Beiki, M. (2022). Review of Writing-Related Theories. Cultural Arts Research and Development, 2(1), 27–33.

Writing has a special position in language teaching meanwhile its accomplishment includes preparation and awareness of other three language skills. It seems crucial students set an objective for their writing, plan it sensibly, consider its design and rational arrangement. This paper reviews writing-related theories applicable in academic context.  To this end some related sources have been reviewed. The findings highlighted that writing skills need mastering of other aspects, such as cognitive, metacognitive and collaborative skills. Besides, teachers’ awareness of different writing theories merits further attention in educational context.  Consequently, the results of the current study are useful for language practitioners, university students and educational administrators.


Process approach Related theories Writing skills


Download data is not yet available.


  1. Lee, S., 2003. Teaching EFL writing in the university: Related issues, insights, and implications. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College. 16(1), 111-136.
  2. Luchini, P.L., 2010. Evaluating the effectiveness of a complimentary approach to teaching writing skills. International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS). 4(3), 73-92.
  3. Alsamadani, H.A., 2010. The relationship between Saudi EFL students’ writing competence, L1 writing proficiency, and self-regulation. European Journal of Social Sciences. 16(1), 53-63.
  4. Nguyen, L.T.C., 2015. Written fluency improvement in a foreign language. TESOL Journal. 6(4), 707-730.
  5. Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., 2007. Inhibition or compensation? A multidimensional comparison of reading processes in Dutch and English. Journal of research in language studies. 57(51), 115-154.
  6. Hyland, K., 2003. Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Tangpermpoon, T., 2008. Integrated approaches to improve students writing skills for English major students. ABAC Journal. 28(2) ,1-9.
  8. Tribble, C., 1996. Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Vygotsky, L., 1986. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  10. Baker, L., Brown, A.L., 1984. Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), The handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.
  11. Flavell, J.H., 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist. 34, 906-911.
  12. Vandergrift, L., 2002. It is nice to see that our predictions were right: Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 58, 555-575.
  13. Flavell, J.H., 1999. Cognitive development: children’s knowledge about the mind. Annual Review of Psychology. 50, 21-45.
  14. Cornoldi, C., 1998. The impact of metacognitive reflection on cognitive control. In Mazzoni, G. and Nelson, T. (Eds.). Metacognition and Cognitive Neuropsychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 139-159.
  15. Wenden, A.L., 1998. Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics. 18(4), 515- 537.
  16. Roselli, N., 1999a. La Construcción Sociocognitiva entre Iguales. Rosario: IRICE.
  17. Roselli, N., 2016. Collaborative learning: Theoretical foundations and applicable strategies to university. Propósitosy Represen-taciones. 4(1), 219-280.
  18. Bruffee, K.A., 1993. Collaborative Learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  19. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., et al., 1996. The Evolution of Research on Collaborative Learning. In P. Reimanny &H. Spada (Eds). Learning in Humans and Machines. Towards an Interdisciplinary Learning Science. London: Pergamon. pp. 189-211.
  20. Michaelian, K., Sutton, J., 2013. Distributed cognition and memory research: History and current directions. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 4(1), 1-24.
  21. Cohen, E., 1994. Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  22. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., 1975. Learning together and alone: cooperation, competition, and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
  23. Jacobs, G.M., Power, M.A., Loh, W.I., 2002. The teacher’s sourcebook for cooperative learning: Practical techniques, basic principles, and frequently asked questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  24. Sharan, S., 1980. CL in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudesand ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research. 50(2), 241-271.
  25. Cosio, M., 1998. Implementation of CL in Mexican high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.
  26. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., 1994a. Professional development in CL: Short-term popularity vs. longterm effectiveness, CL. 14(2), 52-54.
  27. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., 1994b. Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperation. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in CL: The theoretical anatomy of group learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 174-199.
  28. Vygotsky, L., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  29. Vygotsky, L.S., 1998a. The Problem of Age. In L. S. Vygotsky& R. W. Rieber (Ed.). Child Psychology. New York: Plenum.
  30. Daniels, H., 2001. Vygotsky and pedagogy. NY: Routledge.
  31. Stone, A., 1998. The Metaphor of Scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 31(4), 344-364.
  32. Wells, G., 1999. Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Verenikina, I., 2008. Scaffolding and learning: Its role in nurturing new learners. In P. Kell, W. Vialle, D. Konza, & G. Vogl (Eds.), Learning and the learner: Exploring learning for new times. Wollongong: University of Wollongong, Australia. pp. 161-180.
  34. Bodrova, E., Leong, D.J., 1996. Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
  35. Bruner, J., 1973. Going beyond the information given. NY: Norton.
  36. Yager, R., 1991. The constructivist learning model: Towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher. 58(6), 52-57.
  37. Brooks, J., Brooks, M., 1999. In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia: A.S.C.D.
  38. Gardner, H., 1993. Intelligence and intelligences: Universal principles and individual differences. Archives de psychologie. 61(238), 169-172.
  39. Kagan, S., Kagan, M., 1998. Multiple intelligences: The complete MI book. San Clemente, CA: Resources for Teachers. In S. Kagan& J. High. Kagan structures for English language learners. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.
  40. Ciaramicoli, A.P., Ketcham, K., 2000. The power of empathy. NY: Plume.
  41. Goodman, H., 2002. Emotional literacy. The Teacher Trainer. 16(1), 1-23.
  42. Franken, M., Goleman, D., 1995. Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ? NY: Bantam.
  43. Tufekci, D., Sapar, V., 2011. Social constructivist approach: Transformation of “Little Red Riding Hood” for writing course. E-journal of New World Sciences Academy. 6(2).
  44. Richards, J., 1990. New trends in the teaching of writing in ESL/ EFL. In Wang Z. (ed.), ELT in China. Papers Presented in the International Symposium on Teaching English in the Chinese Context, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 3(4), 344-364.
  45. Klimova, F.B., 2014. Teaching formal written English. UHK: Gaudeamus.
  46. Franken, M., Haslett, S., 2002. When and why talking can make writing harder. In New directions for research in L2 writing. Springer, Dordrecht. pp. 209-229.
  47. Rashtchi, M., Keyvanfar, A., 2007. ELT quick’n’easy (3rd ed.). Tehran: Rahnama Press.
  48. Flower, L., Hayes, J.R., 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication. 32(4), 365-387.