Academic writing appears in many contexts, not only as a communication skill but also as a cognitive and developmental activity through which students shape their understanding of disciplinary knowledge and identity (Hyland 2004; Lea & Street 1998). In higher education, academic writing courses include argumentative essay writing as a key task to enhance students’ critical and persuasive skills, serving as important contexts in which genre conventions, rhetorical awareness, and epistemic engagement are demonstrated. However, the teaching approach to writing often favours a product–oriented focus that emphasises what is written rather than how students learn through writing (Bazerman et al. 2005). This approach can restrict students’ opportunities to develop metacognitive awareness and genre–specific strategies, highlighting the need for methods that combine process–based learning with disciplinary writing practices (Alawad 2026).

Recent research indicates that more integrated approaches combining linguistics and learning should be developed in writing pedagogy. Building on the foundational work of Halliday and Hasan (1985), later expanded by Martin and Rose (2008), there are some theories and models, specifically systemic functional linguistics theory (SFL), register theory, and related pedagogical models, offering a framework for understanding how students use language to navigate academic genres by adjusting for field (content), tenor (stance and audience), and mode (textual arrangement). In a relevant context, Vygotsky (1978) and Bruner (1996) argue that student writing practices are interconnectedly influenced by reflection, audience awareness, and moral reasoning. Together, these frameworks serve as valuable tools for exploring writing as a form of learning rather than just performance.

There are important topics in the writing process that should not be overlooked: the roles of feedback, peer interaction, and prewriting strategies. Many recent studies on academic writing have addressed these areas because of their significant role in the writing process. In addition, Alawad (2025) examined adaptive rubrics integrated with artificial intelligence (AI)-based feedback, showing that students who received rubric–aligned AI feedback achieved greater improvements in writing performance and reported clearer, more useful guidance than those who received traditional feedback. These findings suggest that such integration provides more reliable evaluations, enhances assessment retention, and supports sustainable learning. Furthermore, another study by Alawad and Mujumdar (2025) addressing peer feedback showed that, despite initial reluctance, students actively revised their drafts based on peer input. Similarly, Alawad, Ahmed and Nassim (2025) demonstrated that panel discussions during the prewriting stage improved students’ referencing skills alongside the quality of their arguments, emphasising the pedagogical value of dialogic engagement. These findings underscore the importance of instructional design, combined with textual and reflective analysis, in enhancing understanding of how students construct meaning through writing.

Despite this rich theoretical foundation, pragmatic research often treats register dimensions and constructivist indicators as separate entities. Genre-based writing studies tend to focus more on linguistic features than on students’ engagement with tasks in a metacognitive manner (Tardy 2009). In contrast, constructivist research might prioritise perception and reflection over the analysis of texts as artifacts (Moon 2004). Additionally, many of these studies exhibit a bias towards statistical generalisation and struggle to account for how students perform effectively within the specific genres of authentic academic contexts (Leki 2007). This limitation highlights the need for research approaches that foreground genre-sensitive analysis and contextualised learning practices, ensuring that writing is examined not only as a measurable outcome but also as a situated process of meaning making.

An applied linguistics gap remains in understanding how students demonstrate writing proficiency (as a facet of sustainable development) in a specific academic genre, such as argumentative essays in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context, where students often meet rubric criteria for grammar and vocabulary but struggle to sustain coherent argumentation and adhere to disciplinary conventions. Very few relevant previous studies have attempted to integrate register theory with constructivist learning in ways that address both language control and cognitive advancement. For example, Dewi (2025) reports that project-based learning, informed by constructivist principles, requires careful attention to classroom discourse, in which register choices shape how students negotiate meaning and demonstrate cognitive growth. Similarly, Zajda (2021) emphasises that effective learning environments depend on constructivist pedagogy that is sensitive to language use, noting that register variation influences both learner autonomy and the regulation of classroom interaction. In a related vein, Rai (2025) highlights that 21st-century constructivist classrooms demand explicit strategies for managing linguistic registers, arguing that these strategies are central to fostering critical thinking and higher-order cognitive skills. These studies illustrate the limited but growing recognition that register theory can serve as a bridge between language control and constructivist models of cognitive advancement.

The current study responds to the call for integrated register-based and genre-based approaches that draw on students’ writing from both register-theoretic and constructivist perspectives. It advances applied linguistics in the areas of writing as a learning process and employs a research methodology that links text-based features of content knowledge with metacognitive processes. By analysing final course submissions and embedded reflections, the study provides a fundamental understanding of how students write and reflect on their actions during pen-based institutional writing tasks. This analysis not only uncovers patterns of language control and self-awareness but also demonstrates how institutional writing practices influence students’ ability to connect cognitive development with academic accountability.

The present study aims to understand how undergraduate students demonstrate writing mastery in a required academic writing course, with a focus on how they sustain learning through reflective practice and text-based performance. Specifically, the study seeks to:

Grounded in SFL and constructivist theory, the study builds on previous research that considers writing both a social practice and a cognitive process. Using this theoretical framework and the reviewed literature, the study hypothesises that:

In SFL, genre is understood not only as a literary category but also as a pedagogical concept encompassing predictable patterns in academic and professional discourse, such as reports, essays, and research papers. This directly relates to Objective 1 of this study by showing how genre-based teaching helps student writing development through linguistic functions (Bhatia 1993; Hammond & Derewianka 2001; Swales 1990). However, genres are not rigid frameworks; rather, they are adaptable responses to specific communicative situations in which linguistic units serve rhetorical purposes (Hyon 1996). From a teaching standpoint, genre-based instruction clarifies the norms and structures of academic genres, enabling students to produce well-organised, meaningful texts (Hyland 2007). This method has proven successful in improving argumentative writing skills, especially in EFL contexts, where students often struggle with developing thesis statements, maintaining logical coherence, and understanding audience (Amogne 2013; Kongpetch 2006; Luu 2011; Promwinai 2010; Trinh & Nguyen 2014). Still, many learners from East Asia continue to encounter difficulties mastering the rhetorical and linguistic tools of persuasive genres (Arsyad 1999; Choi 1988; Hounhanou 2018; Thompson 2001). As illustrated in Figure 1, this suggests that genre instruction should be supplemented through consideration of cognitive and contextual factors in writing, drawing on register theory and constructivist learning.

Recent research has explored how register theory, in conjunction with genre pedagogy, can address persistent challenges in writing pedagogy. This combination advances the study’s second objective by offering diagnostic and scaffolding tools to evaluate how linguistic functionality contributes to clarity, cohesion, and appropriateness in student texts.

Register – defined by field (subject matter), tenor (social relations), and mode (channel of communication) – has been used to explain how language choice changes from one context to another (Halliday & Hasan 1985; Martin & Rose 2008). By aligning student writing with these dimensions, instructors can evaluate linguistic precision, context sensitivity, and textual patterning. Gebhard et al. (2013) validate the flexible design of SFL–inspired pedagogy across curricular domains, suggesting that an SFL approach may scaffold academic literacy for all learners. Schulze (2015) further demonstrates that register theory offers a powerful diagnostic lens for analysing linguistic functionality, though it has not been widely adopted in classroom practice as an assessment framework. This reflects a broader challenge noted in assessment scholarship, where theoretical models often remain underutilised in everyday pedagogy (Ghaicha 2016; Hopfenbeck 2024; Machin et al. 2016). Only a small number of studies have implemented register dimensions as assessment principles for introducing analyses into student writing and integrating them with developmental criteria, such as metacognition or ethical reasoning, as shown in Figure 1.

Building on this linguistic framing, constructivist learning theory has played a crucial role in shaping writing pedagogy from both cognitive and developmental perspectives, thereby underpinning the study’s objectives by situating genre instruction within learner-centred frameworks and linking linguistic functionality to the mental processes involved in text production. Based on the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky, constructivism asserts that learners develop knowledge through experience, reflection, and social interaction (Givi et al. 2021; Von Glasersfeld 2004). In writing education, effective pedagogy involves participating in activities that foster metacognitive insight, ethical judgment, and rhetorical adaptation, key elements for long-term learning. Incorporating these constructivist principles into genre-based instruction offers teachers tools to evaluate both the completed work and the learning processes behind it. However, much research still treats genre and constructivism as separate, unrelated approaches (Christie 2017). There is limited empirical evidence on how genre-based writing tasks can be designed to promote reflective learning or how reflection can be recognised within the context of purpose and impact when developing literacy skills. As illustrated in Figure 1, the disconnect between detailed and broad views of language and thought emphasises the need for a model that links linguistic and cognitive perspectives.

Although more attention has been paid to the roles of genre-based and constructivist theories in writing development, few studies have attempted to conceptualise writing as a dual process involving both linguistic performance and cognitive change. Li et al. (2020) suggest promoting localised English for specific purposes genre pedagogy, but the connection between register control and reflective learning remains under-explored. Additionally, most existing rubrics emphasise surface features such as grammar and coherence while overlooking rhetorical awareness and ethical engagement. This study addresses that gap by analysing student writing and embedded reflection to track how students engage with and reflect on institutional genres. By adapting the institutional rubric criteria and constructivist-based indicators to the dimensions of the register, as shown in Figure 1, the model offers a framework for understanding how writing can be assessed as a form of learning that is both theoretically sound and pedagogically effective.

This study adopts an interpretive, qualitative, text-based approach to conduct a case study exploring how college students achieve writing mastery in ways that enhance their learning. Drawing on register theory and constructivist learning theory, the study examines argumentative writing through linguistic patterns and cognitive markers of expertise. The research is conducted in a single instructional course context, analysing final submissions from a single point of instruction.

The sample consisted of a purposive selection of students enrolled in the ENG102 academic writing course in the Department of General Education at Modern College for Business and Science (MCBS), Oman, during the Fall 2025 semester. The targeted data set included 27 anonymised argumentative essays drawn from student submissions, which served as diagnostic tests. This sample size was intentionally chosen to provide genre-specific depth and detailed linguistic analysis. To enhance interpretive understanding, the researchers also gathered reflections from the students who submitted the diagnostic test. Of these, 23 students responded to the post-task prompt, while four did not. These reflections aim to offer valuable context for understanding rhetorical choices and the development of writing. Bazerman (2019), Hyland (2004), and Lea and Street (1998) emphasise that genre theory favours interpretive understanding over statistical generalisation, a perspective that influences how students construct meaning and demonstrate mastery within academic genres.

The writing tasks were embedded within the course’s genre-based syllabus, serving both teaching and research goals. By week 5, students had already completed introductory activities in genre awareness and practised shorter analytical responses, which prepared them for a more extended argumentative task. This timing ensured that the in-class diagnostic test aligned with the syllabus’s gradual scaffolding of skills. In week 5, students wrote an argumentative essay for a monitored in-class setting, with clear instructions not to use external aids. After submitting their essays, students completed a structured set of reflection questions via a Google Form distributed through Microsoft Teams. The reflection questions were designed to elicit students’ awareness of their learning process, thereby directly facilitating the study’s constructivist dimension.

The primary data consisted of argumentative essays and paired reflections, specifically designed for the present study to focus on the development of academic writing. Each essay was evaluated according to an institutional rubric that is consistent with the course learning goals and genre expectations. The full rubric is provided in Appendix Table 1-A1. Reflections were analysed thematically for metacognitive awareness, rhetorical reasoning, and ethical stance (constructivist indicators), which complement the register–based analysis of the essays.

A coding matrix systematically aligned institutional rubric dimensions to register voice elements and constructivist cues, ensuring that both linguistic patterns and cognitive markers were captured in the analysis. Essays and reflections were manually coded employing thematic and linguistic analysis. Register dimensions were derived through close reading, while constructivist indicators were identified through reflection, prosody, and discourse. Ordinal scores were aggregated to inform qualitative results and to identify patterns of mastery across the argumentative mode.

The methodological design was structured to reflect and support the study’s objectives. Register dimensions were used in testing genre-based developmental aspects of EFL control (Objective 1), drawing on Halliday’s SFL fraework, which emphasises the analysis of field, tenor, and mode in relation to language development (Halliday 1978; Halliday & Hasan 1989). Constructivist variables were applied to explore the development processes in argumentative writing (Objective 2), consistent with perspectives that highlight the role of reflection and social interaction in knowledge construction (Dewey 1933; Piaget 1972; Vygotsky 1978). The matrix coding structure enabled the alignment of text features with rubric dimensions (Objective 3), following established practices in qualitative data analysis (Miles & Huberman 1994; Saldaña 2016), and facilitated comparisons across genres to identify evidence of mastery patterns (Objective 4), as supported by research on genre-based pedagogy and developmental writing assessment (Hyland 2004; Martin & Rose 2008). This analytic progression is visually represented in Figure 2, which charts the incorporation of register theory and constructivist learning into the study design.

Two complementary theoretical perspectives informed the analysis of student writing tasks and reflections, providing a dual lens for interpreting both product and process:

The integration of these two perspectives is visually represented in Figure 2, which maps the methodological flow from argumentative essays and structured reflections through register analysis and constructivist coding to the identification of mastery patterns.

Ethical safeguards were central to the study design. All student identities were de–identified before analysis to ensure confidentiality. Participation was voluntary, and students were informed that their written responses and reflections would be used solely for research purposes and would not affect their coursework. Consent was obtained via a brief clause in the reflection form that explained the study and outlined data protection measures. Also, ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Modern College of Business and Science Research Ethics and Intellectual Property Committee. The ethical clearance number is RE/2025/042.

Finally, to fully contextualise these research outcomes, it is essential to acknowledge the following limitations:

To tackle the study limitations and broaden the scope of the study, future research should consider the following points:

Leveraging guided reflection prompts or graded reflection assignments to gain more in-depth metacognitive and rhetorical insights, enhancing consistency, and tracking the analyses.