My Reseach proposal for my Doctoral degree-2014

                                UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA

                                                                             

Name: Sarath W. Samaranayake

Student ID No: 42101034

Code: (DPCHS 02)

Qualification: Research Proposal Module for D Litt et Phil in Linguistics

Research Proposal 

Title: Academic writing issues of Foundation Level students: A case study of Omani students

 

                       Provisional Supervisor: Dr. Carien Wilsenach

                                             

                                                          2014

 

Title: ACADEMIC WRITING ISSUES OF FOUNDATION LEVEL STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY OF OMANI STUDENTS

Contents page	Page no
1. Introduction	2
2. Research problem	2
3. Context of the research problem	4
4. Literature review	5
5. Research questions	21
6. Research hypotheses	22
7. Objective of the research	22
8. Research method	23
9. Type of research	23
10. Subjects of the study	24
11. Subject selection and assignment	25
12. Materials to be used in the study	25
13. Procedures	28
14.References	29
15.Appendices	34

Introduction

Improving writing proficiency of EFL learners has become one of the major concerns among EFL teachers, instructors, course designers, and policy makers in contexts where English is studied as a foreign language. Learning a foreign language such as English is crucial to Omani nation's economic development and competitiveness because it enhances cognitive and social growth, competitiveness in the global marketplace and understanding of diverse people and cultures. As we approach a new century where global communication will be essential for survival, no nation can afford the luxury of international ignorance.

       As a teacher of English, my preoccupation with helping students to develop their skills in the target language should be my main concern in my teaching profession. When I was appointed as an English lecturer to the Shinas College of Technology in Oman during the second semester of 2012, I was assigned a substitution class for a week in the pre-elementary program by the department of English. During that week, I was asked to do a revision of several modules from the course book the students had already studied. One afternoon, when I was doing the lesson, one student asked me for my permission to leave the class early because he wanted to get to his house before the rain had started. He told me if the rain started, the road in which he had to drive would be flooded and driving would be impossible. Given his request, I asked him to write a letter stating the reason why he wanted to leave the class early and submit me. After a few minutes, he came to me with the excuse letter and left the class after handing it over to me. Since I was busy, I kept the letter in my file and continued my work until the class time was over. After I went to my flat, I found the note which the student had given to me in the classroom. It seemed like a Japanese Haiku poem in which the message he wanted to communicate to me was written as below.

                                                             (Author’s data, 2012)

Research problem:

Insightful understanding gained in conducting a study to investigate the effects of authentic materials using context-specific role-plays on Thai undergraduate students’ oral proficiency in English and my experience as a teacher at Prince of Songkla University in Thailand from 2006 to 2012 and also an English lecturer at Shinas College of Technology since November, 2012 have compelled me to critically investigate why a majority of my students who study English at Foundation level fail in achieving writing proficiency. As stated in the introduction, Foundation Level program lasts one semester (12 weeks of classroom instruction) and it consists of two tests namely mid-semester and final. In addition, students have to do the continuous assessment tests on reading, writing and grammar which are generally held Thursday day of every week. The mid-semester examination accounts 30% while the final test account 50% of the final marks. The remaining 20% is given for continuous assessment making total of 100 marks. When I conducted the tests above for the two groups of Foundation level-3 students I was assigned to teach, I found that most of my students did not perform well in writing. One or two students wrote nothing except copying the question on to the answer script while a majority scored below five out of ten.

       It should be noted here that these students who study in level 3 have already finished studying English in level 1 and 2. In addition, they have studied English as a subject at school for almost ten years. As stated in the context of the research problem, the Foundation English course offered by the Department of English Language is to help students develop their proficiency in the target language. My students, who are from different majors such as Engineering, Information Technology and Business Studies, after completing their studies at the college, aspire to find a job while a few chooses to pursue their higher studies in the Higher College of Technology where degrees are awarded. The view I have stated above concerning the importance of having a good proficiency in English for Omani youth is confirmed by Al-Badwawi (2001, p. 9) who states that, “possessing good English language abilities is considered important in increasing the future employability of young Omanis and improving their competitiveness in the regional and international labor markets”. For both these situations stated above, they need to achieve writing proficiency in the target language. Taken together, the note from a student and the students’ performance in the mid and semester-end examinations indicates that writing needs to be taught. If not, what students write does not conform to discourse and genre requirements demanded in academic writing.

      Furthermore, it can be assumed that if the problem of writing proficiency of my learners is not properly addressed at the Foundation stage, it will continue to their next levels in the college and pose serious communication problems. Therefore, given the problem described above, the current study revolves around the research problem what can be done to help my students achieve writing proficiency in the target language.

Context of the research problem

Shinas College of Technology is one of the seven Colleges of Technology (CTs) which has been established by the Ministry of Manpower in Oman. The College is a public institution catering to higher educational needs of all Omani youth. The main aim of Colleges of Technology is to deliver high quality technical education in order to produce graduates with required professional and personal skills which will enable them to undertake employments in their chosen fields thus contributing efficiently and effectively to the ongoing economic development in the Sultanate of Oman. Shinas College of Technology offers study programs leading to diploma and advanced diploma in the field of Engineering, Information Technology and Business Studies.

       The English Language Center (ELC) at the College offers English language programs for both Foundation and Post-Foundation levels such as Pre-Elementary, Elementary, Intermediate and Advanced. All registered students are required to take a placement test and the marks they obtained in the placement test will decide which level they are placed in. The in-house placement test will determine the English language level of each student and his or her placement is decided accordingly. All levels have two progress tests and a final test which is known as Level Exit Examination (LEE) during a semester. The four-level English Language Program in the Foundation Year mainly aims at developing students' linguistic proficiency to meet the academic requirements of the Post-Foundation specializations. At Foundation levels, students are taught the four major language skills such as listening, speaking, reading and writing. As teaching and learning materials, commercially produced English textbooks are mostly used together with teacher prepared materials.

       However, as is often the case with Arab countries, the medium of instruction in schools is Arabic and English is taught as a foreign language mostly by Arabic speaking teachers who do not pay much attention to writing skills as students claim. As a result of this, the students’ proficiency level in English writing remains inadequate or below expectation. Fareh (2010) observes that inadequate preparation of EFL teachers, lack of motivation on the part of learners, teacher-centered teaching methods and inadequate assessment techniques are some of the major factors that render EFL programs unable to deliver as expected. With this background understanding of the context of the research problem, I now turn to explore what other researchers has done and said in terms of theoretical, empirical and pedagogical bases of writing in the following section.

Literature review

In this section, I will explore theoretical, empirical and pedagogical bases of writing and in particular it will focus on previous research on the effects of different writing approaches in general and the process genre approach in particular. Moreover, it explores the effects of writing intervention programs where the process genre approach was used to enhance academic writing proficiency of EFL/ESL students coming from diverse educational and social backgrounds.

       We often witness a common phenomenon that toddlers scribble on papers or walls in their homes. This activity grows out of their innate learning instincts. Bartel (2010) asserts that scribbling is a very important developmental task. It is an instinctive learning stage that helps the brain and body develop and build readiness for the more difficult tasks that are to be learned later.  Scribbles soon become true letters and words of their native language as they grow up. Once children start schooling, writing (a major part of literacy) begins to develop. As a result, children tend to use a range of lexical choices and sentences arranged in a coherent manner to convey their ideas, thoughts and concepts. They begin to shift away from list-like writing towards a more meaningful and organized way (Berninger, Fuller & Whitaker, 1996). Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) state that a growing meta-cognitive capability gives children the potential to shift from a knowledge-telling to a knowledge transforming approach and to use information about audience, genre and rhetorical stance to accomplish a variety of writing purposes.

       Writing is one of the most important tools of communication. The ability to write helps develop imaginative and critical thinking abilities. It is stated that writing is more permanent than speaking, and requires more careful organization. It is also less spontaneous because it involves a process, from organizing ideas in the mind to setting the final document on paper. Teaching the skill of writing involves familiarizing students with various formats of informal and formal written texts. Moreover, teaching writing includes taking students through a process — a series of steps — such as brainstorming for ideas, organizing and sequencing them, revising and editing the draft and so on. Given the complex nature of writing, it would be appropriate for me to examine the theoretical, empirical and pedagogical views of writing at the beginning in order to gain a better understanding of it so that my engagement in teaching writing to my students will be better informed.

Definition of writing

Writing can be discussed both as a process and a product. Before dealing with such a discussion, I now examine various definitions of writing found in the literature. Writing is defined as, "a system of written symbols which represent the sounds, syllables or words of a language" (Richards & Platt, 1992, p. 313). This definition emphasizes the graphical features and linguistic elements of writing at the expense of other aspects. As such, it does not show that the purpose of writing is for communication.

       Halliday (1989) makes a distinction between writing and the written language. By the former he means "the symbols and their function in the language" whereas the latter refers to "what is produced in the written medium” (pp. 42-43). The current study will employ the following definition of writing provided by Atkinson (2003, p. 10) who states, “Writing is a cognitive or internal, multi-staged process, and in which by far the major dynamic of learning is doing with the teacher who takes a background role.”

       The definition provided by Atkinson (2003) for writing seems to fit into the context of my study in several ways. First, it sees writing as a cognitive process in which the learners should engage their thinking process at all stages of composing a text. Second, As Atkinson (2003) states, writing involves a number of stages such as pre-writing, planning, composing, revising, editing and producing a final draft. Since my study involves an intervention program, I plan to employ process genre approach in which my students are required to follow the stages stated above. Third, as is often the case with writing whether it be first or second language, the writing instructor has to guide his learners on how and what to write depending on the writing needs of his learners. This is what Atkinson (2003) means in his definition. Therefore, as stated above, Atkinson’s definition seems workable in my study context where I have to play a crucial role in helping my students achieve academic writing skills from the writing course they study.

       The ability to construct coherent and cohesive texts in a written medium is considered essential for students pursuing higher education in which they have to use the basic rhetoric, linguistic aspects, form and the cognitive processes involved in academic writing at their specific level of education. The students at Shinas College of Technology are expected to master academic writing skills during their respective study programs such as Engineering, Information Technology and Business Studies. Even though there are different views of what constitutes academic writing, the general view of all the authors I reviewed is that academic writing displays students’ understanding of an expository or argumentative topic and of writing conventions. An academic text should have a clear and meaningful thesis statement that is discussed in an organized, logical, fluent and accurate manner. Academic writers have to use semi-formal or formal voice and mainly third person’s point-of-view. Hofstee (2006, p. 187) proposed that “academic writing has the following characteristics: clarity, accuracy, brevity, simplicity, and focus”, whereas Thaiss and Zawacki (2006, pp. 4-6) outlines the characteristics as follows: “attention to the topic of study and reflective thought about it, that reason dominates emotion, and that an academic writer should display analytic ability”. Focusing on abilities and components of academic writing, Weideman (2003) also provides comprehensive details about the abilities students are required to have at tertiary level. According to Weideman (2003, p. 61), “students need to understand relations between different parts of a text, be aware of the logical development of (an academic) text, via introductions to conclusions, and know how to use language that serves to make the different parts of a text hang together.”

       Even though the abilities stated above were identified in the South African field of education, they are relevant to improve academic literacy of students across the globe. It should specifically be noted that Omani students wishing to do diploma courses at tertiary institutions are required to develop their academic writing skills in a similar fashion as Weideman (2003) observes. (A number of the academic writing abilities stated by Weideman (2003) above are present in the current Foundation English course outline of Shinas College of Technology and the other four colleges of technology which come under the purview of Ministry of Manpower in Oman). Leki and Carson (1995) observed that students should have guidelines for their initial academic writing activities across the curriculum.  The responsibility of the writing teacher is to expose students to various writing strategies which include combinations of activities such as outlining, drafting, or free writing (Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007; Spack, 1988) based on their level of general and academic writing experience. According to Dudley-Evans (2002), given the limited time of many academic writing courses, teachers often have to employ short-cut methods to raise students’ proficiency to the required level before starting their undergraduate studies. Despite all the efforts that teachers exert in an EFL class to help learners achieve academic writing proficiency, “many learners never move beyond composing single sentences or perhaps paragraphs” (Williams, 2005, p. 1). In the next section, I will discuss why a condition of this nature prevails in many EFL academic writing contexts in general and Oman in particular by referring to generally accepted findings in second language (L2) acquisition research.

Implicit and explicit knowledge

There are two types of second language knowledge namely implicit and explicit knowledge. Implicit knowledge is assumed to acquire in a naturalistic L2 acquisition setting while the acquisition of explicit knowledge is ascribed to additional language classroom (Krashen, 1988; Ellis, 2008). Implicit knowledge of L2 is similar to knowledge of native language. It is the knowledge that the user is unaware of, but which can be used in order to produce or understand language. Typically, when knowledge is implicit, users may not be able to explain the rules for the use of a structure (Williams, 2005). In explicit knowledge, users can provide rules and reasons for why and how a certain form is used. In foreign language classes, what frequently happens is that L2 teachers teach rules to their students in order to develop their explicit knowledge of the new language. It is stated that “most learners find this knowledge useful and refer to especially when they begin to study the new language” (Williams, 2005, p. 4). Furthermore, Williams states that rich and copious input is crucial for L2 learning and for mastering L2 writing in which reading plays an important role. In addition to the findings stated above, learners must pay attention to learn a new linguistic item. Therefore, paying attention also seems crucial. However, it has been argued that development of linguistic knowledge and development of the communicative competence are not the same thing (Williams, 2005; Gass & Selinker, 2001). Some authors who have dealt with writing view that practice is particularly useful in developing skills. Given this view, writing is also a skill which requires considerable practice in both first and second language (Zamel, 1982; Williams, 2002). With this background awareness, I now examine the three writing approaches namely, model based, process and process genre approaches involved in learning and teaching L2 writing. However, I will not discuss model-based and process approaches in detail here due to the limited scope of the proposal itself.

Model-based approach

The literature that deals with the field of teaching writing, we are informed that teaching of writing was language focused in traditional teaching contexts and writing was used as a means of reinforcing language which had already been learned in spoken form. Therefore, the emphasis on writing was on correctness. To produce a piece of writing that is correct, it was necessary to provide learners with a good model from a textbook or by the teacher. This kind of instructional method was known as model-based approaches in which the students were required to follow a procedure when they wanted to write.

       The characteristics of a model-based approach are to use a text as a starting point and then the text is analyzed and studied for features of form, content and organization. A new input is next provided as a basis for a parallel writing task. Finally, students are required to produce a parallel text using their own information (White, 1998). Even though the model-based approach became popular in the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) domain as much of EAP writing is product-oriented, some authors (Flower & Hayes, 1977; Escholz, 1980; Watson, 1982) criticized model-based approaches for their apparent weaknesses in teaching writing. Nunan (1999) states that the product approach focuses on writing tasks in which the learner imitates, copies and transforms teacher supplied models while Escholz (1980) argues that the product approach merely results in ‘mindless copies of a particular organizational plan or style.

Process approach

Writing is often referred to as composing because it emphasizes the importance of communication and the creative process that learners go through as they write. Emphasizing why writing needs to be seen as a process rather than a product, Liebman-Kleine (1986, p. 785) argues that “process is not a dogma, but a concept that enables people to see writing in a new way and thereby ask questions that were not asked as long as people saw writing simply as finished products”.

       The process approach emerged in the mid-1970s as a counter reaction to the product approach (Yan, 2005). According to Nordin and Norhisham (2006), the criticism leveled against the product approach was that it dealt with formalistic rhetoric which devalued the actual, individual creative writing process and overemphasized the product.  The process approach movement began with studies about the composing process of writers (Emig, 1971; Pianko, 1979; Perl, 1980) and resulted in informing students how to approach a writing task. The process approach was developed initially for first language classrooms in English-speaking countries and it has later been adapted for additional language teaching (Caudery, 1995). According to Brown (1994) at that time the product approach was used in composition classes where the focus was on grammar, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, content and organization and the writing activities were mostly de-contextualized. Learners were instructed to write essays on given topics. These were collected, critical comments were provided and the essays were assessed and evaluated (Caudery, 1995). The essays were returned and learners were supposed to do corrections. The actual process of how people write was negated by the use of the product approach. Moreover, the continuous error correction reduced learners’ motivation and self-esteem with regard to writing. Consequently, learners seldom learnt that an effective piece of writing can hardly be produced in only one draft. In addition, Zamel (1983) pointed out that written products do not show teachers much about learners’ instructional needs, which means then that teachers do not know how to help their learners if only written products are expected and if teachers are not part of the learners’ writing process at all. Even though an effective piece of writing, or the product, is the ultimate aim for any writer, there are different methods or strategies available to reach the product stage. This was recognized by some composition teachers and researchers (Emig 1971; Zamel 1982, 1983; Hairston, 1982) and the traditional thinking about writing was questioned.

       The process approach involves several stages which appear to follow each other. However, the process approach is not linear, but rather recursive, which means the stages can appear anywhere in the process depending on the writers’ choices. Most proponents of the process approach (Yan, 2005; Williams, 2005; Shih, 1986; Geyser, 1996; Tessema, 2005; Zamel, 1983) agree that the number of stages can range from three to five  (1979, pp. 7-8) such as prewriting (Conceptualize/ think), drafting (First attempt),  revising (Improve on the first draft), proofreading (Correct the text), publishing (Share the finished product). Several empirical studies that investigated the effects of process approach (Kelemen, 2006; Zamel, 1983; Flower and Hayes, 1981; Perl, 1980; Urzua, 1987) have found positive results.

       Despite the wide recognition of process approach in EFL/ESL classrooms, it is not free from criticisms in that some authors argue that process-based instruction will give learners a false impression of what will be expected from them once they leave the classroom (Horowitz, 1986; Williams, 2005). Another criticism is that process approaches not only ignore formal accuracy but also it does not prepare students adequately for writing exams in which the students will be judged on the product. In the examinations, the students will not have time to brainstorm, revise, discuss with their peers and write several drafts due to time constrains.  Furthermore, Badger and White (2000) state that teachers using the process approach to teach writing, in trying to be humanistic and student-centered, fail to give enough input regarding linguistic aspects, different types of texts (genres) and purposes for writing. According to Reid (1984), the process approach does not consider variation among individuals, specifically, in linguistic and cognitive development and in academic discourse styles.

       Even though there are arguments against the process approach, one may think if ESL/EFL learners can improve their writing in L2 writing classes, it is most likely that they will be able to transfer these skills to other settings such as tests or examinations. Even in time constrained writing tasks, writers need to go through a composing process which can be perceived as different to that of the process-based instruction in a typical classroom situation. For example, when I mark the mid semester or final examination writing papers of the students in my college, on many occasions, I have come across a number of answer scripts in which students had written main points under sub headings or drawing web organizers relevant to the topic of the essay on the reverse of the paper or a separate sheet of paper. Given the real nature of writing, one may find that writers tend to go back and forth revising and refining ideas at all points in the composing process. Therefore, in terms of developing EFL learners’ academic writing skills, one can believe process approach will do more justice to the learners than product approach which disregards the steps involved in composing and focuses only on the final product (Flowers & Hayes, 1981; Williams, 2005).However, given the weaknesses and some authors began to argue that writing varies with the social context in which it is produced (Swales, 1990; Flowerdew, 1993; Martin, 1993), a new approach called process genre approach emerged. In the following section, I explain the process genre approach with reference to the literature that deals with it from different perspectives.

Process genre approach

Badger and White (2000) state that genre approaches to writing are predominantly linguistic but, unlike product approaches, they emphasize that writing varies with the social context in which it is produced. Therefore, when teaching writing, it was argued that the different purposes, social contexts, structures and linguistic features of specific texts should be taken into consideration (Swales, 1981; Halliday, 1985; Yan, 2005). It is true that we have a range of kinds of writing-such as sales letters, research articles, reports, and memos that are linked with different situations (Flowerdew, 1993). Not all learners need to operate in all social contexts. However, genre approach has implications on academic writing. The students in my college study Engineering, Information Technology and Business Studies and they are required to write project reports, business letters, job applications, advertisements and memos and to design and develop web-based materials. Therefore, process genre approach seems important for the study context of my students.

       According to Kim (2007), emphasis on the reader and the purpose for writing are paramount in the genre approach. As the reader is usually an experienced member of a specific community, albeit academic, technical or in the business field, he/she expects the writing discourse to comply with known, acceptable schemata and writing conventions based on the identifiable genre (Silva 1990).

       Kim and Kim (2005) maintain that the genre approach acts as a support mechanism in ESL writing instruction, where examples of a particular genre could be used to help students to systematically understand what the linguistic and structural requirement of a particular genre are and what the communication purpose of the text is. Students’ knowledge of linguistic features and structural conventions of a variety of genres based on their communicative purposes is often very limited (Kaunda & Ball 1998; Swanepoel, 1999). Therefore, the writing teacher can play an active role in guiding, assisting and supporting students to advance to the point where they can employ their skills to be conversant in a variety of genres. In comparison to the product approaches, clear similarities can be seen in terms of input, as examples or models play just as an important role as in the product approach (Badger & White, 2000). The genre approach assumes that students learn more effectively when exposed to multiple examples of texts. In fact, the theory of learning of the genre approach seems to consist of three parts: modeling the target genre, where learners are exposed to examples of the genre they have to produce; the construction of a text by learners and teacher; and, finally, the independent construction of texts by learners. In theory, the cycle can be repeated as and when necessary (Badger & White, 2000). In the genre approach students know exactly what is expected of them since they have received explicit instruction in and examples of the specific genre (Kim, 2007). The awareness of the association between content, purpose, audience, style, structure, and language usage will stand students in good stead when encountering a similar writing situation later in their career. Indeed, it has been argued that knowledge of organization, arrangement, form and genre can systematically lead to knowledge of subject matter. They can then tap into their rhetorical conventions background knowledge to write a text that is acceptable and effective for its purpose. The genre approach is believed to lower the stress experienced by especially ESL writers (Kim, 2007).

Stages involved in process genre approach

Students must first recognize the recursive nature of the writing process. Even though the phases mentioned below are presented in a linear fashion, they are not necessarily meant to follow in the order suggested.  

Pre-writing phase:

At this stage, students are supposed to become familiar with the genre and the relating conventions through direct instruction by the teacher or models they are provided with.  Moreover, students use the background knowledge about the possible subjects or topics, the linguistic features and linguistic skills to write their own text in the specified genre.

Composing:

In composing, students structure the ideas in meaningful sentences based on the conventions of the specific genre. Thus, students construct sentences and paragraphs, but, their ideas are hardly ever completely formulated before they write their first draft, therefore, they need to produce multiple drafts at this stage.

Re-reading and revising:

Once the first draft is completed or while students are still busy composing, they are encouraged to re-read their text firstly to determine whether their subject content matches the topic and what they intended to say (Shih, 1986). Furthermore, students should check whether their paragraphs have a logical order with clear topic and supporting sentences.

Peer-editing:

Peer-editing means that students read each other’s work, and then offer feedback on content, structure and grammar. Peer-editing is also a form of input, as discussion on content with other students might lead to the addition of ideas. After the peer-editing session, students should be allowed more time to re-write the text if necessary.

Teacher feedback:

The teacher should edit and evaluate the students’ first draft once it is written, self-edited, peer-edited and revised, possibly re-written. The teacher can provide the student with feedback after going through the essay and make suggestions on how to improve the text.  

Arguments against the process genre approach

It seems difficult to find concrete criticism against the use of the process genre approach in the literature about writing. This may be due to the fact that the process genre approach is a relatively new approach in teaching writing in ELT (Badger & White, 2000). However, Horowitz (1986) raises the problem of time. In fact, the problem of time is linked to the concerns discussed earlier for other versions of the approach. Time is a problem when using the process approach, it becomes an even greater issue in the process genre approach. The reason for this is that more activities and strategies such as reading, manipulating language features and analyzing model examples are added to help students to write more effectively.

       Moreover, it has not been determined yet, whether the process genre approach helps students to write better and/or faster in examination settings. The assumption underlying the process genre approach is that if students are instructed based on genres and have had the opportunity to analyze and manipulate model examples, then they should be able to compose more effectively in an examination setting. However, it was not possible for me to find any empirical studies that could corroborate the assumption that helps students to write better and faster in examination settings.

A gap existing in the literature

Given the condition described above, one may find that there is a gap existing in the literature with regard to the effectiveness of application of the process genre approach to help students write better or faster in examination settings. As stated above, the assumption underlying the process genre approach is that if students are instructed based on genres and have had the opportunity to analyze and manipulate model examples, then they should be able to compose more effectively in an examination setting. If my students achieve a marked writing proficiency improvement, then that will be evidence of success in using process genre approach in enhancing learners’ academic writing proficiency in English. Since there are a very few studies that have investigated the effects of process genre approach in helping students to compose more effectively in examination settings, the current study will most probably be able to fill the gap in the domain of EFL/ESL academic writing.

       A few studies summarized below give information on the effect of the process genre approach on students’ writing skills. However, of the three studies summarized, only one study compared the effectiveness of the process genre approach with another approach, the genre approach. It would seem appropriate for me to explain the distinction between the genre and process genre approach as has been identified by some authors.  The distinction between the genre approach and process genre approach is that the genre approach bears more to a passing resemblance to the product approach in that a model text is analyzed and perhaps some controlled writing is carried out focusing on aspects of vocabulary or syntax. This is followed by some guided writing before a final free writing stage. Both approaches view imitation as important in learning. The main difference and the key aspect of the genre approach is that the model texts are seen as belonging to specific genres defined by social contexts and purposes (Badger & White, 2000). The process genre approach, according to Badger and White (ibid.), involves the provision of a situation from which the learners are helped to identify the purpose and consider the field, mode and tenor of the text they are about to produce.

Empirical evidence on process genre approach in application

As indicated earlier, one may find only a few studies have investigated the effects of process genre approach in enhancing EFL learners’ writing proficiency.  Nordin, Halib, and Ghazali (2010) conducted a study at the University TeknologiPetronas, Malaysia to investigate the effect of the process genre approach on the writing skills of engineering students. The experimental group received writing instruction based on the process genre approach while the control group was taught through the genre approach. The findings of the study indicated that the writing ability of students in the experimental group was significantly better than those in the control group. The majority of students (79.6%) who received process genre approach instruction scored between 5.00 and 5.63, which is just below ‘excellent’. No student scored below 4.13. However, only 23.1% of the students in the control group who received genre approach instruction, scored between 5.00 and 5.25 and 8.6% of the students received scores between 3.00 – 3.63. The study supports the view that process genre approach has advantages in teaching technical writing. 

       Nihayah (2009) studied middle school learners in Indonesia to determine whether the implementation of the process genre approach would improve students’ writing ability. The findings showed that there was a notable improvement in students’ writing ability after the implementation of the process genre approach. A comparison of the mean scores (with a maximum score of 4) taken before and after the study indicate the improvement from 1.29 to 3.15 on content, from 1.62 to 3.01 on organization and from 1.55 to 2.98 on language use. However, one weakness of the study is that the researcher failed to report whether a control group was used to compare the results of the experimental group. The study would have been more valid if the researcher had included a control group as measure.

       Another study conducted to investigate the effects of process genre approach is reported by Jackson (2012) who used an experimental and a control group in his study. He employed Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) combined with process genre approach in enhancing the writing skills of Foundation Level undergraduate students at Manipal International University in Malaysia. The researcher reports that the experimental group was taught using CLIL combined with process genre approach while the control group was not taught using the CLIL combined with process genre approach. The writing genre started from personal narratives and proceeded to argumentative, compare - and - contrast and cause - and- effect essays. The results indicated that the experimental groups’ average scores increased from 56% to 68% from the pretest to posttest while the control group recorded an increase of the average scores from 59% to 61% in their average scores. The researcher concluded that the use of CLIL combined with process genre approach was effective in enhancing academic writing skills of tertiary level EFL/ESL students. However, one weakness in the above study is that the researcher does not mention what kind of a method or an approach he used to teach the control group and how he combined the process genre approach with Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).

       The focus of Foo’s (2007) study was on to see how successful the process genre approach in contributing to students’ ability to develop strategies to write essays more effectively. The researcher applied the process genre instruction to the experimental group while the control group was taught with product-centered writing instruction. The study reports that there was a remarkable improvement in the experimental groups’ in communicating their ideas, a more relevant to the purpose of the task as compared to the control group. However, no improvement was recorded in the organization of ideas or in the control of language. The students of the experimental group commented that they had a better understanding of “conceptual writing strategies” (Foo 2007, p. 16) and that they would be willing to apply practical strategies when writing essays. Even though Foo (2007) reports that the experimental group, which was taught using process genre approach, made a remarkable improvement in communicating their ideas relevant to the purpose of the task as compared to the control group, I find it some flaws in her study because she says that there were no improvement in the organization of ideas or in the control of language. This statement makes one to think that for any writing to be evaluated as successful, the ideas need to be well-organized. If the ideas are not organized in a logical manner in a given piece of writing, the writer fails to communicate his/her message to the reader on one hand, on the other, the reader also finds it hard to understand the message what the writer has written. Therefore, a situation like this can easily mislead the reader. Furthermore, one of the main objectives of teaching writing to EFL/ESL learners is to train them to control the language and use it properly in their written communications. If learners do not know how, what, when and where to use a particular form or a lexical item, their writing mostly becomes inappropriate and out of context. In Foo’s study, she does not suggest or explain why her learners failed to organize the ideas and control the language properly. Given this condition, the effectiveness of applying process genre approach in Foo’s study raises more questions than providing answers. I believe that if the researcher had considered tackling the problems stated above at the teacher’s feedback stage as outlined in the process genre approach, she could possibly have avoided the issue. It is a common phenomenon that beginner level EFL/ESL learners write with no organization of their ideas or no control of the language, but it is the EFL teacher’s responsibility to provide his learners with feedback in which both the language-related errors and content errors should be pointed out and discussed in such a way that students will understand how to rectify their errors. In my study, in order to avoid problems as encountered by Foo (2007), I will firmly stick to all steps proposed in the process genre approach. I will focus specifically on the role of teacher’s feedback in this process, as I believe it to be a core aspect of teaching and learning writing using the process genre approach.

       It should specifically be noted that no evidence of any Omani studies on the application of the process or the process genre approach could be found. The studies described above, which were mainly conducted in different teaching contexts, suggest that the process approach and process genre approach are beneficial in improving academic writing skills of students who study English either as a second or a foreign language. Given the findings of the studies stated above, I believe that application of process genre approach in academic writing class would be more beneficial to my students whose linguistic needs are specifically linked to different genres. In the following section, I explore the effectiveness of writing intervention programs conducted in various teaching backgrounds.

Research evidence on the success of writing intervention programs

A number of studies conducted in different teaching contexts have found that intervention programs on academic writing are effective in helping EFL/ESL learners improve their writing skills. Du Plessis (2012) investigated the results of an intervention program designed to improve academic writing skills of foundation program students of the University of Namibia in 2008 and 2009. For her study, she selected three different groups of participants from the Foundation program and employed three writing approaches; the process approach, the modeling approach and the process genre approach separately to improve their academic writing skills in 2008 and 2008. To examine the effects of interventions, a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods were applied. The results obtained by students in the three groups who were taught using the three approaches; the process approach, the modeling approach and the process genre approach were different among the three groups. Moreover, the results between the pretest and posttest also showed a marked difference in the tree groups. After comparisons, taking the average results from both pre and posttests of the three groups for the years 2008 and 2009, the researcher reported that the modeling approach produced the best essay results (55%), with the process genre approach following in second place (45%) while the process approach recorded 44%.  On the other hand, the differences in mean scores of the three approaches indicated that the process genre approach had the biggest difference with 11.34%, followed by the process approach with 10.4% and lastly the modeling approach with 8.49%. Based on the findings of this study, the researcher concluded that the process genre approach had the biggest impact on the academic writing abilities of students.

       However, the researcher of this study has failed to include a control group which affects the internal validity of the study. In my study, I plan to include a control group in order to increase the internal validity of my study.

       Carstens (2011) also reports the results of a writing intervention program conducted with two groups of second year university students at the University of South Africa. The researcher applied a quasi-experimental design to gather data. He selected two groups: one group consisted of 16 students who received an intervention focused on a specific subject (History) and the other group which consisted of 11 students who received an intervention focused on a variety of humanistic subjects because the researcher wanted to prove that irrespective of the teaching method being used, a strong subject-related focus would result in stronger motivation and in turn would result in better performance by students. Both groups received a particular intervention.  Based on the results of the study, the researcher goes on to record that the differences in the achievement of the two groups do not seem to be only related to the focus of the particular intervention. Teaching strategies, amount of exercise and overt emphasis of particular meaningful resources also seem to impact on the amount of learning that take place.

       Judging from the way in which the interventions were conducted by the researcher and the findings that emerged, it can be assumed that certain instructional approaches and techniques are useful tools when one conducts a writing intervention program in ESL/EFL context. Therefore, the study stated above is relevant to my study.

       Given all the theoretical, empirical and pedagogical underpinnings of different writing approaches, their strengths and weaknesses and the success of previous studies on the use of process genre approach in the EFL/ESL classroom situations as described above, I plan to employ process genre approach in my study to investigate its effect on my learners’ academic writing proficiency. The studies described earlier are consistent with the present study because most of them were conducted in the contexts of EFL/ESL. Moreover, the findings of the studies cited above strongly suggest that the process genre approach can help learners to improve their academic writing skills. I want to find evidence to test the hypotheses which I have formed and stated below, “If the process genre approach will have a positive effect on the academic writing proficiency of my students and as a result, they will be able to compose more effectively in an examination setting”. I plan to design my own context-specific materials and use them in my study to investigate the link existing between the independent variable; contextually-developed writing activities delivered through the process genre approach, and the dependent variable; academic writing proficiency.

Conclusion

In this section, I have explicitly discussed the process of L2 writing on theoretical ground and examined the variables that are assumed to intervene in the acquisition of writing by ESL/EFL students in academic contexts with reference to empirical studies conducted in the domain of L2 writing. Moreover, I provided an overview of three writing approaches namely product approach, process approach and process genre approach along with a discussion of their origin, features and principles including their respective strengths and weaknesses as has been stated by several authors (Zamel, 1983; Flowerdew, 1993; Badger & White, 2000; Williams, 2005). Finally, I have included a few studies that investigated the effects of writing intervention programs conducted with learners form different social and educational backgrounds in varied teaching and learning contexts from around the world to support my study which will also be a writing intervention program meant to help my students improve their academic writing skills.

Research questions

1.      Does the application of the process genre approach in writing help tertiary level students improve academic writing proficiency as measured by the assessment scale for written work proposed by Jacob, et al., (1981)? 

2.      How effective is the process genre approach in writing instruction for tertiary level students to perform better in examination settings as measured by the assessment scale for written work proposed by Jacob, et al., (1981)?

Research hypotheses

1.      The application of the process genre approach in writing help tertiary level students improve academic writing proficiency as measured by the assessment scale for written work proposed by Jacob, et al., (1981). 

2.      The process genre approach is effective in writing instruction for tertiary level students to perform better in examination settings as measured by the assessment scale for written work proposed by Jacob, et al., (1981).

Objective of the research

By conducting this research, I hope to achieve the following objectives:

1.      To find out the effects of the process genre approach in enhancing writing proficiency of the tertiary level students.

2.      To investigate the effectiveness of process genre approach in writing instruction for tertiary level students to perform better in an examination setting.

3.      To help students improve their academic writing proficiency in English.

4.      To illustrate that tertiary level students’ academic writing proficiency in English can be improved by using teacher-prepared context-specific teaching materials delivered through process genre approach.

5.      To enlighten the Department of English Language in the Shinas College of Technology of the extent to which the process genre approach and teacher developed materials are effective in improving students’ academic writing proficiency. Therefore, I hope that the decision makers would consider introducing process genre approach  to level 3, 4 and post-foundation English programs conducted in all Colleges of Technology coming under the purview of the Ministry of Manpower in Oman, to improve students’ academic writing proficiency as well as to help them perform better in both local and foreign examination settings.

Research method

As stated above, given the writing difficulties faced by my students at the Foundation Level, I decided to conduct a study to find out the effects of the process genre approach in writing to enhance academic writing proficiency of my students who study English as a foreign language. Furthermore, I want to investigate how effective is the process genre approach in academic writing for tertiary level students to perform better in an examination setting.

Type of research

The type of study I have planned to carry out is quantitative since it will involve statistical comparisons of interval data obtained from the subjects’ writing tasks in pretest, mid-semester and semester-end examinations to determine if there are any statistically significant differences among the mean scores of the three tests conducted for the treatment group during the study (Nunan & Bailey, 2009). According to Nunan and Bailey (2009), the design of research is Pre-test Post-test Control Group Design because it involves more than one group of subjects, administering a treatment, random selection and assignment of control and experimental groups and pre-testing both groups before any treatment begins.  As the diagram below represents the type of research I intend to carry out, I will use additional materials and employ process genre approach to teach the experimental group while the control group will be instructed with the regular teaching method and the prescribed textbook will be the instructional material. It should specifically be mentioned here that for ethical reasons, the control group will not be disadvantaged in that they will still receive regular tuition from their prescribed textbook (Ready to Write -2) while the experimental group will not receive extra tuition in that they will also receive equal tuition.     

                                                              Subjects of the study

The subjects in my study will be Omani college of technology students who study English at Foundation Level three in a given semester. The students in level 3 had already completed their studies at level 1 and 2 where they had received instruction in listening, speaking, reading and writing in class and they passed the two level exit examinations which are generally conducted at the end of each semester. Therefore, it is assumed that the subjects in level 3 have already acquired the basics of writing skills. It should be noted that in Foundation level 1 and 2, students are exposed to general English where they are expected to study how to write about themselves, their family and daily activities. They are also expected to learn how to write descriptions (of places, for example).  However, level 3, 4 and post Foundation students are taught academic writing- More information about this genre is given below.  I have been teaching writing and grammar for one year at Shinas College and when a new group joins the class, I conduct an orientation program on the first day of their class where everybody is given a chance to introduce himself/herself to the class. At their brief introduction, they tend to mention what their parents do. Based on their responses, it can be inferred that these participants generally come from varying social backgrounds such as working, middle classes. The main occupations of the majority of people living in the North of Oman are farming, fishing, government or private sector, and business.

Subject selection and assignment

According to the college policy, a student who studies in a particular level should obtain minimum of 25 marks out of 50 from the four skills tested in the level exit examination (listening, speaking, reading and writing) to move to the next level. Level one, two and three generally consist of 20 groups each having 27-30 students with an approximate number of 500 to 550 students per level. After each level exit examination, the student registration department of the college allocates students to the groups of next level randomly using the students’ computerized data base. The students are not grouped according to any criterion such as based on their marks or any other performance in their previous level. However, the student registration department sees that each group gets equal number of female students because the number of female students is lesser than the number of male students. According to Nunan and Bailey (2009), this kind of sampling is named as Simple Random Sampling. Given this type of procedure used by the college for student selection for the next level, it can be assumed that student samples I am going to select for my study are randomly selected.

       The sample will consists of both male and female students aged 18-20 years enrolled for diploma or higher diploma in Engineering, Information Technology or Business Studies offered by the Shinas College of Technology. The students’ home language is Arabic and English is studied as a foreign language in Oman’s school context.  As stated in the context of the research problem, when the students who have already been randomly selected from a large student population join the college in the third semester (January-April, 2014), I will select two groups from the three or four groups I will be assigned by the Department of English to teach. The Department of English at my college generally assigns three to four groups consisting 30 students of each to a teacher. On flipping a coin, I will assign one group as the treatment and the other as the control group for my study.

Materials to be used in the study

As I discussed earlier, the majority of my students are not proficient in academic writing in the target language even though they had studied English in schools for several years and at the college for several months. I hypothesize that my students’ academic writing proficiency could be developed by using context-specific materials delivered through the process genre approach since this approach involves several stages which follow each other. However, the process genre approach is not linear, but rather recursive, which means the stages can appear anywhere in the process depending on the writers’ choices. Most proponents of the process approach (Yan, 2005; Williams, 2005; Shih, 1986; Geyser, 1996; Tessema, 2005; Zamel, 1983) agree that the number of stages can range from three to five and Pianko (1979) names the stages as composing behaviors.

       Instructional materials in any given language program play a very important role and is generally considered the second most important factor in EFL classrooms after the teacher (Riazi, 2003). Evan and John (1998) state the following four reasons for using instructional materials:

        1. as a source of language 

        2. as a learning support 

        3. for motivation and stimulation 

        4. for reference.

       Given the pedagogical value of materials as indicated by Riazi (2003) and Evan and John (1988), I plan to use context-specific materials that will enhance my learners’ academic writing proficiency by engaging them in the process writing approach. The common assertion concerning the organization and presentation of materials should follow a logical order which helps learners take part in various stages of a task at hand. Hutchinson and Waters (1987) suggest that the process of material production for a specific language course involves a number of stages. Therefore, material production should be based on the syllabus while syllabus should reflect the language features of the target situation and learner needs (Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). Based on the course outline for level 3 students in my institution, I will prepare additional teaching materials in which I hope to follow a specific order for each writing topic to be covered in a given semester.
 

Contextually-developed materials

Since the main objective of my study is to investigate the effects of a process genre approach in developing writing proficiency that will help students to perform better in examination settings, I will develop additional materials because the writing tasks suggested in the prescribed textbook- Ready to write: perfecting paragraphs fourth Ed, by Blanchard and Root (2010) are not adequate to provide students with ample opportunities in writing practice. Both psychological theories of skill acquisition and second language acquisition theories suggest that considerable practice is required to automatize a skill (DeKeyser, 2007). Moreover, practice in writing improves performance in writing. Therefore, given the theoretical underpinnings and the research evidence from studies conducted into skill acquisition by a number of researchers (Anderson, Fincham, & Douglass, 1997; Singley & Anderson, 1989), the additional writing activities I developed and used with the pilot study group were  consistent with Ortega’s (2007) model for the design of activities. Moreover, the additional activities were found useful and engaging the students in the series of writing stages suggested in the process genre approach. In his model, Ortega proposes that the following three principles should be considered when designing activities for EFL learners to practice in class:

1.      Practice should be interactive in which learners can practice either in pairs or in groups.

2.      Practice should be meaningful in a way that it engages learners personally and cognitively in the practice events.

3.      There should be a focus on task-essential forms.

       When applied to writing, Ortega’s model implies that teachers should design interactive activities in which the writing teacher exposes his students to various writing strategies such as outlining, drafting, or free writing (Lavelle & Bushrow, 2007; Spack, 1988). The nature of these ‘exposures’ should be predetermined by the students’ level of general and academic writing. The topics for developing modules will be selected from the prescribed textbook-Ready to write: perfecting paragraphs by Blanchard and Root (2010). Based on the delivery plan which will be issued by the English Language Center of Shinas College of Technology for level 3 writing, I will prepare additional tasks for the topics stated below:

       1. Getting organized: The key to good writing.

       2. Understanding paragraphs.

       3. Expressing your opinion.

       4. Writing personal and Business letters.

       5. Comparing and contrasting.

       6. Analyzing causes and effects.

       7. Description and comparison: Bar graphs and charts.

      In designing academic writing tasks, I will follow a process genre approach by including the stages such as pre-writing, composing, pre-reading and revising, peer-editing and teacher feedback. Moreover, I will maintain the principles stated above such as providing context to the learner in a meaningful way, providing forms and functions relevant to the activities, and making the content of the activity related to different kinds of writing such as comparing and contrasting, expressing an opinion, analyzing data and personal and business letters. In addition to the factors mentioned above, I will specifically consider my students’ current and future language needs, their interests and language ability levels in the target language.

Research instruments

For this study, four research instruments will be used as follows:

1.      Writing pretest: Writing pretest will be developed and administered before the instruction begins for both the experimental and control groups by the researcher to measure the subjects’ current ability in writing. Pretest answer scripts will be marked by two raters from the Department of English Language.

2.      Mid-semester examination: The question papers for the mid-semester are prepared by the testing unit of the Department of English. After the mid-semester examination, written answer scripts will be rated by two raters. After the two raters have finished rating, inter-rater reliability will be calculated using Person Product Moment (SPSS 11.0, 2010).        

3.      Semester-end examination: As in number 2, the same procedure will be followed to gather data from the experimental and control groups.

4.      Treatment instruments: I will use context-specific materials and process genre approach with the experimental group to help students improve their academic writing proficiency in English. At the end of the treatment, I will investigate whether there is any impact of the treatment instrument on the dependent variable.

Finally, the results obtained from the four the research instruments will be analyzed to determine if the independent variables (process genre approach and context-specific materials) could have any effect on the dependent variable (academic writing proficiency of the subjects). A pilot study of the current research was conducted during the third semester of 2013 (April –July) at the Shinas College of Technology with a group of Foundation Level students who were at the same level as the subjects of the study.  The pilot study included the four research instruments as mentioned above and at the end of the study, the data were analyzed using One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to determine whether the process genre approach had an impact on the students’ writing performance in an examination setting. The findings indicated statistically significant (F- 20.30, P < 0.001) differences across the three tests; the pretest, the mid-semester and the semester-end examinations. Therefore, based on the findings of the pilot study, it can be concluded that the process  genre approach is effective in enhancing students’ academic writing proficiency  that will help them perform better in examination settings in English Foreign Language (EFL) programs in the context of Oman’s technological education.

Procedures

The study will last for 12 weeks with a total of 54 hours classroom instruction. The study employs four research instruments such as pretest, mid-semester examination, semester-end examination and the treatment instrument to gather data. When the second semester begins, on the first day, I will explain to the class all information pertaining to my study such as the purpose, type of research, type of information that will be gathered, possible benefits, foreseeable risks and discomforts involved in agreeing to cooperate in this study. Moreover, I will tell them that the data gathered from them will be used for study purposes only and their participation is voluntary, that there is no penalty for refusing to participate, and that they may withdraw at any time without penalty. After getting their consent, I will ask them to sign a letter of consent (See Appendix 1). I will inform the students that I want to know their existing proficiency levels in writing for a research study and then I will conduct a pretest in which the students will be asked to write a paragraphs about the following; “Write a paragraph of about (75 to 100 words) a typical day in your life.  Including a topic sentence, supporting details and a conclusion along with adverbs of frequency” These students have already studied how to write about themselves, about their family, daily activities and descriptions of places and processes in level 2. I will give the same topic for both treatment and control groups and rate their answers using the marking scheme for writing used in International English Language Testing System (IELTS) (See Appendix 2) for the IELTS rubrics) and keep the data stored in my computer for future reference. The purpose of the pretest is to identify the existing language proficiency of the subjects who will be treated with a specific teaching approach and additional material over a period. The pretest results will be further used to determine whether the subjects of the two groups are at the same level of proficiency before treatment begins.  I will develop and use context-specific additional teaching materials with the treatment group. Moreover, I will also use the process genre approach to instruct the treatment group while the control group will be taught using the prescribed textbook and the teaching methodology suggested in the text (Ready to Write -2 by Blanchard and Root) for one semester. In accordance with the examination rules and regulations of the Shinas College of Technology, written answers are marked by two examiners and the average of the scores given by the two examiners is taken as the final marks. After the mid-semester and semester-end examinations, with the permission of the level coordinator, I will submit the writing answer scripts of both treatment and control groups along with the IELTS test rubrics (See Appendix 2) to two raters from our department to rate the written answers. After the two raters evaluate the writing tasks in both examinations, an agreement between the two raters will be calculated using Pearson’s Product Moment (SPSS 11.0, 2010).       

Data analysis and representation

Taking the research tools mentioned above into account, the data collected will be represented in tables, graphs, diagrams, and charts. The discussion of the data will mainly be based on the current literature on the topic and on the domain of language teaching.  Quantitative data will be analyzed using One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). For statistical performance of data, I will use SPSS (11.0, 2010) statistical software.

        As indicated by Seliger and Shohamy (1989), the possible factors that will affect the internal validity of my study will be mainly attrition and instrument/task sensitivity. With regard to the instrument/task sensitivity which refers to pre-testing procedure, I will conduct the writing pretests for both treatment and control groups on the first day and within the first week of the class as mentioned above.

      Dealing with the data collection methodology, I will use four instruments in the study to collect data such as pretest, mid-semester, semester-end examinations and treatment instruments (process genre approach and context-specific materials).

Conclusion

I have outlined the research proposal for my doctoral thesis in Linguistics by referring to previous studies in the topic and then have described the research problem. I then stated the research hypotheses while formulating the research questions. After that, I presented the objectives of the research and described the context of the problem and then explained the type of the research. I then described the participants, followed by the research instruments and finally, the way the data will be represented and interpreted.

Bibliography

Al-Badwawi, H. S.  Q. (2011). The Perceptions and Practices of First Year Students’

      Academic Writing at the Colleges of Applied Sciences in Oman. PhD diss., University

      of  Leeds.

Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglass, S. (1997). The role of examples and rules in the

        acquisition of a cognitive skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: learning Memory

        and  Cognition, 23 (4), 932-45.

Atkinson, D. (2003). L2 writing in the post-process era: Introduction. Journal of Second

       Language Writing, 12, 3-15.

Badger, R., & White, G. (2000).A process genre approach to teaching writing.ELT Journal,

       54 (2), 153-160. Oxford University Press.

Bartel, M. (2010).Working with children who scribble on walls. Retrieved June 6, 2013, from

       http://www.bartelart.com/arted/wallscribblers.html

Berninger, V., Fuller, F., & Whitaker, D. (1996). A process approach to writing development

       across the life span. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 193–218.

Blanchard, K,. & Root, C. (2010). Ready to Write: Perfecting paragraphs (4^th Ed.). Pearson

       Education, Inc.

Carstens, A.  (2011). Meaning-making in academic writing: A comparative analysis of pre-

      and post-intervention essays, Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa, 42  

      (1), 3-21

Caudery, T. (1995). What the “Process approach” Means to Practicing Teachers of Second

      Language Writing Skills. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language,   1 (4). Retrieved April 23, 2013 from http://tesl-ej.org/ej04/a3.html

DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied

       Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dudley-Evans, T. (2002). Genre models for the teaching of academic writing to second

       language speakers: Advantages and disadvantages. Retrieved April 21, 2013, from

       http://exchanges.state.gov/education/engteaching/pubs/BR/functionalsec4_11.htm

Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. J. (1998). Development in English for Specific Purposes: A

      Multi-disciplinary Approach. Cambridge: CUP.

Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2^nd Ed).Oxford University Press.

       USA.

Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, Illinois: National

       Council of Teachers of English.

Escholz, P. A. (1980). ‘The prose models approach: using products in the process’, in J. R.

Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1977). ‘Problem-solving strategies and writing process’,  

       College English, 39 (4), 449-461.

Fareh, Shehdeh. “Changes of teaching English in the Arab World: Why can’t EFL programs

      deliver as expected?” Procedia Social and Behavirol Sciences 2 (2010): 3600-3604.

      Retrieved March 10, 2013. dio:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.559.

Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981).A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College

       Composition and Writing, 32 (4), 365-387.

Flowerdew, J. (1993). ‘An educational or process Approach to the teaching of professional

       genres’. ELT Journal, 47 (4), 305-16.

Foo, T.C.V. (2007). The Effects of the Process genre approach to Writing Instruction on the

       Expository Essays of ESL Students in a Malaysian Secondary School. Unpublished

       doctoral thesis, University Sains, Malaysia. Retrieved 1^st May, 2013,

       fromeprints.usm.my/…/

       THE_EFFECTS_OF_THE_PROCESS_GENRE_APPROACH_TO_WRITING.pdf

Gass, S., &Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2^nd

         Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Geyser, H. (1996).A Process approach to Teaching Writing. Journal for Language Teaching,

        30 (3), 220–238.

Halliday, M. (1989).Spoken and Written Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching

       of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33 (1), 76-88.

Hofstee, E. (2006). Constructing a Good Dissertation: A Practical Guide to Finishing a

       Masters, MBA or PhD on Schedule. Johannesburg, South Africa: EPE.

Horowitz, D. (1986). Process, Not Product: Less Than Meets the Eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20  

       (1), 141-44.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A learning-

        centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, R. J. (2012). An experiment in the use of content and language integrated learning

       (CLIL) combined with process genre writing. Journal of Education and Practice, 3 (16),

       1- 8.

Kaunda, L., & Ball, D. (1998). An investigation of students’ prior experience with laboratory

      practical and report-writing. South African Journal of Higher Education, 12 (1), 130-

      139.

Kim, Y., & Kim, J. (2005). Teaching Korean University Writing Class: Balancing the

       Process and Genre Approach. Asian EFL Journal, 7(2), Article 5. Retrieved April 30,

       2013 from: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_05_yk&jk.php

Kim, M.S. (2007). Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Writing. Hawaii Pacific University.

       Retrieved April 30, 2013, from:

        http://web1.hpu.edu/images/GraduateStudies/TELS_WP5/07Kim_Genre_a17238.pdf

Krshen, S. D. (1988).  Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.

       Prentice- Hall International.

Lavelle, E., & Bushrow, K. (2007).Writing Approaches of Graduate Students. Educational

        Psychology, 27(6), 807-822.

Leki, I., & Carson, J. G. (1995). Students’ Perceptions of EAP Writing Instruction and

        Writing Needs across the Disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (1), 81-101.

Liebman-Kleine, J. (1986). Two Commentaries on Daniel M. Horowitz’s “Process, Not

        Product: Less Than Meets the Eye”: In Defense of Teaching Process in ESL

        Composition. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (4), 783-788.

Maimon, E. P. (1982). Writing across the curriculum: Past, present, and future. New

       Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1982: 67–73. doi: 10.1002/tl.37219821210

Martin. J. R. (1993). ‘A contextual theory of language’ in B. Cope and M. Kalantzis

       (Eds.).The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. London: Falmer

       Press.

Nordin, S.M., &Norhisham, M. (2006). The Best of Two Approaches: Process/Genre-

       Based Approach to Teaching Writing. The English Teacher, XXXV, 75-85. Retrieved

       April 25, 2013, from: http://www.melta.org.my/ET/2006/2006_6pdf

Nordin, S. M., Halib, M. & Ghazali, Z. (2010). The Dilemma of Second Language Writing

       Teachers in a Higher Learning Institution. Review of Higher Education and Self-

       Learning, 3 (6), 46-56.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Nunan, D., & Bailey, K.M. (2009). Exploring Second Language Classroom Research:  A

       Comprehensive Guide. Heinle. USA.

Ortega, L. (2007). Meaningful L2 practice in foreign language classrooms: A

       cognitive-interactionist SLA perspective. In M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a

       Second Language Perspectives from applied Linguistics and cognitive

       psychology (pp. 180-207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perl, S. (1980).Understanding Composing. College Composition and Communication, 31(4),

       363-369.

Pianko, S. (1979).A Description of the Composing Processes of College Freshmen Writers.

       Research in the Teaching of English, 13 (1), 5-22.

Plessis, K. D. (2012). Action Research on the implementation of Writing Approaches to

       improve Academic Writing Skills of Namibian Foundation Programme students. (Master

       dissertation, University of South Africa,  2012). Retrieved April 12, 2013, from

       http://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/44

Reid, J. (1984). The radical outliner and the radical brainstormer: A perspective on

      composing processes. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 1, pp. 529–533.

Riazi, A. M. (2003). Methodology & Material design in Language teaching: Current

       perceptions and  practices and their implications, Anthology series 44

       Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.

Richards, J., & Platt, H.  (1992). Longman Dictionary of Teaching and Applied Linguistics.

      Longman group UK limited.                   

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and

       technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 97-

       118). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Seliger, H., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford

       University Press.

Shih, M. (1986).Content-based Approaches to Teaching Academic Writing. TESOL

        Quarterly, 20 (4), 617-648.

Silva, T. (1990). Second Language Composition instruction: developments, issues and

       directions in ESL. In Kroll, B. (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for

       the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA:

       Harvard University Press.

Spack, R. (1988). Initiating ESL Students into the Academic Discourse Community: How Far

       Should We Go? TESOL Quarterly, 22 (1), 29-51.

SPSS 11.0 [Software]. (2010). Retrieved April 10, 2013, from www.spss.com. Available at

        www.spss.com

Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swanepoel, C.G.E. (1999). An approach to writing argumentative essays. Published master’s

       dissertation, Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, Potchefstroom,

       South Africa.

Tessema, K.A. (2005). Stimulating Writing through Project-Based Tasks. English Teaching

       Forum, 43 (4), 22-28.

Thaiss, C., & Zawacki, T. (2006). Engaged Writers, Dynamic Disciplines: Research on the

       Academic Writing Life. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann.

Urzua, C. (1987). “You Stopped Too Soon”: Second Language children Composing and

       Revising, TESOL Quarterly, 21 (2), 279-303.

Weideman, A. J. (2003). Accessing and Developing Academic Literacy. Per Linguam,

       19 (1+2), 55-65. www.legalwritingconference.google.com/ProductvsProcess3ppt

White, R. V. (1988). Academic Writing: Process and Product. Teaching English. Academic

       Writing: Process and Product ELT 14. Modern English Publications and the British

       Council.

Williams, J. (2002). “Undergraduate Second Language Writers in the Writing Center”.

       Journal of Basic Writing, 21, 1-34.

Williams, J. (2005). Teaching writing in second and foreign language classrooms. The

      McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Yan, G. (2005). A Process Genre Model for Teaching Writing. English Teaching Forum,

       43 (3). Retrieved April 24, 2013, from

       http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol43/no3/p18.htm

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The Process of Discovering Meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16 (2),

       195- 209.

Zamel, V. (1983). The Composing Processes of Advanced ESL Students: Six Case Studies.        TESOL Quarterly, 17 (2), 165-187.   Appendix 1: Participant consent form  BACKGROUND INFORMATION  Title and researchers.  The title of this research is Academic writing issues of foundation level students: A case study of Omani students.  My name is Sarath Withanarachchi Samaranayake from the University of South Africa, Department of Linguistics. Reason for the research.  I am studying for my doctoral degree in Linguistics and I am collecting data from participants to enable me to better understand how I can help foundation level students to improve their academic writing proficiency.   Details of participation.  The research involves pretest, treatment instrument (use process genre approach to deliver context-specific materials), mid-semester and semester-end examination scores to determine whether the process genre approach had an impact on the performance in the examination settings.  Please feel free to ask questions now if you have any.  CONSENT STATEMENT    1. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I may withdraw from the research     at any time, without giving any reason.     2. I am aware of what my participation will involve.    3. I understand that there are no risks involved in the participation of this study.    4. All questions that I have about the research have been satisfactorily answered.  I agree to participate.   Participant’s signature:  __________________________________________     Participant’s name (please print):  __________________________________   Tick this box if you would like to receive a summary of the results by e-mail: E-mail:  ______________________________  Date:  __________     (Source: http://www.le.ac.uk/pc/ethics/participantconsentform.doc)   Appendix 2: Assessment scale for writing. Assessment scale for writing-(Pretest and Mid-semester exam)   SCORE                 LEVEL                                                     CRITERIA                 Content 6 Excellent to very good: Excellent to very good knowledge of subject; variety of ideas or arguments; independent and thorough treatment of topic; relevant to assigned topic; accurate detail.   5 Good to average: Adequate knowledge of subject; variety of ideas/arguments above average; adequate treatment of topic; some detail, mostly relevant to topic.   4-3 Fair to poor: Knowledge of subject is hardly adequate; limited variety of ideas/arguments; sufficient treatment of topic; lacking detail or extraneous material included.   2-1 Very Poor: Knowledge of subject too little; hardly any or no variety of ideas/arguments; insufficient treatment of topic, or not enough to evaluate. Organization 4 Excellent to very good: Fluent expression; ideas clearly stated and supported; well-organized; logically sequenced (coherent) connectives/ signal words/transitions appropriately used.   3 Good to average: Somewhat irregular but main ideas are present; logically sequenced; connectives/ signal words/ transitions sometimes used inappropriately.   2 Fair to poor: Irregular; loosely organized; main ideas are not always clear; connectives/signal words/ transitions used inappropriately.   1 Very Poor: Non-fluent; ideas often confused or disconnected; lacks logical sequencing or development. Vocabulary 3 Excellent to very good: Wide range of vocabulary; accurate word/phrases choice; appropriate register.   2 Good to average: Adequate range of vocabulary; occasional errors of word form; meaning not obscured; register not always appropriate.   1-2 Fair to poor: Limited range of vocabulary; frequent errors of word form; meaning confused or obscured; inappropriate register.   1 Very Poor: Range of vocabulary too limited; meaning confused or obscured; or not enough to evaluate. Language use 4 Excellent to very good: Confident handling of appropriate construction; hardly any errors of agreement, tense, number, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions; meaning never obscured.   3 Good to average: Well-formed sentences, but constructions not always appropriate to task; some errors of agreement, tense, number, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions, meaning sometimes slightly obscured.   2 Fair to poor: Not sufficient variety of constructions available; problems mainly in complex constructions; several errors of negation, agreement, tense, number, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions; meaning sometimes obscured.   1 Very Poor: Major problems in sentence construction, frequent errors of negation, agreement, tense, number, word order, articles, pronouns, prepositions; meaning often obscured. Mechanics 3 Excellent to very good: Demonstrates mastery of conventions; hardly any errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization and paragraphing.   2 Good to average: Occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing but meaning not obscured.   1 Fair to poor: Frequent errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, poor handwriting, meaning confused or obscured. Adapted from Jacob, et at. (1981)