2.

Literature Review

2.1 The Skill Of Writing

2.2.1.Writing as a pedagogical Activity

It has been commonly agreed that writing is a complex, purposeful act of communication that
involves generating, organizing, and expressing ideas in a written ,structured and coherent
manner. According to Nunan (1989), writing is “the mental work of inventing ideas, thinking
about how to express them, and organizing them into statements and paragraphs that will be
clear to a reader.” However, writing is not merely the transcription of thoughts into words; it
is a cognitive and social process that requires reflection and an awareness of the reader. In
EFL teaching contexts, particularly in second language learning, writing serves as a powerful
tool for instruction following different approaches in teaching it .

In fact, the emergence of writing as an academic subject has brought about different
contrastive conceptions that have shaped writing instructional methods. Teaching writing,
especially in a second language context, has undergone an evolution from regarding it as mere
language and grammatical structures to focusing on genre and context as essential elements
that shape the writing process. This shift in focus has been highlighted in Hyland’s Second
Language Writing (2019). Hyland (2019), in this context, has delineated that writing was
initially viewed as merely a coherent arrangement of words, clauses, and sentences structured
according to a set of rules. Such a limited view of writing confines it into its structural aspect
while neglecting its contextual and meaningful force. In fact, such a view of writing, rooted in
structuralism and behaviorism, shapes writing as a product of imitation and model
manipulation (Hyland, 2019). In this regard, Hyland (2019) posits that writing has been
rendered as “a means of reinforcing language patterns through habit formation.” This
mechanical aspect of writing has attributed supremacy to the level of accuracy in students’
writings at the expense of communicative content and meaning (Hyland, 2019). In Hyland’s
words, “Most teachers are familiar with students who can construct accurate sentences and yet
are unable to produce appropriate written texts.” To further explain, writing does not solely
depend on accuracy but on various criteria such as context, meaning, and communicative
purpose. To achieve a well-elaborated piece of writing, students should strive to convey their
ideas in a coherent and meaningful manner that demonstrates accuracy and fluency.
Structural and Functional Approaches to Writing

In this regard, a second shift in focus was observed from language structures to text functions.
This shift from formal to functional approaches of writing has brought about a novel
perspective of writing. This functional approach, according to Hyland (2019), is achieved by
assisting students to produce “effective compositions” through the creation of topic sentences
and transitions. Different functions can be highlighted through writing such as categorizing,
exemplifying, describing a process, describing causality, and comparing and contrasting. This
functional approach, in turn, further guides and facilitates the task of writing for EFL students
who encounter several challenges in second language writing. In fact, this transition from
sentence-level accuracy to discourse-level communicative purposes echoes broader
pedagogical developments across decades. As noted by Paltridge et al. (2009), early methods
such as the controlled composition approach prevalent between the 1940s and 1960s focused
mostly on grammatical accuracy through pattern-based repetition. However, by the mid-
1960s, educators recognized the need to emphasize writing’s rhetorical and communicative
roles, leading to the adoption of approaches centered on functions like comparison,
description, and contrast. These shifts laid the development of both the functional and process
approaches.

Expressivist and Process Approaches

The third orientation in teaching writing is considering writing as a creative expression, taking
the writer as the main focus rather than the text. Such an approach was employed by a
Japanese teacher who stated that “challenging his students to be creative in expressing
themselves has allowed them to express their feelings and opinions freely.” Thus, teaching
writing as artistic expression stimulates students’ creative genius rather than being merely a
taught or learnt subject. In this sense, the individual or the student is granted the freedom of
self-expression through writing. According to Hyland (2019), expressivism as an approach is
crucial in supporting writers to explore their beliefs, engage with the ideas of others, and
connect with readers. Thus, this view of writing deconstructs the rigid barriers of
structuralism and functionalism to elevate it into the realm of creativity and self-discovery.
However, while creativity is essential in the process of writing, teachers should provide
further assistance for their students in order to guide their thinking and cognitive process. In
this context, writing is not a mere product of students’ efforts but a process that translates
their mental and cognitive processing. This view considers composition as an interactive and
collaborative endeavor between the writer, the text, and the reader. Similar to the creative
view of writing, the process approach’s main focus is on the writer as an independent
producer of texts and the role of teachers in guiding students’ thinking process. In this sense,
Flower and Hayes (1981) consider writing “as a non-linear, exploratory, and generative
process whereby writers discover and reformulate their ideas as they attempt to approximate
meaning” (Zamel, 1983, as cited in Hyland, 2019). In this context, pre-writing activities have
become an integral part of the writing process in the drafting stage, as they allow students to
generate ideas about content and structure, brainstorm, and create outlines. In this sense,
planning and pre-writing are important and integral parts in the writing process, as they allow
the writer to better organize their ideas and guide their cognitive processing. Indeed, this
reflects the broader acceptance of the process approach from the 1970s onwards, which
encouraged students to let ideas drive the structure of their writing (Silva, 1990), shifting
away from rigid models toward more generative and exploratory writing.

Genre-Based and Socio-Cognitive Approaches

Another crucial approach to consider when teaching writing is to focus on content. In other
terms, choosing a topic that meets the requirements of the students’ level allows students to
better adhere to writing instructions. Among the various orientations to writing instruction,
the genre-based approach views writing as a purposeful and communicative activity rather
than reducing it to its formal features such as grammar or content. From this perspective,
writing is a communicative act that is shaped by context, audience, and intention, where EFL
learners are guided to produce texts that are coherent and appropriate for social situations. As
Hyon (1996) explains, genre traditions whether grounded in English for Specific Purposes,
New Rhetoric, or Systemic Functional Linguistics contribute unique perspectives on how
writers engage with discourse communities. These traditions highlight that successful writing
instruction equips learners with genre awareness, audience consideration, and context-
sensitive expression. More recently, scholars have proposed integrating these traditions into a
socio-cognitive pedagogy, which emphasizes both the cognitive processes involved in writing
and the communicative demands placed on writers. This approach aims to help learners
develop writing that is not only accurate and fluent but also rhetorically effective and
cognitively supported. While these evolving perspectives have significantly shaped writing
pedagogy, understanding how writing skills develop and differ across first and second
language contexts remains essential for tailoring effective instructional approaches

2.2.2 . L1 and L2 Writing

Key Differences between L1 and L2 Writing

The investigation of writing as an essential skill in the pedagogical realm has yielded a
growing body of research on the distinction between first and second language writing. While
writing in a native first language represents an authentic manifestation of one’s linguistic and
cultural background, second language writing presents several challenges especially for EFL
learners whose first language differs from English. The intricate and complex nature of
second language writing hinders students from freely expressing themselves in written form,
often resulting in inaccurate or incomplete essays. According to Leiki et al. (2008), in terms
of cohesion and organisation, L2 writing tends to be weaker, shorter, and less complex than
L1 writing. In this sense, students when writing in their first language often produce more
complex and lengthy compositions that reflect greater writing skill. However, the challenges
inherent in L2 writing prevent students from clearly expressing their ideas. Similarly,
Farvardin (2009) and Park (1986) observed subtle differences between L1 and L2 writing,
concluding that L1 texts are typically longer and contain more T-units per sentence, indicating
higher syntactic complexity. In terms of lexis, L2 writing has been shown to be less lexically
varied and sophisticated than L1 writing, which contributes to reduced writing proficiency
(Crossley and McNamara, 2009). Additionally, in terms of grammatical accuracy, students are
more susceptible to errorsespecially with verbs, prepositions, articles, and nouns when writing
in a second language (Silva, 1993; Doolan and Miller, 2012). While such errors may indicate
weaknesses in writing performance, they do not necessarily reflect students’ actual linguistic
competence. Regarding fluency, students tend to produce fewer and shorter sentences due to
cognitive and affective burdens (Benson et al., 1992). In this sense, writing cognitive load is a
driving factor behind reduced fluency in L2 writing. Certain genres, such as argumentative
writing, impose a particularly heavy burden on students' cognitive resources, preventing them
from producing accurate and fluent essays.
Pre-task Planning between L1 and L2 Writing

Another critical dimension in which L1 and L2 writing diverge is the role of pre-task
planning. In L1 writing, planning processes such as idea generation, goal setting, and
outlining are typically more automatic and efficient due to the writer’s fluency and familiarity
with genre-specific structures (Wang and Wen, 2002; Sasaki, 2000). L1 writers often rely on
internalized strategies and cognitive schemas, enabling them to allocate more cognitive
resources to content development and rhetorical organization (Flower & Hayes, 1981). In
contrast, L2 writers frequently experience interference from limited language proficiency,
which limits their ability to generate, organize, and structure ideas effectively during the pre-
writing phase (Manchón et al., 2007; Roca de Larios et al., 2008). As a result, planning in L2
tends to be either reduced or interrupted, leading to essays that are less cohesive and less
rhetorically effective. Research also indicates that the cognitive demands of L2 writing,
particularly during pre-task phases, can overload working memory and reduce overall writing
performance (Kellogg, 1996; Ong & Zhang, 2010). To mitigate this, studies such as Ojima
(2006) and Johnson et al. (2012) have shown that explicit instruction in pre-task planning,
including techniques like mind mapping, collaborative brainstorming, and graphic organizers,
can significantly enhance the writing quality and confidence of L2 learners. Thus, integrating
structured planning activities becomes essential to support learners in overcoming the
linguistic and cognitive challenges related to argumentative writing.

2.2.3 . Argumentative Writing and its challenges

Understanding Argumentative Writing in Academia

Argumentative writing is widely recognized as one of the most essential genres in academic
contexts, particularly at the university level. At its core, argumentative writing refers to the act
of expressing a clear stance on a specific issue or topic and justifying that position through
logical reasoning and credible evidence (Wolfe et al., 2009). This genre requires students not
only to articulate their viewpoint but also to anticipate counterarguments and refute them in a
structured and coherent manner. According to Allen et al. (2019), argumentative writing is
more than a mechanical task; it involves complex cognitive processes that are shaped by the
writer’s purpose, awareness of the audience, the academic context, and expected rhetorical
patterns. Therefore, mastering argumentative writing entails more than just language
proficiency, it demands a synthesis of critical thinking, organization, and persuasive
communication.

Given the high expectations associated with this genre, writing argumentative compositions
poses significant challenges for second language (L2) learners. In many English language
learning programs, argumentative writing is not only a cornerstone of academic success but
also a benchmark for intellectual maturity and the development of scholarly voice. However,
for students writing in a language that is not their mother tongue, crafting a persuasive and
well-structured argumentative essay often proves to be a daunting task. This is particularly
true for students who have limited experience writing academic texts in their first language
(L1), which further complicates the transfer of rhetorical knowledge across languages (Zhao,
2017).

Empirical Evidence on Argumentative Challenges

In their 2020 study, Ozfidan and Mitchell (2020) investigated the common difficulties
encountered by Saudi undergraduate students when writing argumentative essays in English.
Their findings contribute to a broader understanding of the struggles that many L2 learners
face and offer insights that can guide improvements in instructional practices. The
significance of their research lies in identifying the obstacles that hinder students’
performance and in highlighting the need for targeted pedagogical interventions. Their study
reveals that these learners often encounter difficulties on multiple levels, including
organization, clarity of argument, use of evidence, and control over academic style. Such
findings are not limited to Saudi learners but reflect a widespread phenomenon among L2
academic writers.

One of the main challenges discussed in the literature is the organizational structure of the
argumentative essay. As Hyland (1990) suggests, an effective argumentative essay typically
includes three key components: a thesis that presents the main claim, a body that develops
arguments and counterarguments, and a conclusion that reinforces the central position. Many
L2 learners, however, struggle with maintaining this structure, often producing essays that
lack cohesion or logical flow. In addition, students frequently experience difficulties in
integrating academic sources, identifying relevant evidence, and constructing topic sentences
that align with their thesis (Granger & Tyson, 1996; Victori, 1999; Al-Haq & Ahmed, 1994).
These structural issues hinder the clarity and persuasiveness of their writing.
Beyond structural issues, there are also linguistic and stylistic problems. Grammar,
punctuation, academic tone, and vocabulary use are persistent challenges that impact the
clarity and credibility of students’ arguments. Moreover, learners often fail to include
counterclaims and rebuttals effectively, which weakens the persuasive power of their writing.
These difficulties are compounded by psychological and cognitive factors such as anxiety,
lack of confidence, and limited awareness of metacognitive strategies (Rahmatunisa, 2014;
Zhu, 2001).

Theoretical Frameworks for Argumentative Writing

From a theoretical perspective, approaches to L2 writing have evolved to account for both
genre-based instruction and cultural influences on rhetorical style. Atkinson (2018)
emphasizes the importance of understanding the theoretical underpinnings of L2 writing,
including genre theory and contrastive rhetoric. Hyland’s (1990) descriptive framework for
teaching argumentative essays advocates for explicit instruction in the rhetorical structure of
the genre. This approach not only helps students become familiar with the conventions of
academic argumentation but also empowers them to adapt these conventions to various
contexts. It also encourages the development of a sense of academic identity, enabling
students to enter scholarly conversations with confidence.

Several studies have investigated how students engage with argumentative writing tasks. For
instance, Shahriari and Shadloo (2019) analyzed the use of engagement markers in EFL
learners’ argumentative essays. Their research revealed that students often do not make
systematic use of such markers, which suggests a lack of awareness about how to connect
with readers rhetorically. Similarly, Schneer (2014) found that the quality of argumentative
writing was not necessarily linked to the use of engagement features, prompting scholars to
reconsider how writing quality is assessed and how rubrics are designed. These findings
reflect a broader need for writing instruction to move beyond form and grammar to include
rhetorical awareness and audience engagement.

Other studies have addressed the role of hedging devices, task complexity, and authorial voice
in argumentative writing. Lee and Deakin (2016) found that stronger essays, whether in L1 or
L2, tended to include more hedging, indicating a more nuanced and academic tone. However,
L2 learners were generally less likely to assert their presence in the text, reflecting a
reluctance or uncertainty in adopting an authoritative stance. Ong and Zhang (2010) explored
how different writing tasks influence fluency and lexical complexity. They discovered that
students who engaged in free writing outperformed those in more structured pre-task groups,
highlighting the importance of task design in fostering writing development. Such insights
have profound implications for how instructors scaffold argumentative writing tasks.

In conclusion, argumentative writing remains one of the most demanding yet essential genres
for L2 learners. It requires a blend of linguistic proficiency, rhetorical awareness, and
cognitive flexibility. The findings from Ozfidan and Mitchell’s (2020) study showcase the
multifaceted nature of these challenges and point to the need for more strategic and
responsive teaching practices. In this regard, different approaches have been investigated such
as the process -based and the genre-based approaches which have revolutionized the
pedagogical field and altered the perception of writing from its structural and formal nature to
its cognitive and socially-situated contexts.

2.2.4 Writing as a process : The Process-Based Approach

2.2.4.1 Writing as a cognitive process

The late 20th century has marked a paradigm shift from structuralism to cognitivism known
as the cognitive revolution. In fact, various scholars have sought to recognize the importance
of shifting the focus from the structural and formal aspect of language to its underlying and
interal cognitive mechanisms.While second language writing has been widely recognized as a
product, an outcome of students’ efforts and endeavours to produce a well-elaborate piece of
writing , writing is not a mere act of comunication or a final product of students’
efforts.Rather, it is a highly complex cognitive activity that requires deep thinking , problem-
solving and creativity Traditional models have often presented writing as a linear sequence of
stages including pre-writing, drafting and revising. However, more recent research challenges
this view, proposing that writing is far more recursive , strategic, and emotionally involved
than as the product approach.

To further delve into the complex and multifaceted nature of the writing activity, scholars
have sought to examine this concept from various angles.While some have focused on the
strategic aspects of composing, highlighting how writers plan, solve problems, and manage
goals throughout the writing process. Others emphasize its developmental role, illustrating
how writing facilitates learning, critical thinking, and intellectual growth. A third perspective
draws attention to the intuitive and expressive qualities of writing, suggesting that writers are
guided by internal, often non-verbal cues and emotional insights.

Initially , Writing as a process does not solely focus on the end product but the process itself.
In fact , Zhou (2023) contends that writing as a process does not solely limit itself in
producing mere written compositions but it also shows a high involvement of the writer
himself through his internal and « non-obvious » cognitive processes such as brainstorming,
generating ideas, making connections , planning , outlining and organizing his thoughts
through visual –tools including concept and mind maps. In fact, viewing writing from a
cognitive lens involves examining its multifaceted nature through three interconnected
dimensions: strategic, developmental, and intuitive. First, the strategic dimension considers
writing as a problem-solving process in which writers must set goals, anticipate writing
challenges, and manage setbacks. Bracewell (1980) emphasizes that writing is not merely
about producing coherent sentences, but about actively navigating decisions related to
audience, purpose, and organization. This perspective is echoed in the influential model
proposed by Flower and Hayes (1981), who outline three core processes involved in
composition:

Planning : which involves generating and organizing ideas

Translating : which entails expressing those ideas in language

Reviewing :which focuses on evaluating and revising the emerging text.

Crucially, these processes are recursive. writers cycle through them continuously, rather than
moving through a fixed sequence. At the center of this model is a monitor that helps the writer
make decisions , such as whether to elaborate, revise, or reframe a section of text. By
engaging in these ongoing, deliberate choices, writers activate higher-order cognitive skills
such as analysis, evaluation, and synthesis skills central to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Building on
this foundation,Kellog (1996) highlights the importance of pre-task planning, noting that
writers who invest cognitive effort in organizing ideas before drafting tend to write more
coherently and fluently. His research emphasizes that pre-writing activities are not peripheral
but fundamental to effective composition, as they allow writers to reduce cognitive load and
during text production. This reinforces the need to view writing as a dynamic and strategic
activity, in which planning both before and during writing plays a crucial role.

In addition to its strategic aspects, writing also plays a vital developmental role in learning
and cognitive growth. As Emig (1971) argues, writing is a unique mode of learning that
engages multiple mental faculties and promotes reflection, analysis, and synthesis. It is not
merely a medium for recording thoughts, but a cognitive tool through which learners actively
construct and refine understanding. When considered through the framework of Bloom’s
Taxonomy, writing becomes an especially powerful pedagogical activity, as it encourages
students to engage with higher-order thinking skills such as applying, analyzing, evaluating,
and creating. These levels of cognition are essential not only for academic success but also for
fostering independent, critical thought. Writing enables learners to explore connections
between ideas, question assumptions, and articulate their evolving perspectives

Finally, the intuitive dimension of writing draws attention to its emotional, experiential, and
recursive nature. Perl (1980) introduces the concept of felt sense to describe the internal, often
non-verbal awareness that guides writers’ decisions.. In this way, writing becomes an act of
inner listening as much as outer expression. Sommers (1980) extends this perspective by
highlighting how experienced writers engage in ongoing revision not as an afterthought, but
as an essential part of the composing process. Rather than polishing grammar or correcting
errors, these writers re-see and re-conceptualize their texts in light of evolving ideas and
audience awareness. This recursive process reveals that writing is not just logical, but also
deeply affective and reflective, shaped by both thought and emotion. Pedagogically, this
suggests the importance of creating writing environments that support risk-taking,
exploration, and personal voice especially in early drafts.

2.2.4.2 . Pre-task Planning

The integration of writing in the pedagogical field has yielded novel perspectives that
examine this skill as to render it an instruction tool or activity that differs from other skills in
terms of productivity and creativity. Indeed, writing is a creative activity par excellence.
However, its cognitively demanding nature has created a debate among researchers and
writing experts as they sought to alleviate mental load and improve writing quality through
implementing pre-writing strategies. In this context, pre-task planning as a key concept in
writing research has been widely considered as an effective means to alleviate mental strain
and enhance writing quality.However, various studies have highlighted mixed and
inconsistent findings.

Primarily, Kellogg (1990) posits that pre-task planning, when viewed from a macro-structural
perspective, may reduce the risk of attentional overload during the writing process. In his
earlier work, Kellogg (1988) identified two primary pre-writing strategies: outlining and
clustering. Outlining, a traditional hierarchical approach, improves both the generation and
structural organization of ideas, therefore enhancing overall writing quality. Clustering, as
described by Rico (1983), involves visually organizing interconnected ideas, allowing writers
to form associations and better plan for their written work.

Empirical findings on the effectiveness of pre-task planning, however, remain mixed,

particularly in the context of second-language (L2) writing and across various genres. For
example, Ellis and Yuan (2004) reported that unstructured pre-task planning led to
improvements in syntactic complexity, fluency, and accuracy in narrative writing tasks. In
contrast, Ong and Zhang (2010) found that extended pre-task planning time in argumentative
writing tasks resulted in decreased fluency and lexical complexity, suggesting that prolonged
or unfocused planning may induce cognitive overload rather than facilitate writing
performance. These findings showcase the importance of genre-specific types of writing and
their contribution to the effectiveness of pre-task planning .

To further elaborate, Based on Johnson et al (2012)’s study , who examined the subprocesses
of pre-task planning namely idea generation, organization, and goal setting among Spanish-
speaking learners of English. Their results showed no significant differences in grammatical
or lexical complexity across planning conditions and only a marginal benefit of organizational
planning on fluency. Similarly, Tabari (2016) found that Iranian EFL learners who engaged in
pre-writing planning outperformed their peers in terms of fluency but showed no significant
improvements in writing accuracy.

From a cognitive perspective , more recent research has sought to delineate the cognitive
benefits of pre-task planning. For instance, Rahimi (2016) found that pre-task planning
enhanced both fluency and the organizational structure of learners’ texts, although it did not
consistently improve lexical complexity. Shahmohammadi et al (2021) showed similar
findings to demonstrate that pre-task planning helped reduce cognitive load and increase
fluency, yet improvements in other linguistic domains were not observed. Khezrlou (2020)
emphasized the role of pre-task planning in improving organization, syntactic complexity, and
accuracy, while also noting that training learners in planning strategies contributed to more
positive attitudes toward writing. Similarly, Mojavezi and Afghari (2015) concluded that
planning supported gains in syntactic complexity and accuracy, though the effectiveness of
these improvements was dependent on the complexity of the writing task and learner
proficiency levels.
Additional empirical evidence shows that pre-task planning can significantly support fluency
(Rahimpour & Nariman-Jahan, 2011; Meraji, 2011; Rostamian et al., 2018; Tabari, 2023),
accuracy (Biria & Karimi, 2015; Tabari & Golparvar, 2024), and cohesion (Rahimpour &
Safarie, 2011; Tabari & Golparvar, 2024). For instance, learners who engaged in planning
produced texts with fewer self-repairs, more cohesive argument structures, and higher levels
of grammatical precision. Strategic planning behaviors such as note-taking, outlining, and
metacognitive monitoring were particularly effective in promoting linguistic complexity and
cohesion. Vocabulary-focused planning (Kaur et al., 2018) and repeated guided planning
(Guerrero-Gomez et al., 2024) further aided lexical development and grammatical control.

Nevertheless, several studies have reported either limited or no effects of planning on certain
linguistic domains. Farahani and Faryabi (2016) found no significant differences in
complexity, accuracy, or fluency due to planning, possibly due to insufficient internalization
of the strategy. Similarly, Ebrahimi et al. (2019) reported that while planning enhanced
complexity, it did not improve fluency or accuracy. Lin (2013) also found that planning
improved lexical awareness but not syntactic complexity or organization. These mixed
outcomes highlight the interplay of multiple variables, such as time constraints, task type, and
individual differences in metacognitive awareness.

To conclude, while a growing body of research supports the benefits of pre-task planning in
enhancing various aspects of writing performance, its effectiveness is not universal. Key
influencing factors include the type and structure of planning, the writing genre, task
complexity, and individual learner characteristics such as proficiency level and metacognitive
awareness. Planning appears to be particularly effective in narrative writing, which generally
requires less cognitive effort in terms of logical reasoning and argument development. In
contrast, argumentative writing imposes higher cognitive demands due to its requirement for
structured reasoning, coherence, and persuasive strategies. Therefore, the role of pre-task
planning in L2 argumentative writing remains an area worth the investigation ,particularly in
identifying planning strategies that are best suited for cognitively demanding writing tasks.

2.1.5. SFL perspective of writing : The Genre-Based Approach

Linguistic studies have yielded significant findings concerning genre study and analysis.
Originally, genre as a term stems from biological classification systems which has evolved to
become a key concept in a myriad of disciplines, including film, literature, and linguistics. In
the field of applied linguistics, genre theory is deeply rooted in Systemic Functional
Linguistics (SFL), a framework developed by Halliday (1978) that conceptuaizes language as
a social semiotic system intrinsically linked to its context of use. This framework laid the
foundation for understanding genre as a goal-oriented, socially situated communicative event
(Martin, 1999; Swales, 1990), one that is influenced by and reflects the specific purposes,
expectations, and practices of distinct discourse communities. To further explain , the study of
genre is essentially a socially-oriented endeavor that transcends mere structure to
contextually-based constructs.

In this regard, Dirgeyasa (2016) posits that genre in linguistics is not merely a textual
classification but a dynamic social process, marked by regularities in content, form, structure,
and communicative purpose. In this light, genre analysis emerges as a method for examining
how language functions within institutionalized academic and professional settings. It has
been defined variously: as the typification of rhetorical action (Miller, 1984; Bazerman,
1994), the recognition of regular staged patterns in communicative behavior (Martin, 1993),
and the identification of shared communicative purposes (Swales, 1990; Bhatia, 1993). These
perspectives , in turn, further accentuate the dynamic nature of genres and indicate the
integration of genres withi the fiber of social norms and conventions (Bhatia,2004) .

Genres , indeed,encompass several domains . However, it has become essential to examine

the impact of genre in the pedagogical field essenially in the domain of second language
writing. According to Dirgeyasa (2016) , genre-based writing (GBW) functions both as a
pedagogical approach and a textual framework. It shifts writing instruction from focusing
solely on correctness or creativity to a more holistic model grounded in social function, form,
and communicative purpose. He highlights the dual nature of genre as both a product and a
process . This process is typically operationalized through the Teaching and Learning Cycle
(TLC), which guides students from modeling expert texts to independent writing,
emphasizing context, audience, and purpose throughout.

The effectiveness of this model has been empirically validated in multiple contexts,
particularly through the work of Nagao (2018, 2019, 2020). In his 2018 study on Japanese
university students, Nagao demonstrated that GBW led to measurable improvements in
students’ ability to structure argumentative essays. Learners were better able to identify
rhetorical stages (e.g., introduction, thesis, counterarguments, conclusion), and they showed
increased control over contrastive conjunctions and hedging expressions. Nagao (2019)
further confirmed that genre-based instruction, when grounded in SFL, enhances
lexicogrammatical awareness, especially in relation to the three metafunctions. Students
improved their use of experiential meanings (material and relational processes), interpersonal
meanings (modal verbs and adverbs signaling stance), and textual meanings (cohesive devices
and thematic progression). His work highlighted that these gains were possible because of a
top–down scaffolding approach, where students first understood the social purpose of a genre
and then selected appropriate linguistic resources to realize itcontrasting with traditional
bottom-up grammar teaching.

In 2020, Nagao expanded his inquiry to assess how genre awareness impacts students’
perceptions of writing as a socially embedded activity. His findings supported the view that
GBW fosters reader-oriented writing and encourages learners to treat language as purposeful
communication rather than mechanical production. He also identified a gap in SFL-based
assessment: while genre instruction enhances writing fluency and structure, there is still a lack
of tools that assess texts using all three metafunctions holistically .This suggests a need for
deeper evaluative models that align with the SFL perspective.

On the whole, these findings reinforce the claims made by Dirgeyasa (2016), showing that
genre-based writing especially when guided by SFL is not only theoretically grounded but
also pedagogically impactful. Students gain not just control over structure and grammar, but a
nuanced awareness of how texts function within specific social and academic contexts. These
developments also point to the transformative potential of genre-based instruction,
particularly for EFL learners navigating unfamiliar rhetorical and linguistic norms. While
genre-based instruction emphasizes the social and functional dimensions of writing within
specific discourse contexts, recent pedagogical shifts have also foregrounded the value of
collaborative practices, where writing becomes a shared, interactive process shaped through
peer engagement.

2.1.6. Collaborative Writing

Grounded in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, which emphasizes the centrality of social

interaction in educational settings , writing as a pedagogical activity has shifted from being
viewed solely as an individual endeavor to being recognized as a collaborative process where
students work together to produce written work. Collaborative writing is rooted in the
communicative language teaching approach, which emphasizes collaborative learning and
fosters a student-centered classroom environment rather than a teacher-centered one. The
process of learning through collaboration has been investigated by various researchers. Foley
and Thompson (2013) highlight the importance of collaborative learning as it is a key aspect
of language development and acquisition. When students collaborate to produce a piece of
writing or to learn a new concept, they tend to achieve better results than when working
individually (Storch, 2019). In this context, collaborative writing is a clear manifestation of
collaborative learning. Storch (2019) defines it as an activity in which two or more writers
work together to produce a single text. Lowry et al. (2004) further emphasize the social aspect
of writing, noting that group work focuses on a common goal and involves negotiation,
collaboration, and discussion during the creation of a shared text.
Empirical studies support the effectiveness of collaborative writing as a learning approach.
Storch (2019) demonstrated that collaborative writing leads to more accurate writing,
enhanced vocabulary, and improved ideas and content. Similarly, Dobao and Blum (2013)
and Watanabe and Swain (2007) found that students who collaborate during writing sessions
learn from each other and produce more accurate essays. The measurement of writing
accuracy has been significant across different studies, with most aiming to demonstrate the
positive impact of collaborative learning on the quality of students’ written outcomes. For
argumentative compositions, collaborative writing plays a role in enhancing writing quality.
According to Vilarreal and Gil Sarratea (2019), students working collaboratively tend to
produce better argumentative compositions in terms of accuracy, grammar, lexis, structure,
and organization. However, despite the focus on writing accuracy, the aspect of fluency was
underexplored. Recent research by Pham (2021), however, has demonstrated that
collaborative writing significantly improves students’ writing fluency, as students who
engaged in collaborative writing activities not only wrote more words in both collaborative
and individual essays but also showed statistically significant gains in fluency compared to
those who wrote individually.