Volume 5, Issue 1, pp.

30-42
June 2021
Open Access
ISSN 2521-5140

Writing Instruction in an EFL Context: Learning to Write or Writing to

Learn Language?

Subrata Bhowmik
University of Calgary
Email: [email protected]

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36832/beltaj.2021.0501.03

Journal homepage: https://www.journal.belta-bd.org/

Abstract

Writing is an important skill to function effectively in a foreign language. In an EFL context, writing is all
the more important as a high percentage of students learn English for academic and professional
purposes that require advanced writing skills. In the most recent scholarship of L2 writing, arguments
have emerged regarding whether the focus of writing instruction should be to teach students how to
write effectively in the target language, or how they should use writing to learn the language. Eliciting
the main tenets around both these theoretical orientations, the current paper examines writing
instruction in EFL contexts and makes the case that the learn-to-write and write-to-learn language
approaches are not mutually exclusive. The paper further posits that learner needs should pivot L2
writing instruction in EFL contexts, and that approaches to L2 writing instruction need to be flexible and
adaptable.

Keywords: L2 Writing; Learn-to-Write; Write-to-Learn Language; EFL; L2 Learning

BELTA Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2021 Writing Instruction in an EFL Context

Introduction

Writing is an important skill that second language (L2) learners need to develop in order to participate as
effective communicators—be it in an academic or a professional context. This entails that much attention
needs to be paid in developing written communication skills. In English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
contexts, the stakes for developing these skills are quite high as many EFL learners aspire to go abroad,
mainly in English-speaking countries, to pursue higher education, while others set the goal for themselves
to work for multinational organizations as part of their professional career (e.g. Rinnert & Kobayashi,
2009). Having advanced written communication skills is paramount in both these situations.

This points to the importance of writing instruction in EFL contexts, and how EFL students prepare
themselves for the demands of written communication skills required to be successful in both their
academic and professional careers. As is the case in any L2 writing context, EFL students are required to
do two things at once when participating in English writing skill development: learn the English language
and learn how to write effectively in English (see Manchón, 2014). Keeping these dynamics of L2 writing
as a departure point, recent scholarly conversations on this issue have weighed in on the importance of L2
development, on one hand, and the writing skills development in L2, on the other. This has followed that
for some L2 scholars, too much attention is paid to the ―writing‖ aspects of L2 writing instruction,
neglecting L2, the core in L2 writing (e.g. Polio, 2019). For others, important concerns of L2 writing
instruction involve helping students develop problem solving and negotiation skills through building
sound arguments by such means as rhetorical organization and rhetorical positioning and self-discovery
as writers (Hirvela, 2011).

Faced with these contrasting scholarly positionings, determining pedagogical goals in the EFL writing
classroom can be challenging for teachers, especially for those who do not have tertiary degrees or
extensive training in and advanced knowledge of either L2 writing or applied linguistics. In particular,
contexts where curriculum mandates are not well articulated, it is helpful to unpack the theoretical
underpinnings of each of these scholarly strands and empirical evidence in support of them. In light of
this, the goal of this paper is to first situate the scholarly conversations around learn-to-write (LW) and
write-to-learn language (WLL) approaches as they relate to L2 writing instruction. Next, I examine the
characteristics of L2 writing instruction in EFL contexts, followed by discussions on what this means
with respect to writing instruction in these contexts. Finally, I make the argument that LW and WLL
approaches are not mutually exclusive, and that student needs should play the determining role for
teachers to decide which aspects of these two foci they should use in the EFL writing classroom.

Learn-to-Write and Write-to-Learn Language

In this section I discuss the major theoretical and conceptual orientations of LW and WLL approaches to
writing. As part of this discussion, I examine the major theories, and where applicable, refer to relevant
empirical evidence.

Learn-to-Write

L2 writing has a clear lineage to first language (L1) composition studies (Manchón, 2011a). This means
that much of what we know today about what good writing is, what it means to be a good writer, and how
to teach writing effectively has generally emerged from the scholarship of L1 composition studies. Thus,
the dominant theories about learning how to write in an L2 parallels the theories of writing espoused in
the context of L1 composition and can be summarized as follows (although not necessarily in the order of
their inceptions) (see Hyland, 2011).

31
BELTA Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2021 Writing Instruction in an EFL Context

Process theory, one of the most influential L2 writing theories, views writing as a process and writers
must adhere to the steps such as planning, reformulating, and revising in order to complete the writing
task (Flower & Hayes, 1981). According to this theory, the writer is at the center of the writing process.
The writer works individually to plan and engage in various invention activities to generate ideas for
writing. Writing seen from this perspective is recursive, meaning the writer can go back and forth
throughout the entire writing process. For example, after the formulation (i.e. drafting) stage, the writer
can go back and engage in additional planning to make changes to the text. Process theory therefore puts
much emphasis on the writer’s cognition or thinking and considers the writer to be siloed from the
surroundings. This means that much attention is paid to the writer’s thought processes as they accomplish
the writing task, and it is believed that writing instruction involves underlining the importance of the
writing processes and having students go through each step of these processes so that they can control and
manipulate their thinking when writing. In short, process theory assumes that learning to write means
following the steps of the writing process while training the writer’s thoughts to control and organize
ideas effectively to produce texts.

As much as process theory has been influential in L2 writing instruction, it has received its share of
criticism. The primary criticism relates to its almost exclusive individual-writer-centeredness and a
cognitive orientation. An activity of writing, as perpetuated by process theory, is fundamentally asocial.
However, humans being social, and considering that the writer shapes and is shaped by various social
factors around them, it is hard to imagine that writing occurs in a vacuum. A corollary of this is that L2
scholars, especially those with an orientation to sociocultural approaches to L2 learning, have called for
inclusion of various social and cultural factors in the theorization of L2 writing (e.g. Atkinson, 2003a,
2003b, 2004; Bhowmik, 2016, 2017; Lei, 2008).

A second theory that informs us a great deal about LW focuses on the product of writing—the text,
instead of the writer. In this perspective, texts are often viewed as objects and learning to write means
producing grammatically correct texts. This entails that learners’ writing development can be measured
through improvement in various aspects of accuracy of the language use. This writing theory also
assumes that writing is audience independent and ignores the assumption that a piece of writing is
essentially a communicative response in a particular context. A moderate version of the theory focuses on
texts, but assumes the text as discourse, meaning all texts are produced in social settings as part of
communicative events. This particular view of writing stresses on LW as a socially situated,
communicatively oriented act. Teaching writing therefore means to help students see each piece of
writing having a social purpose and context (Hyland, 2011, p. 23). An offshoot of this approach to LW is
the genre approach, in which a genre is considered to be a socially recognizable way to communicate with
each other.

The third and final LW theory is based on reader-writer reciprocity in text construction: when writing,
the writer anticipates what the reader expects, and when interpreting the text for meanings, the reader
draws on the common knowledge that they share with the writer about text construction, and ultimately,
communication. LW in this perspective means to be able to recognize the set of conventions in a given
context that a reader shares with the writer. Teaching writing should be focused on analyzing the contexts,
helping students recognize the context-specific writing conventions that the reader assumes, and relate
these learning experiences to real life writing tasks as much as possible. This particular theory evokes the
concept of discourse community as both the writer and reader are part of the community that they shape
and are shaped by. In other words, due to reciprocity, the reader and writer form a unique community that
they both identify with. This explains why different disciplines value different types of argument and
writing styles. For instance, the social sciences stresses on synthesizing research based on multiple
sources, whereas in science, describing and reporting on the phenomena are considered to be important
(Hyland, 2011, p. 29).

32
BELTA Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2021 Writing Instruction in an EFL Context

Write-to-Learn Language

In a WLL approach to L2 writing instruction, the focus shifts from writing to L2 development. In short,
the consensus among L2 scholars is that writing is a language learning tool and engaging in writing
activities helps augment what Manchón (2011b) calls the language learning potential (LLP) of L2 learners
(also see Wolff, 2000). Although researchers have explored the writing—L2 learning relationship from a
variety of perspectives, Manchón (2011b) has identified two main strands of studies that have informed
our collective understanding in this area: the descriptive and the interventionist approaches to L2 writing
research.

A descriptive approach focuses on describing L2 writing as part of evidence of learners’ engagement

in various psycholinguistic processes that are considered to support L2 development (Manchón, 2011b;
Manchón & Williams, 2016). For example, individual or collaborative attention in the L2 writing process
is of great interest to researchers for learners’ L2 development, as attention is considered to be an
important constituent in both Noticing and Output Hypotheses of L2 learning (Schmidt, 2001; Swain,
1985, 1995). Swain and Lapkin (1995) in this regard have noted that the problems learners encounter in
L2 production (i.e. L2 writing) trigger cognitive processes (e.g. noticing and metalinguistic reflection)
that contribute to L2 learning. From sociocultural perspectives of L2 learning, the ways social interactions
through the writing process contribute to L2 development have also drawn researchers’ interest. In
sociocultural frameworks of L2 learning, social interactions are considered to contribute to L2
development. Consequently, the interactions involved in individual and collaborative writing processes
are believed to contribute to L2 learning (Manchón, 2011a, 2011b).

An interventionist approach to L2 writing research has focused on the effects of various interventions
during the writing process on L2 learning. Much research in L2 writing following this paradigm has
focused on feedback practices: how feedback on writing contributes to the improvement of L2 texts, and
by implication, L2 development. Within feedback studies, researchers have looked into different types
and aspects of feedback practices and their effects on L2 writing. Examples include explicit and implicit
feedback, oral and written feedback, focused and unfocused feedback, feedback followed by reflections,
and feedback with or without metalinguistic explanations (Manchón, 2011b, pp. 68-69). The main focus
of these studies has been to investigate the impact of interventions in the form of feedback on L2
development. Another strand of research with an interventionist approach has examined how learners’
attention to grammar is mediated by different task modalities such as written output (e.g. writing) and
non-output (e.g. reading comprehension) tasks.

Another dimension of WLL that researchers have often focused on is what is known as writing to learn
content (WLC) (see Hirvela, 2011; Manchón, 2011a). Writing scholars have maintained that just as L2
learners learn the target language by engaging in production activities of the written output, they also
acquire content knowledge in the process (Hirvela, 2011). They argue that writing affords students
exposures to the meaning making process in the target language and helps them develop disciplinary
knowledge. WLC has in recent times morphed into various approaches to writing instruction such as
Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC), Content-Based Language Teaching (CBLT) or Content-Based
Instruction (CBI), and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), mainly in Europe. It may be
noted that although both CBLT/CBI and CLIL draw on the WLC approach, they are used in the contexts
of L2 pedagogy in general (i.e., as opposed to L2 writing pedagogy only), and focus on other language
skills (reading, speaking and listening), in addition to writing. A common thread running through CBLT,
CBI and CLIL in L2 instruction is that L2 learners are assumed to acquire the target language effectively
when presented with the interdisciplinary information in a meaningful and contextualized form and when
the focus is on helping them learn the content-area knowledge (Hirvela, 2011; Manchón, 2011a).

33
BELTA Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2021 Writing Instruction in an EFL Context

Current Conversations about L2 Writing Instructional Goals

Keeping the LW and WLL approaches to L2 writing discussed above in mind, we now turn to the current
scholarly conversations about the instructional goals in the L2 writing classroom, especially those that
relate to EFL contexts. In a recent paper, Polio (2019) has made the case that in L2 writing instruction,
not enough attention is paid to L2 development. According to Polio, instructors are more concerned about
helping students develop various writing skills such as ―writing from sources‖ and ―mastering English
rhetorical styles‖ (Polio, 2019, p. 2) than focusing on such language-related issues as collocation,
grammatical accuracy, and lexical and syntactic development.

Polio’s (2019) observation is based on a number of recent empirical studies showing that while writing
courses contributed to the improvement of students’ writing quality, no significant improvement was
evident in terms of accuracy measures. For example, examining a corpus of descriptive essays written
over a semester in the context of a US university, Polio and Shea (2014) found that the quality of student
essays improved. However, in terms of linguistic development, the researchers did not find any change in
student writing on a number of accuracy measures, except for a decrease in preposition errors. Similar
findings were reported by Bulté and Housen (2014), who did not find any linguistic improvement in terms
of three lexical complexity measures in descriptive essays, although the quality of essays had improved.
In a separate study, Yoon and Polio (2017) examined narrative and argumentative essays written over a
semester. Their findings showed that even though there was an increase of words written in 30 minutes,
there was no improvement in terms of syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, and accuracy measures.
In a more recent study, Polio, Lim and Tigchelaar (2018) examined two different classes and found that
while teachers provided feedback on student writing, little class time was utilized for language aspects of
writing instruction. The researchers noted that the textbook of the course had little focus on language
issues. These empirical findings convinced Polio (2019) that not enough attention is paid to various
language aspects in L2 writing instruction. It is relevant to note here that all empirical studies discussed
here took place in USA, an ESL context.

Teaching Writing in an EFL Context

Prominent L2 writing scholars (e.g. Lee, 2016; Manchón, 2009; Ortega, 2009) have maintained that
teaching writing in an EFL context is different from that of an ESL context. These differences have been
attributed to, among other things, context-specific exigencies, unique student needs and institutional
mandates, and curricular and pedagogical goals (Manchón, 2014; Ortega, 2009). Despite the differences
that exist between ESL and EFL contexts, it is necessary to examine L2 writing instruction in light of
Polio’s (2019) arguments discussed in the previous section. This is of critical importance for an enhanced
clarity on our professional practices as educators and to help teachers in EFL contexts become more
reflective of what they do and expect students to do as part of L2 writing pedagogy. Therefore, in what
follows, I discuss concerns that characterize teaching writing in EFL contexts. I have organized my
discussion around three broad areas: the context of teaching and learning, how EFL students learn, and
how EFL teachers teach.

Context of Teaching and Learning

Unlike ESL contexts where students have exposures to English outside the classroom, EFL students get
exposures to the English language primarily in the classroom. This, some scholars have argued, makes
students somewhat confused about setting the learning priorities for themselves in the writing classroom
(O’Brien, 2004): should they focus on learning English or learning how to write in English (see Wolff,
2000)? Seen from this vantage point, it becomes apparent why both LW and WLL perspectives of L2
writing are especially relevant in EFL contexts.

34
BELTA Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2021 Writing Instruction in an EFL Context

L2 scholars have noted that generally there is a prevalence of a WLL approach to writing in EFL
contexts (Polio, 2019). There are a variety of reasons for this, but the most notable ones relate to context-
specific and practical issues. For example, research has shown that L2 writing in EFL contexts is
perceived to be a vehicle for improving English language skills (O’Brien, 2004; Wolff, 2000). This means
that both students and teachers focus specifically on the language aspects of writing such as correction of
mechanical errors, sentence structures, expanding vocabulary as well as improving the fluency of writing.
Since many students participate in study abroad programs or go ―overseas to study in institutions where
English is the medium of instruction,‖ improving general English skills is a practical and immediate goal
for them (Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009, p. 35). From a teaching point of view, instructors have to follow
institutional mandates, which oftentimes have a clear focus on helping students improve English language
skills through writing (see Lee, 2005, 2008). Another way to look at this is that since these institutions
rarely have structured writing programs, similar to the ones seen in the USA, for example, teaching and
learning objectives of writing courses are not well-articulated (see Wolff, 2000). This results in a more
generic approach to teaching and learning of L2 writing.

How Students Learn

In addition to the context of teaching and learning, how students learn also characterizes the teaching of
writing in EFL contexts. Research suggests that as they engage in the cognitive processes of writing, EFL
students of all proficiency levels invest most of their time in reformulation tasks and least time in
planning and revising dimensions of writing (Flower & Hayes, 1981). As students’ proficiency level
improves, they seem to be able to free up the time from reformulation tasks and focus more on planning
and revising. Based on empirical findings along the similar lines, researchers have come up with what
they describe as Inhibition Hypothesis, which maintains that EFL writers with low English proficiency
level are not able to deploy resources to cognitively demanding writing processes such as conceptual
expansions of a given topic (e.g. content elaboration, monitoring, and higher order revisions) when
engaged in a writing task as they use up the resources to attend to the language aspects of writing
(Manchón, Roca de Larios & Murphy, 2009; Ortega, 2009; Snellings, van Gelderen & De Glopper, 2004;
Stevenson, Schoonen & de Glopper, 2006). These findings explain why the focus of L2 writing
instruction in EFL contexts is primarily on language aspects of writing. One reason why these findings
are important is that explicit instruction of L2 writing explicating various aspects of the cognitive
processes of writing (i.e. planning, reformulation, and revising) can contribute to raising student
awareness about the steps that they must take when engaged in a writing activity.

As noted earlier, students in EFL contexts have a variety of goals, including pursuing advanced
degrees, studying abroad, fulfilling program-specific requirements, professional advancement, to mention
a few. Due to these diverse learning goals, students’ motivation levels vary as well. Researchers (e.g. Lo
& Hyland, 2007) have noted that different levels of motivation result in varying degrees of uptake among
students. In order to ensure the effectiveness of what is taught in the EFL writing classroom, teachers
need to be mindful about these particular dynamics of student behavior.

Since EFL students are typically homogeneous and familiar with the teaching contexts, transitions to
writing classes is fairly smooth. Also, as EFL classes are generally staffed by local teachers, L1 culture-
specific literacy practices are often used in L2 writing instruction, making it convenient for students to
acclimatize to the teaching-learning process (e.g. see O’Brien, 2004; Ortega, 2009). However, the same
cannot be said about ESL contexts, where students come from a variety of backgrounds, and generally are
not familiar with local teaching-learning practices. Students’ disparate cultural and academic backgrounds
in such contexts mean that it typically takes longer for students to adapt to the classroom environment
(Ortega, 2009).

35
BELTA Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2021 Writing Instruction in an EFL Context

How Teachers Teach

Due to a prevalence of WLL orientations and institutional mandates, many EFL writing teachers focus on
specific language aspects (e.g. correction of errors) in their writing lessons. Lee (2005), for example,
found that EFL writing teachers’ feedback in Hong Kong almost exclusively focused on students’
mechanical errors, so much so that it was almost counter-productive, as many students felt demotivated
seeing the red marks on the paper. Teachers in this particular context reported that providing exhaustive
feedback on student errors was part of the institutional mandate that they had to follow (Lee, 2005). As is
evident in this example, tension is palpable around the error correction practices that teachers used in this
context. This points to the fact that writing teachers in EFL contexts need to have a plan in place to
mitigate potential negative impacts of what they do in the classroom on student motivation.

Providing feedback on writing is common in EFL contexts; however, as noted above, feedback in EFL
contexts generally revolves around the language aspects of writing, more specifically, grammar. While
teacher feedback is widespread, research has shown that peer feedback is also used as a useful
pedagogical practice. In fact, researchers have found that peer feedback is used and has been proven to be
effective in an authoritative social context like China as well (e.g. Miao, Badger & Zhen, 2006). This
serves to indicate that sound pedagogical practices coupled with teachers’ careful monitoring contribute
to effective EFL writing pedagogy.

Finally, an important dimension of EFL writing pedagogy is that teachers may perceive writing in EFL
contexts to be ―less purposeful‖ and ―needs driven‖ compared to how writing is viewed in ESL contexts
(Ortega, 2009, p. 232; Wolff, 2000). However, it needs to be remembered that writing being an essential
part of literacy development, having students develop strong writing skills is a prerequisite to helping
them reach their future academic and professional goals. In this process, teachers play an important role.

What Does This Mean for Writing Instruction in EFL Contexts?

The discussion above elicits important concerns of EFL writing instruction. It is evident that writing is an
important tool for the development of L2. Writing is a literacy practice; in addition, writing is important
to learn the content (Hirvela, 2011), especially in an L2. Consequently, while designing the curricula and
teaching in the classroom, attention must be paid to a variety of issues.

Since WLL appears to be more prevalent in EFL contexts (e.g. Polio, 2019), a cautious approach
needs to be adopted that would allow for an incorporation of the important writing skills into the
curriculum. As noted in the preceding section, a ―less purposeful‖ approach to writing instruction is not
conducive to student learning. Keeping the WLL approach in mind, teachers in EFL contexts need to set
clear pedagogical goals and design the curricula that would ensure tangible writing skill development for
students. These skills can be determined on the basis of groups of students in question and their
immediate and future needs. For example, if the students are bound for college or university studies,
writing for academic purposes or WAC-oriented assignments may be considered. Similarly, if the
students are embarking on a professional career, specific skills required in the profession may be
appropriate. In other words, an integration of the LW approach with careful planning and preparation can
help students in EFL contexts develop the skills they need to be successful in both their academic and
professional careers.

Based on empirical findings, L2 scholars have suggested two important criteria that can be considered
in developing EFL writing curricula: problem solving skills and motivation. First, engaging students in
tasks that promote problem solving skills and are challenging in nature are conducive to L2 development
(Manchón, 2014). Engaging students in problem solving skills and challenging tasks through writing

36
BELTA Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2021 Writing Instruction in an EFL Context

helps contribute to the refinement of the cognitive processes, which in turn, promotes noticing and
consolidates learners’ L2-related knowledge, and ultimately, L2 development (Shintani, 2019; Wolff,
2000). Manchón (2014) in this regard has suggested that this type of writing tasks helps students’
―consolidation or extension of knowledge‖ (p. 105) in the L2. Second, sustained motivation is another
factor that L2 scholars have suggested to be important for student engagement in the writing task.
However, in EFL contexts tensions may arise between sustaining student motivation and fulfilling the
curricular objectives (Lee, 2005; Ortega, 2009). Lo and Hyland’s (2007) findings in this regard are
relevant here. They found that although through curricular innovations they were able to enhance student
engagement and motivation there were certain negative consequences in language accuracy and an over-
reliance on ―L1 textual solutions‖ (Ortega, 2009, p. 245). This suggests that EFL writing teachers need to
be aware that their curricular decisions (e.g. what to focus on in class activities, the lesson plans and
assessment to be used, how to mark student texts) may have potentially negative consequences.
Therefore, each of their decisions must be made with students’ learning interests in mind.

Another facet of EFL writing instruction that L2 scholars have identified relates to the tension between
the implicitness and explicitness with regard to both students’ metaknowledge and the teaching of L2
writing (Ortega, 2009). Ortega argues that while teachers expect students’ knowledge about various
linguistic and rhetorical choices they (students) make during writing to be demonstrated explicitly, they
(teachers) need to be mindful that this knowledge may not always be ―verbalizable‖ (p. 246). In fact,
being situated in a close proximity of L1 environments, students’ writing choices in EFL contexts are
expected to be fluid, since they shuttle between L1 and L2—specific rhetorical knowledge when writing
in English (Canagarajah, 2006). Also important to recognize are the affective factors (e.g. especially
various psycho-emotional factors) that may influence student writing and the choices students make
because of them. Ortega (2009) points out that the explicitness and implicitness of EFL writing
instruction itself are also important issues to consider, as research suggests that in certain EFL contexts
explicit instruction seems to work (Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2009), while in other contexts a more implicit
approach to L2 writing instruction is appropriate (e.g. Manchón, Roca de Larios & Murphy, 2009). These
findings suggest that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to EFL writing instruction; instructors should
be prepared to adopt a context-appropriate approach that works best for them. Ortega (2009) further adds
that teachers must guard against explicit instruction that may turn into a formulaic approach to teaching
writing, which may have many undesirable outcomes (e.g. Atkinson & Ramanathan, 1995; Yoshida,
2007).

L2 writing research (e.g. Caplan & Farling, 2017; De Oliveira & Lan, 2014) in recent times has shown
that an emphasis on meaning making through writing by adopting a Systemic Functional Linguistics
(SFL) orientation underlining how language functions in real life contexts can be an effective strategy for
teaching writing. It addresses both the language aspects of writing and train students in how to utilize
language for effective written communication, thereby helping them develop strong writing skills. An
SFL approach to writing instruction is based on the premise that context is important in determining what
language one uses and how one uses it. Consequently, the functional aspects of language—i.e. how
language functions to enact communication, come to the fore. Once the context is dissected, the teacher
together with students determines the language they will need to achieve the communicative goals. The
result of such a context-specific, goal-driven, functional language use in writing becomes palpable to
students when they see both how language functions (e.g. grammar use, use of vocabulary) and how to
use language to achieve specific written communicative goals. Empirical research, albeit mostly in ESL
contexts, using this approach to writing instruction has yielded positive results (e.g. De Oliveira & Lan,
2014). Consequently, this approach can be a viable option for teaching writing in EFL contexts and
striking a balance between language and writing-focused instruction.

This brings us to the important issue of teacher education and teacher preparation programs in EFL
contexts. A number of studies have identified gaps in teacher preparedness for teaching writing and

37
BELTA Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2021 Writing Instruction in an EFL Context

underlined the need for robust teacher training programs in various aspects of EFL writing pedagogy
(Hudson, Nguyen & Hudson, 2009; Lee, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2016). Hudson, Nguyen and Hudson (2009)
in their study found that pre-service teachers in Vietnam felt that they did not have many opportunities to
be mentored on teaching writing. Lee’s (2010, 2011) research in Hong Kong also suggests that in-service
teachers were under-prepared to teach writing. These findings indicate that in order for effective writing
instruction to occur, attention needs to be paid to develop effective teacher preparation programs
encompassing a variety of topics. For example, to adopt an SFL-oriented teaching approach, teachers
need to be first trained in the underlying theoretical framework by elaborating on the principles of
Systemic Functional Linguistics. They then need to be trained in the implementation process of this
approach through the Teaching and Learning Cycle (TLC) (see Caplan, 2019; Caplan & Farling, 2017).
Lee (2016) argues that considering the high stakes associated with feedback and assessment practices,
teachers also need to be trained in how they can adopt effective writing assessment, on one hand, and
provide helpful feedback on student texts, on the other. This is important because teachers need to strike a
delicate balance between the two, owing to the large class sizes and exam-oriented cultures that are
typical in EFL contexts (Lee, 2008, 2011). Also, as Cumming (2009) has noted, considering the
increasingly important role that technology plays in our everyday life, EFL teachers need to expand their
orientations to writing and literacy practices in general so that various technologies (e.g. wikis, blog posts,
using Google Docs for collaborative writing projects) can be integrated into writing instruction. This has
the potential to enhance both student motivation and realize the utility of writing practices, as students are
likely to find a direct relevance of these activities to how they write in real-life and professional contexts.

Learning to Write and Writing to Learn Language Are Not Mutually Exclusive

The discussion above suggests that despite concerns among L2 writing scholars (e.g. Polio, 2019) that not
enough attention is paid to language aspects of L2 writing, various language aspects in fact play out quite
conspicuously in the teaching of writing in EFL contexts. Although the scholars cited above generally
speak about L2 writing instruction in ESL contexts, it is helpful to critically examine the status quo of
EFL writing instruction in this light as well. This allows for reflective teaching practices in the EFL
classroom, given the high stakes associated with writing instruction.

As has been discussed above and acknowledged by a number of L2 writing scholars (Manchón, 2009;
Ortega, 2009), the context of teaching plays a significant role in determining how certain instructional
approaches are adopted. Consequently, what is taught in EFL writing classes must be considered in light
of the unique exigencies of the teaching context. This begs the question as to why there seems to be an
overemphasis on language in writing instruction in EFL contexts, and on writing in writing instruction in
ESL contexts. What characterizes each of these contexts that might necessitate the disparate foci in the
teaching of writing? To what extent are these foci a necessity and to what extent are they a choice for
instructors? The answer to these questions may lie in how teachers’ perceptions are mediated by student
needs and curriculum in ESL and EFL contexts.

Composition studies as a field has a long tradition in ESL contexts, particularly in the USA, where
most first-year college/university students are expected to take writing courses, ostensibly to prepare
themselves for the demands of academic writing in the coming years (Silva, 2016; Wolff, 2000). A
similar emphasis on students’ writing literacy development is also apparent in primary and secondary
education systems in the USA (see de Oliveira & Smith, 2019). Therefore, it is not surprising that
inherent in the writing curricula in ESL contexts is an expectation that students must develop strong
writing skills. Such expectations are spilled over to L2 writing courses as well, with a focus on students’
development of robust writing skills, at times by circumventing the needs of L2 development that these
students may need along the way.

38
BELTA Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2021 Writing Instruction in an EFL Context

The context of writing instruction in an EFL context is vastly different. For example, barring a few
exceptions, it can be said that the culture of composition studies similar to the one described above is not
to be found in EFL settings (e.g. Wolff, 2000). As someone who was educated and subsequently taught in
an EFL setting, the author of this paper knows first-hand that writing courses are usually offered and
taught by instructors who generally have an orientation to English literature or applied linguistics, with
little or no formal training in composition studies. Additionally, since students’ exposures to the English
language outside the classroom are rare or non-existent, writing is perceived to be a vehicle for their
English language development. Instructors’ approach to writing instruction in EFL settings is therefore
mediated by their academic and professional backgrounds, on one hand, and practical concerns regarding
what their students will immediately need out of the writing courses, on the other. In sum, it is not
surprising that there is an overt emphasis on language aspects when teaching writing in EFL contexts.

Despite this status quo, however, it can be argued that the LW and WLL approaches to L2 writing
instruction do not have to be mutually exclusive in EFL settings. This is because both these approaches
can be adopted, and an integration of both writing-focused and language-focused writing instruction is
possible if the needs of students warrant so (see Caplan, 2019; Paltridge, 2019). Indeed, student needs
should dictate the approaches to writing instruction. Although it may be true that students in EFL contexts
view writing as a vehicle for English language development, some of these students may aspire to study
abroad for advanced degrees and are motivated to develop solid academic writing skills. In fact, unless
they have a strong academic writing background they will be at a disadvantage when starting their degree
programs abroad. Instructors in such contexts may want to teach students with a balanced approach,
focusing on both the development of language and writing skills. As noted earlier and reported in several
empirical studies (Caplan & Farling, 2017; de Oliveira & Lan, 2014), an SFL-based approach to writing
instruction can be a perfect solution for EFL writing teachers, as they can focus on writing instruction by
situating the writing task within its context. More recently, L2 scholars have suggested writing activities
involving story continuation, reformulation, and dictogloss tasks help advance EFL learners’ writing
skills while addressing their English language learning needs (Polio, 2019; Shintani, 2019). Shintani
(2019) notes that these tasks help establish links between language input and output and promote
―noticing and noticing-the-gap‖ in students’ English language development (p. 2). Ultimately, what this
means is that there are ways teachers can address both writing and language in the L2 writing classroom.
It is the needs of students that should pivot what writing teachers should do in the classroom and what
instructional approach they should adopt, without showing any bias for either LW or WLL. Neither
should they feel constrained by the fact that one of these approaches is more prevalent in their context of
teaching.

L2 writing research to date has made it amply clear that both language and writing are essential for L2
students to develop into effective writers. Taking this view as a departure point, it is important to ensure
that students have adequate support to develop their skills in the L2, whether it is through writing-specific
support, language-specific support or through a combination of both. The key is for instructors to be
prepared and have the expertise and understanding to provide the help that their students need.

Conclusion

The goal of this paper has been to examine the recent contention in L2 writing literature that too much
emphasis is given to the writing aspects in L2 writing instruction, relegating the importance of language-
specific issues in the teaching of L2 writing. Surveying relevant theoretical frameworks related to LW and
WLL, and where applicable, discussing the empirical evidence supporting them, the current paper has
focused on suggesting that the LW and WLL approaches are not mutually exclusive and that both
approaches can be implemented in an EFL context simultaneously, if required. The key issue that should
drive the pedagogical decisions for teachers is student needs—both immediate and future. A related and

39
BELTA Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2021 Writing Instruction in an EFL Context

important consideration that falls within the purview of teacher education is to ensure that teachers have
the requisite training, resources and professional development opportunities to successfully implement
effective teaching practices in the classroom.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interests.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethics Statement

I, hereby, state that I have conducted the research and prepared the manuscript following the protocol of
research and publications ethics. I am solely responsible if any deviation or mistake (in content and
language) is identified in the manuscript.

References

Atkinson, D. (2003a). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 3-
15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00123-6
Atkinson, D. (2003b). Writing and culture in the post-process era. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 49-63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00126-1
Atkinson, D. (2004). Contrasting rhetorics/contrasting cultures: Why contrastive rhetoric needs a better
conceptualization of culture. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 277-289.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.07.002
Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university
writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 539-568. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588074
Bhowmik, S. K. (2016). Agency, identity and ideology in L2 writing: Insights from the EAP classroom. Writing &
Pedagogy, 8(2), 275-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/wap.26864
Bhowmik, S. K. (2017). Exploring the social nature of L2 writing: Insights into the division of labor of an EAP
writing task. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 4(2), 124-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/lst.26454
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Toward a writing pedagogy of shuttling between languages: Learning from multilingual
writers. College English, 68(6), 589-604. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25472177
Caplan, N. A. (2019). Learning through language: A response to Polio, ―Keeping the language in second language
classes.‖ Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 1-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100677
Caplan, N. A., & Farling, M. (2017). A dozen heads are better than one: Collaborative writing in genre-based
pedagogy. TESOL Journal, 8(3), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.287
Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written
Communication, 7(4), 482–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088390007004003
Cumming, A. (2009). The contribution of studies of foreign language writing to research, theory, and policies. In
Rosa M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and researching(pp. 209–
231). Multilingual Matters.
de Oliveira, L., & Lan, S. W. (2014). Writing science in an upper elementary classroom: A genre-based approach to
teaching English language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 23–39.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.001
de Oliveira, L., & Smith, S. L. (2019). Interactions with and around texts: Writing in elementary schools. In N. A.
Caplan, & A. M. Johns (Eds.), Changing practices for the L2 writing classroom: Moving beyond the five-
paragraph essay (pp. 65-88). University of Michigan Press.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication,
32(4), 365–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/356600

40
BELTA Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2021 Writing Instruction in an EFL Context

Hirvela, A. (2011). Writing to learn in content areas: Research insights. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write
and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 37–59). John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. (2011). Learning to write: Issues in theory, research, and pedagogy. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-
to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 17–35). John Benjamins.
Hudson, P., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Hudson, S. (2009). Mentoring EFL pre-service teachers in EFL writing. TESL
Canada Journal, 27(1), 85–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v27i1.1033
Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2),
1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v22i2.84
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 19(3), 143–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.05.001
Lee, I. (2011). L2 writing teacher education for in-service teachers: Opportunities and challenges. English in
Australia, 46, 31–39.
Lee, I. (2016). EFL writing in school. In R. M. Manchón, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign
language writing (pp. 113-139). De Gruyter.
Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing
activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 217-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.04.001
Lo, J., & Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: The case of primary
students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 219–237.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.002
Manchón, R. M. (2009). Broadening the perspective of L2 writing scholarship: The contribution of research on
foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts. Learning, teaching,
and research (pp. 1–19). Multilingual Matters.
Manchón, R. M. (2011a). Situating the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of L2 writing. In R. M.
Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 3–14). John Benjamins.
Manchón, R. M. (2011b). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.),
Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). John Benjamins.
Manchón, R. M. (2014). Learning and teaching writing in the foreign language classroom: fostering write to learn
approaches. In P. Driscoll, E. Macaro, & A. Swarbrick (Eds.), Debates in modern languages education (pp. 96-
107). Routledge.
Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of
foreign language composing processes. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.). Writing in foreign language contexts.
Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–129). Multilingual Matters.
Manchón, R. M., & Williams, J. (2016). L2 writing and SLA studies. In R. M. Manchón, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.).
Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 567–586). De Gruyter.
Miao, Y., Badger, R. and Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL
writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
O’Brien, T. (2004). Writing in a foreign language: Teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 37, 1-28. doi:
10.1017/S0261444804002113
Ortega, L. (2009). Studying writing across EFL contexts: Looking back and moving forward. In R. M. Manchón
(Ed.). Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 232–255). Multilingual
Matters.
Ortega, L. (2011). Reflections on the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of second language writing.
In R. M. Manchón (Ed.). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 237–250). John
Benjamins.
Paltridge, B. (2019). Focusing on language in second language writing classrooms: Rethinking the approach.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 1-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100680
Polio, C. (2019). Keeping the language in second language classes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 1-5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100675
Polio, C., Lim, J. M., & Tigchelaar, M. (2018). Examining linguistic development in ESL writing: A mixed methods
approach. Presented at TESOL Convention. Chicago, IL. March.
Polio, C., & Shea, M. (2014). An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language
writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 10–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003

41
BELTA Journal, Volume 5, Issue 1, June 2021 Writing Instruction in an EFL Context

Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2009). Situated writing practices in foreign language settings: The role of previous
experience and instruction. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.). Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching,
and research (pp. 23–48). Multilingual Matters.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.). Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). CUP.
Shintani, N. (2019). Potentials of writing-to-learn-language activities from second language acquisition research.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100676
Silva, T. (2016). An overview of the development of the infrastructure of second language writing studies. In R. M.
Manchón, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.). Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 19-43). De Gruyter.
Snellings, P., van Gelderen, A., & de Glopper, K. (2004). The effect of enhanced lexical retrieval on L2 writing: A
classroom experiment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 55(2), 175-200.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001092
Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. (2006). Revising in two languages: A multi-dimensional
comparison of online writing revision in L1 and FL. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 201-233.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.06.002
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in
its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.). Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–153).
Newbury House.
Swain M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.).
Applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). OUP.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step toward
second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371
Wolff, D. (2000). Some reflections on the importance of writing in a foreign language. In I. Plag & K. Schneider
(Eds.). Language use, language acquisition and language history (pp. 213–226). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher
Verlag.
Yoon, H. J., & Polio, C. (2017). The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two
written genres. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 275–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tesq.296
Yoshida, M. (2007, September 15-17). Beliefs about Academic Writing: Where do they all come from? Paper
presented at the Sixth Symposium of Second Language Writing, Nagoya Gakuin University, Nagoya, Japan.

© 2021 The Author. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.

42