See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340845401

Pedagogical approaches to the teaching of ESL/EFL writing: A literature review

Article in International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI) · March 2020

DOI: 10.33750/ijhi.v3i1.71

CITATIONS READS

5 3,233

1 author:

Iskandar Iskandar
Universitas Negeri Makassar
53 PUBLICATIONS 211 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Iskandar Iskandar on 22 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI) Vol. 3 No. 1, 2020 pp. 44-49

Pedagogical approaches to the teaching of ESL/EFL writing: a literature review

Iskandar
English Department, Universitas Faculty of Languages and Literature, Universitas Negeri Makassar, Makassar, Indonesia
e-mail: iskandar@unm.ac.id

Abstract
Since the dawn time of the teaching of ESL/EFL writing, teachers and researchers have established and developed pedagogical
approaches for the purpose of meeting the needs of students. This paper highlights some prominent approaches to ESL/EFL writing
that have taken place; starting from earlier approaches, such as form-dominated approach, writer-focused approach, content-based
approach, and reader oriented approach, followed by collaborative approach, computer-assisted, and lastly social media approach as
the state of the art. Advantages and weaknesses of each approach were elaborated. Polarization between process and product oriented
of writing were also highlighted. This study contributes to the understanding of pedagogical approaches that teachers may apply based
on their specific context and students’ circumstances.

Keywords:
Pedagogy; English as a Second Language (ESL); English as a Foreign Language (EFL); writing.

1 INTRODUCTION
Writing is considered the most difficult to teach compared to other skills because when we teach writing all other skills
are also involved. For many decades of teaching ESL/EFL writing, there have been lots of attempts done by teachers and
researchers to find out best approaches for teaching this skill. Each approach tries to eliminate factors that may hinder
students in their writing processes. Commonly, there are two core circumstances often impeding students when they are
dealing with writing. First, students tend to think in two different languages at the same time, so it is understandable when
they use inappropriate translations from the first language. Second, they are aware of their weaknesses in the mechanics
of writing, so they do the writing more slowly to avoid making mistakes. These two main concerns each approach has
attempted to eliminate, and have offered the best possible way to teach ESL/EFL writing.

2 EARLY APPROACHES TO ESL/EFL WRITING

Historically, there have been four existing approaches prominent to the teaching of ESL/EFL writing, and have been
simultaneously used by teachers and researchers. Each has its own advantages and weaknesses, and has invited teachers
and researchers to extend, modify, develop, or adapt to certain extent to suit to particular contexts.
2.1 Form-Dominated Approach
Form-dominated approach is rooted in oral approach of Charles Fries, the proclaimer of audio-lingual method (Silva,
1990). This approach proposes that language is speech and learning take place through habit formation; therefore, writing
is perceived as having subordinate function as oral habit reinforcement. Pincas (1982) extended this view that it is difficult
for people to realize that the use of language is the manipulation of fixed patterns; which is learned through imitation.
Pincas rejects what Erazmus (1960) believed that written exercises should take the form of free composition. Teaching
writing; therefore, takes the form of sentence drills; such as fill-ins, substitutions, transformations, and completions. It is
the task of the teachers to prepare the content of writing. The purpose of the exercises themselves is to reinforce the
accurate application of grammatical rules.
Form-dominated approach also emphasizes rhetorical form, as in Kaplan’s (1966) concept of contrastive rhetoric.
Exercises are presented in the form of recognizing and using topic sentences, examples, and illustrations. This exercise
focus on imitation of essay form, using writing from outline, paragraph completion, identification of topic sentence and
supporting ideas, and reordering scrambled paragraphs. This theory of contrastive rhetoric put the assumption that each
culture has its own way of presenting ideas; therefore, writing teachers should determine paragraph patterns typical of
English and teach those patterns to students. Subsequently, students imitate the patterns and would be able to transfer
these skills to acceptable academic writing. The second paragraph. The design of your study should be clear and consistent
with the method.
2.2 Writer-Focused Approach
In the mid-70s, reaction against form-dominated approach came from teachers and researchers. Teachers and
researchers started observing what actually students do when they are writing. This kind of attention headed to writer-
focused approach, which was later widely known as process approach (Zamel, 1976). Various methods typical to this
approach were discovered. ‘Process’, ‘making meaning’, and ‘invention’ replaced ‘accuracy’, and ‘pattern’. Teachers are
recommended not to present instruction in the use of topic sentences and outlines until students have begun to explore
their own ideas (Zamel, 1983). At this level, language accuracy was downplayed. Teachers began to provide students
with ample time to draft and revise their ideas. Related to this argument, McDonough (1985) argued that writing teachers
should allow students to set their own writing tasks as to enhance their confidence in order that they can sufficiently use
their English to adjust what they know about their chosen topic of writing.

ISSN: 26146169
@Center for Humanities and Innovation Studies 44
 Process approach is expected to provide positive and collaborative workshop atmosphere in which students can work
through their writing process; given that they have sufficient time, and minimal intervention. To make this happen, the
teachers are expected to help students develop practical strategies for starting, drafting, revising, and editing their writing
(Mangelsdorf, 1992; Spack, 1984). Spack categorized ‘starting’ as finding ideas, focusing, and planning the structure of
writing. In ‘drafting’, students are allowed to employ multiple drafts instead of one draft. ‘Revising’ is an act of adding,
deleting, or modifying certain parts of the writing. ‘Editing’ is mainly concerned with word choice, sentence structure,
and grammatical accuracy.
To some researchers and practitioners, process approach can create problems. Horowitz (1986a), for example, argued
that writing about personal experience creates particular problems for some ESL/EFL learners who are not accustomed
to write about themselves due to cultural influences. When they are obliged to do that, they would rather fabricate the
experiences than talk about themselves. Furthermore, by emphasizing on multiple drafts, process approach is believed to
be unable to assist the students prepare for the demands of academic essay writing with its strict regulations.
Tomlinson (1983) proposed an approach aimed at enhancing learners’ exposure to authentic writing; dealing with
problems learners may have with written discourses they are required to participate beyond English lessons. This approach
was the combination between of ‘writing to learn’ and ‘learning to write’ aimed at lessening the limitations of form-
dominated approach, and process approach. Tomlinson saw that the combination of exposure to real language, and the
opportunity to apply it facilitate essential process of generalization. The teaching procedures were then the combination
of modified teaching procedures of the two approaches. This enables the learners to communicate in writing from the
very beginning of the lesson despite having to wait until they have learned to write.
Despites many debates, the nature of process approach is that the students are the center of attention (student
centeredness). Students are engaged in the process of discovery, and expression of meaning without any restriction to
particular contexts. They are responsible to identify, and address particular tasks, situations, and sociocultural settings in
which they are involved.
2.3 Content-Based Approach
When Shih (1986) established a so-called content-based approach, process approach was then identified as a traditional
approach. Content-based approach is believed to have more effects on the form of curriculum compared with the two
previously described. Team-teaching, linked courses, topic-centered modules, sheltered instruction, and composition of
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) are among teaching strategies that replace independent class.
Johnston (1985) argued that by giving students an area of knowledge, they would get involved and motivated because
they are ‘expert’ in that area. They will focus on content rather practicing language structures. In addition, they will learn
necessary vocabulary and grammar as they go along. Since they have an instant context for their use of English, language
learning is believed to take place at a faster rate. Teachers should encourage students to narrow their subject to a smaller
and smaller aspect of the topic, and remind the students to be aware of mushroom effect in which the tendency of subjects
to become bigger and bigger when we are studying them.The procedure should be in a line with the method and design
of the study.
2.4 Reader-Oriented Approach
Following content-based approach were English for Academic Purposes (EAP), and English for Specific Purposes (ESP).
The concern of this approach is that it focuses on the expectation of academic readers (Horowitz, 1986b). Certain realities
of ESL/EFL learners are reflected here. Horowitz asserts two reasons at this stage. First, unlike native learners, many
ESL/EFL learners will find very little need to write in English, hence little need to write self-reflective or self-exploratory
essay typical of process approach. Second, the role of self-reflection taught in process approach is to socialize the native
learners into their own society that is nothing to do with ESL/EFL students. To certain extent, EAP or ESP is a form of
criticism against process approach; that it does not adequately address some important issues in ESL/EFL writing. For
example, it does not consider variations in writing process due to individual differences, writing tasks, and situations
(Silva, 1990). In addition, there is an inquest whether prepares students for academic works.
According to Horowitz (1986a), process approach exaggerates the individual’s existence and fails to consider the
sociocultural context. EAP or ESP is supposed to involve a primary focus on academic discourse genres and the range of
academic writing tasks for the purpose of helping students socialize themselves into academic context. Simply, from the
orientation of EAP or ESP, writing is the production of prose that will be acceptable to academic situation. Learning to
write is a part of socializing to an academic community. With this regard, Silva asserts that “the writer is pragmatic and
oriented towards academic success and the reader is a seasoned member or the hosting academic community who has
well-developed schemata for academic discourse and has stable views of what is appropriate” (1990, p. 22).

3 COLLABORATIVE WRITING
The four approaches discussed in the previous section are still widely used by teachers. Each has its own characteristics.
In form-dominated approach, the teachers assign topic. Process approach lets the students determine their own topic of
writing. In content-based approach, topic is expanded from subject matter of either particular discipline, whereas in EAP
or ESP the topic will refer to what other disciplines assign for students. However, as part of continual development in
ESL/EFL pedagogy, teachers and researchers began to reconsider the strengths and weaknesses of those approaches. The
central issue of the study is not only around the topics that students write about, but also the dichotomy of process. Wong-
Kam et.al (1995), for instance, questioned the process approach to teaching writing. These researchers argued that
educators need to look back at where they have been to expose why they teach writing, then reflect on the effectiveness
of their practices in attaining our goals. Process approach, as they suggest, should be extended to writing on more personal
ISSN: 26146169
@Center for Humanities and Innovation Studies 45
 Pedagogical approaches to the teaching of ESL/EFL writing: a literature review
46

level. The power of the pen should be put back into the hands of the students, and reconsider whether the piece of writing
that the students produce is worthy for readers.
Attempt to extend process approach also came from Koda (1993), in his study on American college students
composing in Japanese. He suggested that vocabulary exercises should be incorporated in composition instruction to
provide linguistic scaffolding. Similarly to this, Fennick et.al (1993) suggested that teachers should teach writing for the
real world. The emphasis is that the writers need to be able to adapt both text products and text production processes for
specific purposes, and understand their roles in shaping communication and social relationship.
Later, Downing (1995) proposed a so-called ‘demand writing’. Basically, demand writing is any required writing on
an assigned topic completed in a fixed time period. It is exemplified that students engage in demand writing when
answering essay test questions, writing persuasive letters, reporting on field trips, presenting finding from enquiry-based
studies, and composing on personal narratives. In a demand-writing situation, the teachers provide the topic of writing,
and students develop the ‘piece’ themselves. Teaching demand writing “fosters active learning, forces students to take
direct responsibility for their academic performance and growth, and allow them to demonstrate what they know”
(Downing, 1995, p.200).
Simultaneously, other researchers experimented collaborative writing as an alternative in teaching writing (e.g.
Hillerbrand, 1994; Battersby, 1995). Both researchers see collaborative method can help students creatively produce
informative, thoughtful, and analytical essay. The students work together as a team to produce writing within an organized
framework that encourages them to use a wider range of time linkers, attitude words, contrast clauses, set phrases, and
discourse markers. Storytelling, letter writing, and discursive composition are among practical enactments of this type of
writing.
Collaborative writing is also reflected in summary writing (Greaney, 1997). Summary writing is an in-class activity
that involves students in a collaborative exercise in which teachers play along with the students. A game of competition
is introduced to stimulate students to try to use their linguistic and analytical abilities to communicate their thoughts for
the purpose of creating, for instance, a one-sentence summary. If a student fails to achieve the goal, it is only a game.
Additionally, the process of rewriting can take place many times because each draft is only one sentence long, so that the
students can do revision two or three times within a class session. In this process, the study of paragraph as a discourse
unit is managed by focusing on the sentence as the building block of a paragraph. It is easier to see what is wrong with
one sentence than to see what is wrong with a group of sentences. Students should be guided to focus on the idea of
completeness in smaller unit, and this process may later be applied in the development of a good paragraph. Sentence is
best suited to writing an outline of an essay. Outlining exercises can be followed by summary exercises, and students can
move back and forth between these units. As they write a paragraph, the students may summarize it, and vice versa.

4 COMPUTER-ASSISTED WRITING
Advances in technology and rapid pace of change in communication industry have pedagogical implication. Revolution
in computer technology, for instance, affects the way teachers treat their students, including English language teachers.
Wider use of information technology has generated Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in ESL/EFL teaching,
including writing. We have been informed that there are two waves in CALL implementation. The first one started in
1980s and early 1990s, which was related to using word processors and improvement in writing quality. The second one
was the generation of computer-mediated communication (CMC) that appeared with the arrival of Internet or World Wide
Web (Slattery & Kowalski, 1998).
Li (2006) who studied the influence of word processing on the writing of ESL students found that by engaging in
computer, students paid more attention to higher order thinking activities while evaluating their written texts. Besides
that, the students were able to revise significantly more at most levels on the computer. In addition, their computer-
generated essays received higher scores in argumentation than the hand-written ones. Therefore, he recommended that
educators should contemplate on the impact of computers on writing. Fox (1998) argued that the use of Internet in ESL
classes displays great potentials. If we carefully take into account the students’ needs and tailor an interactive and
supportive environment that integrates Internet activities, such as email and web browsing into writing curriculum, the
students will find English as an important part of their lives.
Another example of Internet utilization in ESL/EFL writing is the use of email application to help students in their
writing class (Belisle, 1998). Belisle argued that writing teachers have an abundant work to do to help students improve
their writing. Using email with its features like ‘filtering’ and ‘‘stationery’’ can be a big help to take away manual
activities, such as organizing, filing, retrieving, and replying to a student’s writing which is very time consuming. In
‘filtering’, messages can be automatically sorted, organized, and replied based on teacher-defined criteria. For example,
if a teacher wants to track students’ assignment, she or he simply sets up filtering criteria, and the software will
automatically organize and sort all the incoming, or outgoing mail related to the assignment into the teacher-defined
mailbox. The teacher can scroll up and down this mailbox that lists the name of all students who have completed the
assignment. In addition, the filter will not only put the assignment into an assignment mailbox, but also can put a copy
into the students’ mailbox. In ‘stationary’, the teacher is allowed to create predesigned messages that can be used
frequently without having to recreate them. These messages can work with the filter and be automatically sent back to
the student as automated replies. A message can be automatically sent when a particular assignment is received from a
student. This automated reply will let the student know that his/her assignment has successfully hit the teacher’s mailbox.
Ho (2000), in collaboration with British Council, initiated the use of email exchange between elementary school
students in Singapore and United Kingdom to develop students’ writing. She found that through electronic exchange of
information, the students from both countries explored different writing tasks for various purposes and types of audiences.
This strategy enhanced students’ confidence, awareness, and understanding of both cultures. The study offered insights
into how information technology can be used as a tool to develop students’ language skills as well as their sense of
awareness of intercultural concerns and being part of global community. This project also shifted teachers’ traditional
roles and responsibilities as the project developed.

5 SOCIAL MEDIA APPROACH TO ESL/EFL WRITING

Educational system changes rapidly, and technology has invaded our life. Everyone uses mobile phones nowadays,
including students. They interact one another using social media, such Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Telegram,
WhatsApp, just to mention a few popular applications. It is not exaggerating if we say that they have become addicted to
these applications. Some see this as a threat since these applications may distract students’ learning. However, we cannot
deny that we cannot stop them from these applications. Therefore, some teachers and researchers try to think how to
make a compromise between these two enterprises: social media and learning.
Social media as the products of technology advancement have converted teaching approaches, including the teaching
of writing. New forms and genres of writing emerge. Studies indicate that the use of social media has pedagogical
prospective, such as mounting students’ motivation in writing, and enhance students’ writing development in classroom
settings. Wil et.al (2019), for example, found from their study that students have positive acceptances and responses
towards using social media in improving their skills in writing. Social media convey positive effects to promote enjoyment
and facilitates the writing process where most of students use social media to learn English language, and believed that
social media is the best platform to develop better writing skills in English.
Sun and Chang (2012) exemplified blogging as a tool for teaching writing. As a genre of informal writing, blogging
can aid ESL/EFL learners bridging the gap between their mother tongue and academic English through interaction with
peers and teachers. Furthermore, Sun and Chang asserted that blogging served as a forum for L2 writers to practice
different forms of academic writing, to co‐construct knowledge about academic writing, to reflect on language learning
skills, and to establish a learning community through multiple methods of online social support. Zheng (2013) supported
this study by examining how micro-blogging was used in classrooms to facilitate writing activities among diverse
students. The result of the study showed that students increased their participation in the online writing activities over
time. Students' participation in the online discussion also positively affected their writing test score, increased their
language complexity, and generated deeper thinking and higher‐level thinking skills when writing about what they had
read. Furthermore, student interactions with teachers and peers became more dynamic and intensive through the blogging
activity.
Research also suggested that Facebook is effective when used to teach writing. A study by Ismail et.al (2018) showed
that there is a significant effect using Facebook Groups as a medium discussion on the students’ ability in writing.
Learning by using Facebook eliminates the burden on the students as they do everything by themselves without any worry
and interference. The characteristics of Facebook, such as participation, openness, conversation, community, and
connectedness (Mayfield, 2008) has made it gained popularity among people in which most of them are teenagers, and
almost all teenagers have a Facebook account and spend most of their hours facebooking (Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin,
2008).
Facebook comments is a feature of Facebook that are commonly used to teach writing. The procedure can be several
steps, such as pre-writing, drafting, revising, and editing (Ramadhani, 2018). In pre-writing, the students get idea for
getting started. They explore ideas related to the assigned topic. In drafting, the students are jotting down ideas that they
have got in the form of draft. In revision step, the students are asked to fix their draft before they submit on the Facebook
group. After they submit on the Facebook group, the students have opportunity to give comments to their friends’ writing.
Each student can give comments to their friends before continuing to the last stage, editing. The students’ editing form
depends on their friends’ comments.
Instagram was also found in the literature of teaching ESL/EFL writing. Rinda et.al (2017) studied students’ perception
on the strengths and challenges of the implementation of Instagram in the teaching of writing within an EFL classroom.
They found that most students believed that the process of writing with different teaching strategies on Instagram helped
them to construct writing, and raise awareness to check final writing. The above benefits were achieved with the help of
social interaction nurtured by the students, knowledge of technology of the students, and teacher’s role to administer and
control the classroom activity. In addition, negative comments and exaggerated correction from peers force the students
to read and to check more on their writing to avoid being commented negatively. The use of Instagram in teaching writing
in EFL classroom is strongly recommended despites challenges that may occur.
Handayani, et.al (2018) assert that students get better writing ability after the implementation of Instagram in their
writing classroom. Their study found that the correlation testing showed positive correlation. Students who got higher
score in pretest also achieve higher score in posttest. Students who experienced lower score in the pre-test score also had
lower score in the post-test. From the questionnaire distributed, the result shows that the students had positive response
toward the implementation of the Instagram. The students perceive that Instagram is meaningful and fun to be
implemented in class. However, the study suggests that feedback should be given offline to avoid negative responses
from some students. The advantage of implementing Instagram was also shown in a study on Instagram as a flatform to
develop students’ writing ability (Shazali, Shamsudin, & Yunus, 2019). This study suggested that Instagram can be used
a pedagogical tool to teach writing. The students are able to use various words to express their feelings and opinions.
Through Instagram, students are able to learn different type of writing styles among users and they accordingly develop
their own writing style.

ISSN: 26146169
@Center for Humanities and Innovation Studies 47
 Pedagogical approaches to the teaching of ESL/EFL writing: a literature review
48

The development of WhatsApp application added up the number of social media application utilized in teaching and
learning, including writing. Aicha (2014) in her study on the impact of WhatsApp towards the achievement and attitudes
of females students and compared with face to face learning in the classroom, found that there are differences in the
achievements and attitudes of the experimental group that is based on WhatsApp mobile learning activities compared
with the control group without WhatsApp mobile learning activities and receives only face-to-face learning in the
classroom. Another study, BasmaIssa (2013) investigated the effect of WhatsApp journaling on improving writing
vocabulary word choice and voice of EFL undergraduate Saudi students. BasmaIssa found that there is a significant
difference between the overall writing scores of the pretest and posttest of the students who are journaling. In addition,
examination of individual item scores reveals that there are statistically significant improvements in vocabulary word
choice and voice as two critically important writing factors. The study can raise a positive social change by helping
teachers understand the prospective benefits of WhatsApp electronic dialogue journaling to improve the vocabulary word
choice and voice writing skills of their students.

6 CONCLUSION
When a new approach emerges, the existing approaches have been said to be traditional approaches, yet it does not mean
they are not used or applied anymore. Most approaches discussed here are still used in ESL/EFL context simultaneously
with other new emerging approaches. Which approach is to be used depend on the teacher’s choice, students’ condition,
and types of text? For instance, when a teacher teaches business writing report, product-oriented or reader-oriented
approach is considered suitable because the task will consist of a fixed layout, style, and organization. On the other hand,
when students are assigned to make a narrative or argumentative essay, process approach may be best applicable. Process
approach can assist students organize their thought and ideas in a systematic way which enables them to write fluently in
foreign language, while product approach helps students realize the competence level required. Teachers then may apply
collaborative approach to adapt these two writing orientations.
Technology advancement has shifted traditional teaching approaches especially traditional face-to-face classroom
interaction. Today, most educational institutions have provided social media platform, such as Moodle, Kelase, and
Learning Management System (LMS), to be used by teachers to accommodate preferred learning styles of millennial
generation who are longing for the informality and relaxing atmosphere of teaching situation. Teachers nowadays
can assign their classroom interaction with social media-based activities. This enables the students to have fun while
learning. They can use social media to make comments on related topics, and share them with their friends. Additionally,
social media can enhance collaborative learning, and can make learning more efficient, particularly in terms of managing
their study, and finding new learning resources. But, one thing is certain; technology on its own cannot enable the students
to learn. It is the teachers with innovative ideas that will always be the leading figure in the students’ learning experience.

REFERENCES
Aicha, B. A. (2014). The impact of WhatsApp mobile social learning of the achievement and attitudes of female’s students and compared with face to
face learning in the classroom. European Scientific Journal, 10 (22), 116-136.
BasmaIssa, A. A. (2013). The effect of WhatsApp electronic dialogue journaling on improving writing vocabulary word choice and voice of EFL
undergraduate Saudi students. Arab World English Journal, 4(3), 213-223.
Battersby, Alan. (1995). Collaborative writing for intermediate and upper- intermediate learners. Modern English Teacher, 4 (2), 29-52.
Belisle, Ron. (1998). Let the e-mail software do the work: Time saving features for the writing teachers. The Internet TESL Journal. 4 (4).
Downing, S. (1995). Teaching writing for today's demands. Language Arts, 72(3), 200-205.

Erazmus, E. (1960). Second language composition teaching at the intermediate level. Language Learning, 10, 25-31.
Fennick, R., Peters, M., & Guyon, L. (1993). Solving problems in twenty-first century academic and workplace writing. The English Journal, 82(3),
46-53. doi:10.2307/820229
Fox, G. (1998). The Internet: Making it work in the ESL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 6 (9).
Greaney, G.L. (1997). Less is more: Summary writing and sentence structure in the advanced ESL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 3 (9).
Handayani, A.D., Cahyono, B.Y. & Widiati, U. (2018). The use of Instagram in the teaching of EFL writing: Effect on writing ability and students’
perceptions. Studies in English Language Teaching, 6 (2), 112-126.
Hillebrand, R. (1994). Control and Cohesion: Collaborative Learning and Writing. The English Journal, 83(1), 71-74. doi:10.2307/820964.
Ho, C.M.L. (2000). Developing intercultural awareness and writing skills through email exchange. The Internet TESL Journal, 6 (12).
Horowitz, D. (1986a). Process not product: Less than meet the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 141-144.
Horowitz, D. (1986b). What professor actually requires: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445-462.
Ismail, S., M. Zaim., & N. Gistituanti. (2018). Teaching writing by using social media for high school students in Indonesia. Journal for English
Academic, 5 (1), 98-112.
Johnston, S.A. (1985). An approach to the teaching of academic writing. ELT Journal, 39 (4), 248-252.
Koda, K. (1993). Task-induced variability in foreign language composition: Language-specific perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 26 (3), 332-
344.
Kaplan, R. (1996). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1-20.
Li, J. (2006). The mediation of technology in ESL writing and its implication for writing assessment, Assessing Writing, 11(1), 5-21.
Mansor, N. & Rahim, N.A. (2017). Instagram in ESL Classroom. Man in India 97 (20), 107-114
McDonough, S. (1985). Academic writing practice. ELT Journal, 39 (4), 244-247.
Ramadhani, P. (2018). Using Facebook comments in teaching writing skill. Proceedings of The ICECRS, 1 (3), 253-264, DOI:
10.21070/picecrs.v1i3.1398
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the composiyion classroom. ELT Journal, 46 (3), 274-283.
Mayfield, A. (2008). What is Social Media.
https://www.icrossing.com/uk/sites/default/files_uk/insight_pdf_files/What%20is%20Social%20Media_iCrossing_ebook.pdf

McLeod, M. (1986). Word processing and writing skills. Teaching English, 20 (1), 16-21.
Reid, J. (1984). The radical outliner and the radical brainstormer: A perspective of composing processes. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 529-533.
 Rinda, R.K., A. Novawan., A.H. Miqawati. (2018). Students’ perspectives on social media-based learning of writing through Instagram. Journal of
English in Academic and Professional Communication, 5 (1), 23-33.
Rubin, A. & Bruce, B.C. (1993). Electronic quills: A situated evaluation of using computer for writing in classrooms. New Jersey: LEA. Inc.
Shazali, S. S., Shamsudin, Z. H., & Yunus, M. M. (2019). Instagram: A Platform to Develop Student’s Writing Ability. International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(1), 88–98.
Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to the teaching of academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 617-648.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In Kroll, Barbara (ed). Second Language
Writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). California: CUP.
Slattery, P. J., & Kowalski, R. (1998). On screen: The composing processes of first-year and upper-level college students, Computers and Composition,
15, 61-81.
Spack, R. (1984). Invention strategies and the ESL college composition student. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (4), 649-670.
Sun, Y., & Chang, Y. (2012). Blogging to Learn: Becoming EFL Academic writers through collaborative dialogues. Language Learning & Technology,
16, 43-61.
Tomlinson, B. (1983). An approach to the teaching of continuous writing in ESL classes. ELT Journal, 37 (1), 7-15.
Watson, C. (1982). The use and abuse of models in the ESL writing class. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Wil, C. S. C., Yunus, M. M., & Suliman, A. (2019). The use of social media to assist writing skills among secondary pupils. International Journal of
Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 8(3), 224–236.
Wong-Kam, J., AU, K., Sumida, A., & Jacobson, H. (1995). Reviews and reflections: Extending and questioning the process approach to
writing. Language Arts, 72 (3), 226-232.
Zamel, V. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: What we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 10 (1),
67-76.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly. 17, 165-187.
Zhao, S., S. Grasmuck, & S. Martin. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human
Behavior, 24 (5), 1816-1836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012.
Zeng, Lei. (2013). Social media in Chinese government: Drivers, challenges, and capabilities. Government Information Quarterly, 31, 257-264.

ISSN: 26146169
@Center for Humanities and Innovation Studies 49

View publication stats