See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/27477780

A Taxonomy of ESL Writing Strategies

Article · January 2005

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

20 2,751

1 author:

Congjun Mu
Shanghai Maritime University
36 PUBLICATIONS 272 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Chinese scholars’ English for Research Publication Purposes writing from the perspective of intercultural rhetoric View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Congjun Mu on 31 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COVER SHEET

Mu, Congjun (2005) A Taxonomy of ESL Writing Strategies. In Proceedings

Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy, Practice, pages pp. 1-10, Singapore

Copyright 2005

Accessed: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/secure/00000064/01/congjun-
mu_paper.doc
 A Taxonomy of ESL Writing Strategies
Congjun Mu Queensland University of Technology Shanghai Institute of Technology

Abstract: This paper is only a portion of a larger project. It reports a model of ESL writing strategies which is
synthesised from the previous studies on ESL writing strategies. The categories used to frame ESL writing
strategies are generated from theories related to ESL writing. The significance and limitations of the taxonomy
have been discussed in the paper.

1. Introduction
The development of English as second language (ESL) writing is very complicated. Angelova (1999) has
illustrated such factors affecting the process and product of ESL writing as language proficiency, L1 writing
competence, use of cohesive devices, metacognitive knowledge about the writing task, writing strategies and
writers' personal characteristics. Among these factors, writing strategies seem particularly remarkable because
many researchers (Arndt, 1987; Beare, 2000; Raimes, 1985; Victori, 1995; Zamel, 1982) claim that it is the
writing strategies that primarily separate successful from less successful writers. Furthermore, according to
Hsiao and Oxford (2002), strategies can “pave the way toward greater proficiency, learner autonomy, and self-
regulation” (p. 372). Therefore, it is necessary to explore explicit classification of ESL writing strategies from
theoretic stance so that ESL learners can easily access to and acquire to facilitate their writing. However, as
Hsiao and Oxford (2002) noted, “exactly how many strategies are available to learners to assist them in L2
learning and how these strategies should be classified are open to debate”( p. 368). Victori (1995) found a
myriad of classifications of writing strategies and processes which were termed with different labels. ESL
learners are often confused with so many classifications ESL writing strategies. Moreover, few of these
classifications have been discussed from a theoretic stance. Thus, this study attempts to fill in the gap. In this
paper, I first review theories related to ESL writing so as to provide theoretic foundation for the classification of
ESL writing strategies. Then I review prior studies on ESL writing strategies and synthesise them into a
taxonomy of ESL writing strategies.

2. Theories Related to ESL Writing

In the study of ESL writing history, Silva (1990) roughly divided ESL writing instruction into four stages
marked by the four most influential approaches: the controlled approach, the current-traditional rhetoric
approach, the process approach and the social approach. The first stage was dominated by the controlled or
guided approach which was influenced by structural linguistics and behaviourist psychology. This approach saw
learning to write as an exercise in habit formation. Students were trained to practice sentence patterns and
vocabulary by means of writing. The major approach in the second stage of ESL writing instruction was the
current-traditional rhetoric approach with the influence of Kaplan’s theory of contrastive rhetoric. It regarded
learning to write as identifying and internalising organisational patterns. The major approach in the third stage of
ESL writing teaching was the process approach. According to this approach, learning to write was developing
efficient and effective writing strategies. The social approach in the fourth stage viewed that learning to write
was part of becoming socialised to the discourse community – finding out what is expected and trying to
approximate it. In fact, the four approaches in these four stages of ESL writing instruction are supported by four
important theories related to ESL writing. They are Contrastive Rhetoric Theory, Cognitive Development Theory,
Communication Theory and Social Constructionist Theory. Among these theories, it is evident that contrastive
rhetoric theory, cognitive developmental theory and social constructionist theory correspond with the current
rhetoric approach, the process approach and the social approach of ESL writing instruction respectively. In
addition, ESL writing as a means of communication is naturally influenced by communication theory. Thus, the
communication theory is reflected in all these four stages of ESL writing instruction. I identify these four
theories in the field of ESL writing because they are closely associated with the four approaches in ESL
composition teaching and they can provide a theoretic framework for the following classification of ESL writing
strategies. Thus, in the following section I mainly illustrate these four theories and relate them to ESL writing
strategies.

2.1 Contrastive Rhetoric Theory

Contrastive rhetoric theory is proposed by Kaplan (1966) in his Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural
Communication. Research in contrastive rhetoric has examined the formal differences between texts written by
native and non-native speakers of English, and these textual differences have been related to cultural differences
in rhetorical expectations and conventions. Connor (2002) has reviewed the studies of contrastive rhetoric during
the past 30 years and identified four domains of its investigation. These areas are: “(1) contrastive text linguistic
studies: examine, compare, and contrast how texts are formed and interpreted in different languages and cultures
using methods of written discourse analysis; (2) studies of writing as cultural and educational activity:
investigate literacy development on L1 language and culture and examine effects on the development of L2
literacy; (3) classroom-based contrastive studies: examine cross-cultural patterns in process writing,
collaborative revisions, and student-teacher conferences. (4) genre-specific investigations: are applied to
academic and professional writing” (p. 498).

However, since its emergence contrastive rhetoric theory has met numerous criticism for its reductionist,
deterministic, prescriptive, and essentialist orientation (Leki, 1997). Kubota and Lehner (2004) establish critical
contrastive rhetoric by incorporating poststructuralist, post-colonial, and post-modern critiques of language and
culture. They reconceptualise cultural difference in rhetoric from such perspectives as relations of power,
discursive construction of knowledge, colonial construction of cultural dichotomies, and rhetorical plurality
brought about by diaspora and cultural hybridity. This broadens the paradigm of contrastive rhetoric theory.
Even with so many criticisms for a number of years, contrastive rhetoric has played a very important role in ESL
writing classroom (Silva, 1990). In particular, in 1990s the field experienced a paradigm shift and that “broader
definition that considers cognitive and sociocultural variables of writing… has been substituted for a purely
linguistic framework” (Connor, 1996, p. 18). From above analysis, the central concern of contrastive rhetoric
theory is the logical construction and arrangement of discourse forms. As Silva (1990) noted, the elements of
paragraphs such as topic sentences, support sentences, concluding sentences, and transitions as well as various
choices for its development such as illustration, exemplification, comparison, contrast, partition, classification,
definition, causal analysis are attended in contrastive rhetoric theory. Therefore, rhetorical strategies is identified
as means ESL writers use to organise and to present their ideas in writing conventions that are acceptable to
native speakers of English.

2.2 Cognitive Development Theory

Cognitive development theory, which emerged in Europe in the eighteenth century, was concerned with the
nature of knowledge and with the structures and processes by which it is acquired. Perhaps the most obvious
contribution of cognitive-processing theory is the research direction leading to study of writing as process ─
close observations of writers in the act of composing making the choices and decisions that move text forward
(Kennedy, 1998). In English composition studies, Flower and Hayes’s model (1981) and Bereiter and
Scardamalia’s model (1987) are worth mentioning because they directly influence ESL writing research.
Flower and Hayes (1981) viewed English writing as a recursive process in which planning, generating,
translating, and editing need to be "juggled". However, this model has been criticised by Bereiter and
Scardamalia (1987) with regard to its methodology and assumption. Methodologically it has been found to be
rather limited in its relying only on inferred invariance in protocol data. Hayes and Flower’s model assumes
there is a single writing process for all writers. According to it skilled writers do the same things as less
proficient writers. Thus, this model has not been able to account for the differences between good and poor
writers.

Unlike Hayes and Flowers, based on think-aloud protocol analyses, experimental research as well as direct
observation, Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) propose two models of writing: knowledge telling model for
novice writers and knowledge transformation model for expert writers. The knowledge-telling model is a task-
execution model and does not involve any complex problem-solving activities. In contrast, the knowledge-
transforming model is a problem-solving model that requires the writers to engage in constant reflective
processes between the content problem space and the rhetorical problem space. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987)
found that novice writers who employed the knowledge-telling model of writing revised usually at local level
while mature writers did global revisions that involved transformations of information. However, this theory also
has some limitations. One problem that has been pointed out by Flower (1994) is that the theory does not seem
to consider the influence of context on writing. That is, it is purely cognitive in nature and does not give credit to
the social factors involved in writing. Another problem is that it is not clear whether and when a writer can
develop the more advanced knowledge transforming process of writing.

Anyway, the influence of the process theory on ESL writing is reasonably great as Grabe and Kaplan (1996, p.
84) state, “[M]uch current research on writing in a L2 is based directly on theoretical and instructional trends in
writing-as-a-process theory.” Atkinson (2003) proposed the notion of “post-process” as an appropriate basis on
which to investigate the complex activity of ESL writing in its full range of sociocognitive situatedness,
dynamism, diversity, and implications. In particular, the exploration of writers’ metacognitive and cognitive
knowledge is far from exhaustive. According to Carson and Longhini (2002), metacognitive strategies are
defined as strategies that writers use to control writing process consciously and cognitive strategies are those
writers use to implement actual writing actions.

2.3 Communication Theory

Communication theory highlights the social and political purposes of discourse rituals, specifically discourse-in-
use, where interpersonal communication is grounded in beliefs about individualism and independent interaction
in society and investigates multiple levels of discourse (economical, social, material, institutional, and cultural)
(Kennedy, 1998). To connect communication theories with composition studies, discourse is placed at the centre
of attention. According to communication theories, different discourses are used for different communicative
purposes. Writing occurs in many different forms. Cooper and Odell (1977) have identified many styles of
written discourses such as dramatic writing, personal writing, reporting, research, academic writing, fiction,
poetry, business writing, and technical writing. As Grabe and Kaplan (1996) point out, academic writing needs
to combine “structural sentence units into a more-or-less unique, cohesive and coherent larger structure (as
opposed to lists, forms, etc.).” (p. 4) Students entering academic disciplines must learn the genres and
conventions of that particular disciplinary community (Freeman, Carey, & Miller, 1991). Understanding the
conventions of an academic discourse community constitutes a special literacy that writers need to acquire.
Inferred from communication theory, communicative strategies conceptualised in ESL writing instruction.
Cohen (1998) defines communicative strategies as means writers use to express their ideas in a most effective
way . This conception will be used in the classification of ESL writing strategies.

2.4 Social Constructionism

Social constructionism is an educational approach that is derived from social constructivism. Social
constructionists believe that we do not find or discover concepts, models, and knowledge as much as we
construct or make them. In fact, social constructionism has been used extensively in the area of writing and
composition (Cazden, 1996). Social constructionist writing teachers assert that writing constitutes a mode of
communication in an academic or discourse community. Social constructionist discussions of writing are
preoccupied with discourse as socially constructed. The perspective is global, the concept of discourse
communities rather than individual agency figuring largely in such discussion. The focus is on how such a
community defines writers and writing; how texts represent that community; how the community, its discourse,
and disciplinary knowledge are constituted and reconstituted; and how participants in discursive practices form
and are formed by these practices and the disciplinary and professional formations in which they participate
(Kennedy, 1998).

Therefore, a social-constructionist writing instructor considers both a process approach and some aspects of a
product approach to teaching writing (Zimmerman, 1993). From a product-approach perspective, writers use the
writing products of others to help them construct meanings, and from a process-approach perspective, writers
collaborate and converse with others to exchange and construct their texts. Social constructionists believe that
learning to write within the zone of proximal development occurs when students engage in a task that is too
difficult for them to perform independently, forcing them to seek support from an adult or from capable peers for
their writing operation and writing performance (Dixon-Krauss, 1996). In social-constructionist writing classes,
the acquisition and the development of writing skill also takes place through the acculturation model of the social
and psychological integration of the learner into the target language group (Schumann, 1978). The
social/affective strategies are defined as strategies that writers use to interact with the target discourse
community for the support and to regulate their emotions, motivation, and attitude in the process of writing
(Carson and Longhini, 2002).

In sum, this section has mainly discussed the theories of contrastive rhetoric, cognitive development,
communication and social constructionism and their applications in ESL writing studies, and five categories as
rhetorical strategies, metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, communicative strategies and social/affective
strategies are identified and defined according to understandings of these theories. Based on the analysis of the
theories of contrastive rhetoric, cognitive development, communication and social constructionism related to
ESL writing, I conclude that the writing process is a very complex development influenced by many factors such
as culture, politics, education, economy, social environment, community and language. Furthermore, five
categories of writing strategies identified here will be used as a framework to establish a taxonomy of ESL
writing strategies. In the following, I will review the previous classifications of ESL writing strategies and use
the five categories generated from ESL writing theories to synthesise the previous classifications of ESL writing
strategies into a taxonomy.

3. Previous Classifications of ESL Writing Strategies

To my knowledge, one of the earliest studies on ESL writing strategies is Arndt’s (1987) investigation of the
composing activities of six Chinese postgraduate EFL students as they produced academic written texts in both
their first and foreign languages. She adopted eight categories to code the strategies the students used in their
writing as the following table shows.
Table 3.1 Arndt’s Categories of ESL Writing Strategies
Category of strategies Definition
Planning Finding a focus, deciding what to write about
Global planning Deciding how to organise the text as a whole
Rehearsing Trying out ideas and the language in which to express them
Repeating Of key words and phrases - an activity which often seemed to provide
impetus to continue composing;
Re-reading Of what had already been written down
Questioning As a means of classifying ideas, or evaluating what had been written
Revising Making changes to the written text in order to clarify meaning
Editing Making changes to the written text in order to correct the syntax or spelling,

Arndt (1987) has used these categories to code Chinese students’ writing strategies, and some of her findings are
interesting. For example, Chinese students were found to revise for word-choice more in the ESL task than in the
L1 task, but rehearse for word-choice more in L1 than ESL. Arndt (1987) attributed this to the students’ less
ability to try out alternatives and less satisfaction with their decisions in ESL than in L1, not only because they
had more limited resources to draw on, but also because they felt less secure about whether they had chosen
appropriately.

Wenden (1991) has investigated eight students of ESL, requiring them to write a composition at the computer
and to introspect as they wrote. She studied how the students used metacognitive strategies in their writing and
discussed what task knowledge they searched for before and while writing. The cognitive and metacognitive
strategies Wenden mentioned in her article are summarized in Table 3.2:

Table 3.2 Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies in Writing Proposed by Wenden (1991 )
Metacognitive strategies Cognitive strategies
Clarification Self-question
Hypothesizing
Defining terms
Comparing
Retrieval Rereading aloud or silently what had been written
Writing in a lead-in word or expression
Planning Rereading the assigned question
Self-questioning
Evaluation Writing till the idea would come
Summarizing what had just been written (in terms of
Monitoring content or of rhetoric)
Thinking in one’s native language
Resourcing Ask researcher
Refer to dictionary
Deferral
Avoidance
Verification

According to Wenden (1991) metacognitive strategies are mental operations or procedures that learners use to
regulate their learning. They are directly responsible for the execution of a writing task and include three main
kinds: planning, evaluating and monitoring. Cognitive strategies are mental operations or steps used by learners
to learn new information and apply it to specific learning tasks. They are used to deal with the obstacles
encountered along the way. They are auxiliary strategies that aid in the implementation of the metacognitive
strategies. In contrast to the metacognitive strategies, the function of cognitive strategies is narrower in scope.

Victori (1995) has identified seven types of writing strategies based on the interviews and think-aloud protocol
analysis. According to Victori (1995), planning strategies are strategies by which the writer plans and talks out
what ideas will come next, and explicitly states his or her objectives for organisation and procedures. Monitoring
strategies are strategies the writers use when checking and verifying their process in the composing process and
when identifying oncoming problems. Evaluating strategies are strategies undertaken when reconsidering the
written text, previous goals, planned thoughts, as well as changes undertaken to the text. Resourcing strategies
are strategies using available external reference sources of information about the target language, such as
consulting the dictionary to look up or confirm doubts (lexicon, grammatical, semantic or spelling doubts), or to
look for alternatives (synonyms). Repeating strategies are strategies repeating chunks of language in the course
of composing, either when reviewing the text or when transcribing new ideas. Reduction strategies are strategies
to do away with a problem, either by removing it from the text, giving up any attempts to solve it, or
paraphrasing with the aim of avoiding a problem. Use of L1 strategies are strategies using the mother tongue
with different purposes: to generate new ideas, to evaluate and make sense of the ideas written in the L2 or to
transcribe the right idea/word in the L1.

Riazi (1997) studied four Iranian doctoral students of education focusing on accounting for the learners’
conceptualisations of their writing tasks, their strategies for composing, key aspects of the academic courses they
were participating in as the immediate context of their writing and their personal perceptions of their own
learning. He summarized their composing strategies following distinctions made in previous studies of second-
language learning in academic settings between cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies (e.g., Chamot &
Kupper, 1989; O'Malley & Chamot, 1996) in addition to a fourth category, "search strategies," he himself
discerned (Riazi, 1997, p. 122).

Table 3.3 Composing Strategies (Adapted from Riazi, 1997)

Composing Strategies Constituents Phase of Composing
Process
Cognitive Strategies
Note-taking Reading & writing
Interacting with the materials to be Elaboration Reading & writing
used in writing by manipulating them Use of mother tongue Reading & writing
mentally or physically knowledge and skill transfer
from L1
Inferencing Reading
Drafting (revising & editing) Writing
Metacognitive Strategies
Assigning goals Task representation
Executive processes used to plan, & reading
monitor, and evaluate a writing task Planning (making & changing Writing
outlines)
Rationalizing appropriate Reading & writing
formats
Monitoring & evaluation Reading/writing/task
representation
Social Strategies
Interacting with other persons to assist Appealing for clarifications Task representation
in performing the task or to gain Getting feedback from Writing
affective control professors & peers
Search Strategies Searching and using libraries
(books, journal, Eric,
microfiche)
Searching and using supporting Using guidelines Reading and writing
sources Using others’ writing as model

Riazi (1997) described the macro-strategies Iranian doctoral students used to carry out their academic tasks.
These strategies helped to form their mental representations of academic writing tasks as well as their social
activities for accomplishing them. Participants’ cognitive strategies led them to work with, think about, and
manipulate materials required for task completion. They included such specific strategies as note taking,
inferencing, and elaboration; use of mother tongue knowledge and skill transfer across their two languages; and
revising and editing multiple drafts of their papers. In particular, Riazi found participants in the study conceived
of the relationship between their L1 and ESL in their learning to write in the specific context of their graduate
studies. They did not put their previous experiences aside and start all over again in their ESL, but in a dynamic
and interactive process they were using and building on their previous knowledge, skills and strategies. The
meta-cognitive strategies such as self-regulatory strategies helped the participants exercise control over their
performance of the writing tasks, thus reducing their anxiety over not knowing what to do. The social strategies
included those practices and activities in which participants interacted with their professors and other members
of their academic community to clarify a task, consult on a problem related to a task, or to discuss comments
they had received about their learning to write in their discipline.
Sasaki (2000) investigated EFL learners’ writing processes using a Japanese L1 research scheme (see Table 3.5)
and found that (a) before starting to write, the experts spent a longer time planning a detailed overall
organization, whereas the novices spent a shorter time, making a less global plan; (b) once the experts had made
their global plan, they did not stop and think as frequently as the novices; (c) ESL proficiency appeared to
explain part of the difference in strategy use between the experts and novices; and (d) after 6 months of
instruction, novices had begun to use some of the expert writers’ strategies.

Table 3.4 Japanese ESL Students’ Writing Strategies (Adapted from Sasaki, 2000)
Writing strategies Definition
Planning
(1) Global planning Detailed planning of overall organization
(2) Thematic planning Less detailed planning of overall organization
(3) Local planning Planning what to write next
(4) Organizing Organizing the generated ideas
(5) Conclusion planning Planning of the conclusion
Retrieving
(1) Plan retrieving Retrieving the already constructed plan
(2) Information retrieving Retrieving appropriate information from long-term
memory
Generating ideas
(1) Naturally generated Generating an idea without any stimulus
(2) Description generated Generating an idea related to the previous description
Verbalizing
(1) Verbalizing a proposition Verbalizing the content the writer intends to write
(2) Rhetorical refining Refining the rhetorical aspect(s) of an expression
(3) Mechanical refining Refining the mechanical or(L1/ESL) grammatical
aspect(s) of an expression
(4) Sense of readers Adjusting expression(s)to the readers
Translating Translating the generated idea into ESL
Rereading Rereading the already produced sentence
Evaluating
(1) ESL proficiency evaluation Evaluating one's own ESL proficiency
(2) Local text evaluation Evaluating part of the generated text
(3) General text evaluation Evaluating the generated text in general
Others
(1) Resting Resting
(2) Questioning Asking the researcher a question
(3) Impossible to categorize Impossible to categorize

The scheme Sasaki selected is interesting because it gives a detailed description of strategies ESL writers may
use in their writing process. However, almost all the categories about writing strategies in the above-mentioned
studies are used to categorise the writers’ writing process. No one except Wenden (1991) and Riazi (1997) has
classified the writing strategies from a theoretical stance. Furthermore, the taxonomies of writing strategies
proposed by Wenden and Riazi are incomplete because they do not take rhetorical and communicative strategies
into account. To map this missing aspect of ESL writing research, I construct a taxonomy of ESL writing
strategies to contribute to both theoretical and practical study of ESL writing.

4. The Taxonomy of ESL Writing Strategies

From the review of the previous studies on ESL writing strategies, it is evident that the summaries or
classifications of ESL writing strategies are rather confusing. For example, Arndt (1987) put planning and
global planning together as individual strategies while Victori (1995) and Sasaki (2000) subdivided planning into
planning overall content and idea or global planning, thematic planning and local planning. Should planning and
global planning be regarded as categories in a similar level or is global planning one of the subcategories of
planning? These kinds of perplexing classifications may confuse ESL learners. Furthermore, some researchers
(e.g., Arndt, 1987) distinguish revising from editing while others (e.g., Riazi, 1997) do not. Wenden (1991) even
does not include revising strategies in her taxonomy. In addition, most of the above classifications of ESL
writing strategies lack theoretic foundations. They are summarised from either think-aloud protocol analysis or
observations. Hence, it is necessary to explore them from theoretic stance so as to enhance their generalisation
and reliability in the practice of ESL writing. Therefore, I first analyse and synthesise the aforementioned studies
on ESL writing strategies and list all writing strategies they offered in Table 4.1. Then, I adopt the five
categories generated from theories related to ESL writing to categorise all these strategies into a taxonomy of
ESL writing strategies.

In the process of synthesising the previous studies on ESL writing strategies, I avoid multiple levels of categories
because different researchers have different standards to classify those strategies and it is easy for these various
levels of categorisations to puzzle readers as I pointed out above. To simplify the complicated classifications, I
utilise three ways to cope with the various terms of strategies. First, I use the general strategy to represent the
specific strategies. For instance, planning is a very important strategy going through the whole writing process
(Victori, 1995). Some researchers (e.g., Victori, 1995 and Sasaki, 2000) list its subcategories such as global
planning, local planning, thematic planning and so on. In the synthesis, I just list planning as one of the strategies
so as to avoid the contradiction of classifications between Arndt and Sasaki. Second, I also list out some sub-
categories as individual strategies because they are very important and do not belong to some upper category
completely. For example, Wenden (1991) puts summarising strategy under the category of retrieval strategies. It
is no wrong that writers use summarising strategy to retrieve the previous knowledge. However, the role of
summarising strategy plays in ESL writing is much more than this. In my investigation, some participants use
summarising as a very important strategy to complete their writing task. Thus, I list summarising as equivalent
individual strategy with retrieval strategy. Third, some researchers mention variables such as cohesion and
coherence and organisation but do not list them as strategies (e.g., Victori, 1995). Or they attribute organising
strategy into the category of planning (e.g., Sasaki, 2000). In the synthesis of previous classifications, I
categorise the organising strategy as individual one because of its important role in ESL writing. The following
table 4.1 is the synthesis of previous studies on ESL writing strategies ordered according to the frequency of
their appearance in those studies.

Table 4.1 Synthesis of Previous Studies on ESL Writing Strategies

Order No. Strategies Proposers
1 Planning Arndt (1987), Wenden (1991), Victori (1995), Riazi (1997),
Sasaki (2000)
2 Evaluating Wenden (1991), Victori (1995), Riazi (1997), Sasaki (2000)
3 Use of L1 Wenden (1991), Victori (1995), Riazi (1997), Sasaki (2000)
4 Monitoring Wenden (1991), Victori (1995), Riazi (1997)
5 Re-reading Arndt (1987), Wenden (1991), Sasaki (2000)
6 Questioning Arndt (1987), Wenden (1991), Sasaki (2000)
7 Repeating Arndt (1987), Victori (1995)
8 Revising Arndt (1987), Riazi (1997),
9 Resourcing Wenden (1991), Riazi (1997)
10 Clarification Wenden (1991), Riazi (1997)
11 Retrieval Wenden (1991), Sasaki (2000)
12 Rest/deferral Wenden (1991), Sasaki (2000)
13 Organising Victori (1995), Sasaki (2000)
14 Hypothesising Wenden (1991)
15 Rehearsing Arndt (1987)
16 Comparing Wenden (1991)
17 Summarising Wenden (1991)
18 Defining terms Wenden (1991)
19 Lead-in Wenden (1991)
20 Avoidance Wenden (1991)
21 Reduction Victori (1995)
22 Note-taking Riazi (1997)
23 Elaborating Riazi (1997)
24 Assigning goals Riazi (1997)
25 Rationalising format Riazi (1997)
26 Getting feedback Riazi (1997)
27 Modelling Riazi (1997)
28 Inferencing Riazi (1997)
29 Sense of readers Sasaki (2000)
30 Generating ideas Sasaki (2000)
In this table, there are thirty ESL writing strategies in total. It is not easy to memorise and distinguish all these
strategies because some are obvious from their terms but others are not well defined. In other words, this list is
still not reasonably accessible for ESL learners and teachers in writing practice. Therefore, I draw on the
categories of rhetorical strategies, metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, communicative strategies and
social/affective strategies derived from understandings of theories related to ESL writing, and use them to
categorise these strategies into a more explicit taxonomy. Both taking the previous classifications of ESL writing
strategies as the reference and basing on the understanding of ESL writing theories and practices, I categorise the
strategies in Table 4.2 as follows.

Initially, I subsume planning, monitoring and evaluating under metacognitive strategies because both Wenden
(1991) and Riazi (1997) have done this and Victori (1995) also claims planning, monitoring and evaluating are
“threefold general classification of metacognitive strategies” (p. 123). Since rhetorical strategies are ones that
writers use to organise and to present their ideas in writing conventions that are acceptable to native speakers of
English, I classify organising, use of L1, rationalising format, modelling and comparing into the category of
rhetorical strategies. Organising strategies involves the organisation of the beginning, development and
conclusion of an essay. For example, Chinese students use the strategy of opening the door and seeing the
mountain (kai men jian shan) to start a passage which is equal to the strategy of coming to the topic directly in
English writing. Both of them are strategies for rhetorical organisation. ESL writers may use L1 or L1
knowledge to plan the paragraph and sentences. It is natural for them to bring L1 writing conventions into ESL
writing (Scollon, 1991). Both rationalising format and modelling are strategies that ESL writers use to look for
appropriate genre for writing. Comparing strategy is regarded as one of the rhetorical strategies because ESL
writers use it to compare L1 writing conventions with ESL conventions so as to adapt to the target discourse
community. According to the definition of social/affective strategies, the strategies writers use to interact with
other people, to access to the available resources such as library, journal and dictionary, and to adjust emotion
can be classified under this category. Thus, I put resourcing, getting feedback from professors or peers, assigning
goals and rest/deferral into this category. Through assigning goals writers can reduce their pressure from a
burden of tasks. Resourcing and getting feedback from professors and peers are strategies ESL writers use to
communicate with others for gaining supports. Writers may take a rest or break to lower fatigue from hard work.
Under communicative strategies, I list avoidance, reduction, and sense of reader because these are strategies
writers may use to express ideas in a more effective way. With strategies of avoidance and reduction, writers
may either remove a problem from the text or paraphrase with the aim of avoiding a problem. In communication
one important aspect of writing different from speech is that it must be complete enough to stand alone in the
absence of the writer to expand or answer questions (Hartnett, 1997). Therefore, sense of readers in writing
should be one of the effective communicative strategies. As the coding proceeds so far, there are 14 strategies
left: repeating, questioning, hypothesising, generating ideas, revising, clarification, retrieval, rehearsing,
inferencing, defining terms, lead-in, note-taking and elaborating. I subsume them all under cognitive strategies
according to Wenden (1991) and Riazi (1997). However, some strategies among them are quite similar and can
be represented by one of them. For instance, repeating is the strategy writers use to provide an impetus to
continue composing (Arndt, 1987). Hypothesising, summarising, defining terms, lead-in and note-taking are all
used to generate new ideas. So these strategies can be represented by the strategy of generating ideas. In addition,
questioning and clarification are same strategies according to Wenden (1991). Therefore, the strategies under
cognitive strategies can be condensed into seven strategies including generating ideas, revising, elaborating,
clarification, retrieval, rehearsing, and summarising. This classification of ESL writing strategies can be
summarised in the following taxonomy with the corresponding speculations (Table 4.2)
Table 4.2 The Taxonomy of ESL Writing Strategies
Writing strategies Sub-strategies Speculation
Rhetorical strategies Organisation Beginning/development/ending
Use of L1 Translate generated idea into ESL
Formatting/Modelling Genre consideration
Comparing Different rhetorical conventions
Meta-cognitive strategies Planning Finding focus
Monitoring Checking and identifying problems
Evaluating Reconsidering written text, goals
Cognitive strategies Generating ideas Repeating, lead-in, inferencing, etc.
Revising Making changes in plan, written text
Elaborating Extending the contents of writing
Clarification Disposing of confusions
Retrieval Getting information from memory
Rehearsing Trying out ideas or language
Summarising Synthesising what has read
Communicative strategies Avoidance Avoiding some problem
Reduction Giving up some difficulties
Sense of readers Anticipating readers’ response
Social/affective strategies Resourcing Referring to libraries, dictionaries
Getting feedback Getting support from professor, peers
Assigning goals Dissolve the load of the task
Rest/deferral Reducing anxiety

Though this taxonomy looks more explicit and accessible than the previous classifications I reviewed in the last
section, it inevitably has its limitations. First, it is impossible to frame a taxonomy of ESL writing strategies
accepted by all researchers because different researchers have different standards for the classification (Hsiao
and Oxford, 2002). Furthermore, some terms in ESL writing strategies are rather ambiguous. For example, is
revising a strategy similar to editing or they are different? Arndt (1987) made a difference between them but
Wenden (1991) did not. Anyway, this taxonomy is based on the understandings of the four important theories
related to ESL writing. It has explored ESL writing strategies from the theoretical stance. The next limitation is
that this taxonomy is established on the analysis and synthesis of previous classifications of ESL writing
strategies. Some researchers (e.g., Arndt, 1987; Victori, 1995) generated ESL writing strategies from think-aloud
protocol analysis while others (e.g., Riazi, 1997) summarised the strategies mainly from interviews. That is, they
acquire the categories of ESL writing strategies through different methods. In addition, their subjects are
different. For example, the participants in Riazi’s study are four Iranian doctoral students and in Arndt’ study are
six Chinese graduate students. Therefore, the strategies they identified are sometimes completely different. For
instance, the strategy of repeating in Arndt’s study is impossible to appear in Riazi’s study because the
participants may not report they use repeating strategy in the interview while that strategy can be observed from
the students’ think-aloud process. Therefore, the taxonomy may look somewhat odd with mixing different
categories together. Another limitation of this taxonomy is its incompleteness. It is impossible to include all
strategies in such a taxonomy owing to their flexibility and complication to individual writers. Thus, this
taxonomy is not exhaustive, but it may be heuristic for later studies on the classifications of ESL writing
strategies because it has discussed the classification of ESL writing strategies from theoretic stance to date.
Though with such limitations, this taxonomy is significant for ESL writing and teaching because of its
explicitness and accessibility particularly for novice ESL writers.

Bibliographical References

Angelova, M. (1999). An exploratory study of factors affecting the process and product of writing in English as
a foreign language. Unpublished PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.
Arndt, V. (1987). Six writers in search of texts: A protocol-based study of L1 and L2 writing. ELT Journal, 41,
257-267.
Atkinson, D. (2003). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second Language Writing(12),
3-15.
Beare, S. (2000). Differences in content generating and planning processes of adult L1 and L2 proficient writers.
Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
 Carson, J. G., & Longhini, A. (2002). Focusing on learning styles and strategies: A diary study in an immersion
setting. Language learning, 52(2), 401-438.
Cazden, C. (1996). Selective traditions: Readings of Vygotsky in writing pedagogy. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse,
learning, and schooling (pp. 165-185). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language
Annuals, 22, 13-24.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language (First ed.). New York: Addison
Wesley Longman Limited.
Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. New York: the
Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 493-510.
Cooper, C. R., & Odell, L. D. (1977). Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Dixon-Krauss, L. (1996). Vygotsky in the classroom: Mediated literacy instruction and assessment. White Plains,
NY: Longman.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32, 365-387.
Flower, L. S. (1994). A social cognitive theory of writing. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Freeman, S. W., Carey, J., & Miller, A. (1991). Students' stances: Dimensions affecting composing and learning
processes. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 84-106.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London and New York: Longman.
Hartnett, C. G. (1997). A functional approach to composition offers an alternative. Composition Chronicle:
Newsletter for Writing Teachers, 10(5), 5-8.
Hsiao, T.-Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor
analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86(iii), 368-383.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural communication. Language Learning(16), 1-20.
Kennedy, M. L. (Ed.). (1998). Theorizing Composition: A Critical Sourcebook of Theory and Scholarship in
Contemporary Composition Studies. Westport, USA: Greenwood press.
Kubota, R., & Lehner, A. (2004). Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13,
7-27.
Leki, I. (1997). Cross-talk: ESL issues and contrastive rhetoric. In C. Severino, J. C. Guerra & J. e. Butler (Eds.),
Writing in multicultural settings (pp. 234-244). New York: The Modern Language Association of
America.
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1996). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. New York: the
Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL
Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.
Riazi, A. (1997). Acquiring disciplinary literacy: A social-cognitive analysis of text production and learning
among Iranian graduate students of education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 105-137.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259-291.
Schumann, J. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In R. Gingras (Ed.), Second-
language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 22-50). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Scollon, R. (1991, March 21). Eight legs and one elbow: Stance and structure in Chinese English compositions.
Paper presented at the International Reading Association, Second North American Conference on Adult
and Adolescent Literacy, Banff.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B.
Kroll (Ed.), Second language Writing Research: Insights for the classroom (pp. 11-17). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Victori, M. (1995). EFL writing knowledge and strategies: An interactive study. Unpublished PhD dissertation,
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (Spain), Barcelona.
Wenden, A. L. (1991). Metacognitive strategies in L2 Writing: A case for task knowledge. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.),
Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991 (pp. 302-322). Washington, D.
C.: Georgetown University Press.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195-209.
Zimmerman, B. (1993). Collaborative, conversation, and communication: A qualitative study of social
constructionism in a college technical writing class. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Brigham
Young University, Provo, UT.

View publication stats