Abstract
This paper comes out of concerns about teaching English writing to Korean university students. This study points out four problems in university writing classes: first, a heavy emphasis on grammatical form; second, overemphasis on final product; third, lack of genre-specific writing across the curriculum; and fourth, the need for more diverse types of feedback. To solve these problems, it suggests utilizing the balanced instructional and curricular approach of the process and genre-based approach to teaching writing. Based on these two approaches to teaching, this paper provides four principles (guidelines) that can be applied to Korean university level writing classes. The four principles (guidelines) are: balancing form and function, scaffolding language and learning, extending the writing curriculum, and providing meaningful response and formative assessment. It is believed that these four principles demonstrate how university writing teachers can apply them to class effectively.

Keywords:
Teaching English writing
Writing instruction
The process approach
The product approach
The genre approach
Form and function
Scaffolding language and learning
Meaningful feedback and formative assessment

Introduction
Learning the process of writing is a difficult skill for students to develop and learn, especially in EFL context, where exposure to English is limited to a few hours per week. Students, learning English composition as a second or foreign language, struggle with many structural issues including selecting proper words, using correct grammar, generating ideas, and developing ideas about specific topics. More importantly, they have trouble developing functional language skills, such as proper natural language use in different social contexts and using language in creative ways. These functional language use problems are worsened because writing teachers tend to focus largely on teaching students grammar, and proper language structure, and typically see students as passive writers. These factors tend to hamper students from improving their classroom interaction and keep them from developing more active learning in writing. Due to this gap between students' needs and teachers' instructional methodology, the issue becomes how teachers can help students express themselves freely and fluently to be more autonomous writers, and how teachers can help students become more successful readers and writers of academic and workplace texts. Additionally, the issue is how teachers can help students understand social functions, allowing them to make writing more meaningful and productive in different social contexts. There is pressing need for composition class to help students develop their skills in using language by experiencing a whole writing process as well as knowledge of the contexts in which writing happens and the purpose of the writing.

This paper attempts to provide some guidance to teaching writing in EFL contexts, especially in Korea. First, we more specifically discuss major problems of teaching writing in EFL contexts. Second, we review the literature on two major strands of writing methodology: the process approach and the genre approach. Finally, we provide four principles toward the process genre approach, which could be introduced in the curriculum of university composition classes.

Major problems of Korean university writing
Both authors have experienced teaching university students in Korea. The first author has taught college English in a national university located in Busan. The second author also has worked for an English institute that provides English classes for English proficiency tests such as TOEIC, TOEFL, and GRE. Based on our teaching experiences in public and private institutes, we discuss the major problems of writing instruction for Korean university students that keep students from realizing their full potential: 1. Heavy emphasis on grammatical form. 2. Overemphasis on the final product. 3. Lack of genre-specific writing across the curriculum. 4. The need for more diverse types of feedback.

Heavy emphasis on grammatical form
Much of teaching writing in Korea still concentrates heavily on traditional form-dominated approach that is mainly concerned with knowledge about the structure of language, and writing development as the result of the imitation of input, in the form of texts provided by the teacher (Pincas, 1982b; Badger and White, 2000). In this approach, the writing reinforces or tests the accurate application of grammatical rules. Controlled composition tasks provide the text and ask the student to manipulate linguistic forms within that text (Raimes, 1991). In other words, Korean university writing classes emphasizes using the grammar correctly, using a range of vocabulary and sentence structures, punctuating meaningfully, and spelling accurately (Hedge, 1988). Also the issue is teachers often find difficulties in adapting a new method successfully in their classroom because students need for grammar instruction, and so they continue to place linguistic accuracy at the forefront of their instruction.

Most students have been taught grammatical features separate from the context and failed to find a close relationship between grammatical form and function; therefore, their knowledge of grammar was not carried over to their ability to write. In addition, even if the students have developed a large vocabulary, which can be enough to express when writing, their vocabulary cannot be applied into real communication.

Overemphasis on the final product
Another issue is that Korean college students believe writing is a linear process (Rohman, 1965), in which they follow fixed steps, such as Pre-write, Write, and Re-write. However, in fact, it is claimed that writing is a recursive process (Shaughnessy, 1977; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Zamel, 1983, and Hedge, 1988), which allows students to go back and forth while writing in order to support or modify the initial ideas. Kim (2000) points out Korean college students spent relatively little time in editing and revising; thus, they show little flexibility in changing their original ideas. Her study also shows their lack of competence in composing is partially because of emphasis on the final product, and their insufficient knowledge on writing strategies. Due to emphasis on the final product, the interaction between a teacher and students or between students themselves does not exist.

Lack of genre-specific writing across the curriculum
Korean university students enrolled in writing classes have a variety of majors, and various reasons for attending the class, such as further academic studying and improved job opportunity. Therefore, writing classes might need to help students understand the social functions or actions of genres and the contexts in which these genres are used (Bazerman, 1988; Freedman & Medway, 1994). Thus, classroom instruction that addresses multiple genres would support students' needs in their various academic and workplace. As part of this instructional change, university writing teachers might consider initiating students into the academic discourse community (Bizzell, 1982), and teach the discourse conventions of school and workplace genres as a tool for empowering students with linguistic resources for social success (Kress, 1993; Martin, 1993b).

The need for more diverse types of feedback
Korean students are traditionally accustomed to being given specific instructions from teachers, and to receive authoritative feedback from the teachers. Thus, students write for the teacher, not for themselves, and as a result, teachers are the only audience for whom students gain experience writing for. One result of this is that writing teachers are often overwhelmed by the task of giving a feedback and correcting students' writing. Due to the fact that students are passive in the classroom, they naturally feel uncomfortable with cooperative interaction that requires them to take an active role. Consequently, the teacher-led assessment, which is prevalent in Korea, makes writing meaningless and unproductive.

Theoretical Background
Badger and White (2000) state that the process and the genre approach are complementary. Thus, we believe that examining their underlying assumptions, the eclectic use of both the process and the genre approaches, could offer a new insight on EFL writing.

The process approach
A process-oriented approach to teaching writing is an idea that began to flourish 30 years ago, as a result of extensive research on first-language writing (Reyes, cited in Montague, 1995). The attention to the writer as language learner and creator of text has led to a "process approach," with a new range of classroom tasks characterized by the use of journals, invention, peer collaboration, revision, and attention to content before form (Raimes, 1991). A concern with the process approach is how writers generate ideas, record them, and refine them in order to form a text. Process approach researchers explore writing behaviors, by focusing on studying and understanding the process of composing (Zamel, 1983). Flower and Hayes (1981) established the model of writing processes: planning, writing, and reviewing. These processes are recursive and interactive, and these mental acts can be reviewed, evaluated, and revised, even before any text has been produced at all. They suggest that the best way to model the writing process is to study a writer's thinking aloud protocols as the principle research tool, thus capturing a detailed record of what is going on in the writer's mind during the act of composing itself.

The process approach to teaching writing emphasizes the writer as an independent producer of texts so that teachers allow their students' time and opportunity to develop students' abilities to plan, define a rhetorical problem, and propose and evaluate solutions. Response is crucial in assisting learners to move through the stages of the writing process, and various means of providing feedback are used, including teacher-student conferences, peer response, audio taped feedback, and reformulation (Hyland, 2003).

In spite of the fact that the process approach emphasizes the writer's independent self, it has its drawbacks (Bazerman, 1980). The disadvantages of process approaches are that first, they often regard all writing as being produced by the same set of processes; second, they give insufficient importance to the kind of texts writers produce and why such texts are produced; and third, they offer learners insufficient input, particularly, in terms of linguistic knowledge, to write successfully (Badger & White, 2000). Bizzell (1982; 1992) suggests teachers need to focus on the conventions of academic discourse, emphasizing the relationship between discourse, community, and knowledge. The outside forces that help guide the individual writer to define problems, frame solutions, and shape the texts also need to be considered. Horowitz (1986) also raises cautions about the process approach saying that the process-oriented approach fails to prepare students for at least one essential type of academic writing, overuse of peer evaluation may leave students with an unrealistic view of their abilities, and the process-oriented approach gives students a false impression of how university writing will be evaluated.

The Genre approach
The process approach focuses on the writer, the creativity and individualism of writing, and the process of writing as a whole, starting from the generation of ideas through to the edition of work. Genre approaches, on the other hand, focus more on the reader, and on the conventions that a piece of writing needs to follow in order to be successfully accepted by its readership (Muncie, 2002).

Genre instruction has emerged as both a set of pedagogies rooted in linguistic theory and a critical response to some of the tenets of whole language instruction (Hicks, 1997). According to Hyon (1996), current genre theories have developed in three research areas; English for specific purposes (ESP), North American New Rhetoric studies, and Australian systematic functional linguistics. Generally, the philosophy of the genre approach is that all texts confirm to certain conventions, and that if a student is to be successful in joining a particular English-language discourse community, the student will need to be able to produce texts which fulfill the expectations of its readers in regards to grammar, organization, and content (Muncie, 2002).

Traditionally, genres were seen as fixed and classifiable into neat and mutually exclusive categories and subcategories. For example, exposition, argument, description, and narratives were treated as the large categories, with sub-types such as the business letter and the lab report (Freeman & Medway, 1994). Thus, in the traditional view of genres, teaching genres means teaching textual regularities in form and content of each genre.

However, this traditional view has been criticized and recently the notion of genre has been reconceived. As Hicks (1997) indicates, genre theory calls for a return to grammar instruction, but grammar instruction at the level of text, where personal intentions are filtered through the typical rhetorical forms available to accomplish particular social purposes. In other words, the central belief is that "we don't just write, we write something to achieve some purpose" (Hyland, 2003, p. 18). Most simply, reflecting Halliday's concern for linking form, function, and social context, Martin and his colleges (1992) defines genre as a goal-oriented, staged social process. Genres are social processes because members of a culture interact to achieve them; they are goal-oriented because they have evolved to achieve things; and staged because meanings are made in steps and it usually takes writers more than one step to reach their goals (Richardson, 1994).

The positive sides of the genre approach are that it acknowledges that writing takes place in a social situation and is a reflection of a particular purpose, and it understands that learning can happen consciously through imitation and analysis (Badger and white, 2000). In the ESL context, the genre approach is also useful for sensitizing ESL instructors to link between formal and functional properties that they teach in the classroom. As Bhatia (1993) suggested, it is important for writing teachers to connect these two elements in order to help students understand how and why linguistic conventions are used for particular rhetorical effects. Moreover, because genres reflect a cultural ideology, the study of genres additionally opens for students an awareness of the assumption of groups who uses specific genres for specific ends, allowing students to critique not only the types of knowledge they learn, but also the ways in which knowledge is valued and in which it reflects covert assumptions (Coe, 1994).

However, an argument has been raised at times that teaching students' genres would degenerate into teaching arbitrary models and textual organization with little connection to a student's learning purposes (Freedman, 1983). Sometimes, misunderstanding of the meaning of "explicit" teaching caused this argument to arise. This means that, according to Gibbons (2002), students are encouraged to reflect on how language is used for a range of purposes and with a range of audiences, and that teacher's focus explicitly on these aspects of language. Another limitation of genre approaches that has been addressed is about students' role in this approach. As Badger and White (2000) point out, the negative aspect of genre approaches is that they undervalue skills needed to produce a text, and see learners as largely passive.

The process genre approach
The model of the process genre approach is described in terms of a view of writing and a view of the development of writing. In this approach, writing is viewed as involving knowledge about language (as in genre and product approaches)1, knowledge of the context in which writing happens and especially the purpose for the writing (as in genre approaches), and skills in using language (as in process approaches). The model also describes that writing development happens by drawing out the learners' potential (as in genre approaches) and by providing input to which the learners respond (as in process approaches) (Badger and White, 2000).

Badger and White suggest five features of a process genre model; situation, purpose, consideration of mode/field/tenor, planning/drafting/publishing, and text. According to them, in the writing classroom, teachers need to replicate the situation as closely as possible and then provide sufficient support for learners to identify the purpose and other aspects of the social contexts, such as tenor, field, and mode of their writing2. For instance (if using manipulating Badger and White's example), writers who want to be car dealers would need to take into consideration that their description is intended to sell the car (purpose), that it might appeal to a certain group of people (tenor), that it might include certain information (field), and that there are ways in which car descriptions are presented (mode). After experiencing a whole process of writing, the students would use the skills appropriate to the genre, such as redrafting and proofreading, and finally complete their texts.

By following the conditions set out above, composition courses will not only afford students the chance to enjoy the creativity of writing and to become independent writers (as in process approaches), but also help them understand the linguistic features of each genre and emphasize the discourse value of the structures they are using (as in genre approaches).

Principles of the process and the genre approach
To compensate for major problems of current writing instruction for university students in Korea, we provide four principles (suggestions) of balanced instruction and curriculum toward both the process and genre approach. In addition to describing our suggestions, we provide examples of how writing teachers can effectively apply them to class instruction.

Balancing form and function
Because writing class in Korea stresses grammatical rules and skills, a more balanced approach between linguistic form and function is required. Batstone (1994) summarizes the product and the process approach to teaching grammar: in the product perspective (and genre perspective), grammar is regarded as essentially a formal framework: a set of categories and forms. But, instead of thinking of grammar in terms of an analytic display of separate forms, the process perspective considers grammar as dynamic, as a resource which language users exploit as they navigate their way through discourse. Thus, the distinction, in brief, is between 'the careful control of language for learner (as in product), and the creative use of language by the learner (as in process)' (Batstone, 1994).

Integrating the formal aspects of writing with the writing process must be an important component in writing instruction. However, as Grabe and Kaplan argue, the issue is not whether language forms and structures are useful, but whether students can recognize the relation between language structures and the roles they play in conveying appropriate meaning. Unfortunately, as Muncie (2002) indicates, students in EFL countries taking composition courses are likely to be used to traditional grammar instruction and put more importance on forms and structures than on functions of language. Thus, Korean writing teachers need to help their students understand that grammatical rules and linguistic forms aids in clear understanding of meaning and is always related to its function in the discourse. Also, teachers' motivation to focus on form should come from an analysis of learner's communicative needs, rather than from an externally imposed linguistic syllabus.

Scaffolding language and learning
A scaffolding language and learning strategy is recommended in Korean writing classroom because this strategy helps create active interactions between a teacher and students and also between students themselves. The term scaffolding was first used by Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976, cited in Gibbons, 2002) in their examination of parent-child conversation in the early years. The scaffolding is temporary, as it is essential for the successful construction of building, but it is a special kind of assistance that helps learners to move toward new skills, concepts, or levels of understanding (Gibbons, 2002). This emphasizes the view that learning occurs best when learners engage in tasks that are within their Zone of Proximal Development (ZDP), the area between what they can do independently and what they can do with assistance (Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, the role of the teacher is pivotal in scaffolding this development.

Derewianka and others (1990) involved in the "genre" movement in Australia have identified four stages, named the Curriculum Cycle, through which a particular text type can be made explicit to students. The four stages of the Curriculum Cycle are: Stage 1. Developing control of the genre. Stage 2. Modeling the text type. Stage 3. Joint construction. Stage 4. Independent construction of text (Richardson, 1994; Gibbons, 2002; Hyland, 2003).

During the beginning stages, direct instruction is crucial, as the learner gradually assimilates the task demands and procedures for constructing the genre effectively. The teacher takes an interventionist role, ensuring that students are able to understand and reproduce the typical rhetorical patterns they need to express their meanings (Hyland, 2003). The focus is on the form and function of the particular text type, and on illustrating the process of writing a text, considering both the content and the language (Gibbons, 2002). Before reaching later stages, students have developed considerable background knowledge about the subject, are aware of linguistic features of the text type, and have jointly (with a teacher) constructed a similar text.

This scaffolding method of writing will help students acquire the knowledge and skills to be able to write their own texts with confidence. In later stages, learners require more autonomy. As students write, they should keep in mind the process of writing: creating a first draft, self-editing, discussing the draft with peers and later with the teacher, and finally producing a "published" text (Gibbons, 2002). This scaffolding learning strategy will help Korean students foster creativity (as in process writing) while acknowledging the ways language is conventionally used to express meanings (as in genre approach).

Extending the writing curriculum
Since Korean writing classes are composed of students from different departments, such as English, architecture, science, and economics, academic writing in an English composition course should be incorporated with other subject-area program. English writing teachers cannot be held responsible for teaching writing in the disciplines, but they can strive to create a program in which students learn general strategies, rhetorical principles, and tasks that they can carry over into their course work (Horowitz, 1986). To accomplish this, university writing teachers should demystify academic discourse through identifying and analyzing key genres for university students, in an effort to determine what might best prepare students to acquire discipline-specific discourses and what tools would be useful to them in their accommodation to the demands of various disciplines (Swales, 1986; Leki, 1995).

From data collected from handouts in university classes, Horowitz classified seven categories of writing tasks: summary of /reaction to a reading, annotated bibliography, report on a specified participatory experience, connection of theory and data, case study, synthesis of multiple sources, and research project. In the Asian English for Specific Purposes (ESP) world, Bhatia and English for business and technology (EBT) specialists (1993, cited in Hyon) provide students with models of genres, such as the sales promotion letter, business memo, job application, and lab report as well as a set of worksheets, for identifying the language strategies in these genres and for constructing business and scientific texts using these strategies.

These categories of writing tasks by Horowitz and the models of genres by Bhatia are examples that might be practiced in Korean writing classrooms to help Korean students (having diverse majors in writing class) expand specific and relevant genres and disciplines for a specific audience, and to help them become more successful writers of academic and workplace texts. Not only are these writing tasks and genre models a fundamental planning tool for teachers uniting syllabus goals, materials, and methodology, they are the ways that students come to understand and develop the abilities to write effectively (Hyland, 2003).

To experience diverse kinds of texts and to apply various writing tasks and genre models, students should construct their knowledge about the specific contents. Teachers of ESL/EFL students should always consider the background knowledge that readers are expected to bring to written texts, whatever readings are chosen (Spack, 1988). Accordingly, the writing curriculum should be integrated with various resources including extensive reading materials (books, articles, and magazines), searching for different types of information on the Internet, and watching movies and documentaries. The wide range of reading resources will help students extend their ideas and knowledge, and support them to complete their final writings. In addition, by using diverse resources, students develop the additional and useful vocabulary, experience the important linguistic and semantic features of language, and have an opportunity to practice a wide range of writings. Moreover, with self-discovery in writing, students will be familiar with solving the problems by themselves, and thereby they will be able to develop autonomy.

Providing meaningful response and formative assessment
To provide more meaningful and productive assessment, Korean writing teachers might consider applying various types of assessment that helps students' interaction in the classroom and encourages more active learning. While feedback to written text is probably essential for the development of writing skills, there is less certainty about who should give the response, the form it should take, and whether it should focus more on ideas or on forms (Hyland, 2003). However, teacher's written feedback is still highly valued by second language writers, and many writers particularly favor their feedback on their grammar (Leki, 1990). Some process advocates have argued that excessive attention on student errors may short-circuit students' writing and thinking process, making writing only an exercise in practicing grammar and vocabulary rather than a way to discover and express meaning (Zamel, 1982). But, well-constructed error feedback, especially when combined with judiciously delivered strategy training and grammar mini-lessons is not only highly valued by students but may also be of great benefit to their development as writers and to their overall second language acquisition (Ferris, 2002). Thus, rather than just focusing on teacher's written feedback, Korean writing teachers need to apply alternative forms of feedback, such as teacher-student conferencing, peer feedback, in-class grammar instruction (particularly problematic issues in writing), and maintenance of error charts or logs into class (Ferris, 2002).

Because teacher's written feedback cannot be ignored, a variety of feedback techniques to students could be provided. The most common forms are commentary, cover sheets, minimal marking, rubrics, taped comments, and electronic feedback, but all aspects of student texts (structure, organization, style, content, and presentation) should be utilized (Hyland, 2003).
The other alternative form of error feedback is teacher-student conferencing (process-oriented feedback), referring to face-to-face conversation. It supplements the limitations of one-way written feedback with opportunities for teacher and student to negotiate the meaning of a text through dialogue (McCarthey, 1992). The advantages for students are that they can be active participants, ask questions, clarify meaning, and discuss their papers rather than passively accepting advice (Hedge, 1988; Florio-Ruane and Dunn, 1985; Pattey-Chavez and Ferris, 1997).

The idea of peer responses was developed from the L1 process class and has become an important alternative to teacher-based forms of response in ESL contexts. Peer response (process-oriented feedback) is said to provide a means of both improving writers' drafts and developing readers' understandings of good writing (Hyland, 2003). Pros and cons of peer review have been debated.

The advantages of collaborative peer review are: helps learners engage in a discourse community and create an authentic social context for interaction and learning (Mittan, 1989), and learners participate actively in learning (Medonca and Johnson, 1994). Moreover, students benefit from seeing how readers understand their ideas and also gain the skills necessary to critically analyze and revise their own writing (Leki, 1990; Zhang, 1995). The disadvantages of peer feedback in a Korean context are that culturally and affectively, students are not willing to share their unsuccessful or unfinished writing with their peers. Additionally, they might feel threatened by receiving feedback from their classmates, as well as being as distrustful of feedback from other students (Moon, 2000), they have a tendency to focus on surface forms rather than ideas and organization, and their comments may be vague and unhelpful (Leki, 1990).

However, in Korean writing classes, where written feedback from the teachers is the standard, using various alternative forms of feedback will help students actively participate in writing, help them gain the skills necessary to revise their own writing, and reduce teachers' workload. Song (1998) shows an integrated written feedback, which focuses more on meaning without excluding corrections on linguistic errors, is more effective than either surface-error correction alone or just meaning-based feedback alone in terms of improving students' writing skills.

Conclusion
In EFL contexts, where exposure to English is extremely limited, more effective approaches to writing and teachable skills should be applied to writing instruction. To do this, what we suggest is using the balanced instructional and curricular approach of the process and genre-based approach to teaching writing. Both approaches have benefits and drawbacks; accordingly, it is believed that complementary use of both approaches helps student writers develop their skills in using language by experiencing a whole writing process as well as gain knowledge of the contexts in which writing happens and the purpose of their writing.

We have provided four principles based on the process and the genre approaches to compensate for major problems of Korean university writing instruction. Due to the fact that Korean writing instruction places heavy emphasis on grammatical form, we suggest balancing form and function to help students recognize the relationships between language structures (as in product and genre) and the roles they play in conveying approaches meaning (as in process). Additionally, Korean writing instruction overstresses the final product; therefore, what we suggest is a scaffolding language and learning strategy that helps create active interaction between a teacher and students and also between students themselves. Through scaffolding writing instruction, students are able to understand and reproduce the typical rhetorical patterns they need to express their ideas. They are also able to illustrate the process of writing a text, considering both the content and the language. Later, students can write their own texts with confidence.

In Korean writing classes, the need for genre-specific writing across the curriculum is required because Korean university students in the class have a variety of majors and diverse purposes for attending the class, such as academic goals or obtaining better jobs. For this reason, teachers need to help students become more successful writers of academic and workplace texts and help them understand the social functions of genres and the contexts in which these genres are used. To make writing more meaningful and productive, and to help Korean university students become more active learners, the writing teachers need to encourage students to experience diverse types of feedback. Rather than just focus on teacher's written feedback, writing teachers need to apply alternative forms of feedback, such as teacher-student conferencing and peer-feedback. These various types of feedback give both a teacher and students a chance to negotiate the meaning of a text through dialogue.

Implications
English teaching methodologies, such as communicative language teaching (CLT), the process approach, the genre approach, and the product approach, are oriented towards English language education based in Britain, Australia, and North America (ESL or BANA). These approaches cannot be successfully applied to EFL contexts without consideration of different goals of teaching writing to EFL learners because these approaches were not developed specifically for the rest of the ELT world (EFL or TESEP countries), (Holliday, 1994).

In the Korean social contexts, before these teaching methods are utilized, Korean educators and the Korean government need to consider if these methods are suitable to the needs and goals of students within EFL social and academic contexts. To provide the best learning environment and to effectively facilitate Korean students' learning English, we need to identify the best teaching methodologies within Korean social and academic contexts. In order to achieve appropriate classroom methodologies in Korean contexts, we need to identify what Korean university students expect from writing classes and what goals and objectives they have when taking Korean university writing classes.

This study might be generalized to the countries that have similar issues in terms of the learning and teaching of writing, such as those that Kachru (1982; 1992) indicates as countries belonging to the Expanding Circle, countries that recognize the importance of English as an international language and that teach English as a foreign language, including Japan, China, and Taiwan. Additionally, these Asian countries share many social and cultural values with Korea, and so in many ways face similar issues in terms of English language teaching.

References
Arent, R. (2003). Promoting revision and development in L2 writing through a combination-Based curriculum. The Korea TESOL Journal, 6(1), 1-26.
Bazerman, C. (1980). A relationship between reading and writing: The conversational model. College English, 41, 656-661.
Badger, R, & White, B. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54,153-160.
Bhatia, V. (1993). Analyzing genre: language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Bizzell, P. (1982). College composition: Initiation into the academic discourse community. Curriculum Inquiry, 12, 191-207.
Chen, Y. (2002). The problem of university EFL writing in Taiwan. The Korean TESOL Journal, 5 (1), 1-22.
Coe, R. (1994). Teaching genre as process. In A. Freeman & P. Medway (Eds.), Learning and teaching genre. Postsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Rozelle: Primary English Teaching Association.
Donna, M. J & Duane H. R (1989). Richness in Writing. London: Longman.
Ferris, D (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Freadman, A. & Medway, P. (1994). Learning and teaching genre. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freadman, A. (1994). Anyone for tennis? In A. Freadman and P. Medway (eds.), Genre and the new rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis.
Flower, L. and Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language and scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Grabe, W & Kaplan, R (1996). Theory & practice of writing. London and New York: Longman.
Halliday, MAK. (1978). Language as social semiotic. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hicks, D. (1997). Working through discourse genres in school. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 459-485.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge University Press.
Horowitz, D.H. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, PPP.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implication for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 693-722.
Kachru, B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Kim, S.H. (2001). A description of college students' writing process: A strategy-based approach. English Teaching, 56(4), 55-73.
Kress, G. (1993). Genre as a social process. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Eds.), Second language writing: research insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), PPP
McCarthey, S.J. (1992). The teacher, the author, and the text: variations in form and content of writing conference. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24 (1), 51-82.
Martin, J. R. (1993b). Genre and literacy: modeling context in educational linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 141-172.
Mendoca, C., and Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 745-768.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: harnessing students' communicative power. In D. Johnson and D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: empowering ESL students. NY: Longman.
Moon, Y. I. (2000). The nature of peer revisions in an EFL writing class of a Korean university. English Teaching, 55(1), 119-140.
Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes. EFL Journal, 56, 180-186.
Pincas, A. (1982 b). Writing in English 1. London: Macmillan.
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in teaching writing. TESOL Quarterly: 25, 407-430.
Richardson, P. W. (1994). Language as personal resource and as social construct: competing views of literacy pedagogy in Australia. In A. Freedman, & P. Medway (Eds.), Learning and teaching genre. Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH.
Ryu, H.Y. (2001). The effect of social cognitive ability on English proficiency level. English Teaching, 56 (2), 31-52.
Shaughnessy, P. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far should we go? TESOL Quarterly, 22 (1), PPP
Song, M.J. (1998). Relationship between types of written feedback and development of English writing skills. English Teaching, 53(2), 135-156.
Steve, G & Karen, H (1994). Implications of Constructivism for teaching writing to students with special needs. The Journal of Special Education, 25 (3), 275-289.
Swales, J. (1986). A genre-based approach to language across the curriculum. In M.L. Tickoo (Eds.), Language across the curriculum, Singapore National English Language Center.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: the process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195-209.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.