You are on page 1of 21

Faculty of Arts and Humanities II

English and American Studies

Master of Education

Term Paper

The Writing Approaches and Process Writing

Seminar: Managing the Plurality of Texts and Discourse Genres in

Contemporary Communication

Lecturer: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Zydatiß

Student: Esra Çil

Student Number: 423451

Table of contents

1. Introduction 2

2. Teaching writing 2

2.1. Nature of writing 2

2.2 The approaches of writing 3

2.2.1. Controlled & Guided Writing 3

2.2.2. Genre Approach 4

2.2.3. Creative Writing 5

3. Process Writing 5

3.1.Stages of process writing 9

3.1.1. Prewriting 9

3.1.2. Composing/Drafting 11

3.1.3. Revising/Editing 13

3.2.Activities 15

4. Conclusion 16

5. Appendices 17

6. References 20

1. Introduction

In this paper, I will write about teaching writing in classrooms of English as a foreign
language. I will briefly mention the nature of writing and the writing approaches that have
been developed so far. My emphasis will be on a particular approach of writing, The Process
Approach. I will explain this approach, its history and its implications in English and
introduce two tasks for learners with high level of English competency that can be used in this

2. Teaching Writing

2.1. Nature of Writing

Writing is often associated with making use of graphic symbols, which is the basis of
the production of speech. However, production of any written work requires not only using
these symbols, but also devising sentences and ordering them in a cohesive way. The activity
of writing itself is not expected to be accomplished in a spur of the moment, unless what we
would be writing about is decided in our minds beforehand. It is also likely that this activity is
recurred many times by drafting and revising before its completion. (Byrne, 1988)
For that reason, Halliday (1989) says that in contrast to speaking, writing is not to be
regarded as an intrinsically acquired ability or limited to a person’s capacity (as cited in
Tribble, 2003). In spite of that fact, writing has been disregarded by many major linguists like
Saussure and Chomsky, with the idea that written language is only the output of the spoken
language (Brookes & Grundy, 1988). However, there are many differences between speaking
and writing that refutes this idea.
Byrne (1988) differentiates between speech and writing in seven items. Although there
are exceptions to these facts, due to the advancements in technology, I would like to mention
a few of them. Speech occurs in a context without obscure references, whereas writing forms
its own context in an explicit way. Regarding the audience, in speech, there is a constant
interaction between the speaker and listener, their roles can be interchanged and the speaker
often knows whom she/he is addressing. But in writing, although there are cases such as
instant messaging via modern communication devices and applications, in other cases, the
reader is not always nearby and sometimes not known to the writer. Moreover, in speech,

what is said is reserved for that specific moment in time, in other words, it’s temporary, unless
recorded, whereas what is written is recorded, which makes it permanent.

2.2. The models and approaches of writing

Raimes (1983) claims that the ways of teaching writing are not restricted to one way.
In fact, as Harmer (2001) says, there is a lot of diversity regarding the teaching writing
approaches. The main approaches he lists are: Process Approach, Product Approach, Genre
Approach and Creative Writing. Before elaborating on these approaches, he suggests the
teachers to make the decision whether they prefer giving their emphasis on process or
product, on creative expression or on exploring a variety of genres. Tribble (2003) also
mentions the two major writing approaches, Process Approach and Genre Approach. Other
approaches that the authors of these twenty-first century books (i.e. Harmer & Tribble) didn’t
include are Controlled Writing and Guided Writing. However much similar they are both in
theory and application, Raimes (1983) claims the existence of a fine line between them
eventually causing them to overlap.
I intend to explain four of these above-mentioned approaches briefly and later expand
on one specifically, Process Approach, and provide samples of tasks and activities related to
that approach.

2.2.1. Controlled and Guided Writing

As it is explained earlier, there are slight differences between these two approaches.
As to Raimes (1983), the most distinguishing of them is about how much control the
performer of the activity should implement to perform it. Another factor is that in controlled
writing activities, the answers are already set; hence, there is not much scope or expectation
for creative expression. Moreover, these types of activities are mostly form-focused, whereas
guided writing tends to be meaning-focused and give more emphasis on the process of
There are five types of activities that are used in controlled writing. Raimes (1983)
categorizes them as
1. Controlled Composition
2. Question and Answer
3. Guided Composition

4. Sentence Combining
5. Parallel Writing.
They are not necessarily designed to be following this certain sequence; however, as it
follows the activities require more production to some extent on the part of learners. The first
of them starts with introduction of model texts and the students are required to change some
parts of it. Then, it goes on to introducing questions to be answered from close-ended to more
open-ended ones. In the last activities in this sequence, the sentences are combined and texts
are rewritten, thus allowing more production.

2.2.2. Genre Approach

The main idea behind genre writing is to make students analyze as many as texts as
they can, related to a specific genre before starting to produce their own works on that genre
This approach is usually associated with the field of ESP (English for Specific Purposes)
Nevertheless, the use of it in any English classroom is useful as well. What is essential for
students to take into consideration while writing in a particular genre is the topic, style, the
context and the reader (Harmer, 2001).
There are several developers of this approach which is based on a “systemic functional
theory of language” (Firkins, Forey & Sengupta, 2007). Its initial developer is Halliday (1978,
1994), and is later improved by Martin (1992), Christie (1999) and Macken-Horarik (2001).
Halliday’s genre-based approach comprises of three stages that are essentially based on a
cycle of teaching- learning. There is not a particular order of these stages, rather in any case
the support the teacher gives has to be of utmost level. These stages are:
1. Modeling a text
2. Joint construction of a text
3. Independent construction of a text
(Firkins, Forey & Sengupta, 2007)
Another version of the genre approach that is not mentioned above is Swales’ model.
Swales’ (1990) definition of genre is cited by Kim (2006): “a class of communicative events,
the members of which share some set of communicative purposes” It can be inferred from his
definition that there are some conventions related to the aim the writer has in mind such as
writing reports to provide information or statistics about an issue. As its purpose determines
its convention, for such a text its convention would be different from a personal letter written
to one’s friend. In addition to the conventions, Swales (1990, as cited in Kim, 2006) states

that there are structural features that for every genre related to its purpose. These features
consist of standards of organization structure and linguistic features and have an impact on the
sequence of the written work.

2.2.3. Creative Writing

Creative writing is associated with writing fiction or non-fiction works using

creativity, which is a term described by Moustakis (1977, as cited in Ho & Rogers, 2013) to
be “living your life your own way”. Moreover, Gaffield-Vile (1998, as cited in Harmer, 2001)
claims that creative writing is “a journey of self-discovery and self-discovery promotes
effective learning”. These two statements support the idea that this model of writing is
stimulating and encouraging for learners. As a matter of fact, this expression “self-discovery”
indicates that learners often make use of their personal life encounters (i.e. memories and
experiences) to spark their creativity (Harmer, 2001). Despite the advantages, Harmer (2001)
acknowledges that inspiration to write creatively is not something that comes to the mind of
the students whenever they wish. To overcome this obstacle, what is suggested is to
encourage students to write step by step rather than the whole of the work also to use prompts
such as giving a scenario, often well-known stories, to be completed or change characters,
place etc. within a story.

3. Process Writing

To define this approach before mentioning its history and implications, Process
Writing is an approach that emphasizes on the process and the fluency of writing, rather than
the product and the accuracy (Onozawa, 2010). In this approach, as opposed to finishing a
work in a limited amount of time is not crucial or suggested, writer is encouraged to follow
several steps before declaring their works finished. As Harmer (2001) says this approach
requires learners to reflect upon the procedure itself to produce a satisfactory written work. A
similar view of this approach is suggested by Brown (2001, as cited in Onozawa), by stating
that what is written finally is succeeded only when the writer undergoes a process of thinking.
There are a few versions of this approach and in every version the steps the writer
takes upon writing are slightly different. Before elaborating on these versions, I will mention
a crucial point about the nature of these stages of writing. When mentioning this point, I will

refer to a specific version of this approach, which is currently the most widely acknowledged
one to be used in classrooms. This model is presented by Tribble (1996) in Figure 1.

(specifying the task / planning and outlining / collecting data / making notes)


(reorganizing / shifting emphasis / focusing information and style for your readership)

(checking grammar / lexis / surface features, for example punctuation, spelling, layout,
quotation conventions, references)
Figure 1: Linear model

This model shown in Figure 1 is referred as a linear model, meaning that the
continuity of each following step requires the completion of the previous one(s). In other
words, a writer cannot move forward to the last stage, editing, unless she/he accomplishes the
preceding three. Nevertheless, the idea that writing process has to proceed a linear path is not
approved by many experts in the field of ELT. The reason of their disapproval is that the
linear model is not actually the way the successful writers follow when producing their works
(Zamel, 1983, as cited in Tribble, 1996). Furthermore, Raimes (1983) contributes to this idea
by saying: “a student who is given the time for the process to work…will discover new ideas,
new sentences, and new words as he plans, writes a first draft, and revises what he has written
for a second draft.”
The model proposed in contrast to the linear one is the recursive model as again
presented by Tribble (1996) as shown in Figure 2 below. This sequence suggests that the
writing process is not stable as considered; rather it is dynamic and complicated. As Raimes
(1985, as cited in Tribble, 1996) points out the recursion of this process refers to the
probability and the flexibility of the writer’s going back and forth between these stages at any
time during their writing.

Figure 2: Recursive model

As I have mentioned, there are a number of different models of process writing which
have been developed by linguists and theorists since 1980s. But basically they are classified
as two types of models, expressive and cognitive approaches. As Reid (2001) claims the
expressive approach sets the basis of the process approach itself. He also states that this
approach was taught “as a process of self-discovery” (as cited in Onozawa, 2010), as it is in
the creative writing. Nonetheless, due to the fact that the mainly used and acknowledged
approaches are included in the cognitive ones, I will only mention them.
Flower and Hayes (1981) initially built their model which is known as ‘cognitive
process theory’. According to Hyland (2003) it is “the most widely accepted model by L2
writing teachers”. Flower and Hayes’ initiative of designing this model was based on the
research done in the 1980s about composition processes, which is the basis of their model. As
shown in Figure 3, there are three sub-stages of the composing process, planning, translating
and reviewing. What is expected to happen in this process is that the ideas in the planner is
transferred on the page by the interpreter and at last reviewed. (Tribble, 2003)
Later in the 1980s, after their first model, scholars realized that there was a need for a writing
theory that combined both social and cognitive factors (Polio & Williams, 2009). Therefore
Flower (1994, as cited in Hyland, 2003) improved the first model by describing the stages
each process and integrating cognitive and social factors.

Figure 3: Flower & Hayes’ model (composing process)

Later on in 1987, upon working further on this model of Flower and Hayes’, Bereiter
and Scardamalia claimed the necessity of two more models to differentiate the processing
complexity of skilled and novice writers. These models they developed are titled as
knowledge-telling and knowledge transforming. (Tribble, 2003; Hyland, 2003) The former
model is for novice writers who plan and revise less than skilled writers, whereas the latter is
for more expert writers who tend to reflect more upon their writing.
Another model is developed by White and Arndt in 1991, emphasizing on the idea that
re-writing is the key to writing process. Harmer (2003) describes their model as comprising of
“interrelated set of recursive stages” as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: White & Arndt’s model

Apart from these above-mentioned models of the process approach, there are a few
more models that were designed by Clark and Ivanic (1997) and Grabe and Kaplan (1996),
which concern even more issues of the writing process than the previous models do (Tribble,
2003). Despite these numerous models that favor process writing, there have been some
criticism to indicate the disadvantages of this approach. One of them is about the student

being the creator of the text and its process, which makes the issue of assessment challenging
for the teacher (Tribble, 1996). Another criticism the theorists favoring behaviourist models
express is that this approach does not pay enough attention to grammar and structure and the
final product. (Onozawa, 2010). From a pragmatic dimension, Leki (1992) claims that the
practice of producing too many drafts is likely for students to fail in their school exams, which
demands a written work, in a single draft, within a limited time (as cited in Onozawa, 2001).
These are some of the commonly expressed drawbacks of this approach that need to be taken
into consideration by teachers who consider applying it in their classrooms and experts in the
field of ELT.

3.1. Stages of process writing

As it is mentioned earlier in this paper, there are a number of versions of the process
approach, the stages of which vary from one to another. However, I will emphasize on the
recursive model, which is shown is Figure 2, in this part. This model is presented to be
consisting of five separate stages, but all of these stages are not always referred in sources and
applied individually in practical. Therefore, I will elaborate on the following three stages:
Prewriting, Composing/Drafting, and Revising/Editing. Moreover, the reason I will not
mention the final step, publishing, is because as Tribble (1996) says it is the stage where the
writer simply ceases to write, for the work is considered to be finished.

3.1.1. Prewriting

As the name suggests, this step relates to the part when the writer seeks ideas to begin
his/her writing. This is essentially regarded as the responsibility of the student where she/he is
simply expected to put pen to paper to generate ideas via techniques such as freewriting and
brainstorming. However, since we can not anticipate our learners to be full with ideas all the
time, from time to time teacher should facilitate this phase by initiating discussions or debates
or providing a text about a specific topic. What is also done is forming an outline; with the
help of it students can easily plan a structure for the text to be written. Besides, it benefits the
writer to visualize the way ideas turn into points, by using patterns of organizations such as
cause-effect, problem-solution and likewise.
With regard to the activities and techniques concerning this step, Raimes (1983) lists
some of the most well-known of these: brainstorming, discussion, reading, debate, and list

making. In addition to these, Hyland (2003) contributes to this list as displayed in Figure 5
below. Then, he explains the application of these activities considering their nature. For
instance, it is suggested to use two first two of these activities, listing and freewriting, at the
very beginning of the pre-writing session briefly and with the ideas that are found it is better
to move on with discussion or planning. Moreover, due to the fact that the other activities
such as cubing and clustering may require more careful planning, working collaboratively can
help learners more in accomplishing these tasks. Hedge (1988, as cited in Tribble, 1996)
strengthens this statement by saying that: “collaborative writing in the classroom generates
discussions and activities which encourage an effective process of writing”.

Figure 5: Techniques used in pre-writing

Samples of some of the abovementioned activities are presented below.

Figure 6: Spidergram technique (Mindmapping)

Figure 7: Picture prompts

3.1.2. Composing/Drafting

In this stage, the writer has already decided what to write about and moves on with the
components of his/her work. Even though it is considered as a separate stage, Tribble (1996)
claims there is not necessarily a fine line between pre-writing and composing, making it
possible to go back and forth between these two stages. Hence, this stage should not be
regarded as an isolated one from the others. He also says that: “Successful composing only
happens after a writer has built up an extensive experience of written texts, has developed a
range of skills as a writer, and has then done work in specific preparation for the text in
Hyland (2003) mentions a number of advantages of the extended writing tasks, an
equivalent term he names for the composing tasks. To list some of them here:
 Provides opportunities for students to create a textually cohesive, stylistically
appropriate, and ideationally coherent piece of discourse for an audience.
 Offers students the chance to develop and express ideas in response to the ideas of
others or to a real-world/realistic situation.
 Provides learners with the experience of an independent performance in which they
combine knowledge of content, process, language, context, and genre.

Figure 8: A draft sample

Figure 9: A draft sample

Figure 10: Rubric

3.1.3. Revising/Editing

Before explaining the process, it is important to point out the slight difference between
revising and editing. Tribble (1996) mentions Hedge’s (1988) differentiation of both stages by
quoting her: “getting the content right first”, which is revising and “leaving details like
correcting spelling, punctuation and grammar”, which is editing. Again to consider them as
similar stages to be applied consecutively, they are the last stage before putting an end to the
written work, in other words making it ready to share with others or publish. In these stages,
getting feedback or comments from peers or teacher is essential, since the students modify
their writing according to that (Kim, 2006).
To facilitate the stage of revising and editing, making use of checklists is highly
recommended, especially in the second phase of this process, editing. Nolasco (1987, as cited
in Tribble, 1996) categorizes some of the features of writing to be checked at this stage:
 the layout,
 the spelling
 punctuation
 handwriting
 word order
 choice of words
 grammar (form and choice of tenses)

Editing can also be made by providing students with questions to be answered related
to the organization of their text. Tribble (1996) lists some of the fundamental questions for
beginners below:
 Check that your writing makes sense
 Is it correctly organized on the page?
 Is the information presented in a clear, logical order?
 Have you put in all the information your reader needs?
 Have you put in unnecessary information?

In addition to these, I will provide some samples of revising and editing checklists that
can be used both for individual and peer correction and for different level of learners.

Revising Checklist
 Have I written an interesting introduction?
 Have I used interesting vocabulary?
 Have I used a selection of different connectives?
 Have I used complete sentences?
 Does my conclusion make sense?
Editing Checklist
 Do my sentences begin with capital letters?
 Have I spelt everything correctly?
 Does each sentence end with a punctuation mark?
 Have I used paragraphs?
 Is my work neatly presented?
Figure 11: Revising and Editing checklist for novice writers

Figure 12: Revising checklist for advanced writers

3.2. Activities

The activities I designed are appropriate to be used for learner group with a high
proficiency and grasp of English, i.e. upper- intermediate or advanced students. They are also
suitable to be applied in the prewriting stage of the writing process. The primary techniques
that are included in these activities are interacting with model texts and question and answer.
Due to the nature of the model texts, which relates to book reviews, the activities can also be
used while applying the genre approach in the classrooms. In addition to its place in the
teaching of writing, the extent of their usage pertains to another approach as well in the
English Language Teaching as a general field. That particular approach is Task Based
Language Teaching, which in essence contains tasks aiming to simulate real-life acts to the
activities that are applied in the classrooms. The reason of this association of the activities, or
the tasks, with the TBLT can be explained with the chief objective of them. This objective is
to encourage students to write comprehensive book reviews by their organizational features,
which can reasonably be associated with a real-life act.
As to the sequence of the tasks, they are designed as sequential tasks within a single
lesson of forty or forty five minutes. However, depending on the characteristics and the
schemata of the learners, the tasks can be covered up within two consecutive lessons as well.
The sequence is explained below:
Task 1
 Students are asked to reflect upon the things that influence their decisions while
buying a book or choosing a book to read.
 They share their ideas and are asked how influential book reviews are in this decision-
making process.
 Teacher wants students to think about what book reviews include as much as they
know and have read.
 Teacher presents a sample of 3 book reviews (Appendix I) that are written for a single
 Students read the book reviews while identifying key vocabulary items as groups of
 The findings are shared as groups, and then the teacher gives students a handout of a
vocabulary list composed of words and phrases they may find in the reviews and similar items
teacher has added. (Appendix II)

Task 2
 Students read the reviews once more in groups of four and the teacher gives them a
handout containing a list of questions and key components of book reviews to be able to
compare and contrast the texts. (Appendix III)
 Meanwhile, to facilitate the process teacher explains the fact that the more a book
review complies with these criteria, the more effective and influential it is.
 With the people in their groups, students vote for the best of the three reviews by
evaluating their effectiveness in reflecting these criteria.
 Students are given time to make the order and list their reasons to justify their choices.
 A spokesman for each group shares the result of his/her group mates and briefly
expresses their reasons.
 Having stated each review on board by where it’s taken from, meanwhile teacher
reorders them according to the final order s decide upon by most voted.
 At the last step, teacher sums up the latest version order explaining how students have
come to such conclusions.

4. Conclusion
As is explained above, there are a number of different approaches of teaching writing
that have been developed and improved so far. Even the process approach itself has a variety
of versions which differ to some extent with respect to their nature and practicality.
Considering the advantages and disadvantages of these models, it can be inferred that we can
not be in an expectation of an all-inclusive, foolproof approach to give us insurance that
nothing goes wrong in our lessons. Nevertheless, the process approach, especially the versions
that were designed after 1990’s have been proven considerably effective. The primary reason
behind this success is mainly due to the fact that it is rather realistic, regarding the stages the
writer goes through in real life and the matter of recursion. Eventually, it goes without saying
that when it comes to its application in the classroom environment, it is up to every teacher to
make the decision to use solely this one or an eclectic approach.

5. Appendices

Appendix I
Editorial Reviews of The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown Review

With The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown masterfully concocts an intelligent and lucid thriller that
marries the gusto of an international murder mystery with a collection of fascinating esoteria
culled from 2,000 years of Western history.
A murder in the silent after-hour halls of the Louvre museum reveals a sinister plot to uncover
a secret that has been protected by a clandestine society since the days of Christ. The victim is
a high-ranking agent of this ancient society who, in the moments before his death, manages to
leave gruesome clues at the scene that only his granddaughter, noted cryptographer Sophie
Neveu, and Robert Langdon, a famed symbologist, can untangle. The duo become both
suspects and detectives searching for not only Neveu's grandfather's murderer but also the
stunning secret of the ages he was charged to protect. Mere steps ahead of the authorities and
the deadly competition, the mystery leads Neveu and Langdon on a breathless flight through
France, England, and history itself. Brown (Angels and Demons) has created a page-turning
thriller that also provides an amazing interpretation of Western history. Brown's hero and
heroine embark on a lofty and intriguing exploration of some of Western culture's greatest
mysteries--from the nature of the Mona Lisa's smile to the secret of the Holy Grail. Though
some will quibble with the veracity of Brown's conjectures, therein lies the fun. The Da Vinci
Code is an enthralling read that provides rich food for thought. --Jeremy Pugh --This text
refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly

Brown's latest thriller (after Angels and Demons)is an exhaustively researched page-turner
about secret religious societies, ancient coverups and savage vengeance. The action kicks off
in modern-day Paris with the murder of the Louvre's chief curator, whose body is found laid
out in symbolic repose at the foot of the Mona Lisa. Seizing control of the case are Sophie
Neveu, a lovely French police cryptologist, and Harvard symbol expert Robert Langdon,
reprising his role from Brown's last book. The two find several puzzling codes at the murder
scene, all of which form a treasure map to the fabled Holy Grail. As their search moves from
France to England, Neveu and Langdon are confounded by two mysterious groups-the

legendary Priory of Sion, a nearly 1,000-year-old secret society whose members have
included Botticelli and Isaac Newton, and the conservative Catholic organization Opus Dei.
Both have their own reasons for wanting to ensure that the Grail isn't found. Brown
sometimes ladles out too much religious history at the expense of pacing, and Langdon is a
hero in desperate need of more chutzpah. Still, Brown has assembled a whopper of a plot that
will please both conspiracy buffs and thriller addicts. --This text refers to an out of print or
unavailable edition of this title.

From Booklist

In a two-day span, American symbologist Robert Langdon finds himself accused of

murdering the curator of the Louvre, on the run through the streets of Paris and London, and
teamed up with French cryptologist Sophie Neveu to uncover nothing less than the secret
location of the Holy Grail. It appears that a conservative Catholic bishop might be on the
verge of destroying the Grail, which includes an alternate history of Christ that could bring
down the church. Whoever is ordering the deaths of the Grail's guardians--modern-day
members of an ancient society descended from the famed Knights Templar--must be stopped
before the treasure is lost forever. To do so, Langdon and Neveu have to solve a series of
ciphers and riddles while evading a tireless French police commander and a ruthless albino
monk. Despite being hampered by clunky flashback sequences and place descriptions that
read like tourist brochures, the story is full of brain-teasing puzzles and fascinating insights
into religious history and art. Ultimately, Brown's intricate plot delivers more satisfying twists
than a licorice factory. Frank Sennett Copyright © American Library Association. All rights
reserved --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Appendix II

Phrases & Words

sets the hook-of-all-hooks must-read
fascinating and absorbing finest mysteries
intrigue and menace mingle utterly unpredictable

amazing tale stunning conclusion

page-turning formulaic page turner, a fun quick read
poorly written action novel lightning-paced, intelligent thriller

Phrases found in the reviews
 intelligent and lucid thriller
 page-turning thriller
 a lofty and intriguing exploration
 enthralling read
 brain-teasing puzzles and fascinating insights
 satisfying twists

Appendix III
The Criteria for Evaluating the Book Reviews
 Does it include include setting, character(s) and plot of the book?
 Does it give a hint in identifying the genre of the book?
 Does it include both the author’s ideas and the topic of the book, or just one?
 Does it refer to the author’s other works?
 Does it make a comment on narrator’s voice and tone?
 Does it express the reviewer's opinion and persuade the potential reader to read the
 Is it just a summary of the book or more like commentary?

Writing An Effective Book Review

In your review of the book, you might discuss some of the following issues:
 how well the book has achieved its goal
 what possibilities are suggested by the book
 what the book has left out
 how the book compares to others on the subject
 what specific points are not convincing
 what personal experiences you’ve had related to the subject.

6. References

Brookes, A. and Grundy, P. (1998) Beginning to write: writing activities for elementary and
intermediate learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Byrne, D. (1988) Teaching Writing Skills. London: Longman

Firkins, A., Forey, G. & Sengupta, S. (2007). A genre-based literacy pedagogy: teaching
writing to low proficiency EFL students. English Language Teaching Journal 64(1),

Harmer, J. (2001) The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed.). London: Longman

Ho, J. M. & Rogers, K. (2013). Using creative writing with associate degree students to foster
creativity and agency. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 14 (2), 96–107

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press

Kim, M. (2006). Genre-based approach to teaching writing. HPU TESOL Working Paper
Series 4 (2), 33-39

Onozawa, C. (2010). A study of the process writing approach a suggestion for an eclectic
writing approach. Proceedings of Kyoai Gakuen College, Japan, 10, 153-163.

Polio, C. & Williams, J. (2009). Teaching and Testing Writing. Edited by Long, M.
H. & Doughty, C. J., The Handbook of Language Teaching (486-517). Malden, MA:

Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Tribble, C. (2003). Teaching Writing (PHD Manuscript, Chapter 2).