No Penulis/Judul/Tahun Variabel/construct/ Grounded Theory Hasil Role

item
1 (Artikel 18) 1. Interpreting 1. Structure of The findings demonstrated that the GAP
The argumentation results argumentation and conformity manifestations of the
structure of research 2. Comparing discussion of findings comments move were exhibited in
article ‘findings and results with by non-English- interpret- ing results and comparing
discussion’ sections the previous speaking authors  results with previous literature. The
written by Non- literature non-conformity manifestations 6 (Artikel 3)
native English 3. Accounting exemplified the limited Beyond
speaker novice for results manifestations of dissimilarities with complexity:
writers: a case of 4. Evaluating previous research and the absence of Assessing
Indonesian results explanation after claims were made. flexibility
undergraduate This caused an absence of criticality writing
students(Lubis, as the fundamental element of RA contexts(Qi
2020) writing. Moreover, several grammar- Uccelli, 202
related and idea-related errors
“ Struktur occurred in most steps. Hence, “Di luar
argumentasi dari recommendations for the peda- gogy kompleksita
artikel penelitian of English for research publication linguistik: M
'temuan dan diskusi' purposes and future research are fleksibilitas
bagian yang ditulis presented. dalam penu
oleh penulis pemula EFL di selu
berbahasa Inggris konteks (Qi
non-pribumi: kasus Uccelli, 202
mahasiswa sarjana 7 (Artikel 24)
Indonesia (Lubis, The react
2020)” think-aloud
2 (Artikel 1) 1. Completeness 1. Text evidence in an When prompted to explain how the Dukungan writing
eRevis(ing): & Specificity automatic writing evidence they included connected to sitasi quantitative
Students’ revision of 2. Specificity & evaluation system their claim, many students qualitative
text evidence use in Explanation paraphrased the evidence, added a from wri
an automated writing 3. Explanation & short conclusion, or explained English as
evaluation Connection generally how the evidence supports language(Y
system(Wang et al., claims (not how this was instantiated Zhang, &
2020) in their writing). Implications for 2020)
teaching argument writing and for
“ eRevis (ing): designing AWE systems that support “Reaktivitas
Revisi siswa tentang students to successfully revise their
penggunaan bukti essays are discussed.
teks dalam sistem
evaluasi penulisan
otomatis (Wang et
al., 2020)”
 alouds dalam
penelitian tertulis:
bukti kuantitatif dan
kualitatif dari
penulisan dalam
bahasa Inggris
sebagai bahasa asing
(Yang , Zhang, &
Parr, 2020)”

8 (Artikel 10) 1. Preparation 1. The potential of Google The findings show that Google Docs Dukungan
Exploring the 2. Training and Doc in facilitating supports writing instruction, Sitasi
potential of Google instruction teaching and learning specifically through (1) instructor
Doc in facilitating 3. Pre-Writing practices in writing and peer feedback that focuses on
innovative teaching 4. Writing course global and local issues in writing, (2)
and learning 5. Google Docs peer editing and drafting of writing
practices in an EFL Groups at the global and local levels and (3)
writing course 6. Feedback and peer responses to feedback.
(Alharbi, 2020) Editing Quantification of feedback and
learners’ text revisions revealed
variations between the instructor and
“Menggali potensi peer feedback and among the five
Google Doc dalam pairs of students. The thematic
memfasilitasi praktik analysis revealed the students’
pengajaran dan positive views of Google Docs
pembelajaran yang supported pedagogical practices in
inovatif dalam writing.
kursus penulisan
EFL(Alharbi, 2020)”

9 (Artikel 12) 1. Feature 1. Writing mode and The findings indicated that writing Dukungan
 The effects of 2. Fluency computer ability on the mode had significant effects on Sitasi
writing mode and 3. Linguistic characteristics of L2 measures of fluency, lexical
computer ability on 4. Accuracy exam participants complexity, cohesion, and content,
L2 test-takers' essay 5. Syntactic theory but not writing scores. Keyboarding
characteristics and 6. Complexity skills had significant, but small, ef-
scores(Barkaoui & 7. Lexical fects on measures of fluency, local
Knouzi, 2018) complexity cohesion, and writing scores, while
8. Cohesion ELP had significant, large effects on
“Pengaruh mode 9. Text writing scores and measures of
penulisan dan organization fluency, accuracy, and lexical
kemampuan Conten complexity. Overall, the findings
komputer pada suggest that writing mode and
karakteristik dan keyboarding skills do not seem to
skor esai peserta seriously affect per- formance on
ujian L2 '(Barkaoui computer-based L2 writing tests
& Knouzi , 2018)” perhaps because of the growing
familiarity and proficiency of the
target population with using
computers to write in English

10 (Artikel 13) 1. at/on/in: 1. Teacher-scaffolded and Results provide support for previous Dukungan
Effects of teacher- prepositions of self-scaffolded CF research: mixed ANOVA results Sitasi
scaffolded and self- time corrective feedback on suggest that all three groups
scaffolded corrective 2. adverbs of grammar accuracy in experienced similar, significant, and
feedback compared frequency: L2 English writing durable increases in grammatical
to direct corrective always, never, accuracy. The study contributes to
feedback on etc. existing knowledge by a) using linear
grammatical 3. most (of); regression to demonstrate that
accuracy in English some (of); all quality of metalinguistic reflections
L2 writing(Boggs, (of); etc. does not necessarily predict an
2019) 4. comparatives increase in grammatical accuracy; b)
and establishing that there may be
 “Efek umpan balik superlatives difficulties in scaffolding oral
korektif guru- 5. definite and metalinguistic reflections with the
scaffolded dan self- indefinite described population; and c) drawing
scaffolded articles: on data from the background survey
dibandingkan dengan limited range and interviews to inform the
umpan balik korektif
of applications, interpretation of the results.
langsung pada akurasi
tata bahasa dalam such as first
penulisan L2 bahasa and second
Inggris (Boggs, 2019)” mention and
using the with
things in
nature – they
sky, the ocean,
etc.
6. subject/verb
agreement
7. plural -s
select tenses:
simple present;
present
continuous;
simple past;
future
11 (Artikel 16) 1. Adverbial 1. Development of With regard to large-grained Dukungan
Syntactic complexity clauses syntactic complexity in measures, it is found that students Sitasi
development in the Complement writing with higher writing proficiency tend
writings of EFL clauses to produce longer language units,
learners: Insights more subordinate clauses, more
from a dependency 2. Relative coordinate clauses, and more noun
syntactically- clauses phrases in their writings; mean
annotated length of T-unit, mean length of
corpus(Jiang, Bi, & 3. Possessive sentence, and dependent clauses per
 Liu, 2019) modifiers clause can better predict writing
Compound proficiency than other traditional
“Pengembangan nouns large-grained measures. As for fine-
kompleksitas grained measures, it is found that
sintaksis dalam 4. Adjectival three types of subordinate clauses,
tulisan peserta didik modifiers that is, adverbial clauses,
EFL: Wawasan dari complement clauses and relative
ketergantungan 5. Prepositional clauses, and two types of noun
corpus yang phrases as modifiers, that is, prepositional
diindikasikan secara attributes phrases and adjectival relative
sintaksis (Jiang, Bi, clauses, occur more frequently in the
& Liu, 2019)” 6. Adjectival writings of more proficient learners;
relative clauses the frequency of compound nouns
correlates negatively with writing
proficiency

12 (Artikel 11) 1. Configural 1. Motivation influences Although the findings showed a Dukungan
Motivation and self- 2. Metric SRL strategy on general pattern that the high Sitasi
regulated strategy 3. Scalar students from different achievers reported higher levels of
use: Relationships to 4. Residual writing competence motivation (i.e. growth mindset, self-
primary school 5. Factor variance groups as a whole efficacy, and interest) and self-
students’ English 6. Factor regulated learning (SRL) strategy use
writing in Hong covarianceSRL than the average achievers, who in
Kong(Bai & Guo, 7. Self-efficacy turn outperformed the low achievers,
2019) 8. Interest in all the students showed quite a low
writing . level of interest in English writing.
“Motivasi dan self- 9. Planning Interestingly, motivation impacted
diatur penggunaan 10. Self-monitoring SRL strategy use very differently for
strategi: Hubungan Acting on students of different writing
dengan penulisan feedback competence groups on the whole.
bahasa Inggris siswa Three-group Structural Equation
sekolah dasar di Modelling (SEM) suggested that
 Hong Kong (Bai & growth mindset had the strongest and
Guo, 2019)” most significant correlations with all
students’ use of SRL strategies.
However, interest and self-efficacy
had different relationship patterns
with SRL strategy use among the
high, average and low achievers.
Interest had no significant relations
with the high achievers’ SRL
strategy use, while self-efficacy had
no significant relations with the low
achievers’ SRL strategy use.
Implications for English teachers to
improve differentiated instruction are
discussed.

13 (Artikel 7) 1. Context- 1. Corrective / Such research, being largely Dukungan

Utility of independent comprehensive experimental/quasi-experimental, has Sitasi
focused/comprehensi feedback for authentic generated findings that are tan-
ve written corrective 2. Limited error class writing gentially relevant to authentic
feedback research types classrooms. This article attempts to
for authentic L2 problematize existing feed- back
writing 3. Short-term scope research by examining three
classrooms(Lee, key issues – ambiguity of pertinent
2020) 4. Standardized terms, laboratory-like classroom
and static conditions, and narrow scope of
“Utility difokuskan research. The article also provides
penelitian yang 5. Focused/compre suggestions on how these problems
ditulis umpan balik hensive WCF may be addressed so that feedback
korektif / polarized scope research could be made more
komprehensif untuk relevant to authentic classroom
menulis kelas otentik 6. Lopsided contexts.
 L2 (Lee, 2020)” feedback

7. Instruction
withheld

8. Limited student
role

9. Non-interactive
Teacher

14 (Artikel 15) 1. Pre-Adjective 1. Implications for Results reveal little variation in Dukungan
Syntactic complexity 2. Post-Preposition research on syntactic clausal subordination and Sitasi
and writing quality 3. Participle complexity and coordination, but statistically
in assessed first-year 4. Possessive pedagogy of ESL significant lower complex nominal
L2 writing(Casal & Noun composition densities, mean length of clauses
Lee, 2019) Relative Clause (phrasal measures), and mean length
of T-units (global measure) in low-
“Kompleksitas rated papers. Analysis of complex
sintaksis dan kualitas nominal composition using the
penulisan di dinilai Stanford Tregex with differences
pertama tahun L2 assessed with a one-way MANOVA
menulis (Casal & shows that the highest densities of
Lee, 2019)” complex nominal types are present in
high-rated papers, with statistical
significance in adjectival pre-,
prepositional post-, and participle
modification, and the lowest
densities in low-rated papers. While
clausal complexity did not
demonstrate a relationship with
assessed quality, both global and
 phrasal complexity features appear to
be important components. We
conclude with implications for
syntactic com- plexity research and
ESL composition pedagogy.

15 (Artikel 5) 1. Content 1. Positive effect of SI on The success of the intervention is Dukungan

Effect of strategy 2.
instruction on EFL 3.
students’ video- 4.
mediated integrated
writing performance
Ifigeneia(Machili,
Papadopoulou, & findings suggest the positive impact
Kantaridou, 2019)
“Pengaruh instruksi
strategi pada kinerja
menulis terintegrasi
siswa-video yang
dimediasi video EFL
Ifigeneia (Machili,
Papadopoulou, &
Kantaridou, 2019)”
Organization integrated writing highlighted in the experimental Sitasi
Language performance group students’ substantial
Citation improvement in their overall writing
Verbatim scores and particularly in the citation
and verbatim scales especially at
intermediate and advanced level. Our
explicit SI has on integrated writing
performance. They also highlight the
value and feasibility of using video
in instruction and assessment of
integrated writing in EAP contexts.

16 (Artikel 17) 1. Lexical 1. Collaborative planning Collaborative planning had Dukungan

Are two heads complexity on L2 writing with ko advantages over individual planning Sitasi
always better than 2. Syntactic mpleksitas task in fluency and syntactic com-
one? The effects of complexity plexity, but not in accuracy.
collaborative 3. Accuracy Furthermore, its effects on lexical
planning on L2 4. Fluency complexity were affected by task
writing in relation to complexity: collaborative planning
 task and individual planning resulted in a
complexity(Kang & similar level of lexical complexity on
Lee, 2019) complex tasks, but individual
planning was much more beneficial
“Apakah dua kepala on simple tasks. The pedagogical and
selalu lebih baik dari research implications of these results
satu? Efek dari are discussed.
perencanaan
kolaboratif pada
penulisan L2 dalam
kaitannya dengan
kompleksitas tugas
(Kang & Lee,
2019)”

17 (Artikel 19) 1. Length-based 1. Longitudinal analysis Results show that students develop Dukungan
The writing of Mean length of of syntactic complexity certain measures more than others, Sitasi
Spanish majors: A clause (MLC) in writing majors with the greatest growth in length-
longitudinal analysis 2. Mean length of based measures. Additionally, the
of syntactic T-unit (MLTU) importance of inter-learner varia-
complexity(Menke 3. Mean length of bility is evident, as participants show
& Strawbridge, noun phrase clear individual tendencies. Findings
2019) (MLNP) are discussed in light of
4. Inter-clausal methodological choices, and
“Penulisan jurusan relation- ship implications for university FL major
Spanyol: Analisis indices programs are explored.
longitudinal dari Clauses / T-unit
kompleksitas (C/T- U)
sintaksis (Menke & 5. Grammatical
Strawbridge, 2019)” intricacy (GI)
6. Simple sentence
 ratio (SSR)
7. Phrasal/clausal
variety Noun
Phrase
Accessib- ility
Hierarchy (N-
PAH)
8. Noun Phrase
Modific- ation
Types
18 (Artikel 20) 1. Editing 5. Working memory in Students gained lower scores on the Dukungan
The role of working 2. Email written performances non-academic version of an editing Sitasi
memory in young 3. Opinion on learning task than on most other types of
second language 4. Listen-Write tasks. WM functions had no
learners’ written significant relationship with L2
performances(Miche writing scores, except for the
l, Kormos, Brunfaut, academic editing task. In Grade 7,
& Ratajczak, 2019) the effect of WM was not significant
on the integrated Listen-Write task,
“Peran memori kerja but it resulted in the change of
dalam pertunjukan expected score. Learners with high
tertulis pembelajar working memory in Grade 6 showed
bahasa kedua muda somewhat more consistent
(Michel, Kormos, performance across tasks than did
Brunfaut, & lear- ners with low working memory.
Ratajczak, 2019)”

19 (Artikel 21) 1. Descriptive 1. Complexity of verbal The findings indicate that VAC- Dukungan
Verb argument 2. Independe argument construction based complexity measures vary by Sitasi
construction 3. Integrated and writing quality L2 writing tasks and that the
complexity indices relationship between VAC measures
and L2 writing and L2 writing quality is also task-
 quality: Effects of dependent with few prompt-based
writing tasks and effects.
prompts
Tamanna(Mostafa &
Crossley, 2020)

“Indeks
kompleksitas
konstruksi argumen
verbal dan kualitas
penulisan L2:
Pengaruh tugas
menulis dan
permintaan Tamanna
( Mostafa &
Crossley, 2020)”

20 (Artikel 22) 1. Linguistic 1. Complexity of writing Compared to the unsimplified Dukungan

Effect of the complexity of version, the simplified version Sitasi
linguistic complexity the input text resulted in more automatic alignment
of the input text on 2. Situation model and greater improvement in writing
alignment, writing completeness fluency and accuracy. The
fluency, and writing Alignment implications of these findings for
accuracy in the strength writing pedagogy are discussed
continuation 3. Alignment
task(Peng, Wang, & automaticity
Lu, 2020) 4. Writing fluency
5. Writing
“Pengaruh accuracy
kompleksitas
linguistik dari teks
 input pada
penyelarasan,
kelancaran menulis,
dan akurasi
penulisan dalam
tugas lanjutan (Peng,
Wang, & Lu, 2020)”

21 (Artikel 23) 1. Grammar 1. writing accuracy The results revealed that the focused Dukungan
A comparative study 2. Reading groups were more successful than the Sitasi
of the impact of 3. paragraph comprehensive ones in reducing their
focused vs. writing words errors at T2; no significant
comprehensive 4. for instance effect was observed for revision.
corrective feedback 5. adjectives Also, the focused-revision group
and revision on ESL before noun outperformed the other groups at
learners’ writing 6. the structure of both T2 and T3 in reducing their
accuracy and relative clauses sentence errors. The comprehensive-
quality(Rahimi, revision, however, group was more
2019) successful than the other groups in
improving their overall written
“Sebuah studi accuracy. The results also showed
komparatif tentang that the focused-revision group made
dampak umpan balik more improvement than the other
korektif terfokus vs three groups in their writing quality
komprehensif dan at T3.
revisi pada akurasi
penulisan pembelajar
ESL. dan kualitas
(Rahimi, 2019)”

22 (Artikel 25) 1. Specifics 1. writing development The results demonstrated that (1) the Dukungan
 Reading–writing 2. Developed theory EE and CF groups outperformed the Sitasi
integrated tasks, Ideas control and CE groups on the
comprehensive 3. Overall Clarity posttest and outscored the control
corrective feedback, 4. Interest group on the delayed posttest with
and EFL writing 5. Thesis respect to language, although there
development(Zhang, 6. Introduction were no significant differences
2017) 7. Logical among the three experimental groups
Sequence in overall, content, and organization
“Membaca-menulis 8. Conclusion scores; (2) the input language of the
tugas terintegrasi, 9. Unity integrated reading–writing task had a
umpan balik korektif 10. Vocabulary significant effect on language
yang komprehensif, 11. Variety of Form accuracy in the resulting essays; and
dan pengembangan (3) there was no significant
penulisan correlation between content
EFL(Zhang, 2017)” alignment and language accuracy for
the CE group, whereas for the EE
group, a significant positive
correlation was observed not only
between content and language
alignment, on the one hand, and
language accuracy, on the other
hand, but also between content
alignment and language alignment

23 (Artikel 8) 1. Immediate 1. Differences in form of A mental effort measure ofcognitive Dukungan

The Differential accuracy comprehensive load revealed that participants’ Sitasi
Effects of 2. Accuracy feedback in language cogni- tive load was significantly
Comprehensive development writing classes lower when processing direct
Feedback Forms in 3. Attitudinal corrections targeting grammar issues.
the Second engagement Questionnaire answers also yielded a
Language Writing significant attitudinal difference
Class(Steendam, between the direct feedback groups
 2018) and their metalinguistic counterparts

“Perbedaan Efek
dari Bentuk Umpan
Balik Komprehensif
dalam Kelas
Penulisan Bahasa
Kedua(Steendam,
2018)”

24 (Artikel 9) 1. Mean length 1. Complexity of Results from mixed-effects modeling Dukungan

The Relationship ofwords in Relationship Between revealed significant relationships Sitasi
Between First and characters First and Second between L1 complexity and L2
Second Language 2. Lexical density Language Writing complexity for all but one measure,
Writing: 3. Number of indicating that an L1 effect is robust
Investigating the different words across different levels of linguistic
Effects of First 4. Type–token description.
Language ratio
Complexity on 5. Logarithmic
Second Language type–token ratio
Complexity in 6. Corrected type–
Advanced Stages of token ratio
Learning(Ströbel, 7. Root type–
Kerz, & token ratio
Wiechmann, 2020) 8. Mean length of
clause
“Hubungan Antara 9. Mean length of
Penulisan Bahasa sentence
Pertama dan Kedua: 10. Mean number
Menyelidiki Efek of clauses per
Kompleksitas sentence
Bahasa Pertama 11. Mean number
 pada Kompleksitas of coordinate
Bahasa Kedua pada phrases per
Kompleksitas clause
Bahasa Kedua dalam 12. KolmogorovDef
Tahap Lanjut lat
Pembelajaran
(Ströbel et al.,
2020)”
25 (Artikel 6) 1. Self-regulation 1. The relationship This analysis also supported a link Dukungan
Self-regulation and scales between self between self-regulation and L2 Sitasi
personality among 2. Personality -regulation and L2 writing. From a state perspective, in
L2 writers: scales writing contrast, fluctuations were observed
Integrating trait, 3. Self-reported in self-regulation and personality
state, and learner writing ability factors over a 15-week period. Also
perspectives(Jackson scale reported are learner perspectives on
& Park, 2020) self-regulation, which can offer
practical in- sights for writing
“Pengaturan sendiri instructors and advisors. Themes
dan kepribadian di included, among others: social
antara penulis L2: engagement, composing processes,
Mengintegrasikan motivational issues, negative
sifat, perspektif emotions, and rationalizing
negara, dan withdrawal. As a whole, this study
pelajar(Jackson & has implications for understanding
Park, 2020)” L2 writers’ complex attributes in
terms of structural relations,
temporal dynamics, and writing
processes.

26 (Artikel 26) 1. Abilities 1. Individual and gender Gender predicted significant unique Dukungan
Exploring individual supporting differences in writing variance, independently of cognitive Sitasi
and gender writing performance skills, in alphabet transcription and
 differences in early 2. Phonologica writing quality, although not dictated
writing l awareness spelling skills. No associations
performance(Adams 3. Memory between phonological skills and
& Simmons, 2019) skills writing were moderated by gender.
4. Writing The possible role for environmental,
“Menjelajahi assessment motivational or attitudinal factors in
perbedaan individu 5. Text writing explaining gender differences in
dan gender dalam skills early writing abilities should
kinerja penulisan therefore perhaps be explored.
awal (Adams &
Simmons, 2019)”
27 (Artikel 27) 1. Specialized 1. Use of academic Sta- tistical analyses of these data Dukungan
Adolescents’ use of terminology language in showed that (a) the adolescents made Sitasi
academic language 2. General informational writing limited use of academic language
in informational academic features in their writing, (b) there
writing vocabulary were no significant differences
Zhihui(Fang & Park, 3. Nominalization between the two grade levels in
2020) 4. Expanded noun academic language use, (c) there was
phrase a significant relationship between
5. non-restrictive reading ability and academic
“Penggunaan bahasa relative clause language use, and (d) academic
akademik oleh 6. logical language use was a significant
remaja dalam metaphor predictor of writing quality. These
penulisan 7. nonfinite clause findings highlight both the
informasional 8. appositive importance of and the need for more
9. impersonal use explicit attention to academic lan-
Zhihui (Fang & of passive voice guage in secondary literacy
Park, 2020)” 10. juicy sentence instruction.
11. epistemic hedge

28 (Artikel 28) 1. writing goals, 1. Persuasion and writing In addition, students with LD wrote
Knowledge of 2. disability status goals predicts the less persuasive essays than students
 persuasion and 3. grade level quality of persuasive without disabilities. Furthermore,
writing goals predict writing theory  knowledge of persuasion predicted
the quality of the persuasiveness of students’
children’s persuasive essays. However, the number and
writing(Ferretti & types of ideas students generated did
Lewis, 2019) not predict essay persuasiveness after
accounting for the effects of other
“Pengetahuan variables. Finally, the provision of an
tentang persuasi dan elaborated goal did not impact the
tujuan penulisan number or type of ideas generated by
memprediksi the students. However, the students’
kualitas tulisan ideas evidenced considerable
persuasif anak-anak sensitivity to possible criticisms that
(Ferretti & Lewis) , could be evelled by an audience. The
2019)” implications for argu- mentative
writing are discussed

29 (Artikel 29) 1. creating 1. Argumentative writing In this introduction, we provide Dukungan

Argumentative 2. evaluating theory back- ground about the theoretical Sitasi
writing: theory, 3. summarizing perspectives that inform the papers
assessment, and arguments included in this spe- cial issue and
instruction(Ferretti highlight their contributions to the
& Graham, 2019) extant literature about argumenta-
tive writing.
“Penulisan
argumentatif: teori,
penilaian, dan
pengajaran (Ferretti
& Graham, 2019)”
30 (Artikel 30) 1. Provides 1. Writing of The findings suggest that the inter- Dukungan
Shifting evidence "good"writing in high actional construction of “good Sitasi
epistemologies 2. Locates school English argumentative writing” in
during instructional decision in language arts classes instructional conversations was
conversations about students influenced by the broader
“good” evidence instructional context (e.g., a testing
argumentative 3. Shifts regimen), by the teacher’s
writing in a high storytelling to argumentative epistemologies for
school English students what counts as good writing, and by
language arts 4. Subservience the conversational interaction of
classroom(Newell, equals no power teachers and students in classroom
Bloome, Kim, & 5. Validates and lessons.
Goff, 2019) indicates new
topic
“Menggeser 6. Framed as rule
epistemologi selama 7. Explaining rule
percakapan 8. Labeling as
instruksional tentang warrant
penulisan 9. Initiating
argumentatif yang reported speech
"baik" di kelas seni 10. Locating
bahasa Inggris dominance
sekolah menengah 11. Structural
(Newell, Bloome, aspect
Kim, & Goff, 2019)"