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.
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
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 (4th
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
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 (2nd 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 1st 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 (2nd
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,
Kim, M.S. (2007). Genre-Based Approach to
Teaching Writing. Hawaii Pacific University.
Retrieved April 30, 2013, from:
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
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
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): __________________________________
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
Adapted from Jacob, et at. (1981)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment