LASHIO UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ DIFFICULTIES IN

ESSAY WRITING

Project Paper
Submitted By

GROUP II

4 Eng-13 Ma Ei Shwe Sin Thet

4 Eng-14 Ma Zin Yu Yu Naing
4 Eng-15 Mg Ye Lwin Phone
4 Eng-16 Nang Phaung Kham
4 Eng-17 Nang Yin Wai Oo
4 Eng-18 Ma Moet Moet Oo
4 Eng-19 Nang Kon Ngin
4 Eng-20 Ma Ja Seng Mai
4 Eng-21 Ma Myat Pwint Phyu
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Abstract
List of Tables
List of figures
1.Introduction
1.1 Aim and Objectives
1.2 Problem Statement
1.3 Research Questions
2. Literature Review
2.1 Theoretical Background
2.1.1 Nature of writing
2.1.2 Writing Difficulties
2.2 Previous Research
2.3 Our current study
3. Research Methodology
3.1 Participants
3.2 Materials
3.3 Data Collection
3.4 Data Analysis
3.4.1 Quantitative
3.4.2 Qualitative
4. Findings, Discussion and Suggestion
4.1 Quantitative
4.2 Qualitative
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
 1. Introduction
Writing is considered a challenging language skill for learners. It is a complex
process which requires learners to have knowledge of different writing features such as
vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, and idea generation to produce a meaningful and well-
organized text (Raimes, 1983). Writers have to think and do various things when they write
an essay. For instance, they have to think the ideas related to the topic. At the same time, they
need to consider what vocabularies or which tenses they should use to express their ideas into
words or sentences and also pay attention to spelling. Therefore, they encounter various
difficulties when they write. Several studies (Shrafiny et al., 2021; Budiharso, 2006; Manik et
al., 2017; Sayma, 2020; Solikah, 2017) have highlighted that most writers have low
motivation or negative attitudes towards writing (affective difficulties), insufficient
grammatical or mechanical knowledge (linguistic difficulties), and poor abilities in idea
generation or revising their written work (cognitive difficulties).

1.1 Problem statement

Similarly, most Myanmar university students seem to find it difficult to write
effectively and meaningfully. Among different writing aspects, it is not easy for them to use
the language rules correctly such as grammar, vocabulary and mechanics while writing. Their
insufficient language knowledge can prevent them from producing a good writing. Moreover,
little is known about how they think and do while writing. In Myanmar context, mostly
students are supported with the outlines when they need to write an essay, so most students
do not even know how to generate ideas. In other words, writing is rarely taught as a process.
To help them to become better writers, we should know what linguistic and cognitive writing
difficulties they have when they write.

1.2 Aim and objectives

In order to fill this missing information, our study aimed at investigate the
undergraduate students’ difficulties in descriptive essay writing. The objectives of the study
were as follows:
(1) To identify the undergraduate students’ linguistic difficulties in descriptive essay
writing, and
(2) To identify the undergraduate students’ cognitive difficulties in descriptive essay
writing.
1.3 Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions.
(1) What linguistic difficulties do the undergraduate students face when they write a
descriptive essay?
(2) What cognitive difficulties do the undergraduate students face when they write a
descriptive essay?
 2. Literature Review
In this section, we will discuss about the writing (linguistic and cognitive) difficulties
grounding on Budiharso (2006, 2008), Tompkins (1990) and Tribble (1996). Then, we will
highlight some previous studies.

2.1 Theoretical Background

2.1.1 Writing Difficulties
Among four language skills (writing, speaking, reading, and listening), writing is a
difficult skill for EFL/ESL learners to acquire and master (Tribble, 1996). Writing is
considered a challenging task because it is an individual, private or solitary activity (Loreto &
McDonough, 2013). Writing skill is also a long process which requires learners to go through
several stages as highlighted by Nation (2008). Furthermore, learners need to pay
simultaneous attention to different writing aspects in producing a meaningful piece of writing
(Raimes, 1983). As shown in Figure 1, writers must deal with different writing aspects such
as content, syntax, grammar, mechanics, writer’s process and so on.

Since writing requires learners’ knowledge of different writing features, most

EFL/ESL learners encounter various difficulties when they write. Some studies (e.g.,
Budiharso, 2008; Erkan et al., 2011; Tribble, 1996) have found that writers mostly encounter
the affective (e.g., motivation, attitudes, and anxiety), linguistic (e.g., tenses, articles,
prepositions, and capitalization) and cognitive (e.g., idea generation and making outline)
challenges.
2.1.2 Linguistic Writing Difficulties
Among these writing aspects which pose challenges for writers, “linguistic problems
in an essay appear as the main constraints for students to develop a good English essay”
(Solikhah, 2017, p. 31). Writers cannot express their ideas effectively and meaningfully if
they do not have sufficient linguistic knowledge. Ma (2021) mentions that writing has
become the most difficult skill because writers need to consider the grammatical rules.
Linguistic aspects refer to the language rules that are used in writing. According to Budiharso
(2006, 2008), linguistic aspects include syntax, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics (see
Figure 2).

Solikhah (2017) gives more details of linguistic features in the following ways.
 Syntactical features of writing refer to types of sentence construction: simple, compound,
complex, or compound complex sentences.
 Grammatical features are subject-verb agreement, tenses, word order, articles, pronouns,
prepositions, and other parts of speech.
 Vocabulary in writing includes the selection of the appropriate words, different words,
and compound words.
 Mechanics refers to the basic rules of writing such as punctuation, spelling, and
capitalization.
Insufficient knowledge of syntax, grammar, vocabulary and mechanics
2.1.3 Cognitive Writing Difficulties
Later, a new view on writing as a process has emerged and highlighted the writers’
cognitive challenges. According to Drijbooms (2016), “writing makes considerable demands
on the writer’s cognitive skills” (p.15). Having linguistic knowledge is not enough for
learners to produce a well-written text as they also need to know how to generate and develop
ideas. Nation (2008) says that writing process needs several steps to produce a written
product. There have been various views on writing processes. Initially, based on the cognitive
theory, Hayes and Flower (1981) claim that writers go through three stages - planning,
translating, and reviewing. (ADD some information).

Later, five-stage writing process has been introduced in writing (Tompkin, 1990;
Tribble, 1996). To produce a well-written essay, writers have to go through five different
stages as shown in Figure 3.
 Prewriting: It is the first major step in the writing process. During prewriting stage,
writers generate ideas freely by using several prewriting activities such as free writing,
brainstorming, and listing. Then, the ideas were classified and make an outline.
 Drafting: After making an outline, the writers start writing. The writer consciously starts
with the main ideas and adds supporting ideas (Wingersky, Boerner, and Holguin-
Balogh, 1992). Writers may add new ideas that come to writer’s mind during drafting
(Budiharso, 2008; Oshima & Hogue, 1991).
 Revising: It means making changes to improve ideas and organization. Tompkin (1990)
argues that “revision is not just polishing writing; it is meeting the needs of readers
through adding, substituting, deleting, and rearranging material” (p. 83). The revision
should be done several times.
 Editing: “Editing focuses on spelling, punctuation, capitalization, grammar usage, errors
in sentence structure, consistency in verb tense, consistent point of view, abbreviations
and numbers” (Budiharso, 2008, p. 34).
 Sharing: In sharing, writers share their written work with the audience. As they share
their writing with real audiences such as teacher or classmates, “students come to think
of themselves as authors” (Tompkin, 1990, p. 93).

2.2 Previous Studies

In this section, we give an overview of the five related studies that have investigated
the students’ writing difficulties in terms of linguistics and cognitive aspects.
The first study by Sabar Manik, Normina Purba, and Rostina (2017) investigated the
linguistic errors in English composition committed by non-English major students. The
participants were 20 first year students from the English subject course from the Economic
College IBBI. Their compositions were analyzed to explore the linguistic errors. The data
were analyzed by using Hubbard’s (1996) classification of errors including grammatical,
syntactic, and lexical errors. The results indicated that students committed 352 errors in their
compositions with the following frequencies: 82 errors in propositions, 32 errors in tenses, 29
errors in articles, 48 errors in subject verb agreements, 37 errors in word order, 17 errors in
capitalization, 21 errors in punctuation, 28 errors in spelling, and 58 errors in word choice. It
was clear that the most difficult linguistic error that students face was prepositions whereas
the easiest part of linguistic error was capitalization.
The second study by Teguh Budiharso (2006) identified the similarities and
differences in sentence complexity, grammar, and mechanics of the essays. The data were
English essays and Indonesian essays obtained from the same 10 students of the English
Department. This study was qualitative in nature, trying to describe narrative data represented
in the form of words. Incomplete, run-on and stringy sentences as well as grammatical and
mechanical errors were found. The results showed that in the area of grammar, the essays
indicated that the students had better grammar knowledge in their first language than in their
second language. The findings also showed that more grammatical errors (e.g., pronoun
substitutions, agreement errors) were found in English essays while more mechanical errors
(e.g., spelling, punctuation, capitalization, missing question mark) were found in Indonesian
essays.
The third study by Ashrafiany, Hasanuddin Fatsah, Kartin Lihawa, and Nonny
Basalam (2021) explored the students’ difficulties in writing essay and the cognitive process
of writing. The data were collected by using interview, questionnaire, observations, and
students’ essays. The participants were third year students from English Department of State
University of Gorontalo. The results showed that student had difficulties in writing including
pre-writing, drafting and reviewing. Moreover, they can manage their plan for writing started
from finding topic to write a complete essay. (3) Students’ essay result showed that they have
improved their skill of writing. At least, minimize their difficulties in writing. They got an
average score around 66- 83. It can be said that students’ cognitive process in learning
argumentative essay is good and it can minimize their difficulties in writing.
The fourth study by Renaissance Ahmed Sayma (2020) examined the writing
problems of non-English major undergraduate students in Bangladesh. The participants were
120 non-English major undergraduate students from different departments studying at
Comilla University, Britannia University and National University and 30 teachers. The study
used the mixed method approach, and data were collected through questionnaires. The
findings indicated that the participants highlighted their writing difficulties (subject-verb
agreement (41.8%), grammar and sentence structure (45.6%), spelling (32.9%), punctuation
(36.7%), vocabulary (60.8%), and planning essay (45.6%)).
The fifth study by Imroatus Solikhah (2017) examined the linguistics problems in an
essay writing by EFL undergraduate students. 10 English essays were analyzed by using the
content analysis. The study revealed that linguistics problems appeared in terms of syntax,
sentence, grammar, tenses, and agreements.
 3. Research Methodology
Our study used a mixed method approach. We collected both quantitative and
qualitative data to gain the deeper understanding of the participants’ linguistic and cognitive
difficulties in writing essay. In this section, we will explain about the participants, materials,
data collection and sample data analysis.

3.1 Participants
The participants were 37 undergraduate students who were specialized in English at
Lashio University. They were 17 second year (second semester) students and 20 third year
(first semester) students. The second-year students were at CEFR B1 level and the third-year
students were at CEFR level B2. But they represented the same CEFR level (independent
user group). 46% of the participants (n=17) were male students and 54% (n=20) were female
students, and their age ranged from 19 to 22. They gave the permission to use their data for
this study.

Table 1
Number of Participants and Their CEFR Levels
Year Independent user group (CEFR) Number of participants
Second Year (Sem II) CEFR B1 (n = 17)
Third Year (Sem I ) CEFR B2 (n = 20)
Total (n = 37)

3.2 Materials
The following three materials were used in this study: essay writing task, closed
questionnaire, and interview to collect the data.
 First, we employed the essay writing task in which all the participants (n = 37) wrote
a descriptive essay. The title of the essay was “Your favourite item in your room”. They had
to write 250 words within one hour. We selected descriptive essay writing because the
participants had to learn descriptive essay writing in their course book.

Figure 4
Material 1: Essay Writing Task
Essay Writing Task
Name: __________________
Roll No:__________________
Time Allowed: 1 hour
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Write a 250-word descriptive essay on “Your favorite item in your room”.
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

Second, we adopted the closed questionnaire to ask the participants to rate their
abilities in different writing aspects (Linguistic and cognitive aspects). The questionnaire was
designed based on the definitions of linguistic aspects (Budiharso, 2006, 2008) and the
cognitive process writing model proposed by Tompkins (1990) and Tribble (1996). The
questionnaire had two parts and included all together 37 items. The first part was related to
the linguistic aspects (17 items) and the second part was about the cognitive aspects (10
items).

ADD Questionnaire

Third, we used the interview that included three open questions. The first question
asked the participants’ linguistics writing difficulties and the second question asked their
cognitive writing difficulties. The third question asked their preferred support to solve their
writing difficulties. Three open questions were as follows:
Q1. How do you usually write an essay? What cognitive difficulties do you face (e.g.,
idea generation, outline) when you write an essay?
Q2. What linguistic difficulties do you face (e.g., sentence structure, grammar,
vocabulary, mechanics) when you write an essay?
Q3. What kind of support do you want to overcome your writing difficulties?

3.3 Data collection

Our data collection process included two stages. The first one was piloting and the
second stage was actual data collection. Before our actual data collection, a small study was
conducted with two participants (one from B1 group and one from B2 group). During
piloting stage, we observed and asked whether our data collection process including the
materials would be fine with our target participants. We found that one participant was not
very clear with two questionnaire items, “Constructing the simple sentences” and “Using
capitalization rules correctly”. So, we added the examples to make them clearer as in
“Constructing the simple sentences (e.g., She is beautiful.)” and “Using capitalization rules
correctly (e.g., New York, Obama)”. As for the interview, after we had listened to their
recordings, we realized that the interviewer sometimes needed to ask the interviewees to
explain what they meant when there was unclear information in their responses. Based on the
piloting experiences, we made some changes to our materials.
Then we did our main research in which we collected the data from all participants
(n = 37). First, they were asked to write a 250-word descriptive essay within an hour to have
the recent experience of essay writing. By doing so, they could clearly know their writing
difficulties. After that, they had a break for five minutes. Then, all participants responded to
the questionnaire within 10 minutes. As the last step, 10 participants (25% of the whole
number of participants) were randomly selected for the interviews. Five students were from
B1 group and five students were from B2 group. They answered two open questions that
asked the linguistics and cognitive difficulties they faced when they write an essay and one
open question that asked what support they wanted to get to overcome their writing
difficulties.
Table 3
Data Collection Process
Piloting
- A small preliminary study with two participants (one from B1 and one from B2 levels)
- Make improvements to materials based on the interviewees’ comments
Actual data collection
- Essay writing task: one hour (n = 37)
(17 Students from B1 and 20 Students from B2)
- Break time : 5 mins
- Questionnaire : 10 mins (n = 37)
- Interview : 5 mins (n = 10)
(5 students from B1 and 5 students from B2)

3.4 Sample Data Analysis

We did the sample analysis of both quantitative (questionnaire responses) and
qualitative (interview responses) data.
As for the quantitative data, the questionnaire data were quantitatively analyzed. We
counted frequency and changed the frequency counts into percentage and presented them in
the tabular forms. Finally, the results were visualized with the use of the stacked bar chart.
With regards to the qualitative data, the interview data were analyzed by using the content
analysis method. It included five major steps. First, we listened to the interview recordings
and wrote down what the interviewees said. And then, to translate the texts into the English
version, we tried different translation apps, but we selected the “BURMESE TO ENGLISH
TRANSLATE” application. It could give more accurate translation them other applications.
Since this translation application sometimes cannot translate some Myanmar words or
sentences properly, we checked the accuracy of the translated texts twice (by the group
members and our supervisor). Then, we carefully read their responses and looked for the key
words and the key sentences that highlighted the linguistic and cognitive writing difficulties
and classified them by using three different colors. We used green color to highlight the
cognitive difficulty, red color for the linguistic difficulty, and blue color to highlight the
interviewees’ preferred support.

3.4.1 Sample Data Analysis of the Questionnaire Data

 As a sample, we quantitatively analyzed the questionnaire responses of five
participants from B1 group and five participants from B2 group.
Table 4 shows how five participants from B1 group rated their abilities in constructing
sentences (Syntax - one of the linguistic aspects). The results indicated that 60% of the
participants thought they had the average abilities in constructing simple sentences and 60%
showed that they were good at constructing compound sentences. For the complex sentences,
all participants responded that their abilities were average. The findings can be seen clearly in
Figure 5.

Table 4
Responses to Syntax (Linguistic difficulty, n = 5, B1 Level)

Item No. Syntax (B1) Very poor Poor Average Good Very good

1 Simple sentences 0% 0% 60% 20% 20%

2 Compound sentences 0% 0% 40% 60% 0%

3 Complex sentences 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Figure 5
Visualization of the Responses to Syntax (Linguistic difficulty, n = 5, B1 Level)
 Syntax (B1)

20%

20% 60%

100%

60%
40%

simple sentences compound sentences complex sentences

1 2 3

Very poor Poor Average Good Very good

Table 5 indicates how five participants from B1 group rated their abilities in
prewriting (one of the cognitive aspects). The results showed that 40% of the participants had
the average abilities in idea generation while 20% responded that they had poor abilities. For
idea organization, 40% of participants thought they were poor and another 40% responded
that their abilities were average. For making outline, 60% of the participants rated their
abilities as average whereas 20% thought they had poor abilities and another 20% claimed to
have very poor abilities. The findings can be seen clearly in Figure 6.

Table 5
Responses to Prewriting (Cognitive difficulty, n = 5, B1 Level)

Item No. Prewriting (B1) Very poor Poor Average Good Very good

18 Idea generation 0% 20% 40% 20% 20%

19 Idea organization 0% 40% 40% 20% 0%

20 Outline 20% 20% 60% 0% 0%

Figure 6
Visualization of the Responses to Prewriting (Cognitive Difficulty, n = 5, B1 Level)
 Prewriting (B1)

20% 20%

20% 60%
40%

40%
20%
40%
20% 20%

idea generation idea organization outline

18 19 20

Very poor Poor Average Good Very good

Table 6 shows how five participants from B2 group rated their abilities in constructing
sentences (Syntax - one of the linguistic aspects). The results indicated that 40% of the
participants thought they were good at constructing simple sentences and another 40%
showed that they were very good at constructing simple sentences. For the compound and
complex sentences, 60% of the participants responded that their abilities were average. The
findings can be seen clearly in Figure 7.

Table 6
Responses to Syntax (Linguistic Difficulty, n = 5, B2 Level)

Item No Syntax (B2) Very poor Poor Average Good Very good

1 Simple sentences 0% 0% 20% 40% 40%

2 Compound sentences 0% 0% 60% 20% 20%

3 Complex sentences 0% 0% 60% 20% 20%

Figure 7
Visualization of the Responses to Syntax (Linguistic Difficulty, n = 5, B2 Level)
 Syntax (B2)

20% 20%
40%
20% 20%

40%
60% 60%

20%

simple sentences compound sentences complex sentences

1 2 3

Very poor Poor Average Good Very good

Table 7 indicates how five participants from B2 group rated their abilities in
prewriting (one of the cognitive aspects). The results showed that 60% of the participants had
the average abilities in idea generation while 20% responded that they had poor abilities. For
idea organization, 60% of participants thought they were average and 20% responded that
their abilities were average. For making outline, 80% of the participants rated their abilities as
average whereas 20% thought they had good abilities. The findings can be seen clearly in
Figure 8.

Table 7
Responses to Prewriting (Cognitive Difficulty, n = 5, B2 Level)

Item No. Prewriting (B2) Very poor Poor Average Good Very good

18 Idea generation 0% 20% 60% 20% 0%

19 Idea organization 0% 40% 60% 0% 0%

20 Outline 0% 0% 80% 20% 0%

Figure 8
Visualization of the Responses to Prewriting (Cognitive Difficulty, n = 5, B2 Level)

Prewriting (B2)

20% 20%

60%

60%
80%

40%
20%

idea generation idea organization outline

18 19 20

Very poor Poor Average Good Very good

3.4.2 Sample Coding of the Interview Data

As for the qualitative data analysis, interview data were analyzed by using content
analysis. Table 8 shows the sample coding of our pilot interview data for B1 group. The
participant said that he had difficulty in idea generation and linguistic difficulties in terms of
the use of sentences, conjunctions and vocabulary. The participant wanted support on writing
a well-organized essay and constructing sentences.

Table 8
Sample Coding of the Interview Data (n = 1, Piloting, B1 Level)
Interview Responses Writing aspects
Q1: Cognitive Difficulties
1. Idea generation >> Prewriting
Before writing an essay, I think about the
topic first. I started thinking about the theme
to add. I classified what I have thought into
parts and write them down. While writing
the essay, I think about how to join the
sentences by using conjunction. Re-read and
check whether the spelling is correct or
 incorrect. [It’s difficult to generate ideas]
because I don’t have sufficient information
about the topic. I have no experience in
essay writing.
Q2: Linguistic Difficulties
1. Patterns >> Grammar
When writing an essay, sentence
2. Conjunctions >> Grammar
construction, grammar, vocabulary and
3. Use of vocabulary >> Vocabulary
mechanics are neither easy nor difficult.
[Among them, the most difficult part is the
grammar]. [When the topic level is too high,
it’s difficult to use the vocabulary]. [How to
use grammar patterns is difficult]. [I don’t
know how to use ‘’however’’ in the
sentence after another sentence].
Q3: Preferred Support Support on
1. Writing a well-organized essay
If I’m going to write an essay, how should I
2. Constructing sentences
start the introduction and conclusion
sections and how should I start if I’m going
to start writing a sentence. I don’t know
how many paragraphs I should write one or
two paragraphs by looking at the title of the
essay.

As shown in Table 9, shows the sample coding of our pilot interview data for B2
group. For the cognitive difficulties, the participant said that she had difficulty in idea
generation and idea expansion. She mentioned that linguistic difficulties in terms of syntax
(complex sentence), vocabulary (use of different words and advanced words), and mechanics
(punctuation). The participant wanted support on idea generation and sentence construction
and get more writing practices and feedback.

Table 9
Sample Coding of the Interview Data (n = 1, Piloting, B2 Level)
Interview Responses Writing aspects
Q1: Cognitive Problems
1. Idea generation >> Pre-writing
Since I was young, I wrote the essay by
2. Idea expansion >> Pre-writing
following outline given. [So, I find it a bit
difficult to generate ideas if I am given only
the title]. I think about ideas that are related
to the title and then write it by looking at the
information I have written. [Generating idea
is the most difficult for me]. If I’m given a
title, [I don’t know how to start to generate
idea]. [When an idea comes out, it’s difficult
to expand it and write content]. I’ve
difficulty in words count because sometimes
the facts are inflated and a little difficult to
be compact.
Q2: Linguistics Problems
1. Different word use >>Vocabulary
[It is difficult to use vocabulary without
2. Advanced word use >> Vocabulary
repetition]. It is not difficult to use
3. Punctuation >> Mechanics
appropriate vocabulary with the topic. I'm
4. Complex sentence >> Syntax
okay to use tense and grammar. [Using
punctuation is a little difficult].
[Construction complex sentence by using
“which” is difficult]. [I'm poor at using
advanced vocabulary].
Q3: Preferred support
1. Idea generation
I want you to tell me how to generate ideas.
2. Sentence construction
How to build better sentences and I want
3. More writing practices
you to give me writing practices. I want you
4. Feedback
to check my essay after writing. I want to
know my weak point. If no one checks my
essay and gives me feedback, I don't know
what should be added. In this way, I want to
 know what aspects I need to improve. I'm
not satisfied with using simple sentences
when writing essay. I want to write
according to my level.

Acknowledgements
We would like to express our special thanks to Daw Nang Hla Win Khaing, Associate
Professor, Head of the Department of English, for her encouragement, guidance, and
suggestions throughout this study.
Our appreciation goes to our supervisor, Dr. Thwin Myint Myint Maw, Lecturer, the
Department of English, for her supervision and support that helped us to finish this study.
Finally, we really thank our participants and all people who have supported us to
complete this study directly or indirectly.
Firstly, we listened to the
 References
Budihaso, T. (2006). The Linguistic Features of English and Indonesian Essays Made by EFL
Undergraduate Students, Bahasa dan Seni, 34(1), 1-17.
Budiharso, T. (2008). Contrastive Analysis on Rhetoric and Linguistic Features of Academic
Essays, Penerbit Cawanmas.
Erkan, Y. D., & Saban, A. (2011). Writing Performance Relative to Writing Apprehension,
Self-efficacy in Writing, and Attitudes towards Writing: A Correlational Study in
Turkish Tertiary-Level EFL. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 13(1), 163-191.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). Linda Flower and Social Cognition: Construction A View
of the Writing Process. Journal of Computer Documentation, 22(3), 25-37.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College
Composition
and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Ma, L. P. F. (2021). Writing in English as an additional language: Challenges encountered by
doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(6), 1176-1190.
Nation, I. S. (2008). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. Routledge.
Tompkin, G. E. (1990). Teaching Writing Balancing Process and Product. Merrill.
Tribble, C. (1996). Language Teaching: A Scheme for Teacher Education. Oxford University
Press.

Erkan, Y. D., & Saban, A. (2011). Writing Performance Relative to Writing

Apprehension, Self-efficacy in Writing, and Attitudes towards Writing: A
Correlational Study in Turkish Tertiary-Level EFL. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly,
13(1), 163-191.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). Linda Flower and Social Cognition: Construction A
View of the Writing Process. Journal of Computer Documentation, 22(3), 25-37.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Ma, L. P. F. (2021). Writing in English as an additional language: Challenges
encountered by doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(6),
1176-1190.

References
Ashrafiny, Fatsah, H., Lihawa, K., & Basalma, N (2021). Minimizing Students’ Difficulties
In
Writing Essay Through Cognitive Process. International Journal of Education and
Social Science Research (IJESSR), 4(6), 63-76.
https://ijessr.com/uploads2021/ijessr_04_523.pdf
Budiharso, T. (2006). The Linguistic Features of English and Indonesian Essays Made by
EFL
Undergraduate Students. Bahasa dan Seni, 34(1), 1-19.
https://sastra.um.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/The-Linguistic-Features-of-English-and-
Indonesian-Essays-Made-by-EFL-Undergraduate-Students-Teguh-Budiharso.pdf
Budiharso, T. (2008). Contrastive Analysis on Rhetoric and Linguistic Features of Academic
Essays, Penerbit Cawanmas.
Di Loreto, S., & McDonough, K. (2013). The relationship between instructor feedback and
 ESL student anxiety. TESL Canada Journal, 20-20.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1033756
Erkan, Y. D., & Saban, A. (2011). Writing Performance Relative to Writing Apprehension,
Self
efficacy in Writing, and Attitudes towards Writing: A Correlational Study in Turkish
Tertiary-Level EFL. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 13(1), 163-191.
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/PDF/March-2011-dye.pdf
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College
Composition
and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/356600
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). Linda Flower and Social Cognition: Construction A View
of the Writing Process. Journal of Computer Documentation, 22(3), 25-37.
Kurniasih, K., Mukminatien, N., Sari, R. N., Arianto, M. A. (2022). Affective Factors in
Online
Writing Performance: Do They Matter? MEXTESOL Journal, 46(2).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
361358883_Affective_Factors_in_Online_Writing_Performance_Do_They_Matter

Manik, S., Purba, N., & Rosina (2017). Investigating Linguistic Errors In English
Composition:
A Case Study of Non-English Department EFL Undergraduate Students. International
Journal of Education and Practice, 5(9), 146-154.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1209952
Ma, L. P. F. (2021). Writing in English as an additional language: Challenges encountered by
doctoral students. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(6), 1176-1190.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1809354
Nation, I. S. (2008). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. Routledge.
https://vulms.vu.edu.pk/Courses/ENG515/Downloads/I%20S%20P%20Nation
%20Teaching%20ESL%20EFL%20Reading%20and%20Writing%20%20(2008).pdf
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. Oxford University Press.
Solikah, I (2017). LINGUISTIC PROBLEMS IN ENGLISH ESSAY BY EFL STUDENTS,
Indonesian Journal of Language Teaching and Linguistics, 2(1), 31-44.
https://ijotl-tl.soloclcs.org/index.php/ijoltl/article/view/231
Sayma, R. A (2020). Fostering Non-English Major Undergraduate Students’ Writing Skill: A
Study in Cumilla Region of Bangladesh. Journal of Literature, Languages and
Linguistics, 69, 43-55.
https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JLLL/article/download/53112/54881
Tompkin, G. E. (1990). Teaching Writing Balancing Process and Product. Merrill.
Tribble, C. (1996). Language Teaching: A Scheme for Teacher Education. Oxford University
Press.