All Of The Following Are Writing Strategies Associated With Editing Except

Writing in a second language (L2) is a challenging task. It is demanded in academic context and considered a lifetime skill. In Indonesia, writing is the most neglected skill in schools, resulting in low writing proficiency among university students. The aim of this study is: 1) to identify the writing process of Indonesian EFL proficient student writers; and 2) to explore the writing strategies used by Indonesian EFL proficient student writers. Williams' writing process model is used as the basis for identifying the writing process, while Leki, Sasaki and Mu's writing categories are used to identify the writing strategies. This study uses the qualitative case study research design integrating four data collection methods, that is, observation, interview, think-aloud protocol and video-stimulated recall interview. The results show that the student writers undertake a five-step writing process: prewriting, planning, drafting, pausing and reading and revising and editing, utilising 10 writing strategies: mechanics of writing; relating the topic to past experience and knowledge; talk-writing; freewriting; outlining; listing; using online materials; seeking help; taking the reader into consideration; and text organisation in each stage of the writing process. The study significantly contributes to the body of knowledge on writing, helps L2 writing teachers and L2 learners at all levels of writing using the model of the writing process and the proposed writing strategies.

Figures - uploaded by Imelda Abas

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Imelda Abas

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

• 20+ million members
• 135+ million publications
• 700k+ research projects

Join for free

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): - (2018)

ISSN: 0128-7702

e-ISSN 2231-8534

SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

Journal homepage: http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/

Article history:

Received: 13 February 2017

Accepted: 26 June 2018

Published: 28 September 2018

ARTICLE INFO

E-mail addresses:

imelabas@yahoo.com (Abas, Imelda Hermilinda)

noor934@uum.edu.my (Noor Hashima Abd Aziz)

* Corresponding author

© Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient

Student Writers: A Case Study of Indonesian Learners

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda 1* and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz2

1 Universiti Utara Malaysia, College of Arts and Sciences, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia

2Department of Language Studies, School of Languages, Civilisation and Philosophy, UUM CAS,

Universiti Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia.

ABSTRACT

Writing in a second language (L2) is a challenging task. It is demanded in academic

context and considered a lifetime skill. In Indonesia, writing is the most neglected skill in

schools, resulting in low writing prociency among university students. The aim of this

study is: 1) to identify the writing process of Indonesian EFL procient student writers;

and 2) to explore the writing strategies used by Indonesian EFL procient student writers.

Williams' writing process model is used as the basis for identifying the writing process,

while Leki, Sasaki and Mu's writing categories are used to identify the writing strategies.

This study uses the qualitative case study research design integrating four data collection

methods, that is, observation, interview, think-aloud protocol and video-stimulated recall

interview. The results show that the student writers undertake a ve-step writing process:

prewriting, planning, drafting, pausing and reading and revising and editing, utilising

10 writing strategies: mechanics of writing; relating the topic to past experience and

knowledge; talk-writing; freewriting; outlining; listing; using online materials; seeking help;

taking the reader into consideration; and text

organisation in each stage of the writing

process. The study signicantly contributes

to the body of knowledge on writing, helps

L2 writing teachers and L2 learners at all

levels of writing using the model of the

writing process and the proposed writing

strategies.

Keywords: English as a foreign language, procient

student writers, second language writing, writing

process, writing strategies

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

2

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

INTRODUCTION

In exploring what elements are involved in

the writing process and writing strategies, it

is important to know the difference between

both. The writing process as a private

activity is generally known to consist of four

main stages i.e. planning, drafting, revising

and editing (Seow, 2002, p. 316). These

stages are non-linear and recursive. Writing

strategies have been referred to as "writing

behaviors" (Armengol-Castells, 2001;

Whalen, 1993), "composing behaviors"

(Raimes, 1987) and "composing operations"

(Armengol-Castells, 2001). Other terms used

interchangeably are "writing techniques and

procedures" (Khaldieh, 2000) and "writing

process strategies" (Sasaki, 2000). In this

study, the writing process is dened as a

private activity that writers go through,

while writing strategy refers to how second

language (L2) learners go about composing

a written text, that is "any actions employed

in the act of producing a text" (Manchon, De

Larios, & Murphy, 2007, p. 231).

The need to write effectively has

increased in the academic context, whereby

students are demanded to utilise this skill as

a tool to demonstrate what they have learnt.

Writing is considered a lifetime skill that

serves three essential aims for the students:

1) to write as a form of communication to

express ideas, plans, recommendations,

values, and commitment; 2) to write as

a form of critical thinking and problem

solving, where writing helps students to

think critically and confront values; and

3) to write as self-actualisation, where

writing is used as a way of discovering and

developing students (Stapa, 1998).

In Indonesia, where English is taught as a

foreign language, English is ofcially taught

from the secondary school to university

level. However, prociency in mastering

English, especially writing, among high-

school and university graduates is generally

low (Lie, 2007). This might be due to the

teaching of English writing, which is the

most neglected skill in Indonesian schools.

Alwasilah (2006) claimed that writing is

taught unprofessionally by teachers and

lecturers at schools and colleges because

writing lessons are taught mostly through

grammar and theories of writing rather than

the practice of writing. Marcellino (2008)

also associated the failure in teaching writing

to the following aspects: the teacher's class

preparations, mastery of the discussed topics,

teaching learning strategies, class size and

allotment time. In addition, Suriyanti and

Yaacob (2016) discovered that the lack of

understanding on knowledge of writing

approaches and strategies contributed to the

writing problem. Furthermore, in English

writing instruction, the teachers applied

the approach of controlled composition

and current traditional rhetoric (Ignatius,

1999; Latief, 1990; Sulistyaningsih, 1997).

Learning to write in English is mainly

through the teacher-directed instructional

approach with an emphasis on the final

writing products to indicate the students'

performance. Generally, students are taught

vocabulary, sentence patterns and how

to use conjunctive devices to connect

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

3

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

sentences to form a paragraph and then to

connect discourses between paragraphs.

The Director General of Higher

Education (DGHE), Satrio Soemantri

("The Kompas", 2002b, January 18) and the

Rector of Atma Jaya Catholic University,

Kridalaksana (The Kompas, 2002a, January

16) highlighted the issue of the writing skill

of Indonesian university lecturers, which

was still low, as being a cause of students not

being taught to write complete texts either

in English or Bahasa Indonesia effectively.

Thus, "it is not surprising if university

students and even university graduates'

writing ability is categorized into low" (The

Kompas, 2002a, January 16). Based on this

rationale, the researchers conducted this

study: 1) to identify the writing process

of EFL proficient student writers; and

2) to explore the writing strategies used

by EFL proficient student writers. The

selection of EFL procient student writers

was considered suitable because it was

believed that texts written by them would

be more sophisticated in expressing their

ideas and would consist of correct writing

conventions as well as dissonance in order to

accommodate their readers compared with

that of less procient writers (Best, 1995;

Flower & Hayes, 1981b).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Models of Writing Process

From the 1980s to 2000s, models of the

writing process have been developed by

many scholars (Bereiter & Scardamalia,

1987; Flower & Hayes, 1981b; Kellogg,

2008; Mohamed Nor & Abd Samad, 2006;

Murray, 1980; Williams, 2003; Williams,

2005). These scholars proposed that a

writing process model involves many

developmental levels that are not linear

but recursive and cyclical in manner. This

implies that writers go back and forth to

reread, add, delete and modify their ideas.

In this study, the researcher adapted

Williams' (2003) writing process model,

which is also identied as the phase model,

suggesting that the nature of writing is

random or cyclic (Murray, 1980) for three

reasons. First, the model suggests that a

nished composition is "the result of the

complex interaction of activities that include

several stages of development" (Williams,

2003, p. 106). This means that in every stage

of the process, writers perform activities

that might be different from writer to writer.

Second, the model suggests that the writing

process has certain inuential states such

as planning, drafting and revising that

are repeatedly changed as students revise

drafts, plan how to edit their work and

so on (Williams, 2003). Third, the model

provides a description of the concurrent and

repeated nature of the writing process that

involves stages such as planning, drafting

and editing that may happen more or less

concurrently and in a continuous manner

(Williams, 2003).

These characteristics in Williams

(2003)'s writing process model are not

evident in other models. Flower and Hayes

(1981b)'s cognitive process of writing model

is considered one of the most signicant L1

writing theories (Hyland, 2003). Therefore,

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

4

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

the model is not suitable for an L2 study.

Moreover, according to Hyland (2002), the

process model focusses on the writer as a

solitary individual engaged in the struggle

to discover and communicate personal

meaning, and fails to recognise writing as

a social activity. The data, as the output of

the writing process, show inaccuracy in

interpreting how a certain text is composed.

Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987)'s model is

criticized for not considering the inuence

of context and social factors on writing as

well as for being purely cognitive (Flower,

1994, as cited in Chaaban, 2010). This

model of Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987)

is still L1-based; thus, this model is not

suitable for this L2 study.

Williams' writing process model

consists of eight processes of writing:

prewriting, planning, drafting, pausing,

reading, revising, editing and publishing

(See Table 1). Each process comprises

various activities that are associated with

effective writing and the recursive nature

of the writing process (Williams, 2003). For

instance, the prewriting stage has several

different activities that may assist writers

in developing ideas, such as discussion,

talk-writing, free writing, journalling and

metaphor building. At the planning stage,

questions on audience, writer's position,

aim of paper, organisation and writing

convention are considered important. At

the drafting stage, organising and planning

the time and focussing on related ideas are

inuential factors for an effective drafting

process. At the pausing stage, writers

are recommended to reflect and reread

what they have produced and how well it

matches their plan. Similarly, at the reading

stage, writers are required to reect on the

process during pausing. At the revising

stage, writers should reect on their role

and their readers regarding the topic. Next,

at the editing stage, writers should focus on

sentence, punctuation, spelling and subject

and predicate agreement. Finally, at the

publishing stage, writers have to make their

nal paper freely available to the public.

Table 1

Williams' model of writing process

Process Denition Description

Prewriting Generating ideas, strategies, and

information for a given writing

task

Prewriting activities take place before starting on

the rst draft of a paper. They include discussion,

outlining, free writing, journalling, talk-writing, and

metaphor building.

Planning Reecting on the material

produced during prewriting to

develop a plan to achieve the aim

of the paper

Planning involves considering the writer's

rhetorical stance, rhetorical purpose, the principal

aim of the text, how these factors are interrelated

and how they are connected to the information

generated during prewriting. Planning also

involves selecting support for the writer's claim

and blocking out at least a rough organisational

structure.

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

5

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

However, not all writers experience the

same process or activities, because what

may work for one writer might not for

another. Williams (2003) suggested that all

writers experience these processes to some

extent. This study aimed to identify the

writing process used by Indonesian EFL

procient student writers.

L2 Writing Strategies

Many studies have been conducted on

the writing strategies of both L2 and L1

learners. Research into L2 writing strategies

have focussed on exploring what writing

strategies were used by experienced writers

to then provide training for less experienced

writers based on those strategies (Zamel,

1983) or helping students to understand

what an assignment requires of them and

to help them generate ideas on how to get

these ideas on paper and to organise them

appropriately according to the task (Johns,

1990). There are three categories of writing

strategy used as a guideline in the present

Table 1 (continue)

Process Denition Description

Drafting Producing words on a computer or

on paper that match (more or less)

the initial plan for the work

Drafting occurs over time. Successful writers

seldom try to produce an entire text in one sitting or

even in one day.

Pausing Moments when the students

are not writing but instead are

reecting on what they have

produced and how well it matches

their plan; this usually includes

reading

Pausing occurs among successful and unsuccessful

writers, but they use it in different ways. Successful

writers consider how well the text matches the plan,

how well it is meeting audience needs and overall

organisation.

Reading Moments during pausing when

the students read what they have

written and compare it with their

plan

Reading and writing are interrelated activities.

Good readers are good writers, and vice versa. The

reading that takes place during writing is crucial to

the reection process during pausing.

Revising Literally 're-seeing' the text with

the goal of making large-scale

changes so that text and plan

match

Revising occurs after the students have nished

their rst draft. It involves making changes

that enhance the match between plan and text.

Factors to be considered during planning include

rhetorical stance and rhetorical purpose, among

others. Revising almost always includes getting

suggestions from friends or colleagues on how to

improve the writing .

Editing Focussing on sentence-level

concerns, such as punctuation,

sentence length, spelling,

agreement between subjects and

predicates and style

Editing occurs after revision of the work. The goal

is to give the paper a professional appearance.

Publishing Sharing the nished text with the

intended audience

Publishing is not limited to getting a text printed in

a journal. It includes turning a paper into a teacher,

a boss or an agency.

Source: Williams (2003, pp. 106–107)

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

6

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

study as proposed by Leki (1995); Sasaki

(2000), and Mu (2005). Another aim of this

study was to explore the writing strategies

used by Indonesian EFL procient student

writers.

Category of Writing Strategies (Leki,

1995). In her study on ve ESL university

students, Leki (1995) found 10 categories

of writing strategy that were used by the

participants. The 10 categories were:

(1) Clarifying strategies e.g. talking to

the teacher about the assignment; (2)

Focussing strategies e.g. rereading the

assignment several times; (3) Relying on

past writing experiences – e.g. referring

to past experiences in writing; (4) Taking

advantage of the rst language/culture e.g.

accessing knowledge and experience of L1;

(5) Using current experience or feedback

to adjust strategies e.g. feedback given; (6)

Looking for models e.g. finding models

in articles and books; (7) Using current

or past ESL writing training e.g. using

strategy taught in the writing class; (8)

Accommodating the teacher's requirements

e.g. meeting the teacher's requirements; (9)

Resisting the teacher's requirements e.g.

resisting the assignment by ignoring the

criteria given by the teacher; (10) Managing

competing demands e.g. managing course

loads and cognitive loads, among others.

She also found that some of the participants

were more aware of their strategies than

others and some took more time to move

to alternative strategies when necessary. In

addition, Leki (1995) suggested that these

strategies are adaptable in use and allow

the participants to shift from one writing

strategy to another if the rst one does not

succeed. Table 2 displays the categories of

writing strategy proposed by Leki (1995).

Table 2

Leki's categories of writing strategy

Writing Strategies Sub-Strategies Denition

Clarifying strategies Talking to the teacher to understand the

assignment better

Undertaking to determine and

imitate what it is that English

teachers would do with the

task assigned and how the

assigned activity would t into

professional life

Talking to other students about the

assignment

Asking for specic feedback on the project

before doing it

Trying to interpret the teacher's purpose for

an assignment

Focussing strategies Rereading the assignment several times Concentrating on the writing task

in both narrow and broad ways

Writing out the essay exam question at the

top of the essay

Reading books and articles in the content

area

Relying on past

writing experiences

Revisiting a past experience to accomplish

the writing task

Referring at one time or another

to past writing experiences in the

effort to accomplish the current

task

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

7

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

Categories of Writing Strategy (Sasaki,

2000). Sasaki (2000) investigated Japanese

EFL learners' writing strategies and found

10 writing strategies: planning, retrieving,

generating ideas, verbalising, translating,

rereading, evaluating and others such as

resting, questioning and impossible to

categorise. Each of the categories consists of

one to four sub-strategies. Table 3 displays

the writing strategies, the sub-strategies and

their denitions.

Table 2 (continue)

Writing Strategies Sub-Strategies Denition

Taking advantage of

L1/culture

Using the strategy that is known from

previous knowledge used by others

Using knowledge and experience

to compensate for other

linguistic and educational

disadvantages

Using current

experience or feedback

to adjust strategies

Using the feedback from own work or other

classmates received from the teacher

Using feedback or current

experience from previous

assignments

Looking for models Looking for models for the assignment Finding models in books, articles

as format or template to use

Using current or past

ESL writing training

Using strategy taught in the previous writing

class

Using strategies taught in the

previous writing class

Accommodating

teacher's requirements

Meeting the teacher's requirements Meeting the teacher's

requirements

Resisting teacher's

demands

Resisting the assignment by ignoring the

criteria given by the teacher

Resisting the assignment by

ignoring the criteria given by the

teacher

Managing competing

demands

Managing course loads Juggling the various loads the

student is responsible for in

order to accomplish given tasks

in the time allotted

Managing work load

Regulating the amount of investment made in

specic assignment

Regulating cognitive load

Managing the demands of life

Source: Leki (1995, pp. 247–253)

Table 3

Sasaki's categories of writing strategy

Writing Strategies Sub-Strategies Denition

Planning Global planning Detailed planning of overall organisation

Thematic planning Less detailed planning of overall organisation

Local planning Planning what to write next

Organising Organising the generated ideas

Conclusion planning Planning the conclusion

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

8

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

Categories of Writing Strategy (Mu,

2005). A study conducted by Mu (2005) on

ESL writing strategies found ve broader

categories and 30 ESL writing strategies

(See Table 4). The broader categories were:

(1) rhetorical strategies refer to the strategies

that writers use to organise and to present

their ideas in writing conventions acceptable

to native speakers of that language; (2)

metacognitive strategies refer to the

strategies that the writers use to control the

writing process consciously; (3) cognitive

strategies refer to the strategies that writers

use to implement the actual writing actions;

(4) communicative strategies refer to the

strategies that the writers use to express

ideas in a more effective way; (5) social/

affective strategies refer to the strategies

that the writers use to interact with others

to clarify some questions and to regulate

emotions, motivation and attitudes in their

writing (Mu, 2005, p. 9; 2007, p. 2). The

classification was developed from the

theories of ESL writing that were combined

to create a more specic classication.

Table 3 (continue)

Writing Strategies Sub-Strategies Denition

Retrieving Plan retrieving Retrieving the already constructed plan

Information retrieving Retrieving appropriate information from long-

term memory

Generating ideas Naturally generated Generating an idea without any stimulus

Description generated Generating an idea related to the previous

description

Verbalising Verbalising a

proposition

Verbalising the content the writer intends to write

Rhetorical rening Rening the rhetorical aspects of an expression

Mechanical rening Rening the mechanical or L1/L2 grammatical

aspects of an expression

Sense of readers Adjusting expressions for the reader

Translating Translating Translating the generated idea into L2

Rereading Rereading Rereading the already produced sentence

Evaluating L2 prociency

evaluation

Evaluating one's own L2 prociency

Local text evaluation Evaluating part of generated text

General text evaluation Evaluating the generated text in general

Others Resting Resting

Questioning Asking the researcher a question

Impossible to categorise Impossible to categorise

Source: Sasaki (2000, pp. 289–291)

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

9

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

Previous Studies

There are many recent studies on the

writing process and strategies that have

been conducted in Asian countries. In

this paper, the researchers include two

of the most related studies. Wong (2005)

investigated the writing strategies employed

by four advanced L2 writers when they were

composing and relating them to their mental

representatives of the intended audience and

the rhetorical purpose for performing the

writing tasks, which appeared to correspond

with the ways writing/composing strategies

are employed. Moreover, they also used

strategies that were not commonly found in

the writing process of ESL college writers,

for example, questioning as a metacognitive

strategy and self-assessment as an effective

strategy in order to facilitate the writing

process. Wong (2005)'s research was similar

to the present study in terms of looking at the

writing strategies that non-native speakers

of English (L2 learners) employed when

they were composing and the benets of

applying the writing strategies.

A study by Mu and Carrington (2007)

investigated English writing strategies of

three Chinese post-graduate students in

Australian higher education. The ndings

indicated that the three participants

employed four macro writing strategies:

rhetorical strategies, metacognitive

strategies, cognitive strategies and social/

effective strategies in their writing practice.

Table 4

Mu's categories of writing strategy

Writing Strategies Sub-Strategies Speculation

Rhetorical strategies Organising

Using L1

Formatting/Modelling

Comparing

Beginning/development/ending

Translate generated idea into ESL

Genre consideration

Different rhetorical conventions

Meta-cognitive strategies Planning

Monitoring

Evaluating

Finding focus

Checking and identifying problems

Reconsidering written text, goals

Cognitive strategies Generating ideas

Revising

Elaborating

Clarication

Retrieving

Rehearsing

Summarising

Repeating, lead-in, inferencing etc.

Making changes in plan, written text

Extending the content of writing

Dispersing confusion

Getting information from memory

Trying out ideas or language

Synthesising what has been read

Communicative strategies Avoidance

Reduction

Sense of readers

Avoiding problems

Giving up difculties

Anticipating readers' response

Social/Affective strategies Resourcing

Getting feedback

Assigning goals

Resting/Deferring

Referring to libraries, dictionaries

Getting support from professors, peers

Dissolving the load of the task

Reducing anxiety

Source: Mu (2005, p. 9)

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

10

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

In relation to the metacognitive strategies,

they found that the participants focused

their attention on planning in English

writing and they were aware that a good

plan could facilitate writing. In terms of

evaluating and monitoring strategies, one

of the participants evaluated the resource

materials she used in her assignment and

adapted relevant information in her writing.

In relation to generating ideas (cognitive

strategies), it was found that the three

participants used brainstorming to note the

ideas in their mind and to decide on what

ideas needed to be developed. However, the

most frequently used strategy reported by

the participants was reading widely, paying

attention seriously to revision and imitating

strategies. Mu and Carrington (2007)'s

study was similar to the current study as the

current study adapted Mu and Carrington

(2007)'s categories of writing strategy as a

model to explore the writing strategies used

by the EFL Indonesian procient writers.

A study conducted by Elshawish (2014)

investigated the writing processes and

writing strategies employed by fourth year

EFL Libyan University students majoring

in English. The study adopted a number

of research methods such as think-aloud

protocols, semi-structured interviews and

observations. Fourteen participants were

involved in the study, and among them

were good writers, poor writers and teacher

informants. The study found that the writing

process, of planning, drafting and reviewing,

was recursive in nature. It also found that

various main writing strategies such as

planning (global and local), rehearsing,

drafting, scanning and revising existed and

occurred frequently throughout the writing

process. The study was similar to the present

study in terms of the recursive nature of the

writing process and the varieties of writing

strategy that were employed throughout the

writing process.

Some studies in Asian countries found

that students of teachers who emphasise

more than one process writing strategy

have greater writing ability. For instance,

Ho (2006) conducted her research on six

teachers of lower and upper primary school

levels to investigate the effectiveness of the

writing process by implementing a two-

month process writing programme in their

schools. She found that the programme

yielded positive results across all the

classes. The process approach was proven

to be an effective approach even at the

lower primary school level. Research

conducted by Meeampol (2005) on the

use of the process-based approach found

that the students who used the process-

based approach had outperformed their

peers who did not use the process-based

approach; therefore, the approach could help

the students to write better and boost their

condence. Puengpipattrakul (2014), who

investigated the students' opinion of how

the process approach helped to develop the

writing skill of 24 undergraduate students,

also found that the process approach was

viewed as a useful means for developing

the students' writing skill. In conclusion,

the writing process approach seemed to be

a feasible solution to enhancing the writing

skill and condence of students.

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

11

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

METHODS

The present study used the qualitative

approach as it allowed the researcher to

explore the writing strategies used by

proficient student writers. The method

applied in this study was inductive in nature

and based on the study findings and the

researcher's experiences (Cohen, Manion,

& Morrison, 2007; Creswell, 2014). In order

to understand the participants' point of view,

the study used the case study research design

and integrated four data collection methods:

observation, interview, think-aloud protocol

and video-stimulated recall interview.

Observation

The purpose of conducting observations

in this study was to capture the natural

surroundings of events, reactions and

behaviours of the student writers when they

were writing their essay in the classroom.

Thus, the researcher took a passive role in

the class as a non-participant observer to

"know what is happening, to see it, to hear

it, to try to make sense of it, which is more

important than getting the perfect note or

quote" (Stake, 2010, p. 94). In observing the

participants, the researcher videotaped the

writing activities and took eld notes. After

each observation session, the researcher

read thoroughly the observation notes and

searched the data for patterns as well as for

themes. For each participant, the researcher

identied the writing process stages and

wrote in detail the strategies and behaviours

of the participants that occurred during the

observation.

Think-Aloud Protocol

A protocol is a "description of the activities,

ordered in time, in which a participant

engages while performing a task" (Hayes

& Flower, 1980, p. 4). According to Swain

(2006, p. 99), thinking aloud is a "trace

of cognitive processes that people attend

to while doing a task." This implies that

think-aloud is perceived as a window into

cognitive processing and can be utilised

as a data collection technique (Bowles,

2010). In this study, the participants were

asked to speak aloud everything that was

occurring in their mind while writing the

essay, no matter how trivial it may seem.

In order for the participants to understand

the think-aloud protocols, this technique

was introduced to them in advance so

that they could practise the protocol a few

times before writing the actual task. During

the think-aloud, the researcher actively

participated in terms of explaining the

instructions about the technique and kept

reminding the participants, as necessary, to

keep talking while performing the writing

task. In addition, the participants were

recorded using a video camera to think

aloud as they were composing, so that the

resulting protocols could be analysed. The

protocol was conducted with each student

individually at one time . Each participant

was given 60 minutes to compose an essay.

The researcher identied the stages of the

writing process that the participants used

and the writing strategies they employed to

complete their writing task.

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

12

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

In-Depth Interview

According to Denzin and Lincoln (1994),

interviewing is a significant method for

understanding a person's perspective of how

he or she constructs meaning and is also

a means for arriving at thick description.

In this study, in-depth interviews were

conducted with the participants using

20 semi-structured interview questions

to understand in detail their experience

of applying the writing strategies. The

interview session took about 20 to 30

minutes for each participant and was

recorded using a video camera, voice

recorder and note taking. In analysing the

interview data, the researcher followed

some steps suggested by Cohen et al. (2007),

and adapted from Alhosani (2008). The

steps were: (1) transcribing the recorded

interviews as soon as the researcher nished

the interview; (2) reading the interview

transcripts carefully, repeatedly and then

coding, classifying and categorising the

responses to the interview questions; (3)

looking at repetition of words, phrases and

sentences; (4) drawing conclusions and

verification of data where the data were

displayed and interpreted.

Video-Stimulated Recall Interview

Video-Stimulated Recall Interview (VRSI)

is a method of eliciting data about the

thinking process involved in carrying out

a task or activity (Gass & Mackey, 2013).

It has been used in studies on cognitive

strategies, language learning processes

and teacher behaviour (Lyle, 2003). VSRI

can be regarded as another strategy, which

triangulates the data and the research

instrument to obtain the trustworthiness

and credibility of research design (Dornyei,

2007). The use of VSRI in this study enabled

the researcher to capture the participants'

thinking process in terms of their actions or

beliefs (Stough, 2001). To prevent a memory

gap, the VSRI sessions were conducted

within the next two or three days after the

recording as suggested by Dornyei (2007);

Gass and Mackey (2013). The interviews

were recorded using a video camera and a

voice recorder. The questions for the VSR

interviews were specic and derived from

the data recorded during the think-aloud

protocol and from the observation and

the interviews, such as "Before you start

writing your ideas you reread the whole

of paragraph 1; Why, and what were you

looking for?"

Participants and Setting

Harding (2013) stated that in a case study,

the selection of participants is adaptable

once field work has started. To be more

specific, selecting extreme or deviant

cases was the approach used because the

researcher intended to select "sampling the

extremities that may give best understanding

of the field as a whole (Harding, 2013,

p. 17). The selection and the number of

participants were dened once the eld work

started. Therefore, gender of the participants

was insignificant and did not affect the

ndings of this study. Thus, a small number

of participants was sufcient according to

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

13

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

the approach of selecting extreme or deviant

cases and the criteria that were determined

by the researcher.

The study was conducted at the

Faculty of Cultural Sciences, Hasanuddin

University, Makassar, Indonesia. The

participants were selected from the English

Language Studies Programme. They were

Master's degree students in their third

semester. The proficient postgraduate

students were selected as participants for

this study through careful consideration

based on the following criteria: (1) They

had achieved a score of 31 and above in

the preliminary writing task; (2) They were

considered to be competent in English

writing, having completed the Academic

Writing and Research Methodology courses;

(3) They had written an unpublished thesis

for their Bachelor's degree and they would

be writing their Master's thesis in English as

a prerequisite to completing their Master's

degree; (4) They had been teaching English

as teachers or tutors for more than two years.

In selecting the procient student writers

as participants, the researcher conducted a

preliminary test using the International

English Language Testing System (IELTS)

Writing Task 2. IELTS was chosen because

it is known as an international standardised

test of English language prociency for non-

native English speakers. It is also commonly

used in universities in Indonesia. Thus, the

students were familiar with the test. The

rst topic or the preliminary writing task

was aimed at selecting the procient student

writers for this study. The topic was: "In the

last 20 years, the assessment of students

has undergone major transformation. Many

educational institutions no longer use formal

examinations as a means of assessment as

they believe formal examination results are

an unfair indication of a student's ability.

To what extent do you agree or disagree

with this statement?" (Taken from IELTS

Preparation by Tucker and Van Bemmel,

2002). The results of the writing tasks were

collected and graded by the researcher and

two inter-raters. From the 80 students who

participated in the preliminary writing task,

the researcher found only seven students

who obtained a score above 31 based on

the Six-Trait Writing Rubric . According

to Spandel (2009), the Six-Trait Writing

Rubric has descriptors, where a score of

5-18 is categorised as Beginner writers, 19-

30 as Moderate writers and 31 and above as

Procient writers. Thus, the seven students

were selected as participants for the study

because the score that they obtained, that

is above 31, fell into the procient writer

category. However, from the seven students,

only six were willing to participate in this

study.

After the researcher had selected the

participants, the next topic given was:

"Children below sixteen should not be

allowed in public places after midnight

unless they are accompanied by an adult

who is responsible for them. How far do

you agree with this suggestion?" (Taken

from IELTS Preparation, Tucker and Van

Bemmel, 2002). The purpose of the second

topic was to conrm the level of writing

prociency of the participants as well as to

provide an opportunity for detailed analysis.

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

14

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

The second essay was given during the

think-aloud protocol, where the researcher

observed the participants while writing, and

the essays were included in the analysis of

the writing samples. The writing tasks were

evaluated on six traits: Idea & Content,

Organisation, Voice, Word Choice, Sentence

Fluency and Convention (See Appendix

A). Each trait was rewarded 6 points. The

total score for each writing sample was 36

points. The selected participants of this

study were one male student referred to as

Erza (pseudonym) and ve female students,

referred to as Prita, Dani, Norma, Suka and

Irza (pseudonyms). A detailed description of

the prole of the participants, including their

score in the preliminary and second writing

task, is presented in Appendix B.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Writing Process and Activities

The first objective of this study was to

identify the stages of the writing process.

It was found that the Indonesian EFL

student writers went through ve stages of

the writing process: prewriting, planning,

drafting, pausing and reading and revising

and editing that were used recursively and

that occurred simultaneously with each

other.

The rst main theme that was identied

from the writing process was the prewriting

stage. It can be divided into four activities

or sub-themes: 1) outlining, performed

by Prita and Dani; 2) listing, done by Irza

and Suka; 3) talk-writing, used by Erza;

and 4) free writing, performed by Norma.

The second main theme that was identied

in relation to the writing process was the

planning stage. This theme is divided into

two activities or sub-themes: 1) having the

reader in mind, performed by Norma; and

2) choosing appropriate organisation, done

by Prita, Dani and Irza. It was found that

out of the six participants, only four carried

out the planning stage. The other two, Erza

and Suka, skipped this stage because they

claimed that the planning stage would take

more their time to complete the composition

task.

The third main theme derived from

the writing process was the drafting stage.

All the six participants carried out this

stage by writing three paragraphs for the

composition: the introduction, body and

conclusion. The fourth main theme that was

identied in relation to the writing process

was pausing and reading, which occurred

simultaneously at this stage. This stage is

divided into two activities or sub-themes:

1) pausing to reread what had been written

and trying to get more ideas; and 2) pausing

when the writer has run out of ideas. All

the participants carried out the pausing and

reading stage.

The last main theme that was identied

from the writing process was revising and

editing, which occurred simultaneously

at this stage. This stage is divided into

two activities or sub-themes, namely: 1)

correcting immediately by adding and

deleting ideas, performed by all the six

participants; and 2) proofreading, performed

by Erza and Prita. Table 5 displays the

writing process identied from the present

study.

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

15

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

Table 6 displays the writing process that

the participants in this study experienced

while writing compared with the writing

process proposed by Williams (2003).

Table 5

Identication of the writing process stages

Process Sub-Process Denition

Prewriting Outlining

Listing

Talk-Writing

Freewriting

Generating ideas, strategies and

information for a given writing task

Planning Thinking about the readers and

organisation

Going back to the prewriting list

by rereading it several times and

choosing the most appropriate

organisation

Reecting on the prewriting to develop a

plan to achieve the aim of the task

Drafting Writing introduction, body, and

conclusion paragraphs

Producing words on a computer or on

paper that match (more or less) the initial

plan of the task

Pausing and Reading Pausing for rereading what has been

written and searching for more ideas

Pausing when running out of ideas

Moments when the participants are not

writing but instead are reecting on

what they have produced and how well

it matches their plan; Usually includes

reading

Revising and Editing Correcting immediately by adding

and deleting ideas

Proofreading

Rereading the text they have produced

and making changes in the plan and

ideas, and searching for errors in

punctuation, spelling and grammar

Table 6

Writing process proposed by Williams (2003) compared with the present study

Williams (2003) Present Study

Prewriting: Discussion, freewriting, talk-writing,

journalling, metaphor building

Prewriting: Talk-writing, freewriting, outlining,

listing

Planning: Questions about readers, writer's

position, aim of paper, organisation and writing

conventions

Planning: Thinking about the readers and

organisation, thinking about the prewriting list and

organisation

Drafting: Organise and plan the time

Focussing on relating ideas

Drafting: Writing introduction, body and conclusion

paragraphs

Pausing: Reecting and rereading what have been

produced and how well it matches their plan

Pausing and reading: Pausing for rereading what

has been written and thinking about more ideas,

Pausing when running out of ideas

Reading: Reect the process during pausing

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

16

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

The writing process discovered by

the present study consisted of ve stages

compared with Williams (2003), which

consisted of eight stages. The present study

found that pausing and reading occurred

simultaneously at the same stage instead of

at two different stages. Similarly, revising

and editing occurred at the same time

instead of at two different stages. For

example, at the pausing and reading stage,

the participants paused and read at the

same time, as they paused to reread what

they had written. The participants revised

and edited their work at the same time by

immediately deleting, adding and correcting

any errors they found. In summary, the

ndings indicated that every student writer

had different preferences as they worked

their way through the stages of the writing

process. It also suggested that the writing

process stages are flexible, allowing the

students to move from one stage to another

by performing different activities that

they preferred. Although the participants

received high scores, they realised that

writing is a process of organising their ideas

in written form. The ndings of this study

were similar to those of Farrell (2006);

Hughey, Wormuth, Hartfiel and Jacobs

(1983); Raimes (1985), who all concluded

that writing is a process of discovering one's

thought by reecting on the purpose and

audience, consulting their own background

knowledge, letting their ideas develop and

reading over what they had written to relate

to their plan. This process is recursive in

nature, as it is a "cyclical process during

which writers move back and forth on a

continuum discovering, analysing and

synthesising ideas" (Hughey, Wormuth,

Hartel, & Jacobs, 1983, p. 28).

The writing process generally consists

of prewriting, drafting, revising and editing.

Some studies found that the students shuttled

back and forth among these processes (El-

Aswad, 2002; Flower & Hayes, 1981a;

Raimes, 1985). The same nding was also

reported in different EFL/ESL writing

studies (Alhosani, 2008; Alhaisoni, 2012;

El Mortaji 2001; Elshawish, 2014; Humes,

1983; Raimes 1985, 1987; Zamel 1982,

1983). Before the process model was

brought into practice, according to Pritchard

and Honeycutt (2006), prewriting was

not more than a brief instruction from the

teacher on the topic on which the students

were supposed to write. However, now

teachers implement prewriting as a strategy

Table 6 (continue)

Williams (2003) Present Study

Revising: Making changes to match the plan and

the text

Revising and Editing: Correcting immediately by

adding and deleting ideas, Proofreading

Editing: Sentence, punctuation, spelling, subject

and predicate agreement

Publishing: Submitting paper to a teacher, boss or

agency

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

17

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

to improve students' writing content and

to help them organise their written text

(Alhosani, 2008).

Strategies of Writing

The second research objective dealt with

identifying the strategies that the procient

student writers employed in their process

of writing. Table 7 shows the strategies of

writing that were identied in this study.

The ndings showed that the participants

employed some writing strategies in the

process of writing as listed and explained

below:

1. Focussing on Mechanics of Writing.

This technique occurred in the editing

stage. All of the participants made the same

effort to check their work for correct use

of grammar, punctuation and spelling by

rereading carefully, word by word, what

they had written. When they spotted a

mistake, they changed it immediately.

2. Relating the Topic to Past Experience

and Knowledge. This technique occurred

in the drafting and planning stages. In

providing the details to support their

arguments, the participants tried to relate

the topic to their past experience and

knowledge. It is important to note here that

relating the topic to the participants' past

experience made them write smoothly in

communicating their ideas. Erza explained

that relating to the past experience was like

retelling a story; thus, it was easier for him

to put his experience into words instead of

writing from scratch.

3. Talk-writing. This involves constructing

a plan mentally and delivering a verbally

planned piece of writing. When given a topic

to write about, Erza started by constructing

his plan verbally including brainstorming

and organising the paragraphs verbally at

the prewriting stage. He began by saying

out the major points that he wanted to

address in his writing. He constructed four

outlines verbally and continued to develop

the outlines into paragraphs.

4. Freewriting. This strategy is intended

to force writers to put aside concerns

about audience, aims, organisation and

structure while they consider potential

ideas (Williams, 2003). It involves writing

nonstop for ve, 10 or 15 minutes. During

freewriting, the writers would generate ideas

or words with the intention of producing

ideas for later development. Norma did the

freewriting activity for a few minutes, then

continued to write the paragraph based on

the ideas that had occurred to her during the

freewriting activity. This activity occurred

before the writers began to write each

paragraph. Norma wrote three paragraphs

in her composition. Thus, in her model,

freewriting occurred three times throughout

the writing process. Norma explained

that freewriting helped her to plan her

paragraphs. As she wrote the rst paragraph,

she would also think about the second and

the third paragraphs. Thus, freewriting

helped her to keep track of her ideas for

each paragraph.

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

18

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

5. Outlining. This begins when writers list

the major points that they want to address

in their writing without worrying much

about order (Williams, 2003). For Prita,

Suka and Dani, the outlining technique

was used in the prewriting and planning

stage. After receiving the topic, Prita, Suka

and Dani started the prewriting stage by

brainstorming their ideas. To make it easier

for them to remember the ideas, they wrote

all of them down on a piece of paper. Then

they wrote outlines restating each paragraph

in their writing. For instance, when Prita

and Suka finished their prewriting, they

continued expanding their outlines by

writing the words brainstormed earlier under

the correct outline. Below each outline, they

wrote the supporting details to strengthen

their arguments.

6. Listing. Listing is a type of prewriting

strategy that allows writers to explore their

ideas. Irza generated her ideas through

listing. She performed listing by mapping

her ideas in a drawing. She made four

categories, then linked them to sub-

categories or ideas. Each category consisted

of four to ve ideas. She generated ideas

based on the topic. The mind map helped her

to see the main ideas and supporting details

she had jotted down, and this helped her to

decide how to organise her paper. Listing is

part of the planning stage.

7. Using Online Materials. Erza and

Norma relied on their gadgets such as

laptop, tablet and smartphone whenever they

ran into difculties or ran out of ideas. For

instance, Erza paused several times when he

could not nd a word in English. He usually

searched for an appropriate word using an

online dictionary.

8. Seeking Help. Prita and Irza were

active learners. They could not sit still

when they got stuck or run out of ideas.

Among the participants, only Prita and

Irza asked the researcher questions when

something unclear needed explanation. For

instance, when Prita could not remember

the spelling of 'surveillance', 'juvenile' and

'delinquency', she asked the researcher for

the correct spelling.

9. Taking the Readers into Consideration.

This technique occurred in the planning

stage. The technique was used by Prita,

Suka and Irza. In planning their writing,

they thought about their readers and made

sure that the vocabulary they used would be

understood by their readers and that their

readers would nd the piece interesting.

They frequently reread the task to make sure

the writing matched their plan.

10. Text Organisation. Norma, Suka and

Dani kept their written paper organised.

They used different sheets of papers to

do their prewriting activity and the actual

composition. When they had nished editing

and revising, they wrote their second draft

on another piece of paper. On their second

draft, they made sure that their handwritten

copy was neat and easy to read. Norma

and Dani wrote their second draft with

some changes, while Suka did not make

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

19

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

any corrections on the second draft. Table

7 shows the writing strategies identied in

the present study.

Table 8 illustrates the writing strategies

that the participants used while writing

compared with the writing strategies

proposed by Leki (1995); Mu (2005);

Sasaki (2000).

Table 7

Writing strategies used in this study

Themes Participants

Mechanics of writing All of the participants

Relating the topic to past experience and knowledge All of the participants

Talk-Writing Erza

Freewriting Norma

Outlining Prita, Dani

Listing Irza, Suka

Using online materials Erza

Seeking help Prita, Irza

Taking readers into consideration Prita, Suka, Irza

Organising text Norma, Suka, Dani

Table 8

Writing strategies proposed by Leki (1995); Mu (2005) Sasaki (2000) compared with those used in the

present study

Leki (1995) Sasaki (2000) Mu (2005) Present Study

Clarifying strategies Planning Rhetorical strategies Mechanics of writing

Focussing strategies Retrieving Meta-Cognitive

strategies

Relating the topic to past

experience and knowledge

Relying on past writing

experiences

Generating Ideas Cognitive strategies Talk-Writing

Taking advantage of L1/culture Verbalizing Communicative

strategies

Freewriting

Using current experience or

feedback to adjust strategies

Translating Social/Affective

strategies

Outlining

Clarifying strategies Rereading Listing

Looking for models Evaluating Using online materials

Using current or past ESL

writing training

Others Seeking help

Accommodating teacher's

requirements

Taking readers into

consideration

Resisting teacher's

requirements

Text organisation

Managing competing

requirements

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

20

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

Model of Writing Process and Writing

Strategies

According to Miles and Huberman (1994, p.

18), a conceptual framework or conceptual

model (Williams, 2008), is "a visual written

product, that explained, graphically or

narratively , and the presumed relationship

among them." They also suggested that the

conceptual framework could emerge from

theory or experience and often from the

objectives of the study that are developed

out of eld work and the development of

themes. It is best described graphically with

arrows that show relationships between

each aspect. Thus, the model of the writing

process and writing strategies (See Figure 1)

that is proposed in this study was the result

of analysing and developing themes from

the data. It also displays the objectives of

the study. The writing process stages and

strategies found in this study were non-linear

and recursive. Five stages were found in the

writing process: 1) prewriting, 2) planning,

3) drafting, 4) pausing and reading, and 5)

revising and editing. Each stage consisted

of different strategies performed by the

participants.

The proposed model of the writing

process and writing strategies (See Figure

1) also shows that the participants used

various strategies at each stage of the

writing process as they completed the task.

For example, at the prewriting stage, the

strategies such as outlining, listing, talk-

writing and freewriting were used. Then,

the participants continued with the planning

stage, where strategies such as taking

the reader into consideration, occurred.

Figure 1. Writing process and writing strategies model proposed

Prewriting:

Activities: Outlining, Listing,

Tal k-writing, Freewriting

Strategies: Outlining, Listing,

Tal k-Writing, Freewriting

Planning:

Activities: Thinking about readers and

organisation, Thinking about prewriting and

organisation

Strategies: Thinking about the aim of the

writing and what the writer wants the reader to

know

Drafting:

Activities: Writing introduction, body

and conclusion

Strategies: Relating the topic to past

experience

Pausing and Reading:

Activities: Rereading what has been written

and thinking about more ideas, Pausing when

running out of ideas

Strategies: Seeking help, using online

materials

Revising and Editing:

Activities: Correcting immediately,

Proofreading

Strategies: Focussing on punctuation, spelling,

grammar and word choice, keeping paper

organised

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

21

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

Next, was the drafting stage, where the

participants started to draft their points into

paragraphs. Strategies such as relating the

topic to past experience occurred at this

stage. When the participants ran out of

ideas, they paused and read. At this stage,

strategies such as seeking help and using

online materials were used. Pausing and

reading occurred simultaneously at the

same stages, which was characterised by

moments of silence for the participants to

read over what they had written. Revising

and editing also occurred simultaneously at

the same stage and was done in silence as the

participants paused and read what they had

written. Strategies such as focussing on the

mechanics of writing and text organisation

that required adding and deleting some ideas

was observed to be done at this stage.

Contributions, Limitations and

Recommendations of the Study

This study has significantly contributed

to the literature, especially in the areas of

the writing process and writing strategies

in English as a Foreign Language (EFL)

and in the teaching of writing. Although

the importance of effective writing is

acknowledged globally, models of an

effective writing process are limited. This

study has attempted to fill the gap by

proposing a model of the writing process

and writing strategies. This study has also

contributed to the body of knowledge on

teaching through the model of an effective

writing process and writing strategies

proposed for writing teachers to use as a

guideline in their classes, as well as for

policy-makers in helping them to design

and implement a suitable curriculum on

teaching writing in Indonesia. The study is

benecial for non-procient students who

seek to become more competent in writing

in English by adopting, modifying and

applying the strategies that suit them best

and using these strategies to develop their

writing skill.

Although the study has contributed to

the eld of writing research, there are also

some limitations. Only six students were

selected for this study because they t into

the procient writer category after sitting

an IELTS-type writing test. In addition, the

study only focussed on what the participants

were doing when writing the composition in

order to explore the use of writing strategies

but not on how procient were the writers.

Finally, in collecting observation data, the

researcher later found that the participants

no longer had writing activities in their

classes; thus, the researcher had to adapt

to the situation and decided to collect

observation data at the same time as the

think-aloud protocol.

Based on the findings of this study,

some recommendations for further research

are made. First, the researcher recommends

that future studies include non-procient

student writers. Second, the researcher

recommends that students who come from

different cultural backgrounds and who use

different languages be included as they may

have a different understanding of writing

and therefore, may use different writing

strategies. For further research, exploring

the effects of utilising the writing process

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

22

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

on writing development of a large sample of

students from different countries would add

richness and depth to the ndings.

CONCLUSION

The writing process is recursive in nature,

whereby the writer moves from one stage to

another, perhaps going back to the beginning

or the previous stage through a natural

occurrence. The purpose of this study was

to identify the writing process and to explore

the writing strategies used by EFL procient

student writers when writing a composition

so that other students could benet from their

skill and expertise. The ndings showed that

the procient student writers were familiar

with the writing stages. Five stages of the

writing process were found: prewriting,

planning, drafting, pausing and reading

and revising and editing. The ndings also

showed that when doing a writing task,

the participants used various strategies

such as mechanics of writing, relating the

topic to past experience and knowledge,

talk-writing, freewriting, outlining, listing,

and using online materials, seeking help,

taking the reader into consideration and text

organisation. The present study contributes

to the body of literature in the areas of the

writing process and writing strategies in

EFL teaching, learning and policy-making.

REFERENCES

Alhaisoni, E. (2012). A think-aloud protocols

investigation of Saudi English major students'

writing revision strategies in L1 (Arabic) and

L2 (English). English Language Teaching, 5(9),

144–154.

Alhosani, N. M. (2008). Utilizing the writing process

approach with English as a second language

writers: A case study of ve fth grade of ESL

Arab students (Doctoral dissertation), Kansas

State University, United States.

Alwasilah, A. C. (2001). Writing is neglected in our

school. In C. A. Alwasilah (Ed), Language,

culture and education. Bandung: Andira.

Alwasilah, A. C. (2006). Developing theories of

teaching academic Indonesian to non-language

majors: Ways of collecting and analyzing

data. Indonesian Journal of English Language

Teaching, 2(1), 125–136. Retrieved December

10, 2016, from http://ojs.atmajaya.ac.id/index.

php/ijelt/article/view/109/68

Armengol-Castells, L. (2001). Text-generating

strategies of three multilingual writers: A

protocol-based study. Language Awareness, 10(2-

3), 91–106. doi: 10.1080/09658410108667028.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The

psychology of written composition. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Best, L. (1995). A critique of cognitive research

on writing from three critical perspectives:

Theoretical, methodological, and practical.

ERIC Document Retrieval Service No.377 516.

Bowles, M. A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in

second language research. New York: Routledge

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007).

Research method in education. UK: Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research:

Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (4th ed.). Essex, UK:

Pearson Education Limited.

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

23

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994).

Handbook of qualitative research . Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied

linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

El-Aswad, A. (2002). A study of the L1 and L2 writing

processes and strategies of Arab learners with

special reference to third-year Libyan university

students (Unpublished PhD Dissertation),

University of Newcastle, Australia.

El-Mortaji, L. (2001). Writing ability and strategies

in two discourse types: A cognitive study of

multilingual Moroccan university students

writing in Arabic (L1) and English (L3) (Doctoral

dissertation), University of Essex, UK.

Elshawish, M., F. (2014). Investigating the writing

strategies of fourth year Libyan University

students of English: Strategy differences between

good and poor writers of English (Unpublished

PhD Dissertation), Nottingham Trent University,

Nottingham, UK.

Farrell, T. S. C. (2006). Succeeding with English

language learners: A guide for beginning

teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981a). Plans that guide

the composing process. In C. Frederiksen & J.

Dominic (Eds), Writing: The nature, development

and teaching of writing communication (pp.

39–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981b). A cognitive

process theory of writing. College Composition

and Communication, 32, 365–387. Retrieved

December 10, 2016, http://www.jstor.org/

stable/356600

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2013). Stimulated recall

methodology in second language research.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from

start to nish. London: Sage.

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the

organization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg

& E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes

in writing (pp. 31–50). Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Ho, B. (2006). Effectiveness of using the process

approach to teach writing in six Hong Kong

primary classrooms. Working Papers in

English and Communication, 17(1), 1–52.

ERIC Document Retrieval Service ERIC No.

EJ847597.

Hughey, J. B., Wormuth, D. R., Hartel, V. F., &

Jacobs, H. (1983). Teaching ESL composition:

Principles and techniques. Rowley, MA:

Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Humes, A. (1983). Research on the composing

process. Review of Educational Research, 53(2),

201–216.

Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility:

Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal

of Pragmatics, 34 (8), 1091–1112.

Ignatius, H. (1999). English academic writing features

by Indonesian learners of English (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation), State University of

Malang, Malang, Indonesia.

Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories:

Implications for developing theories of L2

composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language

writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.

24–36). New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A

cognitive developmental perspective. Journal

of Writing Research , 1 (1), 1–26. Retrieved

December 10, 2016, http://dl.ueb.vnu.edu.vn/

handle/1247/9999

Khaldieh, S. A. (2000). Learning strategies and

writing processes of procient vs. less procient

learners of Arabic. Foreign Language Annuals ,

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

24

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

33(5), 522–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.

tb01996.x

Kompas, The. (2002a). Soal tidak ada universitas

riset. Kemampuan menulis para dosen masih

minim. Jakarta: Kompas. Dikbud. Rabu, 2002,

January 16. http://www.kompas.com/kompas-

cetak/0201/16/DIKBUD/kema09.htm.

Kompas, The. (2002b). Komunitas peneliti belum

berkembang di Universitas. 2002, January 18.

Latief, M. A. (1990). Assessment of English writing

skills for students of English as a foreign

language at the Institute of Teacher Training and

Education IKIP Malang, Indonesia (Doctoral

dissertation, University of Iowa, USA). Retrieved

December 10, 2016, from ProQuest Dissertation

and Thesis.

Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students

in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL

Quarterly, 29(2), 235–260. Retrieved December

10, 2016, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587624

Lie, A. (2007). Education policy and EFL curriculum

in Indonesia: Between the commitment to

competence and the quest for higher test

scores. TEFLIN Journal, 18 (1), 1–15. Retrieved

December 10, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.15639/

teinjournal.v18i1

Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use

in naturalistic research. British Educational

Research Journal, 29(6), 861–878. Retrieved

December 10, 2016, http://www.jstor.org/

stable/1502138

Manchón, R. J., De Larios, J. R., & Murphy, L. (2000).

An approximation to the study of backtracking in

L2 writing. Learning and Instruction 10, 13–35.

Retrieved December 10, 2016, http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00016-X

Marcellino, M. (2008). English language teaching in

Indonesia: A continuous challenge in education

and cultural diversity. TEFLIN Journal, 19 (1),

57–69. Retrieved December 10, 2016, http://

journal.teflin.org/index.php/journal/article/

viewFile/99/93

Meeampol, S. (2005). A study of the effectiveness of

the process-based writing in an EFL classroom of

second-year students at Bangkok University. BU

Academic Review, 4 (2), 1–7. Retrieved December

10, 2016, http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/

epaper/july_dec2005/sutilak.pdf

Megaiab, M. M. A. (2014). The English writing

competence of the students of an Indonesian

senior high school. Paper presented at the WEI

International Academic Conference, Bali,

Indonesia. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from

http://www.westeastinstitute.com/wp-content/

uploads/2014/06/Machalla-M.A.-Megaiab-Full-

Paper.pdf

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative

data analysis (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Mohamed Nor, M., & Abd Samad, R. (2006).

Teaching of reading and writing for ESL.

Malaysia: University of Malaya Press.

Mu, C. (2005). A taxonomy of ESL writing strategies.

Proceedings from Redesigning Pedagogy:

Research, Policy, Practice (pp. 1–10), Singapore.

Retrieved December 10, 2016, http://conference.

nie.edu.sg/paper/html/index.htm

Mu, C., & Carrington, S. B. (2007). An investigation

of three Chinese students' English writing

strategies. Teaching English as a Second or

Foreign Language-EJ, 11 (1), 1–23. Retrieved

December 10, 2016, http://eprints.qut.edu.

au/13130/

Murray, D. (1980). Writing as a process. In T. R.

Donaovan & V. W. McClelland (Eds.), Eight

approaches to teaching composition (pp. 3–20).

Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of

English.

Puengpipattrakul, W. (2014). A process approach to

writing to develop Thai EFL students' socio-

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

25

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

cognitive skill. Electronic Journal of Foreign

Language Teaching, 11(2), 270–284. Center

for Language Studies, National University of

Singapore. Retrieved December 10, 2016, http://

e-t.nus.edu.sg/v11n22014/puengpipattrakul.pdf

Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do

as they write: A classroom study of composing.

TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229–258. doi:

10.2307/3586828

Raimes, A. (1987). Language prociency, writing

ability, and composing strategies: A study of

ESL college student writers. Language Learning,

37(3), 439–468.

Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL

writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal

of second language writing, 9 (3), 259–291.

Retrieved December 10, 2016, http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00028-X

Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and process

writing. In J. C. Richard & W. A. Renandya

(Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An

anthology of current practice (pp. 315–320).

Edinburgh, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Spandel, V. (2009). Creating writers: Through 6-trait

writing assessment and instruction. Boston:

Pearson.

Stake, R., E. (2010). Qualitative research: How things

work. New York, NY: Guilford Publication Inc.

Stapa, S. H. (1998). The process approach to ESL

writing. Selangor, Malaysia: Fakulti Pengajian

Bahasa, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Stough, L. M. (2001). Using stimulated recall

in classroom observation and professional

development. Paper presented at the American

Educational Research Association, Seattle,

Washington .

Sulistyaningsih. (1997). A descriptive study on rhetoric

in students' expository essay (Unpublished

Master's Thesis). University of Malang, Malang,

Indonesia.

Suriyanti, S., & Yacoob, A. (2016). Exploring teacher

strategies in teaching descriptive writing in

Indonesia. Malaysian Journal of Learning and

Instruction, 13(2), 71–95. Retrieved December

10, 2016, http://repo.uum.edu.my/20599/1/

MJLI%20%2013%202%202016%2071%20

95.pdf

Swain, M. (2006). Verbal protocols: What does it mean

for research to use speaking as a data collection

tool? In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. Chapelle, &

P. Duff (Eds.), Inference and generalizability in

applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp.

97–113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Tucker, J., & Van Bemmel, E. (2002). IELTS to

success: Preparation tips and practice test (2nd

ed.). Australia: John Wiley & Sons.

Whalen, K. (1993). A strategic approach to the

development of second language written

discourse competency: A comparison of mother

tongue and second language written production

processes. Proceedings of the International

Conference of Applied Linguistics (pp. 604–617).

University of Granada Press, Spain.

Williams, J. (2005). Teaching writing in second

and foreign language classrooms. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Williams, J. D. (2003). Preparing to teach writing:

Research, theory, and practice (3rd ed.).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Williams, J. P. (2008). Nonprobability sampling. In L.

M. Given, The sage encyclopedia of qualitative

research methods, 1 & 2, 562–563. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Inc.

Wong, A. T. Y. (2005). Writers' mental representations

of the intended audience and of the rhetorical

purpose for writing and the strategies that they

employed when they composed. System, 33 ,

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

26

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

29–47. Retrieved December 10, 2016, http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.06.009

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering

meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195–209. doi:

10.2307/3586792

Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes

of advanced ESL students: Six case

studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17 (2), 165–187.

doi: 10.2307/3586647. Retrieved December

10, 2016, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586647

A Model of the Writing Process and Strategies of EFL Procient Student Writers

27

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

APPENDIX A

Six-Trait Writing Rubric

6

Exemplary

5

Strong

4

Procient

3

Developing

2

Emerging

1

Beginning

Ideas &

Content

• Main theme

• Supporting

details

Exceptionally

clear, focussed,

engaging with

relevant, strong

supporting

details

Clear,

focussed,

interesting

ideas with

appropriate

details

Evident main

idea with some

support that

may be general

or limited

Main idea

may be cloudy

because

supporting

details are too

general or even

off-topic

Purpose and

main idea may

be unclear

and cluttered

by irrelevant

details

Lacks

central idea;

development

is minimal or

non-existent

Organisation

• Structure

• Introduction

• Conclusion

• Effectively

organised

in logical

and creative

manner

• Creative and

engaging

intro and

conclusion

• Strong order

and structure

• Inviting intro

and satisfying

closure

• Organisation

is

appropriate,

but

conventional

• Attempt at

introduction

and

conclusion

• Attempts at

organisation

may be a

"list" of

events

• Beginning

and

ending not

developed

• Lack of

structure;

disorganised

and hard to

follow

• Missing

or weak

intro and

conclusion

• Lack of

coherence;

confusing

• No

identiable

introduction

or conclusion

Voice

• Personality

• Sense of

Audience

• Expressive,

engaging,

sincere

• Strong sense

of audience

• Show

emotion:

humour,

honesty,

suspense or

life

• Appropriate

to audience

and purpose

• Writer

behind the

words comes

through

• Evident

commitment

to topic

• Inconsistent

or dull

personality

• Voice may be

inappropriate

or non-

existent

• Writing

may seem

mechanical

• Writing tends

to be at or

stiff

• Little or no

hint of writer

behind words

• Writing is

lifeless

• No hint of the

writer

Word Choice

• Precision

• Effective-

ness

• Imagery

• Precise,

carefully

chosen

• Strong, fresh,

vivid image

• Descriptive,

broad range

of words

• Word choice

energises

writing

• Language is

functional

and

appropriate

• Descriptions

may be

overdone at

times

• Words may

be correct but

mundane

• No attempt

at deliberate

choice

• Monotonous,

often

repetitious,

sometimes

inappropriate

• Limited

range of

words

• Some

vocabulary

misused

Sentence

uency

• Rhythm,

ow

• Variety

• High degree

of techniques

• Effective

variation

in sentence

patterns

• Easy ow

and rhythm

• Good variety

in length and

structure

• Generally in

control

• Lack variety

in length and

structure

• Some

awkward

constructions

• Many similar

patterns and

beginning

• Often choppy

• Monotonous

• Frequent run-

on sentences

• Difcult to

follow or

read

• Disjointed,

confusing,

rambling

Convention

• Age

appropriate,

spelling,

caps,

punctuation,

grammar

Exceptionally

strong control

of standard

conventions of

writing

Strong control

of conventions;

errors are few

and minor

Control of

most writing

conventions;

occasional

errors with

high risk

Limited control

of conventions;

frequent

errors do not

interfere with

understanding

Frequent

signicant

errors may

impede

readability

Numerous

errors distract

the reader and

make the text

difcult to read

Abas, Imelda Hermilinda and Noor Hashima Abd Aziz

28

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 26 (3): (2018)

APPENDIX B

Prole of the Participants

Name Erza

(Case 1)

Prita

(Case 2)

Norma

(Case 3)

Suka

(Case 4)

Dani

(Case 5)

Irza

(Case 6)

Age 42 y/o 24 y/o 25 y/o 26 y/o 25 y/o 24 y/o

Undergraduate

English Department,

Hasanuddin

University

English Department,

State University of

Makassar

English Department,

Hasanuddin

University

English Department,

State University of

Makassar

English Department,

Haluoleo Kendari

English Department,

Hasanuddin

University

Post Garduate

Master in

Linguistics, English

Language Studies,

Hasanuddin

University

Master in

Linguistics, English

Language Studies,

Hasanuddin

University

Master in

Linguistics, English

Language Studies,

Hasanuddin

University

Master in

Education, English

Language Studies,

Hasanuddin

University

Master in

Education, English

Language Studies,

Hasanuddin

University

Master in

Linguistics, English

Language Studies,

Hasanuddin

University

Working Experience

16 years' working

experience as an

English teacher

5 years' working

experience as an

English teacher

4 years' working

experience as an

English teacher

5 years' working

experience as an

English teacher

4 years' working

experience as an

English teacher

3 years working

experience as an

English teacher

Frequency Of Using

English Outside The

Class

Using English a lot

at work and not too

often at home

Not using English at

all outside the class

Not using English at

all outside the class

Not too often, used

English to speak

with her mother

during childhood

Not using English at

all outside the class

Not quite often, uses

English to discuss

topics with sister

and father

Prociency Writing

Test Score 34 34 34 34 34 33

Writing Task Score 35 35 34 36 34 35

... The five stages are controlled by reviewing, meaning that a writer may stop at any particular stage to review what has been written before continuing to the next stage. This study adopted a model of process writing consisting of five stages: planning, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing (Abas & Aziz, 2018;Grenville, 2001). ...

There have been a lot of research studies on the role of motivation in education and language learning. However, research on the role of motivation in the area of EFL (English as a foreign language) writing is a rare undertaking. This study aimed to examine the correlation between EFL students' motivation in writing and their writing proficiency. It also compared female and male students in terms of their motivation in writing and their writing proficiency. This study involved 55 university students of English department (17 female and 38 male students) who were required to write essays and respond to a motivation in writing questionnaire. The results showed that there was a high correlation between the EFL students' motivation in writing and their writing proficiency. It was also revealed that there were significant differences in the motivation in writing as well as writing proficiency of the female and male students. The findings of this study suggested that the EFL students who had a higher level of motivation in writing had better writing proficiency. The study also showed that female students outperformed male students in terms of both motivation in writing and writing proficiency.

• Fitri Novia
• Eva Saptarina

The research aim was to find out whether or not there was a significant difference in students' writing performance from descriptive passage among learners who practiced using the Process Writing Approach and those who were not. The design of that research used quasi-experimental. Participants were selected from X TKJ 3 being the experimental group and X TKJ 2 being the control group. Instruments of this study used a written test. There were five topics about the descriptive text in which students chose one of the issues. A paired sample t-test and independent-sample t-test were used to investigate the data. The outcome acquired from the paired sample t-test confirmed that students' writing achievement increased in the descriptive text after using the process writing approach. Independent-samples t-test analysis revealed that pvalue (0.008) was lower than άvalu (0.05). Further analysis indicated a significant difference in students' writing performance from a descriptive passage within learners who practiced using the Process Writing Approach.

• Henrik Køhler Simonsen

Empirical analysis of 20 augmented writing services. In: Kosem, I. & Zingano Kuhn, T. (eds.) (2019). Electronic lexicography in the 21st century (eLex 2019): Smart Lexicography. Book of abstracts. Sintra, Portugal, 1-3 October 2019. Brno: Lexical Computing CZ s.r.o.

• Henrik Køhler Simonsen

Med udgangspunkt i en empirisk analyse og test af 16 forskellige AW-teknologier vil jeg for det første redegøre for, hvad AW er, og hvad AW i øjeblikket kan.

• Sufatmi Suriyanti
• Aizan Yaacob

Purpose-This paper is the outcome of a study which examined teacher strategies in teaching descriptive writing to junior high school students in Delitua, North Sumatra, Indonesia. The study was based on two questions: 1) What are the teaching strategies used by EFL teachers in teaching descriptive writing? 2) To what extent did the descriptive writing intervention change the EFL teacher teaching strategies? Methodology-The qualitative data were obtained from observations, interviews and student writing. An intervention conducted with four teachers for four months using Spencer's Writing Model (2005) to enhance the teaching of writing strategies was examined. The data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic coding. Findings-The findings revealed that the teachers used limited strategies in teaching writing due to their lack of knowledge and understanding of the writing approaches. However, after the writing intervention, they improved their instructional strategies by incorporating richer writing descriptions which contained sensory details, figurative language and vivid words. Significance-These findings can be used as teaching guidelines for EFL writing in any teacher professional development programmes. Training of teachers could be a starting point not only to increase teachers' knowledge and skills in teaching writing but also to increase their awareness of the beliefs about teaching and learning. Our study provided evidence that training can bring about changes in teachers' pedagogical practices which in turn, will lead to a more meaningful learning environment for their learners.

• Walaipun Puengpipattrakul

In a competitive and product-driven EFL classroom context, more and more teaching approaches have been geared primarily toward assisting students to master language skills rather than building up their socio-cognitive skills. Both blended skills are crucial to students' future academic and professional success. This paper reports on a study investigating whether and how a process approach to writing instructions helps develop the socio-cognitive skills of 24 first-year Thai Sports Science undergraduate students. The study also explores the students' opinions about this approach to their socio-cognitive skills development. The quantitative data from the scores of group writing tasks, socio-cognitive skills and self-assessment indicate that in addition to the students' improved writing ability, the approach enhanced their socio-cognitive development at different degrees. Three underlying causes of such degrees are discussed. The qualitative results from ten students' interview responses show that the process-approach instruction was viewed as a useful means to develop their affective, social, and cognitive processes. The paper concludes with implications and recommendations for further studies. © Centre for Language Studies National University of Singapore.

• Melissa Bowles

The Think-Aloud Controversy in Second Language Research aims to answer key questions about the validity and uses of think-alouds, verbal reports completed by research participants while they perform a task. It offers an overview of how think-alouds have been used in language research and presents a quantitative meta-analysis of findings from studies involving verbal tasks and think-alouds. The book begins by presenting the theoretical background and empirical research that has examined the reactivity of think-alouds, then offers guidance regarding the practical issues of data collection and analysis, and concludes with implications for the use of think-alouds in language research. With its focus on a much-discussed and somewhat controversial data elicitation method in language research, this timely work is relevant to students and researchers from all theoretical perspectives who collect first or second language data. It serves as a valuable guide for any language researcher who is considering using think-alouds.

All Of The Following Are Writing Strategies Associated With Editing Except

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327972100_Model_of_the_Writing_Process_and_Strategies_of_EFL_Proficient_Student_Writers_A_Case_Study_of_Indonesian_Learners

Posted by: cartiertoloses.blogspot.com

Share this post