A Study of Social Interaction as a Mediating Force in the Composing Process

Writers do not work in solitude when they go through the composing process. Studies have shown that writers go through a cognitive activity while they write. Academic writing is an act of communication between several parties. Firstly, the writer communicates with the writers of the text used as their content. Next, the writer communicates with the reader (audience) who would be reading the completed text. Social interaction can also act as a catalyst that mediates between the writer and the reader. This current study aims to explore the extension of the cognitive writing theory to be mediated by social interaction. This study is done to (i) extend the model of cognitive process in writing and (ii) extend the model with a mediation of social interaction. 177 participants were chosen for this study. The instrument used was a survey on writing strategies converted to comply with the chosen constructs in the model. Data collected is analysed using SmartPLS. Data analysis is done at two levels: the measurement and structural model. The first stage is the measurement model, which measures the outer model. The second stage is the structural model, which measures the inner model. The analyzed data is used to answer the research questions and also to confirm the model chosen. Findings revealed partial mediation of Social Interaction on the Composing Process. Specifically, only the Translation stage show small effect of mediation. The results of this study bear pedagogical implications for the teaching of the composing process and the need to include social interaction as a form of audience significance.

writers, composing, model, mediation, social interaction,

1. Alejandro, A. (2025). Writing as Social Practice: From Researchers to Readers’ a. Reflexivity. Political Anthropological Research on International Social Sciences (PARISS), 5(2), 286317. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. https://doi.org/10.1163/25903276-bja10066 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bandura, A. (2012). Social cognitive theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. a. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 349–373). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n18 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bankier,J. (2022). Socialization into English academic writing practices through out-of-class a. interaction in individual networks of practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 56(June 2022), 100889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100889 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Flower, L. and Hayes, J.R. (1981) A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition a. and Communication, 32, 365-387. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/356600 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Fornell, C. and Bookstein. F.L. (1982) Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS a. Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440-452. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3151718 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Goodman, S.N. (1999). Toward evidence-based medical statistics: 2. The Bayes factor. Clinical a. Trials, 6(3), 229–24 Bayes Factors, 233-240. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-12-199906150-00019 7. Hair, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: a. Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJMDA. 2017.087624 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hauf, S., Rickter, N. F., Saretedt, M., Ringle.,C. M. (2024). The Importance and Performance in a. PLS-SEM. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 78(2024) (100723). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. https://epub.ub.unimuenchen.de/109073/1/1- s2.0-S0969698924000195-main.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Jin, S. (2025) Writing in the digital age: understanding the relationship between social media use and college students’ writing skills and anxiety. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1048 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05443-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kaufhold,K. (2025) The Dynamics of building academic writing knowledge in interaction. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 75(May 2025) 101518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2025.101518 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Miller,G. (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some Limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review,63, 81-97. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Nystrand, M. (1989) A Social-Interactive Model of Writing. Written Communication, 6(1), 66-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006001005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Osgood, C. E., & Schramm, W. (1954). The process and effects of mass communication. University of Illinois Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ramayah, T., Cheah, F. Ting, H., & Memon, M.A. (2018). Partial least Equation Structural a. Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) using SEM 3.0: An Updated Guide and Practical Guide to Statistical Analysis. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Pearson [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Raoofi,S. Miri,A., Gharibi,J. & Malaki, B. (2017) Assessing and Validating a Writing Strategy a. Scale for Undergraduate Students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol 8(3), pp 624-633. Retrieved from http://www.academypublication.com/issues2/jltr/vol08/03/23.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Using importance-performance matrix analysis (IPMA) i a. n PLS-SEM: Using SmartPLS 3. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3169-3177. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/IMDS-10-2015-0449 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Aladez-Juarez,L.E., Gallardo-Vazquez,D., and Ramos-Escobar,E. (2021) Online Buyers and Open a. Innovation: Security, Experience and Satisfaction. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(37), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010037 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Social Constructivism, Mind in Society. Harvard University Press. Ziegenfuss, J. Y., Casey A. E., Jennifer M. D., Meghan M. J., Thomas E. K, and Marna, C. (202) Impact of Demographic Survey Questions on Response Rate and Measurement: A Randomized Experiment. Survey Practice 14 (1), https://doi.org/10.29115/SP-2021-0010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests