Dian . Novita, Berlin . Sibarani, Amrin . Saragih


The objectives of this study were to describe the cognitive process occurs during the prewriting phases of argumentative writing among the undergraduate students and to explain why such cognitive process are realized in undergraduate students of prewriting phases in argumentative writing. This study is limited to the study of the cognitive process in prewriting phases for undergraduate students. This study is followed the theory of Kellog (1990:327) about the the activities in prewriting phases consist of (1) Collecting Information, and (2) Planning text. In accordance to the theory and research purposes, descriptive qualitative research design was appropriately implemented in the study. The data of this research were the students’ students utterances, which were collected through semi-structured interviews and interpreted through the Kellog’s Theory. The reason why the students should apply the prewriting phases were: (1) there was misconception of argumentative writing, (2) there was no knowledge about the generic structure of argumentative, (3) there is no awareness that in argumentative writing, the students should talk the controversial part of the topic, and (4) the students do not know that they have to state explicitly their standing point towards an issue and provided the reasons, facts, and empirical evidences. This leads to conclusion that cognitive process in prewriting is important to be applied in students writing process.


Cognitive Process, Prewriting Phase, Argumentative Writing, Undergraduate Students

Full Text:



Creswell, J. (2012). Educational Research. Boston: Pearson

Danesi, M., and A. Rocci. (2009). Global Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Walter De Gruyter.

Deane, P., N. Odendhal, T. Quinlan, M. Fowles, C. Welsh, & J. B. Tatum. (2008). Cognitive Models of Writing: Writing Proficiency as a Complex Integrated Skill. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

Flower, L., and J. R. Hayes. (1981). A Cognetive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication.

Gibson, W.J., and A. Brown. (2009). Working with Qualitative Data. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Heaton, J.B. (1988). Writing English Language Test. American: Longman

Kellog, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of Prewriting Strategies as a Function of Task Demand. The American Journal of Psychology, 327-342.

Kellog, R. T. (1986). Designing Idea Processor for Documents Composition. Behaviour Research Method, Instruments and Computers, 118 – 128.

Miles, M.B., A.M. Huberman, &J. Saldana. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis. London: SAGE Publication, Inc.

Nunan. D. (2003). Practical English Language teaching. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill, Inc.

Permata, R. And Hamzah. (2018). Students’ Ability in Developing the Paragraphs of Argumentative Essay. International Journal of Science and Research.

Phei, Z., Zheng, C., Zang, M., and Liu, P. (2017). Critical Thinking and Argumentative Writing: Inspecting the Association among EFL Learners in China. Canadian Center of Science and Education.

Pulungan, A.H. (2016). The Cognitive of Writing in English: Developing The Cognitive Based Learning Model. Proceedings of the 1st English Education International Conference (EEIC) in Conjunction with the 2nd Reciprocal Graduate Research Symposium (RGRS) of the Consortium of Asia-Pacific Education Universities (CAPEU) between Sultan Idris Education University and Syiah Kuala

Ramage, J., J.C. Bean, & J. Johnson. (2016). Writing Argument: A Rhetoric with Readings. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.

Sims, M. (2012). The Write Stuff Thinking Through Essays. London: Pearson Education.

Wahdan, N.R. And Buragohain, D. (2019). Integrating The Writing Process Approach Into EFL Writing Instruction in Saudi Arabia. European Centre for Research Training and Development UK, 1-14.


Article Metrics

Abstract view : 104 times
PDF - 73 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2023 Dian . Novita, Berlin . Sibarani, Amrin . Saragih