Assessing The Influence of Process Genre Approach in SPOC Blended Learning Environment on Chinese Students’ Writing Performance: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Assessing the Influence of Process Genre Approach in SPOC Blended Learning Environment on Chinese Students’ Writing Performance: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Yuan Weiliang¹, Faizah Mohamad^*2, Normah Abdullah³, Zaemah Abdul Kadir⁴

¹School of Foreign Languages, Zhejiang Ocean University

^2,3,4Akademi Pengajian Bahasa, Universiti Teknologi MARA

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9010167

Received: 03 January 2025; Accepted: 08 January 2025; Published: 10 February 2025

ABSTRACT

The present study aims to integrate process genre approach into a SPOC based blended learning environment at a university in China and investigate its effects on Chinese EFL learners’ overall writing performance and subcategories of writing components (organization, content, and language). The experimental group, comprising 33 participants, was put in a SPOC based blended learning environment by means of process genre approach, while the control group of 34 participants underwent the traditional offline setting. The quasi-experimental design was adopted, involving pre-test and post-test. Both the holistic scores and analytical assessment of content, organization, and language in their writings were collected after each test. Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, evaluated the writing performance; t-tests were employed to assess the differences within the control group (CG) and experimental group (EG), with a significant level set at .05 alpha. The differences between the CG and EG were also examined. Research findings revealed that both CG and EG have made great accomplishments in writing at the end of that semester, while EG participants outperformed CG ones in that there were statistically significant differences in the total scores and three sub-scores between EG and CG after the experiment.

Keywords: process genre approach, SPOC, blended learning, writing performance

INTRODUCTION

The research on English writing teaching in China has revealed that the product approach is still widely adopted in teaching writing (Chang & Chang, 2020; Cheng, 2021; He, 2024; Ma & Zhang, 2022). This traditional approach focuses on teaching basic knowledge and writing skills, without paying attention to the preparation, modification and feedback after writing, neglecting the cultivation of learners’ writing interest, critical thinking and creative writing ability (Chen, 2020; Qiu & Pan, 2021; Wu, 2022; Yang & Feng, 2022). As a result, the low efficiency of traditional English writing teaching is not conducive to the improvement of students’ writing competence.

Based on big data retrieval (1,299,425 essays out of 442,333 Chinese college students), Liang (2020) found that Chinese college students are used to overusing template forms in their textual structure, paragraph number, introductory and concluding sentence patterns, and cohesive devices while writing. He also concluded that they have poor performance in accuracy and complexity in essay writing. According to Wang and Zheng (2021), 72% of college students have not mastered certain English writing skills, and too many simple sentences and colloquial expressions are used in their writing, including plenty of grammatical and pragmatic errors. In addition, they do not treat writing as a meaningful task, but as a heavy burden, thus, their lack of enthusiasm and interest for English writing assignment naturally will not contribute to any progress in their writing proficiency (Zhao & Yao, 2010).

Process genre approach (PGA) has gained popularity in China since 2001 and it was proved to be effective in improving learners’ writing competence (Kitajroonchai et al., 2022; Mirzamohammadi, 2024).  In addition, traditional classroom settings were no longer able to conform to the characteristics of the digital era (Wang & Zhang, 2019). However, SPOC (Small Private Online Course) is confirmed to be able to meet the individualized learning needs of modern young learners and have a positive impact on the development of ESL and EFL writing skills (Peng & Wang, 2024; Yang & Feng, 2022). As a result, the current study attempts to integrate process genre approach into a SPOC based blended learning environment at a university in China and investigate its effects on Chinese EFL learners’ writing performance. Therefore, the research objectives for the study are:

RO1: to examine the level of CG and EG participants’ specific performance in contents, organization, and language use and overall writing performance during the pre-test.

RO2: to discover the level of CG and EG participants’ specific performance in contents, organization, and language use and overall writing performance during the post-test.

RO3: to investigate the difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in CG.

RO4: to analyze the difference between the pre-test and post-test scores in EG.

RO5: to examine the difference between the post-tests in specific performance in contents, organization, and language use and overall performance between EG and CG.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Since the process genre approach was put forward by Badger and White in 2000, it has been studied and practiced by growing numbers of scholars in the past decades (Zhou, 2024). Hyland (2003) once claimed that this integrated approach had the largest impact on ESL writing teaching and Matsuda (2003) also regarded this approach as one of the most popular approaches to teaching writing. PGA focuses not only on the quality of the text itself, but also on the cultivation of writing competence (Fiallos, 2024; He, 2024; Ma & Zhang, 2022). In addition, it turned out to be quite effective in improving learners’ writing competence (Agesta & Cahyono, 2017; Alabere & Shapii, 2019; Fiallos, 2024; Huang & Zhang, 2019; Kitajroonchai et al., 2022; Mirzamohammadi, 2024). For instance, Huang and Zhang (2019) concluded that process genre approach not only significantly improved EFL learners’ overall writing achievement but also the five dimensions (content, organization, vocabulary, language, and mechanics). Likewise, Agesta and Cahyono (2017) also found the significant influence of process genre approach on learners’ writing proficiency, including four aspects of writing (organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics). Fiallos (2024) concluded PGA was efficient in developing writing skills for EFL students, such as strategically planning and outlining ideas before writing, and revising and editing after writing. Moreover, after investigating the effectiveness of PGA in enhancing the writing skills of ESP students in Iran, Mirzamohammadi (2024) held that this approach emphasizes guiding students through the various stages of the writing process, highlights both the cognitive and social dimensions, and offers support and scaffold to promote their writing abilities. However, these studies were conducted in the traditional classroom setting, without considering the deep integration of modern educational technology and classroom teaching.

Blended learning environment like SPOC based learning is confirmed to be conducive to the enhancement of students’ writing proficiency (Alrouji, 2020; Arifin, 2020; Challob et al., 2016; Dousti & Amirian, 2022; Gustiani et al., 2020; Hassan et al., 2021; Jin et al., 2020; Rahman et al., 2020; Wahyudi, 2020; Zhong & Shao, 2024). For example, Challob et al. (2016) revealed that the blended learning approach effectively reduced students’ apprehension in English writing, and greatly promoted their writing competence regarding both the macro and micro aspects of writing, owing to factors such as the flexible learning opportunities, online discussion, and collaborative writing activities in the blended environment. In addition, Jin et al. (2020) demonstrated the blended learning’s contribution to enhancing EFL learners’ argumentative writing competence due to substantial in-depth arguments in offline discussion and the internalization of accurate language use via online collaborative writing activities. Zhong and Shao (2024) investigated the effects of SPOC-based blended instruction on EFL learners and found significant improvement in learners’ syntactic awareness of syntactic patterns in fiction and academic writing, which benefited their writing performance. However, these researchers did not include the process genre approach in their blended instruction. Therefore, the researchers combined the process genre approach with the SPOC-based blended learning mode and investigated the effects of such a blended approach on Chinese EFL learners’ overall writing performance and specific performance in contents, organization, and language use.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Due to the constraints of random assignment in experimentation, quasi-experimental designs are commonly used in educational contexts (Creswell, 2012). The quasi-experimental design employed by the present study is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The Quasi-experimental Design

In this design, there were two groups which were the experimental group (EG) and the control group (CG). The experimental group was exposed to SPOC based blended teaching, meanwhile, the control group was taught traditionally face-to-face. A pre-test was administered to both groups and after 16 weeks, both groups took a post- test. The pre-test was to determine the level of students’ writing performance at the onset of the research and the post-test was to assess if there were any improvements in the students’ performance after the intervention.

Research Context and Participants

This study was implemented in the second semester of the school year 2022-2023 at English Department, Zhejiang Ocean University, China. The research lasted 16 weeks from late February to the end of June 2023.

In terms of the sample size, Roscoe (1975) posited that for comparative analysis, 30 respondents should be considered the minimum for each group, and convenience sampling technique were adopted in the study. The participants were 67 sophomores from two parallel intact classes of English Department, with similar size: 33 students in class one and 34 in class two. They are all native speakers of Chinese, with the length of exposure to English ranging from 11 to 14 years. Class one was selected to be experimental group (EG), and thus class two was control group (CG). In the study, EG was put in a SPOC based blended learning environment by means of process genre approach, while the CG was kept in the traditional offline setting. To ensure the validity of research, they were taught by the same teacher, and with the same textbook.

The researcher and the other rater involved in the quasi-experiment are both lecturers, with master’s degree in applied linguistics, and have been teaching English writing for fifteen years. They were asked to rate students’ essays collected both from pre-test and post-test, based on the same scoring rubrics.

Research Instruments

Pre and post tests were adopted to fulfil all research objectives. The pre-test was adopted to examine whether the EG and CG were of the similar proficiency level of EFL writing before the experiment. It was completed in the classroom within 45 minutes at the beginning of the semester, whilst the post-test was done similarly at the end of the semester. In addition to the time duration, both groups shared the same format, scoring rubrics, and administration procedure to ensure the validity of the test (Truong, 2022). To avoid the researcher’s subjectivity and a risk of reliability, the two writing tasks were both selected from the writing parts of the previous national TEM 4 (Test for English Majors, Grade 4) in China, which has great validity and reliability.

To provide students with specific and timely feedback, 15-point scale scoring rubrics for English essay writing, based on the scoring profile of Jacob et al. (1981), were developed by the researcher. The revised version consists of three aspects: content (5 points), organization (3 points), and language (7 points), and four levels for each aspect ranging from excellent to very good, good to average, fair to poor, to very poor.

Apart from the holistic scores, analytical assessment of content, organization, and language use in their writings were provided by the two raters. The final score collected in the study was their aggregated average value. Pearson correlation coefficients were adopted to calculate inter-rater reliability.

Data Analysis

Pre-test and post-test outcomes were analyzed to evaluate the writing level of both CG and EG groups. Descriptive statistics were presented to analyze the pre-test and post-test results for both groups regarding their writing performance. T-tests were employed to test the relationship between variables, with a significant level set at .05 alpha. Paired samples t-test gauged the significance between the pre-test and post-test results in CG and EG respectively; independent samples t-test assessed the significant difference between the post-tests among the two groups. The significance threshold was set at a 0.05 alpha level.

FINDINGS

All the data were processed by SPSS version 19.0; descriptive data collected in the study were presented and analyzed as follows. The overall inter-rater reliability of pre-test was acceptable (r=0.76), since r value exceeded 0.7, the internal coefficient reliability was considered as high (Truong, 2022).

RO1: CG and EG participants’ specific performance in contents, organization, and language use and overall writing performance during the pre-test

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Pre-test among CG and EG

In terms of descriptive statistics of pre-test results in Table 1, the mean scores in aspects of organization (2.517 in EG and 2.503 in CG), content (3.8833 in EG and 3.8941 in CG), and language (4.941in EG and 4.937 in CG) were very close. Similarly, the total mean scores (11.3409 in EG and 11.3338 in CG) were quite close too. Then, independent samples t-tests were employed to assess the variation of writing performance between EG and CG. After the pre-test, the data were analyzed and exhibited as in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Independent Samples Test of Pre-test Scores between EG and CG

Table 2 shows that the participants from both EG and CG have equivalent level of writing performance not only in three sub-scores (organization, p=0.777>0.05, content, p=0.822>0.05, and language, p=0.961>0.05), but also in overall scores (p=0.959>0.05). Therefore, the results indicate that both EG and CG had similar EFL writing ability at the onset of the research.

RO2: CG and EG participants’ specific performance in contents, organization, and language use and overall writing performance in the post-test

After 16 weeks of experiment, both groups were asked to finish a post-test in the final week. The overall inter-rater reliability of post-test was acceptable (r=0.75>0.7). The descriptive statistics in Table 3 reveal the differences in mean scores of specific performance in aspects of content, organization, and language use and overall writing performance between EG and CG after the experiment. The total mean scores of EG and CG were 12.889 and 11.896 respectively, with higher mean scores between EG and CG in, organization (2.94 vs 2.83), content (4.35 vs 3.91) and language use (5.59 vs 5.09). These findings demonstrate a trend that EG improved better in their writing performance than CG, however, to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in the writing performance between CG and EG, independent sample T-Tests were run. The findings were reported in section 4.5 below.

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Post-test between CG and EG

RO3: Comparing the pre-test and post-test scores in CG

After the experiment, the paired samples t-test was employed to check the participants’ changes of writing performance before and after the experiment in CG. Table 4 exhibits the paired samples t-test results of CG between pre-test and post-test. The significance values of organization, content, language and total scores between pre-test and post-test are 0.000, 0.020, 0.009, and 0.000 respectively (all lower than 0.05), which mean that there were statistically significant differences in all aspects among participants of CG. Therefore, it indicates that CG participants made some progresses in EFL writing at the end of semester.

Table 4: Paired Samples T-test Results of CG in Pre-and Post-test

RO4: Comparing the pre-test and post-test scores in EG

Table 5 shows the significance values of organization, content, language and total scores are all 0.000< 0.05, meaning statistically significant differences existed in organization, content, language, and overall scores among EG participants. In conclusion, EG participants’ writing performance was also improved after the intervention.

Table 5: Paired Samples T-test Results of EG in Pre-and Post-test

RO5: Comparing the post-tests in specific performance in contents, organization, and language use and overall performance between EG and CG

To compare the post-test results between EG and CG, independent samples t-test was employed. As Table 6 shows, the mean scores between pre-test and post-test with respect to organization, content, language, and total scores were put together in contrast. Some obvious differences can be found among the three sub-scores and overall scores between the two groups. It was found that the significance values of organization, content, language and total scores are all lower than 0.05, meaning statistically significant differences existed in organization, content, language, and overall scores between EG and CG after the experiment. Therefore, it demonstrates that EG participants outperformed CG counterparts in the post-test.

Table 6: Independent Samples Test of Post-test Scores between EG and CG

DISCUSSION

The research objectives sought to find out the effects of SPOC-based blended approach on Chinese EFL learners’ subcategories of writing components (organization, content, and language use) and overall writing performance. The findings revealed that both EG and CG participants were at equivalent level of writing performance before the experiment, not only in overall mean scores, but also in three subcategories mean scores (organization, content, and language use). In addition, it was found that both groups made great accomplishments at the end of that semester, in their specific aspects in organization, content, and language use and overall writing performance. More importantly, the study showed that EG participants outperformed CG counterparts in three sub-categories mean scores and total mean scores after the experiment.

The following factors may account for the improvement of students’ writing performance.

Firstly, students benefited a lot from the interaction of several stages in the process genre approach (Ajoke, 2018; Fiallos, 2024; He, 2024; Saihi, 2015). For instance, at the beginning stage (the development of the context), students’ comprehension of the subject matter was facilitated by reading online instructions on the background of the topic, potential audience analysis, the communicative purpose, genre analysis, and semantic structure analysis (Ajoke, 2018). Through the modeling and deconstruction activities, students were able to understand how the topic was effectively introduced by a certain hook, how the thesis statement was presented in the introduction paragraph, how the communicative purpose was successfully realized, how the body paragraphs elaborated and supported the thesis statement, how the concluding paragraph restated the thesis and summarized the main contents, and how language features such as vocabulary choice, syntactic patterns and rhetorical devices were adopted (Saihi, 2015). Secondly, students can gain much from the SPOC-based blended learning which integrates the strength of traditional offline learning and modern online learning (Alrouji,2020; Wang & Zhang, 2019). By providing students excessive exposure to the rich online learning resources, flexible learning opportunities, increased online communication, substantial in-depth discussion in offline class (Arifin, 2020), this blended learning approach was able to alleviate the inefficient and time-consuming problem of English writing teaching (Cheng, 2021).

The improvement of writing performance among both CG and EG students displayed the effectiveness of process genre approach, and such results were in alignment with the previous researches (e.g. Agesta & Cahyono, 2017; Ajoke, 2018; Alabere & Shapii, 2019; Assaggaf, 2016; Huang & Zhang, 2019; He, 2024; Janenoppakarn, 2016; Kitajroonchai et al, 2022; Mirzamohammadi, 2024; Rusinovci, 2024; Wardhana, 2022; Yuniar et al, 2019; and Zhou, 2024), in which process genre approach was confirmed to have a significant positive effect on students’ writing performance. For instance, the findings of present study were mostly in line with those of Huang and Zhang (2019), who concluded that process genre approach not only significantly improved EFL learners’ overall writing achievement but also the five dimensions (content, organization, vocabulary, language, and mechanics). Likewise, Agesta and Cahyono (2017) also found the significant influence of PGA on learners’ writing proficiency, including four aspects of writing (organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics). Ajoke (2018) found that PGA had positively enhanced students’ writing performance in various aspects, including the generation of ideas, the organization of thoughts, the presentation of ideas with precise expression, and the use of proper mechanics. However, the results of present study were in disagreement with the findings of Truong (2022), who claimed the contribution of this approach was only on textual organization and grammar. The results of present study were totally not congruent with those of Herawati (2016), who found no significant differences between the EG and CG after the intervention.

The out-performance of EG participants in the post-test was able to confirm the effectiveness of process genre approach in a SPOC-based blended learning environment in enhancing learners’ writing performance. Such results were in congruent with the previous researches (e.g. Adas & Bakir, 2013; Alrouji, 2020; Arifin, 2020; Challob et al., 2016; Dousti & Amirian, 2022; Gustiani et al., 2020; Hassan et al, 2021; He, 2024; Olaya & Burbano, 2015; Permana, 2017; Rahman et al., 2020; Wahyudi, 2020; Wang et al., 2017; Zhou, 2018; and Zhong & Shao, 2024). It was revealed out of these studies that blended learning environments can foster effective interaction among students and students, students and teachers, and have a positive impact on the development of ESL and EFL writing skills. For instance, Adas and Bakir (2013) found that blended learning model not only significantly developed students’ overall performance in writing, but also largely improved their writings in terms of paragraph sequence, using a topic sentence, cohesion within sentences, and the accurate use of punctuation marks, grammar, spelling, and capitalization. They held that under the influence of the flexible asynchronous blended approach, students’ online communication increased, and their excessive exposure to the online materials led to the development of their writing competence. Moreover, Rahman et al. (2020) concluded that the blended learning approach enabled students to develop written communication competence, self-esteem, and interest in English writing. Wang et al. (2017) found that both the control class and the experimental class had improved their writing scores after the experiment, but the improvement of the experimental class was significantly greater than that of the control class. They concluded that the SPOC teaching mode was conducive to improving students’ English writing scores. In addition, Jin et al. (2020) demonstrated the blended learning’s contribution to enhancing EFL learners’ argumentative writing competence due to substantial in-depth arguments in offline discussion and the internalization of accurate language use via online collaborative writing activities. However, the results of the present study were in partial disagreement with those of Tiedemann (2013), who argued that the blended learning intervention improved writing skills for only a few of the student participants. And Rubio (2014) found that there were no significant differences among EG participants in their writing proficiency by means of the blended learning model, which is inconsistent with the results of the current study.

CONCLUSION

Students’ language subcategories (e.g. content, language use, and organization) and overall writing performance were greatly enhanced after the treatment of process genre approach in SPOC-based blended learning environment. In general, such a blended approach has produced effective learning effects, which is of great practical significance to change the traditional educational concepts and innovate the teaching methods.

Like any study conducted in the social and human sciences, the current research has confronted a range of limitations. Firstly, because only two classes of English major students in a university were studied, the sample size of the study is obviously small, and the application scope of survey results and conclusions are relatively limited. Secondly, the research participants are English major college students, thus the results of present study may not be generalized to students at other educational levels or other majors. Thirdly, only quantitative method was employed in which the results were presented in both descriptive and inferential statistics. It is suggested that the sample size of students could be increased in future study, and students at other educational levels or other majors could be researched, thus increasing the generalizability of the results. Moreover, research instruments could be diversified to triangulate quantitative data to enhance the validity of the findings.

REFERENCES

1. Adas, D., & Bakir, A. (2013). Writing difficulties and new solutions: Blended learning as an approach to improving writing abilities. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(9), 254-266.
2. Agesta, S., & Cahyono, B.Y. (2017). Effect of process-genre approach on the Indonesian EFL writing achievement across personality. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 5(3), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.37745/ijellr.13.
3. Ajoke, A. R. (2018). The effect of process-genre writing approach on students’ essay at a college in Kwara State, Nigeria (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiti Utara Malaysia.
4. Alabere, R. A. & Shapii, A. (2019). The effects of process-genre approach on academic writing. Journal of English Education Society, 4(2), 47-52. https://doi.org/10.21070/jees.v4i2.2598.
5. Alrouji, O. O. (2020). The Effectiveness of blended learning in enhancing Saudi students’ competence in paragraph writing. English Language Teaching, 13(9), 72-82. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n9p72.
6. Arifin, M. (2020). The effect of blended learning model with Moodle on the students’ writing achievement. IJEMS:Indonesian Journal of Education and Mathematical Science, 1(2), 19. https://doi.org/10.30596/IJEMS.V1I2.4639 .
7. Assaggaf, H. T. (2016). A process genre approach to teaching report writing to Arab EFL computer science students.  International  Journal  of  English  Linguistics, 6(6), 7–18. http://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v6n6p.
8. Challob, A. A. I., Bakar, N. A., & Latif, H. (2016). Collaborative blended learning writing environment: effects on EFL students’ writing apprehension and writing performance. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 229-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n6p229.
9. Chang, C., & Chang, H. (2020). Retrospect and prospect of EFL writing research in China. Technology Enhanced Foreign Language Education, (3), 61-67.
10. Chen, L. (2020). An empirical study of “SPOC+ Flipped classroom” in English practical writing teaching. Journal of Fujian Medical University, 21 (3), 79-84.
11. Cheng, C. (2021). The effect of SPOC blended teaching mode on teaching English writing in senior high school (Unpublished master’s thesis). Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
12. Dousti, M. & Amirian, Z. (2022). The effect of web-mediated, blended, and purely online learning on EFL learners’ writing achievement in the Iranian context: A comparative study. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11215-0.
13. Fiallos, B. (2024). Enhancing argumentative writing skills via the process-genre based approach: A quasi-experimental study among university students in Ecuador. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar. 8. 89-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v8i4.12150
14. Gustiani, S., Sari, E., Yusri, & Simanjuntak, T. (2020). The effectiveness of blended learning approach on essay writing subject. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 431, 216-223. https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200407.037.
15. Hassan, I., Rahman, A. M. A., & Azmi, M. N. L. (2021). Development of English writing skills through blended learning among ESL learners in Malaysia. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on CALL, (7). 377-389.
16. He, Y. (2024). The application of process genre teaching on digital platform. Overseas English, 5, 70-72.
17. Herawati, Y. W. (2016). The effect of a process-genre approach on students’ argumentative essay in a tertiary EFL classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang, Indonesia.
18. Huang, Y., & Zhang, L. J. (2019): Does a process-genre approach help improve students’ argumentative writing in English as a foreign language? findings from an intervention study, Reading & Writing Quarterly, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1649223.
19. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
20. Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S.A., Wormuth, D.R., Hartfiel, V F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury Publishers House.
21. Janenoppakarn, C. (2016). Effects of using process-genre approach on the teaching of writing: A case study of higher and lower proficient EFL students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
22. Jin, T., Su, Y., & Lei, J. (2020). Exploring the blended learning design for argumentative writing. Language, Learning and Technology, 24(2), 23-34.
23. Kitajroonchai, N., Kitajroonchai, T. & Sanitchai, P. (2022). The effects of process genre-based writing and process writing approaches on Asian EFL pre-university students’ writing performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 13(4), 860-871. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1304.19.
24. Liang, M. (2020). Analyzing and interpreting Chinese university students’ English writing competence: From the perspective of big data. Paper presented at the 2020 International High-End Forum on Teaching and Researching Second Language Writing, Tencent Meeting, Jinan, China, July 2020.
25. Ma, T., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Process genre pedagogy in teaching EFL/ESL writing: An interview with professor Lawrence Jun Zhang. Second Language Learning Research, (14), 1-13.
26. Mirzamohammadi, B. (2024). The effects of using process genre approach on writing skill development in ESP classes: A case of business students. International Journal of Practical and Pedagogical Issues in English Education, 2(1), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijpie.2024.192902.
27. Olaya, V.Y., & Burbano, M.P. (2015). An approximation to writing process through the implementation of a process-genre approach in a blended learning environment (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universidad de La Sabana, Colombia.
28. Peng, P & Wang, J. (2024). SPOC flipped classroom blended teaching reform practices in the context of digital transformation. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 9(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2024-0490.
29. Permana, G., Y. (2017). The effect of using blended learning strategy toward the 8 grade students’ writing competency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1(2), 79-87. http://ejournal.undiksha.ac.id/index.php/JoPaI/.
30. Qiu, X., & Pan, D. (2021). Practice of English writing flipped teaching in the ubiquitous learning environment. Journal of Hubei University of Science and Technology, 41(5), 109-114.
31. Rahman, A. M. A., Azmi, M. N. L. & Hassan, I. (2020). Improvement of English writing skills through blended learning among university students in Malaysia. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(12A), 7694 – 7701. https://dx.doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082556.
32. Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioral sciences (Second ed.). Holt Rinehart and Winston.
33. Rubio, F. (2014). The effects of blended learning on second language fluency and proficiency. In F. Rubio, J. J. Thomas, & S. K. Bourns (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues. Heinle.
34. Rusinovci, X. (2024). Revisiting the process-genre approach to teaching L2 writing from an action research perspective. The International Journal of Literacies. 31. 41-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.18848/2327-0136/CGP/v31i02/41-56.
35. Saihi, H. (2015). The impact of process-genre oriented instruction on essay writing: a case of third year students of English language at Biskra University (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université Mohamed Khider–Biskra.
36. Tiedemann, K. E. (2013). The impact of blended learning on student motivation and achievement in reading and writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina.
37. Truong, H. M. (2022). Impacts of process-genre approach on EFL sophomores’ writing performance, writing self-efficacy, writing autonomy. Journal of Language and Education, 8(1), 181-195.  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8644-4750.
38. Wahyudi, W. (2020). The effectiveness of sharing blended learning project based learning (SBPBL) model implementation in operating system course. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(5). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i05.11266.
39. Wang, B., Tian, Z., & Hu, G. (2017). Research on SPOC teaching model of college English writing. Journal of Inner Mongolia Normal University (Educational Science), 30 (12), 126-130.
40. Wang, M., & Zheng, L. (2021). Multi-dimensional thinking and practice of college students’ English writing ability cultivation under the background of big data. Journal of Higher Education, (1), 137-139.
41. Wang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2019). An empirical study of SPOC-based teaching of English writing. Journal of Heilongjiang University of Technology, 19(10), 107-110.
42. Wardhana, D. E. (2022). Exploring the impact of process-genre approach on learners’ academic writing and higher order thinking skills, Journal of Language and Education, 8(2), 140-153. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12537.
43. Wu, Y. (2022). Students’ satisfaction with English writing teaching in SPOC mode. Journal of Luoyang Normal University, 41(7), 87-90.
44. Yang, Y. & Feng, Z. (2022). The influence of SPOC blended writing teaching model on the development of college students’ English writing. Foreign Language Education, 43(2), 67-73.
45. Yuniar, R. F., Widiati, U. & Astuti,U. P. (2019). The effect of using wattpad on process-genre approach towards writing achievement in tertiary level. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, Dan Pengembangan, 4, 897-905.
46. Zhao, Y., & Yao, D. (2017). An investigation and analysis on English writing ability of university students. Journal of Wenzhou Vocational and Technical College, 10(3), 93-96.
47. Zhong, Y., & Shao, Z. (2024). Application of SPOCs-based blended teaching into explicit instruction on syntactically complex constituents, 2024 12th International Conference on Information and Education Technology (ICIET), Yamaguchi, Japan, pp. 274-279, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIET60671.2024.10542818.
48. Zhou, C. (2018). Empirical study on the effectiveness of teaching model of college English writing within blended learning mode. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(5), 1060-1076. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.5.009.
49. Zhou, Y. (2024). The application of process-genre writing approach in senior high school English writing teaching. Frontiers in Sustainable Development. 4, 74-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.54691/18y9cc98