69วารสารมนุษยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร ปีที ่16 ฉบบัที ่1 ประจ�าเดือนมกราคม - เมษายน 2562
Thai Business Students’ Writing Strategies with Emphasizing on Writing
Proficiency and Field of Study
กลวิธีการเขียนของผู้เรียนไทยที่เรียนทางด้านธุรกิจ โดยพิจารณาจาก
ความสามารถทางการเขียนและสาขาวิชา
Pattanon Phonhan1
พัฐนนท์ พลหาญ2
Abstract In the field of second language writing, writing strategy investigation has been paid attention
by many researchers for more than three past decades. The aim of this study was to investigate the
frequent use of writing strategies by Thai business students at tertiary level according to the difference
on writing proficiency and field of study. The participants of the study were 87 third and fourth year
students including 26 marketing students, 29 management students and 32 accounting students. The
research instruments were collected by English writing composition test for measuring students’ writing
proficiency and the writing strategies inventory questionnaires, which adopted from Petric & Czarl (2003).
The statistics of means, standard deviation and one–way ANOVA were computed for data analysis. The
major findings of this study indicated that while-writing strategies were the most frequently used, followed
by pre-writing strategies and revising strategies respectively. On the whole picture of significant variation
in the frequency of students’ use of writing strategies, no significant differences were found in either
writing strategy categories between the high writing proficiency and low writing proficiency students,
among the groups of students across three majors in business field. In conclusion, writing proficiency
and field of study are not played vital role in affecting the frequency of writing strategies employed by
Thai business students who have skilled at logical and mathematical intelligence.
Keywords: Second Language Writing, Writing Strategy, Writing Proficiency, Field of Study
บทคัดย่อ ในสาขาการเขียนภาษาท่ีสอง การศึกษาเก่ียวกับกลวิธีการเขียนเป็นอีกหนึ่งประเด็นที่ได้รับความสนใจ
จากนกัวิชาการมาเป็นเวลาเกือบสามทศวรรษแล้ว การวิจยัในครัง้นีม้วีตัถุประสงค์เพ่ือศกึษาความถ่ีของการใช้กลวธีิ
การเขียนของผู้เรียนไทยท่ีเรียนทางด้านธุรกิจในระดับอุดมศึกษา ซึ่งมีระดับความสามารถทางการเขียนและสาขา
วิชาที่แตกต่างกัน กลุ่มตัวอย่างได้แก่นักศึกษาชั้นปีที่ 3 และ 4 จ�านวน 87 คน โดยจ�าแนกออกเป็นกลุ่มสาขาการ
ตลาด จ�านวน 26 คน, สาขาการจัดการ จ�านวน 29 คน และสาขาการบัญชี จ�านวน 32 คน เครื่องมือที่ใช้ในการวิจัย
ประกอบไปด้วยแบบทดสอบความสามารถทางการเขียนภาษาอังกฤษ และแบบสอบถามการใช้กลวิธีการเขียน ซึ่ง
1 Lecturer Department of English for International Communication, Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, Khon Kaen Campus2 อาจารย์ สาขาวิชาภาษาอังกฤษเพื่อการสื่อสารสากล มหาวิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีราชมงคลอีสาน วิทยาเขตขอนแก่น
70 Journal of Humanities, Naresuan University Year 16 Volumn 1, January - April 2019
ผู้วิจัยประยุกต์มาจาก Petric&Czarl (2003) สถิติที่ใช้ในการวิเคราะห์ข้อมูลได้แก่ ค่าเฉลี่ย, ส่วนเบี่ยงเบนมาตรฐาน
และการวิเคราะห์ความแปรปรวนทางเดียว ผลการวิจัยที่ส�าคัญพบว่า กลวิธีระหว่างการเขียนเป็นกลวิธีที่นักศึกษา
ใช้มากที่สุด รองลงมาคือกลวิธีก่อนการเขียน และกลวิธีการแก้ไขงานเขียน ตามล�าดับ นอกจากนี้จากการศึกษายัง
พบอีกว่าโดยภาพรวมแล้วกลวิธีการเขียนของนักศึกษาที่มีความแตกต่างทางด้านความสามารถทางการเขียนและ
สาขาวิชานัน้มคีวามแตกต่างกันอย่างไม่มนียัส�าคญัแต่อย่างใด กล่าวโดยสรปุแล้วปัจจยัทางด้านความสามารถและ
สาขาวิชาไม่ได้มอีทิธิพลส�าคญักับความถ่ีของการใช้กลวิธีการเขยีนของนักศกึษาไทยทีเ่รยีนทางด้านธุรกิจซึง่มคีวาม
ถนัดทางด้านตรรกศาสตร์และคณิตศาสตร์
ค�าส�าคัญ : การเขียนภาษาที่สอง กลวิธีการเขียน ความสามารถทางการเขียน สาขาวิชา
Introduction
In the case of Thai university system which four language skills have been taught and
provided for all English courses, writing is considered as both elective and compulsory subject
for undergraduate students when they entered into tertiary education (Watcharapunyawong &
Usaha, 2013). However, it is evident that writing found to be the most complex and difficult skill
for Thai learners who are required to study English as foreign language context (Pawapat
charaudom, 2007; Bennui, 2008; Chuenchaichon, 2015). Furthermore, Thai students’ writing
proficiency still have problem based on unsatisfactory level as well (Prapphal & Opanon-Amata,
2003; Punthumasen, 2007). As same as Thai students studying in the field of business, writing
skill can be applied to communicate in various written texts such as business letter, paragraph
writing, short message writing and writing resumes for occupational purposes. From the preliminary
observation, it is found that most students have inexperienced with the lack of writing ability and
techniques about how to express their idea and generate text organizations when they have
encountered with writing in authentic situation.
According to the problem mentioned above, in order to develop and motivate students
to be the proficient writers, it is necessary to find out appropriate teaching method or tactics that
can improve writing ability of students who are not skilled in linguistic ability. Since the research
paradigm of second language writing has shifted from the product-oriented approach to process-
oriented approach over the threedecades, writing strategies are accepted to be one of the
important factors to reach the writing objective (Silva, 1990; Angelova, 1999; Fujieda, 2006).
This trend refers to individual techniques of writer used to organize and regulates their ideas,
planning, composing and revising. (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Grabe& Kaplan, 1996; Torrance at al,
1994, 2000; Kieft et al, 2006, 2007 ; Yuksel, 2014). Because writing strategies can be essential
tool and help the learner to transform knowledge and support them when they faced with writing
barriers in order to accomplish goal in both L1 and L2 writing (Cohen & Brooks – Carson, 2001;
Petric & Czarl, 2003). One of the well known studies of this area have claimed by many scholars
71วารสารมนุษยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร ปีที ่16 ฉบบัที ่1 ประจ�าเดือนมกราคม - เมษายน 2562
that writing strategies seem to be the significance key influencing students’ writing process since
they separate successful writers from less successful writers (Zamel , 1983 ; Arndt, 1987 ; Victori,
1995 ; Beare, 2000 ; Mu , 2005).
However, despite the empirical numerous studied has been conducted on writing
strategies and emphasized by many researchers in the field of second language writing since
1970, these are few gaps that this paper purposed to fill out. The researcher reviewed related
literature and discovered that it is very few studies in this issue in Thailand context especially at
tertiary level. Interestingly, the majority of Thai previous samples of these investigations in terms
of writing strategies were students majoring in English who have linguistic intelligence (Nuchsong,
1997; Pawabunsiriwong, 2004; Jarunthawatchai, 2005; Saraiwang, 2006; Boonpattanaporn, 2007,
Kulamai et al, 2016; Pothitha, 2016).Whereas students who are generally believed to have
numerical aptitude such as science or business had never been occurred. Focusing on a field
of study, there were no any researches identifying the use of writing strategies employed by
students with in the same field but different majors. For this reasons, the researcher aims at filling
gap by investigating the use of writing strategies employed by business students who are proficient
at mathematic intelligence or numerical aptitude.
Consequently, this current study intended to discover the relationship between the major
differences and strategies use by comparing the writing strategies employed by students studying
in three fields of business at undergraduate level in Thailand, as well as to examine how these
writing strategies are affected by business students’ writing proficiency. With outcomes gained
from this study, this will beneficial to writing teachers and language practitioners to aware
the significance of writing strategies for the development of teaching writing methods, teaching
materials by applying the appropriate strategies in language classroom.
Methodology
1. The Participants
There were 87 business students from the Faculty of Business Administration and Information
Technology at Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, Khon Kaen Campus participating in
the study including 26 marketing students, 29 management students and 32 accounting students.
They are third and fourth year students who enrolled in English Writing for Daily Life course in the
first semester of the Academic Year 2017. The reason for choosing the third and fourth year
business majors was that they passed in four English courses which are compulsory subjects for
students majoring in business. These courses consist of English for Study Skills Development,
English for Communication, English Conversation in Daily Life, and English for Presentation.
72 Journal of Humanities, Naresuan University Year 16 Volumn 1, January - April 2019
In addition, they have some Basic English writing skills from related course: English for Business
Communication in the last semester. Hence, they could give insight information for this study.
For business students as main studied in this investigation, they are studying for these
three academic majors: accounting, marketing, and management, which are in the field of business.
Despite, there are many universities in Thailand where business education is provided and various
disciplines are found differently among those universities, those three majors mentioned are most
often occurred almost everywhere both government universities and private universities. The sample
of students were classified and placed into two groups, high writing proficiency students and low
writing proficiency students, according to their scores on writing test. 33 students who ranging
scored over than 50 (out of 100) were placed in high writing proficiency group. Whereas 54 students
who ranging scored lower than 50 (out of 100) were placed in low writing proficiency group.
Instrumentation
1. English Writing Composition test
The English writing composition test was constructed specifically to employ in the present
study in order to categorize the subjects into their different proficiency groups. It was also aimed
to measure students’ writing proficiency. The subjects both pilot study and target group were
assigned to write a paragraph between 150 and 200 words on the topic “The story of my life”.
Three raters including the researcher and two lectures, who have experienced in teaching writing,
have to join in order to assess writing proficiency. The main criteria used for scoring was the
Analytic Scoring method by Jacobs et al (1981). A score based on a total of 100 was given
covering with content (30 points), organization (20 points), vocabulary (20 points), language use
(25 points) and mechanics (5 points) respectively. The inter-rater reliability was calculated by
using Pearson’s Correlation reliability coefficient among the three raters.
2. Writing Strategy Questionnaire
The quantitative data for this investigation was collected through the writing strategy
questionnaire which was developed by Petric & Czarl (2003). The aim of this instrument was to
examine the frequency of strategy use in writing skill. The questionnaire was composed with two
important parts: personal background information and 38 writing strategy items to rate
the frequencies of strategy use with five Likert-scales ranging from 1-5 (1= never use, 2 = usually
not true, 3 = sometime what true, 4 = usually true, 5 = always true) (Petric & Czarl, 2003). For
determining the frequency of writing strategy use, three levels of strategy use, which adopted
from Oxford & Burry-Stock (1995), were demonstrated for assessing the level of writing strategy
usage. The mean frequency of strategy use of items valued from 1.00 to 1.99 was considered as
‘low use’, from 2.00 to 2.99 ‘moderate use’, and 3.00 or higher ‘high use’.
73วารสารมนุษยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร ปีที ่16 ฉบบัที ่1 ประจ�าเดือนมกราคม - เมษายน 2562
The questionnaire contained three categories, including 38 writing strategies i.e 8 individual
strategies in category 1: Pre-writing; 14 individual strategies in category 2: While writing ; and 16
individual strategies in category 3 : Revising writing. Before actual use, the writing strategies
questionnaire was translated into Thai language version and proofread by three experts. In order
to ensure that questionnaire was reliable, it was tried out with 24 business students in the pilot
study group. Then, the returned questionnaires were analyzed the statistic outcomes to find out
the reliability according to the Cronbach’s alpha.
3. Think –aloud protocol
The think aloud protocol was gathered with only the subjects in target group. It was used
in this study in order to discover what students were thought while they were solving their writing
problems. The subjects were requested to join in think aloud protocol. Then, they asked to talk
and share about what they were thinking or doing as they were discussing the writing test.
4. Semi – Structured Interview
Semi-structured interview was the final instrument for this study after writing. It was
administered with only the target group in order to give the subjects’ understanding to express
thoughts, opinions, ideas and attitudes in their own words about writing strategies use.
Data Collection
Before the beginning of the main study, a pilot study was carried out in order to allow
the researcher to examine and improve the effectiveness of both writing test and writing strategies
questionnaire. 24 students from three majors business, who had same characteristics with the
target group, were required to participate in the pilot study group. They were given two hours and
thirty minutes for writing test and another fifteen minutes for answering the writing strategies
questionnaire. After that, the preliminary questionnaires were assessed and calculated for the
reliability through Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. The results of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
for the writing strategies use was .90. Considering with the reliability between first and second
raters was .85, that between second and third raters was .89, and that between first and third
raters was .87, which all considered as acceptable level (Jackson, 2006). Finally, both writing test
and writing strategies questionnaire were revised and scrutinized for some items and content
parts before they became as the final edited instruments for the subjects in the main study.
In collecting data for the target study, the revised writing composition test and writing
strategies questionnaire were conducted as the main instrument in sample group students. In
this phase, the semi - structured interview and think - aloud protocol techniques were also
administered as an additional part of data collection regarding qualitative information in order
that the subjects were able to share their opinions or attitudes about how they employ writing
74 Journal of Humanities, Naresuan University Year 16 Volumn 1, January - April 2019
strategies and how they solve with writing problems while writing text. Before taking the writing
test and completing the questionnaire, the subjects were informed of the goals and details of
gathering data which not affect course grades, and there were no right or wrong answer for them.
All of subjects were assigned to take the writing test, and then respond to the writing strategies
questionnaire respectively. After finishing the test, they were given two hours and thirty minutes
for the test, and another fifteen minutes for filling out the questionnaire as same as the pilot study
group. Afterwards, the writing tests were calculated in categorizing the subjects’ test scores in
order to identify their level of writing achievement.
After the writing test calculation, 6 high proficiency level students and 6 low proficiency
level students from each major in the field of business were randomly selected by means of simple
random sampling method. All of them were requested to interview on how they really employed
the writing strategies in their actual situation both within the writing class and the written text.
Furthermore, the think- aloud protocol techniques was rechecked what the participants actually
thought about taking writing test and to make sure how they solved with such problems during
writing the text.
Data Analysis
All data gathered through the writing composition tests and writing strategy questionnaires
were analyzed through the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics
including frequencies, means and Standard Deviations (S.D) were calculated to examine Thai
business students’ use of writing strategies. Additionally, an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and
Scheffe’s pos hoc test were used to demonstrate whether significant differences among the
writing strategies employed by Thai business students from each majors at different writing
proficiency levels.
Result and Discussion
The demographic data collected from the writing strategy questionnaires were summarized
in the statistics and discussed according to research objectives. Whereas the qualitative data
was analyzed and interpreted according to the semi-structured interview transcripts and
the think-aloud protocol transcripts.
75วารสารมนุษยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร ปีที ่16 ฉบบัที ่1 ประจ�าเดือนมกราคม - เมษายน 2562
Table 1 Thai business students’ overall writing strategy use
As indicated in Table 1, it demonstrates that the overall use of writing strategies in
the three main categories was at the moderate level. Moreover, it is clear from the table that the
highest strategy use among Thai business students is while-writing strategies (2.83), followed by
pre-writing strategies (2.60), while the lowest strategy employed by the subjects is revising strat-
egies (2.56). This is definitely consistent with the writing used by Chinese non-English major
students in the Chen’s (2011) study he found that while-writing strategies are considered to be
the most frequently used and revising strategies are the least of often used. It is also agree with
Maarot & Murat (2013), which asserted that ESL upper secondary school students employed
strategies in the while-writing group as the highest ranking order. While revision strategies are
tended to be the least often used. On the contrary, this result is inconsistent with previous studies
by Al-Sawalha & Chow (2012) and Abdul - Rahman (2013), they claimed that revising strategies
were the most often used.
Table 2 Thai business students’ writing strategy use according to writing proficiency
According to Table 2, it shows the frequency of writing strategies used by business
students in terms of writing proficiency. As can seen from the table, the high writing proficiency
students rarely use all writing strategy groups more often than the low writing proficiency students.
Besides, when it comes to the highest strategy employed by the students with high writing
Result and Discussion The demographic data collected from the writing strategy questionnaires were summarized in the statistics and discussed according to research objectives. Whereas the qualitative data was analyzed and interpreted according to the semi-structured interview transcripts and the think-aloud protocol transcripts. Table: 1: Thai business students’ overall writing strategy use
Strategy Categories x S.D Frequency use level Pre-writing 2.60 .59 Moderate
While-writing 2.83 .70 Moderate Revising 2.56 .51 Moderate
As indicated in Table 1, it demonstrates that the overall use of writing strategies in the three main categories was at the moderate level. Moreover, it is clear from the table that the highest strategy use among Thai business students is while-writing strategies (2.83), followed by pre-writing strategies (2.60), while the lowest strategy employed by the subjects is revising strategies (2.56). This is definitely consistent with the writing used by Chinese non-English major students in the Chen’s (2011) study he found that while-writing strategies are considered to be the most frequently used and revising strategies are the least of often used. It is also agree with Maarot & Murat (2013), which asserted that ESL upper secondary school students employed strategies in the while-writing group as the highest ranking order. While revision strategies are tended to be the least often used. On the contrary, this result is inconsistent with previous studies by Al-Sawalha & Chow (2012) and Abdul - Rahman (2013), they claimed that revising strategies were the most often used.
Table 2: Thai business students’ writing strategy use according to writing proficiency
Strategy Categories High Low Significances
Level
Variation x S.D x S.D
Pre-writing 2.84 .67 2.49 .47 .674 No
significant
While –writing 2.64 .54 2.80 .74 .754 No
significant
Revising 2.60 .63 2.37 .94 .844 No
significant
According to Table 2, it shows the frequency of writing strategies used by business students in terms of writing proficiency. As can seen from the table, the high writing proficiency students rarely use all writing strategy groups more often than the low writing proficiency students. Besides, when it comes to the highest strategy employed by the students with high writing proficiency is pre-writing strategy group and the lowest one is revising strategies. As regard to the low writing proficiency students, the most preferred strategy used is while-writing strategies and the least one is revising strategies. Moreover, when two groups of students were compared, the results revealed that there was no significant difference between the high writing proficiency and low writing proficiency students at confidence level of .05 (P> .05).
This finding comes in accordance with the result of Baker & Boonkit (2004), which reported that there was no significant difference in the frequency of writing strategies used among high, intermediate and low students. That is to say, the high writing proficiency students employed more writing strategies from all three categories; pre-writing, while-writing and revising stage than the students with a low writing proficiency level. This finding come in line with the many empirical tenor of previous studies in writing strategy use and proficiency level showed
76 Journal of Humanities, Naresuan University Year 16 Volumn 1, January - April 2019
proficiency is pre-writing strategy group and the lowest one is revising strategies. As regard to
the low writing proficiency students, the most preferred strategy used is while-writing strategies
and the least one is revising strategies. Moreover, when two groups of students were compared,
the results revealed that there was no significant difference between the high writing proficiency
and low writing proficiency students at confidence level of .05 (P> .05).
This finding comes in accordance with the result of Baker & Boonkit (2004), which
reported that there was no significant difference in the frequency of writing strategies used among
high, intermediate and low students. That is to say, the high writing proficiency students employed
more writing strategies from all three categories; pre-writing, while-writing and revising stage than
the students with a low writing proficiency level. This finding come in line with the many empirical
tenor of previous studies in writing strategy use and proficiency level showed that the high proficient
students used using general writing strategies more often and effective than the low proficient
students (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Cumming, 1989; El-Mortaji, 2001; Sasaki, 2000). Moreover, it is
also correspond with the results in this area on Thai context, they supported that the high achievers
tended to use more writing strategies than did the low achievers ones (Nuchsong, 1997; Chotirat,
1998; Jarunthawatchai, 2001).
Table 3 Thai business students’ writing strategy use according to majors in business field
Table 3 illustrates the frequency of writing strategies employed by the business students
according to different majors; management, marketing and accounting. It indicated that the
marketing students seem to use the while-writing strategy group as the highest rank, followed by
Strategy
Categories
Management Marketing Accounting Significances
Level
Variation
x S.D x S.D x S.D
Pre- writing 2.94 .75 2.56 .42 2.64 .54 .930No
significant
While -writing 2.53 .67 2.66 .64 2.86 .70 .603No
significant
Revising 2.63 .70 2.48 .54 2.58 .43 .328No
significant
77วารสารมนุษยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร ปีที ่16 ฉบบัที ่1 ประจ�าเดือนมกราคม - เมษายน 2562
pre-writing strategies, whereas strategies in the revising group turn out to be the lowest used.
Likewise, the accounting students can be ordered from the most often used to the least used as
follows; while- writing , pre-writing and revising strategies as same as the marketing students.
On the other hand, the management students use strategies in the pre-writing group the most
frequently, followed by revising strategies, meanwhile while-writing strategy group is found to be
the least often used.
To sum up, the comparison of writing strategies use among three majors in the field of
business; management, marketing and accounting similarly employ strategies for writing.
Nonetheless, the management students prefer to use strategies in a slightly different way. This
might be possible that the business students participating in this study have different learning
styles depending on the nature of their disciplines. Concordance with the results of Kotarputh
(2011) and Phonhan (2016), they concluded that strategies used among students majoring
different in the same faculty were occurred both likely to contradict and resemble in some issues
depending on the characteristic of students’ discipline.
Based on the results of Scheffe’s pos hoc test, there was no statistically significant
difference among three majors; management, marketing and accounting on the frequency of
writing strategies use because there was not any strategy groups perceived the significant value
less than .05. Consistent to Zhao (2014), this study found no significant difference in the frequency
of writing strategy use among non-English major students from different fields including International
business, electronic information science & technology and process equipment & control
engineering. The reason for no statistical significance might be due to their insufficient lack of
systematic training about writing strategies. However, this is inconsistent with Sanpanich (2010)
and Anuyahong’s (2014) investigations on writing strategies employed by undergraduate students
at Thai university; they claimed that there were statistically significant difference among those
students with different academic majors in each aspects.
Findings from Semi-Structured Interview and Think-aloud Protocol
At the prewriting stage, the results from interview and think-aloud technique found that
the high writing proficiency students used making outline to plan about their writing content in
this stage. Hence, it is quite clear that these groups focused on planning before writing a draft.
This is consistent with Paengsri (2013) interviewed that both good and poor Thai high school
students in her study planned their ideas through making outlines as a visual presentation before
writing paragraph. According to the writing process of ESL and EFL students previous studies
by Arndt (1987), Victori (1995), Riazi (1997), and Sasaki (2000), which of all were confirmed that
78 Journal of Humanities, Naresuan University Year 16 Volumn 1, January - April 2019
planning was the strategy writers used to control their writing. Besides, this tactic has been found
to be important key to skilled student writers (Mu & Carrington, 2007; Ridhuan and Adullah, 2009).
Whereas note -taking in writing class was the technique also reported to be used by the high
writing proficiency students as well. As same as Boch & Piolat (2005) stated that note-taking could
help learners to remember and converge on what they have learnt and understood the piece of
information.
Moreover, it is interesting to see that most of the high writing proficiency students were
more focused on their readers. So, they spent more time thinking about how to introduce their
ideas to the readers and what might interest the reader. This result conformed to Krashen’s (1984),
Matsumoto’s (1995) studies, found that the proficient writers were more aware of the audience or
reader because their plans were tentative which contributed them to adjust the original plan while
the composing process. On the other hand, the low writing proficiency students selected
information for the paragraph writing by searching sources from the internet as an additional
model. That is, the role of technology has become the supplementary material for writing classroom.
This result contrasted with the research finding by Lynch (1998) who found that high ability
students were consulted books, materials and media sources as conducing to writing knowledge.
This technique is not only use for high proficient students, but anyone who is influenced by second
language writing should efficiency apply the suitable writing strategies in appropriate task.
In addition, the data from interview and think-aloud techniques also reflected that the
low writing proficiency students are considered reader’s knowledge as less significant factor.
This might be their lecturer would be only reader of their paragraph writing because their tasks
were only course assignments. These finding showed that they are less concerned with readers’
objective as mentioned by Krashen (1984) that the poor writers preferred to focus on the topic
and spent less their time thinking about the readers whereas the good took more time for planning
content ,organization and much conscious of the audiences’ goal before writing. Interestingly,
this investigation also found the same things between two groups of participants that they all used
their background knowledge to brainstorm their ideas and utilize discussing with others generating
their ideas before writing. According to Chai (2006) recommended that generating idea before
writing composition was useful for writers. This was relevant to Thai previous study on writing
strategies by Ponukkha (2010) which observed that Thai secondary school students were
generated ideas for communication to link them to sentences or phrases in writing tasks.
At the during writing or drafting stage, the qualitative data pointed out that both the high
writing proficiency and low writing proficiency students were wrote at least one draft. This was
probably because the written topic in this study was considered to be the familiar topic which
79วารสารมนุษยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร ปีที ่16 ฉบบัที ่1 ประจ�าเดือนมกราคม - เมษายน 2562
related with the participants’ background knowledge. Thus, they do not spend a great amount of
time for drafting paragraph. According to Hyland (2003) suggested that experience and prior
knowledge was the most important factors which affected process writing. When drafting the
paragraph, it is noticeable that the high writing proficiency students were practiced through using
their own word in English language, considering the purpose of writing topic and also linking the
supporting sentence and main idea in their writing. This might be this group realized the importance
of paragraph writing and the whole picture of organization including ideational and textual
purposes. Hence, they can automatically think and write their outline knowledge in L2 with sufficient
skill when drafting. These results corresponded with Jones & Tetroe (1987) investigated on
composing process in a second language, they proposed that good L2 learners did not heavily
use their L1 to transfer the writing process, while poor L2 learners have to try more heavily on their
mother tongue for finishing in writing process. Therefore, the result shows that the high writing
proficiency students tend to find a variety ways to reach the writing task.
Considering with the low writing proficiency students’ drafting, most of them were
employed translation strategy to transfer their thoughts from Thai language into the English language
before their ideas were completely written down. This might be possible that Thai students were
more familiar with grammar-translation method than other teaching methods. That is to say, these
student groups are focus on planning and composing paragraph in Thai and translate into English.
As Brown (1980) criticized that translation has been found as one of the crucial obstacles in
learning language because there might be first language intervention on which caused mistake
in the target language. This result also concurred with Baker & Boonkit (2004) who discovered
that the less proficient writers reported most use of this strategy. In addition, Wang (2003) also
supported the same position in his study that the low achiever students translated words and
phrases from English to Chinese in order to copy their ideas directly in writing tasks.
However, an interesting issue is that the high writing proficiency students most frequently
paused and thought after each sentence covering their ideas to help them continue writing,
whereas the low writing proficiency often stopped for translating their native language to foreign
language. The data obtained from interview script and think-aloud reported that most of them
were worried about how to organize written text and how to present their idea and supporting
sentence in the composing stage. This result phenomenon is affirmed by Rungruangthum’s study
(2011) that Thai post graduate students were often used stopping writing when they faced with
writing apprehension in English research writing. Similarly, Krashen (1984) also supported in his
study that those samples stopped to plan what to write next and rescanned to see when the plan
limited and then paused again during writing paragraph.
80 Journal of Humanities, Naresuan University Year 16 Volumn 1, January - April 2019
According to revising stage, in-depth interview and think-aloud found that most of the
high writing proficiency students were revised longer and spent more time in this stage in order
to proofread and review about their ideas, language content and organization form of paragraph,
whereas the low writing proficiency students were revised and needed more time for checking
about language structures such as grammar, vocabulary, punctuation and capital letter. That is,
the high writing proficiency students are considered writing to be whole picture and make global
for changing with language expression and content level. Meanwhile, the low writing proficiency
students viewed writing as a surface theme and revised only limited changes which focus on
sentence structure. This probably because the high writing proficiency students in this study have
a good fundamental English skills and they also like to read and search for additional information.
These can lead to great creativity and expressing idea in order to utilize in their written task.
Therefore, all of them have not many writing problem for revising when compared with the low
writing proficiency students. Regarding the low writing proficiency students’ opinion, they were
lack of confidence and anxious to revise their written task in English because they scare to make
mistake or error which will be impacted their writing. Consequently, the main goal of them is shed
light on grammatical structure rather than the high writing proficiency group. This findings go in
line with many previous empirical studies by Sommers (1980); Zamel (1983); Krashen (1984) and
Cumming (1989), they agreed that the high proficient writers were revised more often than the
less proficient writers did because they emphasized on revising content and global organization
writing, whereas the poor writers paid attention to surface forms of writing such as vocabulary
and grammatical rules.
Emphasizing on the aspect of field of study, the qualitative data from semi-structured
interview and think-aloud protocol analysis demonstrated that among Thai business students from
three majors: management, accounting, and marketing had different and similar thought about
how to use writing strategies in their writing processes as follows ;
In regards to pre- writing stage, management students always made a plan before
beginning to write taking notes. They indicated that planning was the important tactic for them in
driving their assigned writing tasks. Similar with accounting students, they had a plan for their
writing; however they might change it whenever they got new ideas or information which might
be beneficial for their writing. Thus, these students pointed out that a planning strategy is not so
clear because of their changing to new ideas. In addition, they also did brainstorming ideas as
mind mapping on their primarily drafts before writing. Unlike, marketing students asserted that it
was unnecessary for them to take notes or brainstorm ideas they did not have any plan for their
writing because they wrote as they thought at that moment without any drafting for planning.
81วารสารมนุษยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร ปีที ่16 ฉบบัที ่1 ประจ�าเดือนมกราคม - เมษายน 2562
Moreover, the results from semi-structured interview and think-aloud protocol discovered
that both marketing and accounting students were encountered the same problem for generating
ideas. Accounting students found that they normally met problems on generating their ideas
because they could not associate ideas and texts together. They thought that it was difficult for
them to select choice of vocabularies to completed sentences. While marketing students had
a similar way of thinking to accounting students that they often did not know how to link words
into sentences suitably. On the other side, management students presented their ideas in the
dissimilar way as the two previous major students that they could write with their current thinking
without any modeling text. As well as Ardnt (1987) who claimed that L2 writers lacked vocabulary
knowledge and their revision in word-choices so that they generally faced with barrier when they
want to integrate their ideas together.
In case of during writing stage, the findings from semi-structured interview and think-aloud
protocol displayed the similarities characteristic among the business students from different
majors that they employed many sources to be supplement them to achieve their writing during
composing process. Interestingly, they usually used both Thai-English and English-Thai dictionaries
to check spelling and meaning for some words they were not understood. Management applied
English-Thai dictionaries to check the corrective spelling. They also asked the teacher about some
words or phrases they were unsure of. Focusing on marketing and accounting students, they
used the same strategy as management students. They always used dictionaries both in English-Thai
and Thai-English including searching online dictionary in order to acquire knowledge of some
words they were not understood of their meaning and looked up about synonym and antonym of
each word they did know the direct meaning. Moreover, they also used opening English textbook
in writing courses as their assistant information for their writing. However, they did not consult or
ask teacher or classmate to be their reference. According to Tono (1991) declared that dictionaries
are used more capable by the most linguistic proficient writers.
Additionally, all the business students from different majors agreed the same thing that
it was necessary for them to re-read in order to check what they had written and to scrutinize to
see if something was incorrect or mismatched in their writing such as punctuations, sentence
structures. Besides, it can be seen that all business students used correcting liquid or pencil to
edit in their composition and emendedsome words or sentences they thought did cut off from
their writing. From this outcome, it revealed that among business students raised awareness of
metacognitive knowledge which focused on monitoring and evaluating while writing their written
tasks. In the same vein with Wenden (1991) and Riazi (1997), who suggested that L2 writers have
metacognitive strategies: evaluating and monitoring to check and determine problems including
reconsidering the written text and objective they have intended to master.
82 Journal of Humanities, Naresuan University Year 16 Volumn 1, January - April 2019
Unfortunately, the outcomes gained from semi-structured interview and think-aloud
protocol indicated that most of Thai business students from three majors were less concerned
about awareness of reader and audience because they did not show enough details for expressing
their ideas. This possible explanation might be their written documents were focused only
descriptive writing stories. Most of students expressed readers their personal detail regarding
their family, friends, and university with short descriptions in their written papers. For this reason,
they did not much show the sense of readers in their related components of their writing such as
the objective, introduction, body, and conclusion. As Ede & Lunsford (1984) stated that audience
awareness or sense of readers are considered to be an important feature in making any difference
between expert and inexpert writer.
Looking at the revising stage, the qualitative results exhibited that among participants
from three majors in business field were similarly revised their written tasks many times, although
management students had few different ideas from accounting and marketing students in terms
of purpose of revision. Management students manifested that they often changed not only words
in especially sentences but they also changed the context and content in which they had written
as well. Meanwhile, accounting students were usually focused on both the correctness of
grammatical structures and re-wrote to the new spelling swords that they thought were right.
Marketing students were only concerned with the most suitable word-choices during completing
sentences for their writing. The reason why the business students not revised the overall organization
of paragraph is that they are non-English major students so that they only did their descriptive
writing to describe and explain the general content which related field of English for business
purposes. This means that revising something they have thought that it might be incorrect or
mismatch for some words, sentences, and contexts which need to be stressed on.
Surprisingly, the findings obtained from semi-structured interview and think-aloud protocol
explored some evidence that most of business students were paid close attention to the use of
L1 applied in both before writing and during writing stages. They quite agreed that the use of L1
was necessary for them to use in Thai in order to transform their English writing for generating
ideas before writing. They also usually employed their L1 (Thai) in their think-aloud technique and
then switched it into L2 (English) while they were drafting. This consistent with many studies have
shown that L2 learners used their L1 and L2 interactively for various strategic purposes while
composing in L2 (Raimes, 1987; Cumming, 1990; Uzawa, 1996; Bosher, 1998; Wang & Wen, 2002).
83วารสารมนุษยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร ปีที ่16 ฉบบัที ่1 ประจ�าเดือนมกราคม - เมษายน 2562
Conclusion and Pedagogical Implication
This research aimed to examine the frequent use of writing strategies by Thai business
students in terms of different writing proficiency and majors. The findings appeared that the
participants in this study employed while-writing strategies most often than the other strategies,
whereas revising strategies were found to be the least frequently used among these students.
The statistic results revealed that no significant differences in the writing strategies used between
the high writing proficiency and the low writing proficiency students. There were also reflected
that no significant differences in the writing strategies employed among Thai business students
from three majors; accounting, marketing and management. Moreover, there is no significant
difference in overall writing strategies used among those three groups of business students at
significances level of .05. That is to say, the factors of writingproficiency and discipline have no
effect on the frequency of writing strategies use by Thai business students at tertiary level.
Based on the wide range of qualitative data gained from this study, it is found that the
high writing proficiency and the low writing proficiency students differed in their choices of writing
strategies used in three stages of process writing. This result is consistent with many previous
empirical research works on writing strategies use that the proficient writers and less proficient
writers were exhibited different on behaviors and utilized separate strategies in their writing process
(e.g. Perl, 1978; Flower & Hayes, 1980, 1981; Krashen, 1984; Cumming, 1989; Raimes, 1985,
1987). Furthermore, writing strategies used by the accounting and marketing students were
probably to similar each other, but the management students employed writing strategies in
a slightly different way. One explanation is this might be possible that Thai business students who
participated in this study were contained distinctive characteristics and style of learning depending
on the features of their disciplines. Parallel with Kotaputh (2011) interpreted the difference traits
among business students who came from different majors that Thai accounting and marketing
students were tended to think about antithetically information while management students
appeared to be more critical-minded than two previous ones so that they solved problem
systematically according to the nature of their major content.
From the overview pictures mentioned above, although the factor of proficiency and field
of study have not influenced on the choice of writing strategies use for Thai business students,
it cannot universalized from the outcomes and concluded that these factors not always effect and
different on the use of writing strategies in all viewpoints because these depend on the related
variables of sample contexts such as cultural background, learning environment, learning belief,
personality and motivation. That is, the subjects in this study have distinctive characteristic and
style of writing. Besides, it can be seen that frequently use of writing strategies in each categories
84 Journal of Humanities, Naresuan University Year 16 Volumn 1, January - April 2019
were found in the moderate level. This can be assumed that most of Thai business students do
not employ writing strategies much often in written tasks. This might be possible that some of
these strategies would be new and unfamiliar to some of students. Thus, it should be the significant
matter for writing teachers consider to provide and apply which writing strategies may be more
suitable for their students in writing classes. Additionally, teaching writing strategies should be
consolidated in writing course or syllabus and also integrated into all stages of writing process
including pre-writing, drafting, revising, editing and publishing.
Based on the results obtained from this investigation, while-writing strategies are
considered to be the most frequently strategies used for writing by Thai business students.
In order to be good dynamical writer, the students should not need to concentrate on structural
accuracy or formal of the draft, but rather on the fluency of content and organization. In addition,
one dimension of good writer of this stage is the writers’ knowledge and ideas to conceptualize
on reader because the awareness of readers’ sense can control a certain style to be used. Moreover,
the students should bear in mind a central of main idea that they want to express to the reader in
order to give direction for their writing. Considering with the pre-writing strategies, this objective
highlights on stimulating students’ creativity their thoughts before writing a draft of detail. To
implement this stage effectively, there are various kinds of activities based on pre-writing strategies,
for example, brainstorming, clustering, graphic organizing, outlining, note-taking, analyzing text
structure (Cooper, 2000). However, the participants in this study reported that they used revising
strategies the least often. Teacher feedback and peer feedback are one of those activities
promoting students’ revising strategy. As Jun (2008) claimed that these written feedbacks could
assist writing instructors to know well their learners have comprehended in the writing tasks.
Besides, learners also understand how better they have accomplished in their writing assignments
and what they should improve or revise in their future writing as well. Moreover, oral conference
between teacher and student also encourage them become interactive role for revising together.
All in all, the writing teachers’ role should be more as facilitators, guides or consultants
in order to support students for practicing writing strategies through process writing efficiently
rather than carrying out the majority character of rater looking into rightness and exactitude of
written contents. Hence, good strategic training course of how to use and apply writing strategy
productively should be obviously taught and provided as well. On the other side, students should
not always use writing strategies that provided by teachers, but also select appropriate strategies
which considered as the beneficial technique for applying in their writing classes by themselves.
By the same token, as Oxford (1990) advised about making a successful strategy training that
the instructors should have learners practice and utilize strategies, not only learn strategy in terms
of theories.
85วารสารมนุษยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร ปีที ่16 ฉบบัที ่1 ประจ�าเดือนมกราคม - เมษายน 2562
References
AbdulRahman, A. A. (2013). Investigation of writing strategies, writing apprehension, and writing
achievement among Saudi EFL major students.International Education Studies, 6(11),
130 – 139.
Al-Sawalha, A.M & Chow, T.V.(2012). The effects of proficiency on the writing process of
Jordanian EFL university students. Academic Research International, 3(2), 379-388.
Angelova, M. (1999). An Exploratory study of factors affecting the process and product of writing
in English as foreign language. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York.
Anuyahong, B. (2014). The Six English writing strategies of undergraduate students in Thailand:
A Case study of Thai-Nichi Institute of Technology. International Conference on Language
Communication2014Proceeding, 46-76.
Arndt, V. (1987). Six writers in search of texts: A protocol-base study of L1 and L2 writing. ELT
Journal, 41, 257-267.
Baker, W. &Boonkit, K. (2004). Learning strategies in reading and writing: EAP contexts. RELC
Journal, 35(3), 199-238.
Beare, S. (2000). DifferencesincontentgeneratingandplanningprocessesofadultL1andL2
proficient writers. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ottawa.
Bennui, P. (2008). A study of L1 inference in the writing of Thai EFL students.Malaysian Journal
of ELT Journal Research, 4, 72-102.
Boch, F. &Piotat, A. (2005). Note-taking and learning: A summary of research. The WAC Journal
16, 101-113.
Boonpattanaporn, P. (2007). A comparative study of English essay writing strategies and difficulties
perceived by English major students: A case study of students in the school of Humanities,
the University of Thai Chamber Commerce. Unpublished research report, University of
Thai Chamber Commerce.
Bosher, S. (1998). The composing processes of three Southeast Asian writers at the post-secondary
level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 205-241.
Brown, H.D. (1980). Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey : Prentice Hall, Inc.
Chai, C. (2006). Writing plan quality: Relevance to writing scores.Assessing Writing 11, 198-223.
Chen, Y. (2011). Study of writing strategies used by Chinese Non-English majors.Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, 1(3), 245-251.
Chotirat, N. (1998). An investigation writing strategies employed by students with high and low
writing ability. MA Thesis, Mahidol University.
Chuenchaichon, Y. (2015). A review of EFL writing research studies in Thailand in the past 10 years.
Journal of Humanities, Naresuan University, 11(1), 13-30.
86 Journal of Humanities, Naresuan University Year 16 Volumn 1, January - April 2019
Cohen, A. & Brooks- Carson, D. (2001). A research on direct vs translated writing: students’
strategies and their results. Modern Language Journal, 85 (2), 169-188.
Cooper, C.R. (2000). Literacy children construct meaning. 4th edition. Boston : Houghton Miffin.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning,
39(1), 81-141.
Cumming, A. (1990). Expertise in evaluating second language composition. Language Testing.
7(1) ,31-51.
Ede, L. & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed / Audience invoked : The role of audience in
composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 155-171.
El- Mortaji, Y. (2001). Writing ability and strategies in two discourse types: A cognitive study of
multilingualMoroccanUniversitystudentswritinginArabic(L1)andEnglish(L3). Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Essex.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: definition a rhetorical problem. College
Composition and Communication. 31, 21-32.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A Cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Fujieda, Y. (2006). A Brief history sketch of second language writing studies: A retrospective.
KyoaiGakuen Maebashi Kokusai DaigakuRonsyuu, 5 ,59-72.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R.B. (1996). Theoryandpracticeofwriting:Anappliedlinguisticperspective.
New York: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. New York : Cambridge University press.
Jackson, L. (2006). Research method and statistics: A critical thinking approach. 2nd edition. USA
: Thomson Learning Academic Resource Center.
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel,V. F., and Hugney, J. B. (1981). Testing
ESLComposition:Apracticalapproach.London: Newbury House publishing, Inc.
Jarunthawatchai, W. (2001). A Case study of writing strategies used in process writing by proficient
and less proficient writers. MA Thesis, Thammasat University.
Jones, S. and Tetroe, J. (1987). Composing in a Second Language in A. Matsuhashi (Eds),
Writing in Real Modeling Production Processes. (pp 34-57). Norwood New Jersey: Ablex.
Jun, Z .(2008). A comprehensive review of studies on second language writing. HKBU papers in
Applied Language Studies, 12, 89-114.
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Bergh, H. (2006). Writing as learning tools: Testing the role of students’
writing strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 17-34
Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., &Bergh, H. (2007). The effects of adapting a writing course to students’
writing strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 565-578.
87วารสารมนุษยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร ปีที ่16 ฉบบัที ่1 ประจ�าเดือนมกราคม - เมษายน 2562
Kotarputh, R. (2011). Language learning strategies of EFL business students: A case study of
Thai business students. MA Thesis, Mahasarakham University.
Krashen, S.D. (1984). Writing research theory and applications. Oxford :Pergamon press.
Kulamai, P. Keawcha, N. & Chaya, W. (2016) Writing strategies used in English essay writing of
Thai undergraduate learners majoring in English at Srinakarinwirot University. Pedagogical
and Cultural Approaches in Western Languages Proceeding. ,128-150.
Lynch, W. M. (1998). An Investigation of writing strategies used by high ability seventh grades
responding to a state-mandated explanatory writing assessment task. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego,
CA, ERIC Database ED418436.
Maarot, N. & Murat, M. (2013). Writing strategies used by ESL upper secondary school students.
International Education Studies, 6(4), 47-54.
Matsumoto, K. (1995). Research paper writing strategies of professional Japanese EFL writers.
TESLCanada Journal, 13(1), 17-27.
Mu, C. (2005). A taxonomies of ESL writing strategies. Proceeding of Redesigning Pedagogy,
Policy, Practice, NIE Singapore, 1-10.
Mu, C. (2006). An investigation of the writing strategies three Chinese post-graduate students
report using while-writing academic papers in English. Ph.D. Dissertation, Queensland
University of Technology.
Mu, C. & Carrington, S. (2007). An investigation of three Chinese students’ English writing strategies.
TESL Journal, 11(1), 1-23.
Nuchsong, S. (1997). A study of learning strategies of English writing of students at the United
Rajabhat Institute of Buddha Chinnaraj. MA Thesis, Naresuan University.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know.The United
States of America: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.
Oxford, R.L. & Burry-Stock, J.A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide
with the ESL/EFL version of Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) System
23(1), 1- 23.
Paengsri, P. (2013). Investigating the language learning strategies used in paragraph writing among
Thai EFL Matthayomsuksa 3 students.GraduateResearchConference2013, 1400-1410.
Pawabunsiriwong, K. (2004). University students’ writing strategies. Independent Study, Khon Kaen
University.
Pawapatcharaudom, R. (2007). An investigation on Thai students’ English language problems and
their learning strategies in the international program at Mahidol University. MA Thesis,
Kingmonkut’s institute of Technology North Bangkok.
88 Journal of Humanities, Naresuan University Year 16 Volumn 1, January - April 2019
Perl, S. (1978). Five writers writing: case studies of the composing process of unskilled college
writers. Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University.
Petric, B. & Czarl, B. (2003). Validating a writing strategy questionnaire. System, 31(2), 187-215.
Phonhan, P. (2016). Language learning strategies of EFL Education students: A Case study of
Thai undergraduate students. Silpakorn University Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities
and Arts, 6(2), 115-135.
Pianko, S. (1979). A description of the composing processes of college freshman writers. Research
in the Teaching of English, 13, 15-22.
Pothitha, S. (2016). English writing strategies employed by English major university students.
MA Thesis, Buriram Rajabhat University.
Prapphal, K. & Opanon- Amata, P. (2003). An investigation of English proficiency of Thai graduates.
Chulavijai, 21(3), 12-16.
Ponukkha, P. (2012). The effect of topic familiarity on students writing strategies in L2. Independent
Study, Mahasarakham University.
Punthumasen, P. (2007). International program for teacher education: An approach to tackling
problems of English in Thailand. 11th UNESCO-APEID International Conference 2007,
Bangkok, 1-13.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A Classroom study of composing?.
TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.
Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability and composing strategies: A study of
ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37(3), 439-468.
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.
Ridhuan, M. & Abdullah, T.L. (2009). The writing strategies used by Engineering ESL Malay
learners. Conference of the International Journal of Arts &Sciences, Las Vegas 2009.
Rungruangthum, M. (2011). Writing anxiety: EFL postgraduate students writing research paper
in English. Journal of English Studies,12, 89-114.
Sanpanich, N. (2010). A study on the use of writing strategies and the writing ability of Bangkok
University Sophomore students. Bu Academic Review, 9, 63-75.
Saraiwang, S. (2006). A study of writing strategies in the writing process employed by senior English
major students with high and writing abilities. MA Thesis, Naresuan University.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model in EFL writing processes: An exploratory study.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259-291.
89วารสารมนุษยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยนเรศวร ปีที ่16 ฉบบัที ่1 ประจ�าเดือนมกราคม - เมษายน 2562
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions
in ESL, In Kroll. B (Eds), Second language writing: Research insights for classroom.
(pp 11-117). Cambridge University Press.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College
Composition and Communication, 31, 378-387.
Tono, Y. (1991). A Good dictionary user: what makes the differences? In K. Ito et al (Eds), Recent
studies on English language teaching. (pp 229-253). Tokyo: Yumi Press.
Torrance, M., Thomas, G., & Robinson, E.J. (1994). The writing strategies of graduate research
students in the social sciences. Higher Education, 27, 379-392.
Torrance, M., Thomas, G., & Robinson, E.J. (2000). Individual differences in undergraduate
essay- writing strategies: A longitudinal study. Higher Education, 39, 181-200.
Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners’ processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation
from L1 to L2. Journal of Second Language Writing. 5(3), 271-294.
Victori, M. (1995). EFL writing knowledge and strategies: An interaction study. Ph.D Dissertation,
University of Autonoma de Barcelona.
Wang, L. (2003). Switching to first language among writers with different second language
proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 347-375.
Wang, W. & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in L2 composing process : An explanatory study of 16 Chinese
EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225-246.
Watcharapunyawong, S. & Usaha, S. (2013). Thai EFL students’ writing errors in different text
types. The Interference of the Fist Language Teaching, 6(1), 67-77.
Yuksel, I. (2014). Investigating academic writing strategy use in L1 and L2. Global Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching, 4(2), 134-146.
Zamel, V. (1983). A composing process of advanced ESL students: six case studies. TESOL
Quarterly, 17(2), 165-187.
Zhao, P. (2014). The model of “Plan Do Check and Act” to improve Chinese EFL learners’ writing
strategies. Higher Education of Social Sciences, 7(1), 107-112.