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum
Kang, N. (2019). Effectiveness of collocation learning through a web-concordancer in a
Korean EFL university course. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 41-84.
http://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2019.22.1.41
Karami, S., Sadighi, F., Bagheri, M. S., & Riasati, M. J. (2018). The potential impact of the
application of electronic portfolio on Iranian EFL learners' writing performance
seeking their gender role. Cogent Social Sciences, 4(1), 1-1.
http://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2018.1562509
Karami, S., Sadighi, F., Bagheri, M. S., & Riasati, M. J. (2019). The impact of application of
electronic portfolio on undergraduate English majors' writing proficiency and their
self-regulated learning. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1319-1334.
http://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12184a
Khalil, E. R. (2018). Investigating the effect of FLOW teaching strategy on EFL learners’
writing achievements. Annals of the Faculty of Arts, 46(Part A), 73–133. https://search-
ebscohost-
com.libezp2.utar.edu.my/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=137964172&site=eho
st-live&scope=site.
Klimova, B. F. (2013). Approaches to the teaching of writing skills. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 112, 147-151. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1149
Hupe, M. (2019). EndNote X9. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 16(3–4), 117–
119. https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2019.1691963
Li, H. H., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Effects of structured small-group student talk as collaborative
prewriting discussions on Chinese university EFL students' individual writing: A
quasi-experimental study. PLoS ONE, 16(5): e0251569.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251569
Lin, C.-J., Huang, G.-J., Fu, Q.-K., & Chen, J.-F. (2018). A flipped contextual game-based
learning approach to enhancing EFL students' English business writing performance
and reflective behaviors. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 117-131.
Luo, Q. (2016). The effects of data-driven learning activities on EFL learners' writing
development. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1-13. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2935-5
Makmur., Mukminin, A., Ismiyati, Y., & Verawati. (2016). In search of good student teachers
in writing skill: The impact of different task variance of EFL writing proficiency.
International journal of academic research in education, 2(1).
http://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.45901
Mazloomi, S., & Khabiri, M. (2018). The impact of self-assessment on language learners’
writing skill. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 55(1), 91-100.
http://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1214078
Mekala, S., & Ponmani, M. (2017). The impact of direct written corrective feedback on low
proficiency ESL learners' writing ability. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 11(4), 23-54.
https://search-ebscohost-
com.libezp2.utar.edu.my/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=127283084&site=eho
st-live&scope=site.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaf, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.
Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264-269. http://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-
151-4-200908180-00135
Mukminin, A., Ali, R. M., & Ashari, M. J. F. (2015). Voices from within: Student teachers’
experiences in English academic writing socialization at one Indonesian teacher
training program. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1394-1407.
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss9/2
Naghdipour, B., & Koc, S. (2015). The evaluation of a teaching intervention in Iranian EFL
writing. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(2), 389-398. doi:10.1007/s40299-014-0191-
4
Nassar, H. M., & Al Tameemy, F. A. (2021). The impact of written peer feedback on the
writing skills of EFL university students in Yemen. Asian ESP Journal, 17(2), 290-311.
https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
85101933327&origin=resultslist&sort=plf-
f&src=s&st1=The+Impact+of+Written+Peer+Feedback+on+the+Writing+Skills+of+E
FL+University+Students+in+Yemen&sid=ea3e92d9c12e96d61e5b6931d3362921&sot=
b&sdt=b&sl=108&s=TITLE-ABS-
KEY%28The+Impact+of+Written+Peer+Feedback+on+the+Writing+Skills+of+EFL+
University+Students+in+Yemen%29&relpos=0&citeCnt=0&searchTerm=
Nordin, S., & Mohammad, N. (2006). The best of two approaches: Process/genre-based
approach to teaching writing. Universiti Teknologi, Petronas
Nusrat, A., Ashraf, F., Khan, S., Aziz, S., & Jabeen, R. (2019). Is indirect written feedback
valuable? A study targeting ESL university students in Pakistan. International Journal
of English Linguistics, 9(5), 340-350. http://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n5p340
Paltridge, B. (2004). Approaches to teaching second language writing. University of Sydney,
Adelaide.
Pham, V. P. H. (2021). The effects of collaborative writing on students' writing fluency: An
efficient framework for collaborative writing. SAGE Open, 11(1), 1-11.
http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244021998363
Selvaraj, M., & Aziz, A. A. (2019). Systematic review: Approaches in teaching writing skill in
ESL classrooms. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development, 8(4), 450-473. doi:10.6007/IJARPED/v8-i4/6564
Silva, T. (1997). On the ethical treatment of ESL writers. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 359-363.
http://doi.org/10.2307/3588052
Sun, B., & Fan, T. (2022). The effects of an AWE-aided assessment approach on business
English writing performance and writing anxiety: A contextual consideration. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 72, 101123. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101123
Suthiwartnarueput, T., & Ratanakul, S. (2018). Using Line as an alternative channel for
improving English writing ability of Thai EFL students. Journal of Institutional
Research South East Asia, 16(1), 46-69.
Swamy, B. C., Haque, M. I., Koppada, V., & Kumar, N. S. (2019). The effect of conducting De
Bono's six thinking hats activity on developing paragraph writing skills of university
students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of English Linguistics,
9(6), 186-197. http://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n6p186
Tang X. (2012). Discussion on the improvement of college English writing classroom teaching.
Journal of Changchun Normal University, 31(11), 170-171.
Torto, G. A. (2014). An examination of the approaches adopted by English language teachers
in teaching composition writing in cape coast basic schools, Ghana. Language in
India, 14(1), 117-138. http://languageinindia.com/jan2014/examinationghana.pdf
Truong, H. M. (2022). Impacts of process-genre approach on EFL sophomores' writing
performance, writing self-efficacy, writing autonomy. Journal of Language and
Education, 8(1), 181-195. http://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12165
Wang, Y. C. (2015). Promoting collaborative writing through wikis: A new approach for
advancing innovative and active learning in an ESP context. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 28(6), 499–512. http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221. 2014.881386
Xu, Y. (2021). Investigating the effects of digital multimodal composing on Chinese EFL
learners’ writing performance: A quasi-experimental study. Computer Assisted
Language Learning. http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1945635
Yang, L. F., Liu, Y., & Xu, Z. (2022). Examining the effects of self-regulated learning-based
teacher feedback on English-as-a-foreign-language learners' self-regulated writing
strategies and writing performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1027266.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1027266
Zaghlool, Z. D. (2020). The impact of using CALL online writing activities on EFL university
students’ writing achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(2), 141-148.
doi:10.17507/tpls.1002.01
Zaini, A., & Mazdayasna, G. (2014). The effect of computer assisted language learning on the
development of EFL learners’ writing skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
98, 1975-1982. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.631
Zaini, A., & Mazdayasna, G. (2015). The impact of computer-based instruction on the
development of EFL learners' writing skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
31(6), 516-528. doi:10.1111/jcal.12100
Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective
feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, 101043.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043
Zhang, L., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Fostering stance-taking as a sustainable goal in developing
EFL students' academic writing skills: Exploring the effects of explicit instruction on
academic writing skills and stance deployment. Sustainability, 13(8).
http://doi.org/10.3390/su13084270
Zhou, C. (2018). Empirical study on the effectiveness of teaching model of college English
writing within blended learning mode. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(5),
1060-1076. http://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.5.009