







































  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
 

309 
 

PLEASE STRATEGY FOR TEACHING WRITING VIEWED 
FROM STUDENTS’ SELF-ESTEEM 

 
Arief Eko Priyo Atmojo1* 

1 IAIN Surakarta, Indonesia 
arief.atmojo93@iain-surakarta.ac.id 

 
 

ABSTRACT 

This research aims to examine whether: (1) PLEASE strategy is more effective than RAFT 
strategy for writing; (2) Students having high self-esteem are better in writing than those 
having low self-esteem; and (3) There is an interaction between the strategies and the 
students’ self-esteem. This research was done at a state secondary school located in Sragen, 
Jawa Tengah, Indonesia. Cluster random sampling was employed to get the sample 
consisting of two classes. PLEASE strategy was used in the experimental class meanwhile 
RAFT strategy was employed in the control class. The students in each class were categorized 
into students having high self-esteem and low self-esteem. Writing test and self-esteem 
questionnaire were utilized to gather data. Multifactor Analysis of Variance ANOVA 2 x 2 test 
and Tukey test were employed to analyze the data after normality and homogeneity tests 
were undergone. The results indicate that: (1) PLEASE strategy is more effective than RAFT 
strategy for writing; (2) Students having high self-esteem are better in writing than those 
having low self-esteem; and (3) There is an interaction between the strategies and the 
students’ self-esteem. It suggests that PLEASE strategy is an effective strategy for writing 
compared to RAFT strategy. Further researches comparing PLEASE strategy to other 
strategies, techniques, or methods and collaborating it with media and innovative materials 
for writing are encouraged. 

Keywords: PLEASE Strategy, RAFT Strategy, Self-Esteem, Teaching Writing Skill. 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Writing is needed in classroom activities and tasks (Guzel-Ozmen, 2009). Students’ 
achievement in writing are important for their lifelong success. In fact, enhancing students’ 
writing is a challenging task for teachers. Many publications related to writing suggest that 
further researches on instructional methods are still necessary. The existing literature 
cannot sufficiently provide the best teaching practices (Nielsen, 2012). Puteh, Rahamat, & 
Karim (2010) argue that writing is a fundamental and essential skill to exhibit content 
knowledge. However, students experience many problems such as lack of ideas, difficulty to 
seek interesting topic, and inability to find words to use. 

Rijlaarsdam, Bergh, & Couzijn (2005) state that writing is difficult because it 
involves many interactive cognitive activities including content generation and organization, 
text organization and production, and revision. Flynn & Stainthorp (2006) agree that writing 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
 

310 
 

requires simultaneous integration of many activities and gives great demands on the 
cognitive system. It is a challenging, difficult, complicated, and demanding process (Ka-kan-
dee & Kaur, 2015). 

Writing is an interactive and complex activity relying on mental process of creating 
thoughts and considering the best way to put them through symbols which begins with 
making decisions on the amount and type of information, gradually continues to arrange the 
information, and ends up with the decisions of how all messages will be linguistically 
expressed to make an intelligible text aiming to share meanings and make impressions 
(Adler-Kassner & O’Neill, 2010; Browne, 2007; Byrne, 1993; Hyland, 2009; Koutsoubou, 
2005). Writing consists of five aspects namely mechanics, vocabulary, grammar or language 
use, content, and organization (Adler-Kassner & O’Neill, 2010; Brown, 2001; Davison & 
Dowson, 2002; Nation, 2009; Nik, Hamzah, & Rafidee, 2010). 

Self-esteem has an important role in writing. Positive self-esteem is useful to 
motivate the students to demonstrate their writing. Otherwise, students having low self-
esteem experience many problems in writing (Khansir & Abdolahi, 2014). Fahim & Rad 
(2012) assert that some writing problems emerge from psychological aspects, especially 
self-esteem which has become a concern and had determining effects on language learning. 

Self-esteem is someone’s fundamental self-assessment of his competence in dealing 
with life challenges based on the incongruity between his self-concept and ideal self and his 
own worth to be happy which is influenced by some considerations of his aspirations and 
standards about life as well as the actions and reactions of other persons towards him 
(Branden, 1995; Caunt, 2003; Lawrence, 2006; Mruk, 2006; Plummer, 2005). Self-esteem 
consists of four aspects namely competence, confidence, worthiness, and acceptance 
(Branden, 1995; Greene, 2003; Lawrence, 2006; Plummer, 2005). 

In this research, PLEASE strategy is employed in the experimental class. PLEASE 
strategy is a metacognitive strategy to cope with difficulties in writing process including 
prewriting planning, composition, and paragraph revision. It equips students with a set of 
behaviors by utilizing a first-letter mnemonic to remind each strategic step and guide them 
to accomplish a writing task independently (Milford & Harrison, 2010; Welch, 1992). The 
steps of PLEASE strategy are stated as follows: (a) Pick a topic to be written; (b) List ideas 
related to the topic; (c) Evaluate the list to obtain relevant ideas; (d) Activate with topic 
sentences; (e) Supply supporting details to complement the topic sentences; and (f) End with 
a conclusion (Milford & Harrison, 2010). 

On the other hand, RAFT strategy is used in the control class. RAFT strategy is a 
creative writing strategy helping students through writing experience to understand their 
role as a writer, their audiences, the format of their writing, and the topic being addressed 
before they start writing. Every RAFT work is written from a viewpoint except that of the 
student, to audiences except the teacher, and in a format except the standard theme (Santa 
et al., 1988; Sejnost & Thiese, 2010; Yerger, 2014). The steps of RAFT strategy are stated as 
follows: (a) Determine important ideas based on reading assignment to determine the topic; 
(b) Brainstorm the possibility of roles which the students can assume to determine their 
roles; (c) Determine the audiences; and (d) Decide the format of writing (Sejnost & Thiese, 
2010). 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
 

311 
 

Some previous researches (Akincilar, 2010; Fahim & Rad, 2012; Khansir & Abdolahi, 
2014; Milford & Harrison, 2010; Welch, 1992; Welch & Jensen, 1990) have been reviewed to 
gain deeper insights on the effectiveness of PLEASE strategy for writing and the relationship 
between students’ writing and their self-esteem. This present research differs from the 
previous researches. The difference is on the strategy used in the control class, the 
attributive variable employed, and the health condition of the sample. Therefore, this 
research aims to reveal whether: (1) PLEASE strategy is more effective than RAFT strategy 
for writing; (2) Students having high self-esteem are better in writing than those having low 
self-esteem; and (3) There is an interaction between the strategies and the students’ self-
esteem. 

METHODS 

This research was carried out at a state secondary school located in Sragen, Jawa 
Tengah, Indonesia. It employed a quasi-experimental design because the sample was two 
already existing classes selected by cluster random sampling. It used factorial design 2 x 2 
with post-test only design (no pre-test). The sample was classified into an experimental class 
and a control class. Each class consisted of 26 students. PLEASE strategy was employed in 
the experimental class meanwhile RAFT strategy was used in the control class. 

A writing test and a self-esteem questionnaire were administered to gather data. 
The writing test instruction was tried out first to check its readibility. The self-esteem 
questionnaire was also tried out to get valid items and ensure its reliability. It proved reliable 
since ro (0.89) was higher than rt (0.388). Normality test and homogeneity test had been 
done before the data were analyzed. The data are considered as in normal distribution if Lo 

is lower than Lt at the significance level α = 0.05. Moreover, the data are considered as 
homogeneous if o2 is lower than t2 at the significance level α = 0.05. Descriptive and 
inferential statistics were then employed to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics were used 
to seek mean, median, mode, and standard deviation which ranged from 5.4 to 9.1. Further, 
inferential statistics were employed to test hypotheses. ANOVA 2 x 2 test and Tukey test 
were utilized here. 

RESULTS 

Having had been taught eight meetings each, both control and experimental classes 
were then given a writing test and requested to fill in a self-esteem questionnaire. The 
students’ writing and self-esteem scores of both classes can be seen in table 1 and table 2 
following sequentially below: 
 
  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
 

312 
 

Table 1. The Students’ Writing and Self-Esteem Scores of Control Class 

No. Name Writing Score Self-Esteem Score 

1 STUDENT C-A 72 57.5 

2 STUDENT C-B 66 56.88 

3 STUDENT C-C 75 60 

4 STUDENT C-D 72 61.25 

5 STUDENT C-E 58 61.25 

6 STUDENT C-F 54 54.38 

7 STUDENT C-G 70 66.88 

8 STUDENT C-H 68 57.5 

9 STUDENT C-I 74 66.88 

10 STUDENT C-J 55 57.5 

11 STUDENT C-K 67 65.62 

12 STUDENT C-L 82 66.25 

13 STUDENT C-M 68 47.5 

14 STUDENT C-N 76 63.12 

15 STUDENT C-O 72 68.12 

16 STUDENT C-P 66 63.12 

17 STUDENT C-Q 80 67.5 

18 STUDENT C-R 59 59.38 

19 STUDENT C-S 62 61.88 

20 STUDENT C-T 70 56.88 

21 STUDENT C-U 63 64.38 

22 STUDENT C-V 73 58.75 

23 STUDENT C-W 78 59.38 

24 STUDENT C-X 71 56.88 

25 STUDENT C-Y 63 60.62 

26 STUDENT C-Z 63 57.5 

TOTAL 1777 1576.90 

MEAN 68.35 60.65 

 
Table 2. The Students’ Writing and Self-Esteem Scores of Experimental Class 

 

No. Name Writing Score Self-Esteem Score 

1 STUDENT X-A 71 58.12 

2 STUDENT X-B 86 68.75 

3 STUDENT X-C 82 62.50 

4 STUDENT X-D 66 58.75 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
 

313 
 

5 STUDENT X-E 77 67.50 

6 STUDENT X-F 93 63.12 

7 STUDENT X-G 76 60.62 

8 STUDENT X-H 64 56.25 

9 STUDENT X-I 67 61.88 

10 STUDENT X-J 78 71.25 

11 STUDENT X-K 61 55.00 

12 STUDENT X-L 90 65.62 

13 STUDENT X-M 65 60.62 

14 STUDENT X-N 79 74.38 

15 STUDENT X-O 72 71.25 

16 STUDENT X-P 69 62.50 

17 STUDENT X-Q 63 51.25 

18 STUDENT X-R 64 61.25 

19 STUDENT X-S 74 60.62 

20 STUDENT X-T 84 66.25 

21 STUDENT X-U 75 71.88 

22 STUDENT X-V 69 55.62 

23 STUDENT X-W 59 55.62 

24 STUDENT X-X 74 80.62 

25 STUDENT X-Y 70 59.38 

26 STUDENT X-Z 67 68.75 

TOTAL 1895 1649.35 

MEAN 72.88 63.44 

 
ANOVA 2 x 2 test was later done to test the hypotheses. H0 is rejected if Fo is higher than Ft 

(Fo > Ft) indicating that there is a significant difference. The computation results of ANOVA 2 x 2 test 
are shown in table 3. In addition, the results of mean scores are presented in table 4. 

 
Table 3. The Results of ANOVA (Multifactor Analysis of Variance) 2 x 2 Test 

Source of Variance SS df MS Fo Ft(0.05) 

Between columns 267.77 1 267.77 5.50 4.04 

Between rows 694.23 1 694.23 14.26  

Columns by rows (interaction) 295.69 1 295.69 6.07  

Between groups 1257.69 3 419.23   

Within groups 2336.62 48 48.68   

Total 3594.31 51    

 
  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
 

314 
 

Table 4. The Results of Mean Scores 

Self-Esteem (B) 
Strategies (A) Total 

Average PLEASE Strategy (A1) RAFT Strategy (A2) 

High Self-Esteem (B1) 78.92 69.62 74.27 

Low Self-Esteem (B2) 66.85 67.08 66.96 

Total Average 72.88 68.35 70.62 

 
Drawing on the results of ANOVA 2 x 2 test, it can be inferred that: 
Firstly, the score of Fo between columns (strategies) is 5.50 while the score of Ft at the 

significance level α = 0.05 is 4.04. The difference between columns is significant since Fo is higher 
than Ft or Fo > Ft. As results, H0 which means there is no difference between PLEASE strategy and 
RAFT strategy is rejected. It means that PLEASE strategy is significantly different from RAFT strategy. 
The writing mean score of the students in the experimental class (72.88) is also higher than that of 
the students in the control class (68.35). It means that PLEASE strategy is more effective than RAFT 
strategy. 

Secondly, the score of Fo between rows (self-esteem) is 14.26 while the score of Ft at the 
significance level α = 0.05 is 4.04. The difference between rows is significant since Fo is higher than 
Ft or Fo > Ft. As results, H0 which means there is no difference between students having high self-
esteem and those having low self-esteem is rejected. It means that the students having high self-
esteem are significantly different from those having low self-esteem. The writing mean score of the 
students having high self-esteem (74.27) is also higher than that of the students having low self-
esteem (66.96). It means that the students having high self-esteem are better in writing than those 
having low self-esteem. 

Lastly, he score of Finteraction (6.07) is higher than Ft (4.04). The difference columns by rows is 
significant since Finteraction is higher than Ft or Finteraction > Ft. As results, H0 which means there is no 
interaction between employed strategies for writing and students’ self-esteem is rejected. It means 
that there is an interaction between two variables, namely strategies and self-esteem. In other words, 
the effect of the strategies depends on the degree of the students’ self-esteem. 

The results of ANOVA 2 x 2 test indicate that there are effects and interaction between 
strategies and self-esteem toward writing. As results, it needs to compare the mean of each group to 
other means using Tukey test to find out the means which significantly differ from the others. The 
results of Tukey test are presented in table 5. 

 
Table 5. The Results of Tukey Test 

No. Data Sample qo qt α Meaning Status 

1 A1 and A2 26 3.32 2.91 0.05 qo > qt Significant 

2 B1 and B2 26 5.34 2.91 0.05 qo > qt Significant 

3 A1B1 and A2B1 13 4.81 3.06 0.05 qo > qt Significant 

4 A1B2 and A2B2 13 0.12 3.06 0.05 qo < qt Not Significant 

 
Drawing on the results of Tukey Test, it can be inferred that: 
Firstly, writing using PLEASE strategy is significantly different from that of using RAFT strategy 

since qo between columns (3.32) is higher than qt at the significance level α = 0.05 (2.91). The writing 
mean score of the students using PLEASE strategy (72.88) is higher than that of the students using 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
 

315 
 

RAFT strategy (68.35). It can be inferred that PLEASE strategy is more effective than RAFT strategy 
for writing. 

Secondly, the students having high self-esteem are significantly different from those having low 
self-esteem since qo between rows (5.34) is higher than qt at the significance level α = 0.05 (2.91). 
The writing mean score of the students having high self-esteem (74.27) is higher than that of the 
students having low self-esteem (66.96). It can be inferred that the students having high self-esteem 
are better in writing than those having low self-esteem. 

Thirdly, PLEASE strategy is significantly different from RAFT strategy for the students having 
high self-esteem since qo between cells A1B1 and A2B1 (4.81) is higher than qt at the significance level 
α = 0.05 (3.06). The mean score of A1B1 (78.92) is higher than that of A2B1 (69.62). It can be inferred 
that PLEASE strategy is more effective than RAFT strategy for the students having high self-esteem. 

Lastly, PLEASE strategy is not significantly different from RAFT strategy for the students 
having low self-esteem since qo between cells A1B2 and A2B2 (0.12) is lower than qt at the significance 
level α = 0.05 (3.06). The mean score of A1B2 (66.85) is lower than that of A2B2 (67.08). It can be 
inferred that RAFT strategy is more effective than PLEASE strategy for the students having low self-
esteem. 

DISCUSSION 

The Difference between PLEASE Strategy and RAFT Strategy 

The results show that there is a significant difference between PLEASE strategy and RAFT 
strategy. PLEASE strategy is found to be more effective than RAFT strategy for writing since the mean 
score of the students using PLEASE strategy is higher than that of the students using RAFT strategy. 
It can be inferred that PLEASE strategy is more effective than RAFT strategy for writing.  

PLEASE strategy is very helpful to deal with particular types of writing problems in 
prewriting planning, composition, and paragraph revision. It works as a metacognitive problem 
solver. The students are equipped with a set of behaviors by utilizing a first-letter mnemonic to guide 
them in accomplishing a writing task independently (Welch, 1992). Moreover, Milford and Milford & 
Harrison (2010, pp. 330–332) reveal that PLEASE strategy is useful for students to maintain their 
ideas on a topic sentence. It can be employed to enhance students’ writing and monitor their writing 
development and writing process. PLEASE strategy is also effective to develop students’ 
metacognitive knowledge in composing paragraphs (Welch, 1992). Further, it can effectively foster 
the writing of inefficient learners (Welch & Jensen, 1990). 

RAFT strategy facilitates students through writing experience to understand their role as a 
writer, their audiences, the format of their writing, and the topic being addressed before they start 
writing (Santa et al., 1988; Sejnost & Thiese, 2010). Moreover, RAFT strategy demands a teacher to 
model it first before his students begin to use it independently. It needs long process to make the 
students familiar with the way to use this strategy. The teacher needs to assign all students the same 
role, audience, format, and topic for their writing until they are familiar with the way to use this 
strategy (Sejnost & Thiese, 2010). It is obvious that PLEASE strategy gives more advantages to the 
students rather than RAFT strategy. 

The Difference between Students Having High Self-Esteem and Students Having Low Self-Esteem 

Problems and failures are better coped by people having high self-esteem. Their equilibrium 
can be quickly recovered rather than that of people having low self-esteem. People having high self-
esteem are good in determining informed decisions. They are eager to try new things, learn from 
mistakes, and increase their confidence to deal with the next challenges. They are able to develop 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
 

316 
 

their particular strengths and encounter changes well. They can enjoy life and build successful 
relationships than those having low self-esteem (Plummer, 2005). 

People having high self-esteem are firm and supple to manage their lives and learn from 
mistakes without any fear of rejection. High self-esteem can be recognized from several signs like 
optimism, good self-care, non-blaming behavior, et cetera (Soureshjani & Naseri, 2011). People 
having high self-esteem are confident in society and school environment. They can keep their 
learning curiosity. They feel happy and enthusiastic to face new challenges (Lawrence, 2006). They 
are also more persistent to cope with challenges. High self-esteem seeks challenging and stimulating 
events (Branden, 1995). 

People having high self-esteem typically perform a positive degree of competence and 
worthiness (Mruk, 2006). High self-esteem functions as positive feelings which are useful in several 
situations. It also leads to greater initiatives. People having high self-esteem commonly initiate 
interactions and relationships. They are brave to speak up in a group (Baumeister, Campbell, 
Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). In addition, they feel appropriate to life, confident, competent, and worth 
(Branden, 1995). 

In contrast, people having low self-esteem are troublesome to make relationships. Low self-
esteem causes anxiety and confusion resulting in an impertinent viewpoint of self and others. People 
having low self-esteem are typically passive. However, they are aggressive to protect themselves 
from onset or rejection. They are difficult to set goals and solve problems. They are not confident. 
They are not willing to try new things because of their fear of failures. Their abilities are underrated. 
Their achievement is frequently refuted. As results, they cannot do their best in academic and social 
environments (Plummer, 2005). 

People having low self-esteem do not believe in their abilities to be successful. They 
probably try to prevent humiliating situations (Lawrence, 2006). They require lots of attention 
(Luxmoore, 2008). They also tend to give up or try without doing their best. Low self-esteem seeks 
familiar events for safety (Branden, 1995). It leads to lacks of competence and worthiness (Mruk, 
2006). Low self-esteem can be recognized from several syndromes such as negative view of life, fear 
of being ridiculed, fear of taking any risk, et cetera (Soureshjani & Naseri, 2011). 

Affective variables or attitudes truly affect students’ writing (Alluhaybi, 2015). It has been 
revealed that there is a positive relationship between students’ self-esteem and their writing (Fahim 
& Rad, 2012; Khansir & Abdolahi, 2014). Therefore, the difference between the students having high 
self-esteem and those having low self-esteem suggests that the students having high self-esteem are 
better in writing than those having low self-esteem. 

The Interaction between Strategies and Students’ Self-Esteem 

The difference between PLEASE strategy and RAFT strategy for writing has been discussed 
leading to several insights. PLEASE strategy is more effective than RAFT strategy and gives more 
advantages to the students rather than RAFT strategy. However, there are two groups of students 
namely the students having high self-esteem and the students having low self-esteem. These two 
groups of students are also different as their difference has also been discussed. This difference 
affects their learning behaviors and results. It implies that an effective strategy may have different 
results when it is used by different groups of students. 

In lights of the characteristics of the students having high self-esteem and the students 
having low self-esteem as well as their writing mean scores, PLEASE strategy is more impactful and 
effective when it is used by the students having high self-esteem. PLEASE strategy is more effective 
than RAFT strategy for the students having high self-esteem. In contrast, PLEASE strategy is not 
significantly different from RAFT strategy when it is used by the students having low self-esteem. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
 

317 
 

RAFT strategy is even more effective than PLEASE strategy for the students having low self-esteem. 
It can be inferred that there is an interaction between the strategies and the students’ self-esteem. 

CONCLUSION 

Drawing on the research results, it can be concluded that: (1) PLEASE strategy is more 
effective than RAFT strategy for writing; (2) Students having high self-esteem are better in writing 
than those having low self-esteem; and (3) There is an interaction between the strategies and the 
students’ self-esteem. However, this research has some limitations. It does not investigate classroom 
situations when PLEASE strategy is employed. It merely gathers and analyzes quantitative data. 
Moreover, it does not use pre-test on the students’ writing. It also does not utilize media, except 
PowerPoint presentation, white board, and handout. 

Further researches employing qualitative data to investigate classroom situations are 
encouraged. It is also suggested to seek students’ perceptions on the use of PLEASE strategy and 
teachers’ belief on PLEASE strategy. Moreover, classroom action research is welcome to discover how 
much each indicator of students’ writing develop through some cycles. Researches incorporating 
PLEASE strategy with innovative media and materials are encouraged too. Different attributive 
variables can also be interesting to be investigated. 

REFERENCES 

Adler-Kassner, L., & O’Neill, P. (2010). Reframing writing assessment to improve teaching and learning. 
Utah: Utah State University Press. 

Akincilar, V. (2010). The effect of “PLEASE” strategy training through the self-regulated strategy 
development (SRSD) model on fifth grade EFL students’ descriptive writing: Strategy training on 
planning. Ankara: Unpublished Thesis. 

Alluhaybi, M. (2015). Psychology and EFL writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 371–
378. 

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better 
performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in 
the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44. 

Branden, N. (1995). The six pillars of self-esteem. New York: Bantam Books. 

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (1st ed.). 
New York: Longman. 

Browne, A. (2007). Teaching and learning communication, language and literacy. London: Paul 
Chapman Publishing. 

Byrne, D. (1993). Teaching writing skills (New Edition). London: Longman. 

Caunt, J. (2003). Boost your self-esteem. London: Kogan Page Limited. 

Davison, J., & Dowson, J. (2002). Learning to teach English in the secondary school: A companion to 
school experience. London: Routledge. 

Fahim, M., & Rad, S. K. (2012). The relationship between self-esteem and paragraph writing of Iranian 
EFL learners. Psychology, 3(01), 24. 

Flynn, N., & Stainthorp, R. (2006). The learning and teaching of reading and writing. West Sussex: John 
Wiley & Sons Ltd. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
 

318 
 

Greene, I. (2003). How to improve self-esteem in the African American child. San Diego: P. S. I. 
Publishers. 

Guzel-Ozmen, R. (2009). Modified cognitive strategy instruction: An expository writing strategy. 
Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(4), 216–222. 

Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. 

Ka-kan-dee, M., & Kaur, S. (2015). Teaching strategies used by Thai EFL lecturers to teach 
argumentative writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208, 143–156. 

Khansir, A. A., & Abdolahi, Z. (2014). Self-esteem and writing achievements of Iranian EFL learners. 
International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 3(2), 155–164. 

Koutsoubou, M. (2005). Deaf ways of writing narratives: a bilingual approach. In Effective Learning 
and Teaching of Writing (pp. 151–167). Springer. 

Lawrence, D. (2006). Enhancing self-esteem in the classroom (3rd ed.). London: Paul Chapman 
Publishing. 

Luxmoore, N. (2008). Feeling like crap: Young people and the meaning of self-esteem. Philadelphia: 
Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 

Milford, T., & Harrison, G. L. (2010). Using the PLEASE strategy with a struggling middle school writer 
with a disability. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(5), 326–332. 

Mruk, C. J. (2006). Self-esteem research, theory, and practice: Toward a positive psychology of self-
esteem (3rd ed.). New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc. 

Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. New York: Routledge. 

Nielsen, K. (2012). Self-assessment methods in writing instruction: A conceptual framework, 
successful practices and essential strategies. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(1), 1–16. 

Nik, Y. A., Hamzah, A., & Rafidee, H. (2010). A comparative study on the factors affecting the writing 
performance among bachelor students. International Journal of Educational Research and 
Technology, 1(1), 54–59. 

Plummer, D. (2005). Helping adolescents and adults to build self-esteem: A photocopiable resource 
book. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 

Puteh, S. N., Rahamat, R., & Karim, A. A. (2010). Writing in the second language: Support and help 
needed by the low achievers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 580–587. 

Rijlaarsdam, G., Bergh, H. Van Den, & Couzijn, M. (2005). Effective learning and teaching of writing. 
In Effective learning and teaching of writing (pp. 1–16). Springer. 

Santa, C. M., Havens, L., Nelson, M., Danner, M., Scalf, L., & Scalf, J. (1988). Content reading including 
study systems: Reading, writing and studying across the curriculum. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt 
Publishing Company. 

Sejnost, R. L., & Thiese, S. M. (2010). Building content literacy: Strategies for the adolescent learner. 
California: Corwin. 

Soureshjani, K. H., & Naseri, N. (2011). An investigation into the relationship between self-esteem, 
proficiency level, and the reading ability of Iranian EFL language learners. Journal of Language 
Teaching and Research, 2(6), 1312. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2021 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
 

319 
 

Welch, M. (1992). The PLEASE strategy: A metacognitive learning strategy for improving the 
paragraph writing of students with mild learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 
15(2), 119–128. 

Welch, M., & Jensen, J. B. (1990). Write, PLEASE: A video-assisted strategic intervention to improve 
written expression of inefficient learners. Remedial and Special Education, 12(1), 37–47. 

Yerger, W. (2014). Three dynamic approaches to create successful writers. International Journal of 
Languages and Literatures, 2(1), 1–19. 

 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689

