This study intended to determine if the process approach to teaching writing changes students’ perceptions of their strengths and weaknesses, and to investigate students’ attitudes towards peer review and the writing of multiple drafts. A relationship study was conducted at Çukurova University over eight weeks. Two classes at the pre-intermediate level were chosen. One of the groups (Group A) received the traditional approach to writing, while the other group (Group B) was taught using the process approach to writing throughout the treatment. There were 19 students in group A. Group B had 22 students. Data collection tools included surveys with five-point Likert scale questions and open-ended questions and informal interviews. At the beginning and at the end of the study, students in both groups were asked to respond to surveys about their perceptions of their strengths and weaknesses in writing. The surveys contained same items for both groups. Towards the end of the study. Group B was observed during a peer review session. After the observation, during a break, informal interviews were held with the students. At the end of the study, another survey determining students’ attitudes toward peer review was given out to the students in Group B. Maim-Whitney Test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test were used to compare pre-treatment and post-treatment survey answers across and within groups. Written responses to the open-ended questions examining students’ strengths and weaknesses in composition were analyzed by categorizing them into language issues and writing issues. The results of the statistical analysis were interesting. Mann-Whitney Test revealed that groups are not homogenous at the outset. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test indicated that there is no significance difference across the questionnaire items before and after the treatment for Group A, while there are significant differences in two items of Group B’s results. Students’ responses to the open-ended question about their strengths and weaknesses revealed that Group A focused on their weaknesses while Group B became more uncertain about their strengths over the course of the study. Group B’s responses to the survey about their attitudes towards peer review and the writing of multiple drafts showed that they agreed with the usefulness of writing multiple drafts, but felt uncertain about the value of peer review. Students responses to the open-ended questions about the gains from peer review and the writing of multiple drafts indicated that students felt they benefited in language issues in peer review sessions, but that writing multiple drafts helped them improve more in terms of writing issues.