Mojgan Rashtchi, Reza Porkar, Seyyede Fateme Ghazi Mir Saeed


This explanatory sequential mixed methods study compared the effects of three different approaches to writing (product, process, genre) in the quantitative phase. In the qualitative phase, it focused on the type and frequency of strategies employed by learners in each group by employing think-aloud protocols. Three intact groups (n1=25, n2=23, n3=24) who were selected based on convenience sampling took part in the study. The participants had taken an essay writing course in the fifth semester of their study in English Translation. First, the participants took a Nelson English language proficiency test and then sat for a writing pretest. Content Scoring Guide (Ashwell, 2000) was the rating scale for scoring the essays. The inter-rater reliability between the two raters (r=0.75) showed that they were consistent in their scoring. After verifying the homogeneity of the groups regarding language proficiency and writing ability, the researchers assigned them randomly to three types of writing instruction; namely product-based, process-based, and genre-based groups. The treatment took 12 sessions, and distinct techniques related to each writing approach were employed in the classes. After the treatment, the participants took a writing posttest. The two raters scored the essays (inter-rater reliability=0.79). The results of the one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups. Scheffe post hoc test showed that the genre-based group outperformed the other two groups. However, no significant differences were found between the product-based and process-based groups. In the second phase of the study, 12 participants (four individuals from each group) participated in the think-aloud sessions to clarify the type of strategy they used while writing. Mu’s (2005) taxonomy of ESL writing strategies was employed as the criterion for classifying the strategies. The study has implications for language teachers and educators who are seeking the best way to teach writing. Syllabus designers can also benefit from the findings when developing materials for writing classes.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



expository writing, genre-based approach, process-based approach, product-based approach

Full Text:



Ahn, H. (2012). Teaching writing skills based on a genre approach to L2 primary school students: An action research. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 2-16.

Akinwamide, T. (2012). The influence of process approach on English as second language students' performances in essay writing. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 16-29.

Alodwan, T.A.A., & Ibnian, S.S.K. (2014). The effect of using the process approach to writing on developing university students’ essay writing skills in EFL. Review of Arts and Humanities, 3(2), 139-155.

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.

Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160.

Bengisu, K., & Seyit, A. (2016). The effect of process-based writing focused on metacognitive skills oriented to fourth grade students’ narrative writing skill. Education and Science, 41(187), 137-164.

Birjandi, P., & Malmir, A. (2011). The effect of task-based approach on the Iranian advanced EFL learners’ narrative vs. expository writing. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 1(2), 1-26.

Bowles, M. (2010). Concurrent verbal report in second language acquisition. ARAL, 30, 111-127.

Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. (2014). Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cavkaytar, S. (2010). Benefitting from writing process method to improve written expression skills in primary education. The Journal of International Social Research, 3(10), 133-139. Retrieved from

Chandrasegaran, A. (2013). The effect of a socio-cognitive approach to teaching writing on stance support moves and topicality in students’ expository essays. Linguistics and Education, 24(2), 101-111.

Chen, Y. S., & Su, S. W. (2011). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary writing. ELT Journal, 66(2), 184-192.

Cheng, A. (2006). Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Specific Purposes, 11(6), 115-124.

Coffin, C., & Donahue, J. (2012). Academic literacies and systemic functional linguistics: How do they relate? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 64–75.

Cohen, J. U. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Devitt, A. (2004). Writing genres. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Elashri, E. A. E., & Ibrahim, I. (2013). The effect of the genre-based approach to teaching writing on the EFL Al-Azhar secondary students' writing skills and their attitudes towards writing. Retrieved from

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: McQuarrie University.

Firkins, A., Forey, G., & Sengupta, S. (2007). Teaching writing to low proficiency EFL students. ELT Journal, 61 (4), 341-352.

Writing prompts (2003). New York, NY: Learning Express.

Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reforms in the United States. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 45-55.

Guan, J. (2015, October). Incorporation of Product Approach and Process Approach in English Writing Instruction. 2015 International Conference on Economics, Social Science, Arts, Education and Management Engineering. Atlantis Press.

Haiyan, M., & Rilong, L. (2016). Classroom EFL writing: The alignment-oriented approach. English Language Teaching, 9(4), 76-82.

Halliday, M.A.K., Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Hall-Mills, S., & Apel, K. (2013). Narrative and expository writing of adolescents with language-learning disabilities: A pilot study. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 34(3), 135-143.

Han, J., & Hiver, P. (2018). Genre-based L2 writing instruction and writing-specific psychological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 44-59.

Hasan, M. K., & Akhand, M. M. (2010). Approaches to writing in EFL/ESL context: Balancing product and process in writing class at tertiary level. Journal of NELTA, 15(1-2), 77-88.

Hodges, T. (2017). Theoretically speaking: An examination of four theories and how they support writing in the classroom. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 90(4), 139-146.

Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445-462.

Hyejeong, A. (2012). Teaching writing skills based on a genre approach to l2 primary school students: An action research. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 2-16.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17-29.

Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164.

Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Karimpour, M., & Karkia, P. (2016). The impact of summary writing with structure guidelines on EFL college students’ rhetorical organization: Integrating genre-based and process approaches. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(18), 116-137.

Kongpetch, S. (2006). Using a genre-based approach to teach writing to Thai students: A case study. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 21 (2), 3-33.

Koutsoftas, A. D., & Gray, S. (2012). Comparison of narrative and expository writing in students with and without language-learning disabilities. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43(4), 395-409. DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461

Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lam, R. (2015). Understanding EFL Students' Development of Self‐Regulated Learning in a Process‐Oriented Writing Course. TESOL Journal, 6(3), 527-553.

Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York: Routledge.

Lin, B. (2006). Genre-based teaching and Vygotskian principles in EFL: The case of a university writing course. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 226-248.

Luo, J., & Huang, T. (2015). Genre-based analysis of American tourism brochure. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3(09), 200-208. DOI: 10.4236/jss.2015.39028

Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Meisuo, Z. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61-95.

Mourssi, A. (2013). Theoretical and practical linguistic shifting from product/guided writing to process writing and recently to the innovated writing process approach in teaching writing for second/foreign language learners. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(5), 731-751.

Mourssi, A. (2006). The role of motivation and learning strategies in improving second language learners' writing. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham, UK.

Mu, C. (2005). A taxonomy of ESL writing strategies. Proceedings Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy, Practice, 1-10, Singapore. Retrieved from

Murray, D. (1993). Assumptions. In L. Cleary, & M. Linn (Eds.), Linguistics for teachers. New York, NY, McGraw-Hill.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. London: Prentice-Hall.

Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45-65.

Paltridge, B. (2014). Genre and second-language academic writing. Language Teaching, 47(3), 303-318.

Pasand, P., & Haghi, E. (2013). Process-product approach to writing: The effect of model essays on EFL learners’ writing accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(1), 75-79.

Pujianto, D., & Ihrom, S. (2014). A process-genre approach to teaching writing report text to senior high school students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 99-110.

Rahimi, M. (2011). Discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 68-78. DOI:10.5430/wjel.v1n2p68

Rashtchi, M., & Mohammadi, M. A. (2017). Teaching lexical bundles to improve academic writing via tasks: Does the type of input matter? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 14(2), 201-219.

Rashtchi, M., & Beiki, M. (2015). The effect of teacher-generated cooperative brainstorming versus learner-generated brainstorming on activating EFL learners’ background knowledge in essay writing classes. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 5(S2), 1218-1227.

Rashtchi, M., & Mirshahidi, S. (2012). The primacy of teacher imperative commentaries in the improvement of Iranian English majors’ writing ability. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 3(1), 119-150. DOI: 10.22111/ijals.2012.81

Rashtchi, M., & Ghandi, M. (2011). Writing revision strategies: Do they enhance writing ability? Man and the Word (Zmogus ir Zodis), 13(3), 67-80.

Rashtchi, M. (2007). A pathway toward critical thinking through cooperative writing in an English college course in Iran. The Near and Middle Eastern Journal of Research in Education, 2(1), (1-11). DOI: 10.5339/nmejre.2007.2.1

Reppen, R. (2002). A genre-based approach to content writing instruction. In J.C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. (pp. 321-327). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics and language teaching. Harlow: Longman.

Ruiz-Funes, M. (2001). Task representation in foreign language reading-to-write. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 226–234.

Safari, S., & Bagheri, B. (2017). A comparative study of strategy instrument through process vs. product writing on IELTS writing performance of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Teaching English Language Studies, 5(3), 18-33.

Sarhady, T. (2015). The effect of product/process-oriented approach to teaching and learning writing skill on university student performances. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 7-12.

Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259-291.

Schmitt, N. (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics. London: Arnold & Oxford University Press.

Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378–388.

Swales, J. M. (2001). Metatalk in American academic talk: the cases of point and thing. Journal of English Linguistics, 29(1), 34-54.

Tangpermpoon, T. (2008). Integrated approaches to improve students’ writing skills for English major students. ABAC Journal, 28(2), 1-9.

Tardy, C. (2011). The history and future of genre in second language writing: A North American perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(20), 1–5.

Ting, W. (2010). Study of “the Product Approach” and “the Process Approach” in writing class for university students. Second International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science. DOI: 10.1109/ETCS.2010.186

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

Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1991). In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 230-245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. Longman: London.

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195–209.

Zhang, Y. (2018). Exploring EFL learners’ self-efficacy in academic writing based on process-genre approach. English Language Teaching, 11(6), 115-124.

DOI: 10.5539/elt.v11n6p115



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Mojgan Rashtchi, Reza Porkar, Seyyede Fateme Ghazi Mir Saeed

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2022. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).