Investigating Persuasive Strategies Used by Iraqi EFL University Students' Product-Oriented Writing
https://doi.org/10.56989/benkj.v6i8.2017
Keywords:
Persuasive Strategies , Product-Oriented Writing , English as a Foreign Language (EFL) , Iraqi University Students , Higher Education , Logos , Pathos , Academic Writing , English Language Teaching (ELT)Abstract
The present study investigates the use of persuasive strategies by Iraqi EFL university students in product-oriented writing. It also focuses on the three persuasive strategies of logos, ethos, and pathos. The objectives of the study are: identifying the PSs used by Iraqi EFL university students in product-oriented writing. , finding out the most and the least used PSs by Iraqi EFL university students in their product -oriented writing. To achieve the objectives of the study two questions have been posed; 1. What are the PSs used by Iraqi EFL university students’ product- -oriented writings? Which are the most and the least PSs used by Iraqi EFL university students’ product -oriented writing? A quantitative method is adopted in the present study in relation to data analysis and collection. The sample of the study consists of (80) male and female students who study at the department of English, College of Education for Human Science, Wasit University and their written texts were collected and analyzed according to a procedures of analysis to investigate the use of PSs in product-oriented writing. The data were statistically analyzed using weighted mean, weighted percentage and the ranks of PSs, The findings revealed that Iraqi EFL university students employed logos, ethos, and pathos in their writing, with logos being the most frequently used persuasive strategy in product-oriented writing. Ethos and pathos were used less frequently due to students’ limited rhetorical awareness and linguistic competence.
References
• Aristotle. (2007). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (2nd ed., G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
• Bagheri Nevisi, R., & Adibrad, Z. (2024). Exploring L2 product/process-based writing instruction, self-efficacy, writing autonomy, language proficiency, and strategy use: A SEM analysis. Applied Research on English Language, 13(1), 1-28.
• Biber, D., Upton, T. A., & Connor, U. (2007). Discourse on the Move. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28
• Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. Pearson Education.
• Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. University of Michigan Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.3488851
• Connor, U., & Lauer, J. (1985). Understanding persuasive writing: Linguistic and rhetorical perspectives. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 5(4), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1985.5.4.309 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1985.5.4.309
• Corbett, E. P. J., & Connors, R. J. (1999). Classical rhetoric for the modern student (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Crowley, S., & Hawhee, D. (2012). Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students. Pearson.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.
• ELbashir, B. (2023). Writing skills problems: Causes and solutions. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 11(5), 52-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37745/ijelt.13/vol11n55264
• Ferretti, R. P., & Graham, S. (2019). Argumentative writing: Theory, assessment, and instruction. Reading and Writing, 32, 1345–1357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09950-x
• Ferris, D. (2014). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
• Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198115885
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Hằng, N. T. T., & Yến, H. T (2023, August). Difficulties in writing skill of English majored freshmen at Tay Do University. International Journal of All Research Writings (IJARW), 5(2), 75.
• Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Pearson Longman. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn029
• Herrick, J. A. (2017). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (6th ed.). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315404141
• Hyland, K. (1990). A genre description of the argumentative essay. The ESP Journal, 9(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(90)90013-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829002100105
• Hyland, K. (2004 a). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
• Hyland, K. (2004 b). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.23927
• Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
• Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547
• Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). Pearson Longman.
• Suleman, D., & Pakaya, L. (2020). Improving the ability of writing simple reports through traditional game techniques in students. International Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology, 7(12), 212–217.
• Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ibn Khaldoun Journal for Studies and Researches
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
