Upload
others
View
14
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNDERSTANDING REPEATERS IN AN ESL WRITING
COURSE: A CASE STUDY AMONG PRE-SESSIONAL
STUDENTS
BY
ROSNANI KASSIM
A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education
Kulliyyah of Education
International Islamic University Malaysia
JUNE 2016
ii
ABSTRACT
Learning how to write in a second language (ESL) is one of the most challenging
aspects of second language learning (Hyland, 2003). In ESL writing classes or
courses, we often observe students struggling to learn the writing skills. Some students
even fail the same writing course repeatedly. Why do these students fail? This study
sought to explore the experience of these students who were referred to as repeaters in
learning writing in a pre-sessional English course at the International Islamic
University Malaysia (IIUM). In doing so, the study intended to elicit the perceptions
of the repeaters in learning writing as well as to understand their difficulties, coping
mechanisms and needs in learning ESL writing. This is a case study involving 5
international undergraduate students studying in the English Level 6 course at a
language centre in IIUM. These students had failed the same writing course at least
twice. The main data collection technique was semi-structured interviews with the
repeaters and triangulated with the data from the students’ diary entries and also
information gathered from semi-structured interviews with their writing instructors.
The data were transcribed, analysed and the emerging themes were categorised and
discussed. The findings revealed that the repeaters generally had negative perceptions
and unpleasant experience towards learning writing. Their problems, coping
mechanisms and needs were also highlighted. These finding led to the
conceptualization of a model on the main Dimensions in Learning ESL Writing for
Repeaters which can be a valuable guide to understanding the repeaters in order to
provide more conducive and successful learning and teaching environment for them to
learn writing. This study has crucial implications for writing instructors and
curriculum developer to create more effective and successful writing courses
especially for repeaters. Moreover, it would also provide input for the IIUM policy
makers especially in reviewing existing policies or formulating new policies so that
the predicament of the repeaters are addressed.
iii
البحث ملخصABSTRACT IN ARABIC
كثيراما(.2003انية)هايلاند،غةالث مالل تعل تحد يات(منأصعبESLتابةبلغةثانية)مالكتعل اتممهارتعل الط لبةيكافحونمنأجل-انيةغةالث فيفصولأومساقاتالكتابةبالل -نلاحظإلىماالأسبابالتيأد تبهم.مر اتعديدةنفسهفيمساقالكتابةهمبعضبليرسبالكتابة.
ال ذينيطلق–بةلالط هؤلاءراسةإلىاستكشافتجربةسعتهذهالد قدف؟هذاالر سوبالمتكر رمساقاللغةالإنجليزيةماتحتمالكتابةفيتعل -فيهذهالد راسةاسبينالمعيدينالر عليهممصطلح
الكل الإسلامي قبل بالجامعة العالمي ية ة بماليزيا. هذا،ة من الد هانطلاقا استثارةدفت إلى راسةكماأنهاهدفتإلىفهمصعوباتهاسبينالمعيدينفيتعل راتالر تصو إضافةإلىفهمممالكتابة،
الةالحراسةهيدراسةانية.هذهالد غةالث مالكتابةبالل فيتعل الاحتياجاتعندهموآلياتالت لاؤمطلا خمسة فيها ال يشترك الأجانب البكالوريوس الل ب مساق درسوا الإنجليزي ذين للمستوىغة ة
الل الس الإسلامي ادسفيمركز العالمي غاتبالجامعة ة بماليزيا. الط وقدرسبة هذالابفيهؤلاءلجمعالبياناتهيالمقابلاتشبهالمستخدمةئيسةالر الط ريقةكانتوتين.مر -علىالأقل-ساقالم
الر المنظ مع مة واسبين يومياتهم، بيانات مع وتثليثها المعيدين ت مع التي منالمعلومات جمعهاالمنظ المقابلاتشبه معمدرسيالكتابة. امة أنه كما تلكالبياناتوحل لتها وقددو نتالباحثة
وناقشتها.وأظهرت الن اشئة تصو لر لتائجأن الن صن فتالأفكار ةراتسلبي اسبينالمعيدينعموماالت لاؤمآلياتفضلاعنعوائق،كذلكمابهممنراسةالد برزتمالكتابة.وأنحوتعل مؤلمةبراتوخكلغةئيسةفيتعل لأبعادالر لتائجإلىتوليدنموذجهذهالن وقادتحتياجات.الاو ماللغةالإنجليزية
منأجلتهيئةبيئةاسبينالمعيدينذييمكنأنيكوندليلاقي مالفهمالر ال ،لابالمعيدينثانيةللط رميالكتابةومطو راسةلهاآثارحاسمةعلىمعل مالكتابة.هذهالد لتعل لهمالملاءمةالت عليموالت علم
الد راسيةالمناهج الملإنشاء فعاليةأكثر خاص ونجاحساقات للط ا علىة وعلاوة المعيدين. لابةبماليزياةالعالمي ياساتفيالجامعةالإسلامي لاتلصانعيالس راسةأيضامدخرهذهالد ذلك،توف
الس مراجعة في الس خصوصا وصياغة الموجودة يتم ياسات بحيث الجديدة ياسات صعوبةذكرIN ARABI لابالراسبينالط
iv
APPROVAL PAGE
The dissertation of Rosnani Kassim has been approved by the following:
___________________________________
Ismail Sheikh Ahmad
Supervisor
___________________________________
Ainol Madziah Zubairi
Co-Supervisor
___________________________________
Zainurin Abd Rahman
Co-Supervisor
___________________________________
Ratnawati Mohd Ashraf
Internal Examiner
___________________________________
Imran Ho Bin Abdullah @ Ho Yee Beng
External Examiner
___________________________________
Radwan Jamal Yousef Elatrash
Chairman
v
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own investigation, except
where otherwise stated. I also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently
submitted as a whole for any other degrees at IIUM or other institutions.
Rosnani Kassim
Signature…………………....………. Date …….……………….
vi
COPYRIGHT
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA
DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT AND AFFIRMATION OF
FAIR USE OF UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH
UNDERSTANDING REPEATERS IN AN ESL WRITING
COURSE: A CASE STUDY AMONG PRE-SESSIONAL
STUDENTS
I declare that the copyright holder of this dissertation are jointly owned by the
student and IIUM.
Copyright © 2016 Rosnani Kassim and International Islamic University Malaysia. All rights reserved.
No part of this unpublished research may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the copyright holder
except as provided below
1. Any material contained in or derived from this unpublished research may
be used by others in their writing with due acknowledgement.
2. IIUM or its library will have the right to make and transmit copies (print
or electronic) for institutional and academic purposes.
3. The IIUM library will have the right to make, store in a retrieved system
and supply copies of this unpublished research if requested by other
universities and research libraries.
By signing this form, I acknowledged that I have read and understand the IIUM
Intellectual Property Right and Commercialization policy.
Affirmed by Rosnani Kassim
……..…………………….. ………………………..
Signature Date
vii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my beloved husband, parents, children, Angah and
my other siblings
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, it is my utmost pleasure to dedicate this work to my dear family, who granted
me the gift of their unwavering belief in my ability to accomplish this goal: thank you
for your love, support and patience.
I wish to express my appreciation and thanks to those who provided their time,
effort and support for this project. To the members of my dissertation committee,
thank you for guiding me.
Finally, a special thanks to Associate Professor Dr Ismail Sheikh Ahmad for
his continuous support, encouragement and trust, and for that, I will be forever
grateful.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ ii Abstract in Arabic ........................................................................................................ iii Approval Page .............................................................................................................. iv
Declaration ................................................................................................................... v Copyright ..................................................................................................................... vi Dedication .................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ............................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Background of the Study ............................................................................ 2
1.2.1 A Brief Overview of Research in ESL/EFL Writing ........................ 2 1.2.2 ESL writing at university .................................................................. 5
1.2.3 The current study .............................................................................. 10 1.3 Statement of the Problem............................................................................ 13
1.4 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................... 15 1.5 Central Research Questions and Sub-Questions......................................... 16 1.6 Significance of the Study ............................................................................ 17
1.7 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................... 19 1.8 Delimitations of the Study .......................................................................... 21
1.9 Definitions of Terms ................................................................................... 21 1.10 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................... 222
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 24 2.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 24 2.2 Second Language Learning Theories ......................................................... 24
2.2.1 Socio-educational model of second language acquisition ................ 24 2.2.2 The affective filter hypothesis........................................................... 26 2.2.3 Main components of second language acquisition ........................... 26
2.2.4 Vygotsky’s learning theory ............................................................... 27 2.3 Theories of Second Language Writing ....................................................... 27
2.3.1 Flower and Hayes writing model (1980) .......................................... 28 2.3.2 Knowledge telling model and knowledge transforming model
by Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) ................................................. 29 2.3.3 Hayes writing model (1996) ............................................................. 32
2.4 Related Studies on Foreign Language/ Second Language Writing ............ 34 2.4.1 Perceptions and attitudes towards learning writing .......................... 34 2.4.2 Problems in learning writing ............................................................. 38
2.5 Related Studies on Unsuccessful Learners ................................................. 42 2.5.1 Unsuccessful learners’ attitudes towards writing.............................. 43 2.5.2 Unsuccessful learners’ strategies in writing ...................................... 44 2.5.3 Unsuccessful learners’ difficulties in learning writing ..................... 51
2.6 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................... 54
x
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 56 3.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 56 3.2 Rationale for Qualitative Research Design................................................. 56
3.3 Case Study .................................................................................................. 60 3.4 The Setting .................................................................................................. 61 3.5 Procedures for Selecting Informants for the Study..................................... 63
3.5.1 Students ............................................................................................. 63 3.5.2 Writing instructors ............................................................................ 64
3.5.3 The procedure for selecting student informants ................................ 65 3.5.4 The procedure for selecting writing instructors as informants ......... 67
3.6 Data Collection Techniques ........................................................................ 68 3.6.1 Data triangulation .............................................................................. 68
3.6.1.1 Semi-structured interview..................................................... 69
3.6.1.2 Diary ..................................................................................... 72
3.7 Research Procedures ................................................................................... 75
3.7.1 Piloting the Interview ........................................................................ 75 3.7.1.1 Students ................................................................................ 75 3.7.1.2 Writing instructors ................................................................ 77
3.7.2 Conducting the actual interviews (students and writing
instructors) ........................................................................................ 77 3.8 Data Analysis Framework .......................................................................... 79
3.8.1 Step 1: Managing Data ...................................................................... 81 3.8.2 Step 2: Reading and memoing .......................................................... 82 3.8.3 Step 3: Initial coding ......................................................................... 82
3.8.4 Step 4: Identifying main ideas .......................................................... 83 3.8.5 Step 5: Developing sub-themes......................................................... 84
3.8.6 Step 6: Generating themes ................................................................ 85
3.9 Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................. 85
3.10 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................... 88
CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................... 89 4.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 89
4.2 The Experience of the Repeaters in Learning ESL Writing in a Pre-
Sessional English Language Course in IIUM. ........................................... 90 4.2.1 Experience at school vs. experience at university ............................. 91 4.2.2 Students’ general perceptions about writing ..................................... 99 4.2.3 The effects of failing on the repeaters. .............................................. 102
4.2.4 The repeaters’ feelings about learning writing ................................. 107 4.2.5 Discussion on students’ perceptions towards learning writing ......... 112 4.2.6 The repeaters’ problems in learning writing ..................................... 119
4.2.7 Discussion on problems .................................................................... 141 4.3 How Do the Repeaters in a Pre-Sessional English Language Course
in IIUM Cope with the Challenges they Face in Learning ESL
Writing? ...................................................................................................... 151
4.3.1 Discussion on coping mechanisms ................................................... 154 4.3.2 Discussion on the repeaters’ needs ................................................... 163
4.4 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................... 168
xi
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................... 169 5.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 169 5.2 Summary of the Study ................................................................................ 169
5.3 Summary of the Major Findings ................................................................. 172 5.3.1 Perceptions towards learning writing ................................................ 173 5.3.2 Problems in learning ESL writing ..................................................... 174 5.3.3 Coping strategies ............................................................................... 178 5.3.4 Needs ................................................................................................. 178
5.4 Contributions of the Research .................................................................... 180 5.5 Pedagogical Implications ............................................................................ 184 5.6 Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................... 188 5.7 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................... 189
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 190
APPENDIX I: TASK 2 WRITING BAND DESCRIPTORS FOR EPT ......... 202 APPENDIX II: LETTER SEEKING PERMISSION TO CONDUCT
RESEARCH ................................................................................. 206
APPENDIX III: CONSENT FORM (STUDENT) ................................................ 207 APPENDIX IV: CONSENT FORM ...................................................................... 208 APPENDIX V: AUDIT TRAIL ............................................................................ 209
APPENDIX VI: INTERVIEW GUIDE (STUDENT) .......................................... 214 APPENDIX VII: SAMPLES OF DIARY ENTRIES AND
INSTRUCTIONS ....................................................................... 217 APPENDIX VIII: INTERVIEW 1: MAS ................................................................ 234 APPENDIX IX: CODING TEMPLATE ............................................................... 304
APPENDIX X: PRESENTATION OF THEMES AND SUB-THEMES .......... 329
APPENDIX XI: GENERATING THEMES ......................................................... 341 APPENDIX XII: INTER-RATER RELIABILITY FORM (SAMPLE) ............. 351
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Pre-sessional courses offered in regular semesters 11
Table 3.1 Colour-coding of main interview questions 83
Table 4.1 Students’ experience at school 91
Table 4.2 Students’ experience at university 91
Table 4.3 Perceptions towards writing 99
Table 4.4 Themes and sub-themes that emerged from students’ and writing
instructors’ semi-structured interview 119
Table 4.5 Coping mechanisms 151
Table 4.6 Repeaters’ needs 157
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Assessment criteria for Level 6 12
Figure 1.2 Theoretical framework 19
Figure 2.1 Gardner’s (1985) Schematic representation of the socio-
educational model of second language acquisition (Gardner &
MacIntyre, 1993, p. 212). 25
Figure 2.2 The Flower and Hayes writing model (1980) 28
Figure 2.3 Knowledge-telling model (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987) 30
Figure 2.4 Knowledge-transforming model (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987) 31
Figure 2.5 Hayes (1996) Model 32
Figure 3.1 Qualitative analysis as an iterative spiral by Dey (1993, p. 53). 79
Figure 3.2 The data analysis spiral by Creswell (2007, p.151). 80
Figure 3.3 Framework for data analysis 81
Figure 3.4 A model of the main dimensions in learning ESL writing for
repeaters (The DEAR Model) 181
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Writing is undeniably one of the most challenging language skills not just for learners
of English as a second language but also for learners whose first language is English
(Hyland, 2003). The field of writing has received a lot of attention and as a result
there has been a proliferation in the number of studies on writing and the processes of
learning writing in recent years. Nevertheless, learners’ introspective points of view
on their learning experience, particularly in learning writing remain underexplored.
Furthermore, among the handful of studies which focused on learners’ perspective,
those that investigate unsuccessful second language learners (particularly those who
have failed repeatedly) are still scarce. Hence, the present study is an attempt to
explore repeaters’ views and experience in learning writing as a subject and it
specifically investigates these repeaters’ perceptions towards learning writing, their
problems and needs in a pre-sessional writing course.
The aim of this introductory chapter is to establish the contextual background
for the present study. The chapter begins with a brief review of research on English as
a second/foreign language ESL/EFL writing followed by a discussion on the
significance of writing in higher education context with special emphasis on the
problems in learning writing faced by learners. It is most apt to review the existing
literature and discuss the challenges experienced by language learners in writing
courses in order to frame the current study. It will also describe the English language
courses at a language centre at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM),
with the aim to elucidate the problem that is being studied. It then moves on to the
2
statement of the problem, purpose and research questions for this study. The chapter
ends with the discussion on the significance and the delimitations of the study and the
operational definitions of the terms used.
1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
As mentioned in the introductory section, the discussion in this section will provide
the relevant contexts that will frame the current study.
1.2.1 A Brief Overview of Research in ESL/EFL Writing
Studies on ESL writing have been growing over the years and insights from these
studies have been instrumental in helping language researchers and practitioners to
understand the issues in ESL teaching and learning (Matsuda, 1999; Matsuda,
Saenkhum & Accardi, 2013). The research on composition studies dates back to 1900
(Haynes, 1978 as cited in Krapels 1990) but research focusing on ESL writing did not
appear until the middle of the twentieth century. At the onset, the early composition
research in L1 was mainly on the pedagogical aspect and on students’ written texts
(products).
Text oriented research on writing emerged as a result of the ideas of Noam
Chomsky, a proponent of Transformational Grammar (Hyland, 2002). It is based on a
paradigm that views writing as a fixed activity/process where a written text is deemed
as good if it follows a pre-determined organizational structure and certain linguistic
structures. In other words, writing is an extension of grammar and good grammar
represents good writing. The focus of this approach is the product of writing and
written texts are analysed independently without considering the context or the writer.
3
Various research have been conducted based on this paradigm and a common
research focus is on the influence of L1 discourse strategies and rhetorical patterns on
the written narratives of ESL/EFL learners (Kang, 2005; Uysal, 2008). The results
yielded from both studies show that L1 discourse strategies do have an impact on L2
learners’ writing. In Kang’s study for instance, he has found that “Korean linguistic
strategies were evident in the Korean English learners’ English narrative discourse
rather than the preferred discourse style of the target language (English)” (2005, p. 1).
The linguistic strategies mentioned by Kang were the use of demonstrative referents
and repetitions. Hence, the writing produced by the learners often did not follow the
English linguistic rules that led to grammatical and semantic errors. Meanwhile,
Ghabool, Mariadass and Kasheff (2012) studied ESL learners’ essays to elicit the
problems they faced in their writing. They reported that the types of errors committed
by the students were punctuations, language use and other writing conventions.
Another study conducted by McCarthey, Guo & Cummins (2005) produced similar
result. They also found that the students they were studying committed language use
and punctuation errors. Another strand of research examines the effects of revisions
on students’ written products. For example, Min (2006) and Berg (1999) examined the
written work of college students to find out the impact of peer review on the students’
revision while Paulus (1999) conducted a similar research but extended it to peer and
teacher revision. All the studies show that peer or teacher revision impacted the
students’ writing quality positively. However, in Paulus’s study, the researcher
observed that the revisions made by the students after peer review were mainly
surface level while the teacher’s feedback resulted in meaning level changes in the
students’ subsequent drafts.
4
Nonetheless, the text oriented research is not free from criticism. Critics
claimed that this paradigm is an island by itself in the sense that writing is isolated
from its contexts (Hyland, 2003). Scrutinizing students’ written texts alone is argued
as a superficial way of looking at writing and the complexity of writing as a whole.
Subsequently, a new wave of research emerged and based on the theory that views
writing as a process, research on composition has begun to explore the process of
writing and students’ writing behavior. The first major work that explored the writing
process in L1 was Emig’s work in 1971 (Krapels, 1990). Similarly, research on
writing in ESL and EFL also experienced the same paradigm shift due to the
development of the composition research on writing in L1. In the ESL context, early
works investigating the process of writing were carried out by Zamel (1983) and
Raimes (1985).
Zamel (1987) has argued that it is important to study the writing process since
it sheds some light on what the students do as they write as well as the variables that
affect students in learning, for instance the teachers, learners’ strategies and
instructions. To illustrate, there are quite a number of research carried out to
investigate the revision strategies of ESL students in composing such as the ones
conducted by Sze (2002), Wong (2012), Zamel (1982), Zamel (1983), Hall (1990) and
Lai (1986). The study carried out by Sze (2002) and Wong (2012) reported that the
students they studied did not see revision as important in their writing process and
Wong’s study revealed that those who revised did their revision at different points of
their writing process. Zamel’s (1982) findings further indicated that students mostly
revised the content of their essay as they write as compared to revisions on grammar
and writing conventions which were done at the end of their writing process. In
addition, researchers also have examined the composing process and behavior of ESL
5
writers such as in the research done by Lay (1982), Raimes (1987), Albrechtsen
(1997), Victori (1999), Bosher (1998) and Ferenz (2005).
Research on the process of writing has managed to unearth several dimensions
that influence the learning of writing among learners. To illustrate, Reid (1993) has
concluded that between native and non-native learners, non-native learners differ
significantly from native students in terms of their needs, backgrounds, learning styles
and writing strategies. She further emphasised that even among ESL learners they
vary greatly according to several factors such as language ability, culture, gender, age
and prior education. Consequently, writing instructors need to be sensitive to this.
1.2.2 ESL Writing at University
For learners studying at universities where English is the medium of instruction and
communication, a good command of listening, speaking, reading and writing skills in
English is vital. Among these language skills, writing seems to be the most significant
skill. Hence, it is not uncommon for most universities including those in the United
States that make it mandatory for newly registered or first year students to take and
pass a composition course (Coffin et al., 2003).
The role of writing in higher education has been underscored by the extensive
discussion on the topic in the literature. Leki and Carson (1994) and Lee (1987) for
instance, mentioned that university students cannot be separated from written
assignments and as such their writing ability plays a significant role in determining
their success in their academic pursuit. In the same vein, Coffin et al. (2003)
highlighted three major purposes for writing in higher education: assessment, learning
and writing for academic purposes. In terms of assessment, writing has been a
popular assessment mode at university. Although assessments take a variety of forms
6
at the tertiary level, a considerable number of the evaluation method relies on learners’
writing ability. By way of example, quizzes are answered in the written mode,
projects carried out by students are often accompanied by a written report, take home
assignments usually are in the form of essays of different length or word limit, final
examinations are mostly written examinations and a project paper or a thesis is often a
part of graduation requirement (Yah Awang Nik, Badariah Sani, Muhmad Noor Wan
Chik, Kamaruzaman Jusoff & Hasif Rafidee Hasbollah, 2010).
Meanwhile, as for learning, writing is needed for learners to reflect on their
learning and respond critically to the knowledge they acquire through activities like
summarizing or synthesizing important ideas. Finally, learners are expected to
function well in their chosen disciplines at university, so they are required to display
their disciplinary knowledge through writing reports, research papers and short texts.
In other words, writing skills are crucial for learners to become good academic writers
(Spack, 1988) because having a good ability in writing enables a learner to
communicate ideas and messages effectively and accurately (Yah Awang Nik et al.,
2010; Reichlt, 2005). In addition, being successful in a writing course for many
university students determines whether they can proceed in their study and writing
aids them in the process of discovery and personal expression (Khoii, 2011). This
view is further supported by Tan, Emerson and White (2006) who expounded that for
learners to succeed in university, it is imperative that they master the writing skills.
However, they also asserted that many university students are still lacking in their
writing skills and that could be the reason for their failure in their academic pursuit
and career prospect.
It is important to note that undergoing a writing course at university is not only
essential for learners in their academic endeavor but it also prepares them for their
7
future undertakings. Thus, while in academia, writing is needed for researching and
sharing new knowledge, at occupational level, good writing is required for
communication and business dealings (Reichlt, 2005; Spence & Liu, 2013; Isarji
Sarudin, Ainol Madziah, Mohamad Sahari & Tunku Badariah, 2011; Mohamed
Ismail, Yusof Ismail, Zaleha Esa & Ainon Jariah, 2013). Nevertheless, as stressed by
Silva (2001), despite the huge role writing plays, the lack of writing skills among ESL
learners at university and their struggle in writing courses have been a long and
enduring issue. This predicament can be accorded to the common claim that among
the four language skills, writing has been regarded as the most difficult language skills
(MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989; Nor Shidrah Md. Daud, Nuraihan Md. Daud & Noor
LideAbu Kassim, 2005; Abu Shawish & Atea, 2010; Evans & Morrison, 2011).
Gunning (1998) and Emmons (2003) also added that many ESL learners view writing
as more difficult and complicated than speaking. To further emphasize this condition,
Yah Awang Nik et al. (2010, p. 9) reiterated that “…it is a skill that is difficult to
master. It is believed that writing demands a great deal of skills and conventions such
as writing readiness and grammatical rules for the students to become proficient and
effective writers.”
Indeed, learning writing in a writing class is an arduous task for ESL/EFL
learners everywhere even at university. Their main challenge seems to be their
general level of proficiency and this is further aggravated by cultural and linguistic
difficulties (Ghabool, Mariadass& Kashef, 2012). Learners’ language ability is of
essence and so is their readiness to embrace a new learning culture and environment
that might be different from the ones that they are used to when they were in schools.
This is further supported by Reid (1993) who asserted that when a learner learns a
new language, he is already saddled with his own previous experience and knowledge.
8
The disparities between their previous experience and knowledge with their
new learning experience might lead to several complications in the learners’ quest to
adjust to their new learning context. One such challenge is for the learners to cope
with the demand of independence in learning. In schools, it is common that lessons
are teacher centered and teachers are the main provider of input and information. At
the university, on the other hand, learners are expected to have certain level of
knowledge and skills fit for an undergraduate. These knowledge and skills include
study skills and the capability to rely on themselves as active information seekers and
learners. Anderson, Isensee, Martin, Godfrey, and O’Brien (2012) explored the
general problems faced by some undergraduates and reported that they struggled with
the English language and often did not get the attention from their lecturers and
instructors that they often received from their teachers in schools. The different
teaching approaches and modes of assessment were also reported as a source of
difficulty for the students.
The next challenge is, the tasks they are expected to complete at university
vary substantially from school. In universities, learners are expected to produce
essays, whereas, in school they are mostly asked to write sentences, write guided
paragraphs or shorter essays than the essays that they have to compose at university.
Another challenge is learners need to adapt to having classmates from different
countries with differing background which can be tough for new students at
university. This is supported by Crème and Lea (1997) who mentioned that, each
student brings with him/her their own learning culture, beliefs, learning styles,
background and identity which could be a hindrance for them to achieve success in
their learning to write. Likewise, Chan and Ain Nadzimah Abdullah (2004, pp. 3-4)
also shared similar point of view when they wrote, “in the ESL classroom, learners
9
encounter a new language system in which they have to learn a whole new set of
beliefs and practices. The learning may be accompanied by the frustration of having
to meet new and unfamiliar demands.”
Some evidence of the difficulties faced by learners in an English writing course
are revealed in a study conducted among undergraduates at Al-Azhar University,
Egypt. Among their difficulties were vocabulary, grammar and punctuations. The
participants were also reported to be anxious when asked to write on certain topics and
had problems to begin writing and once they began writing, they had problems with
development of ideas and coherence (Salem, 2007 in Huwari & Al-Khasawneh,
2013). Similar problems are highlighted by Huwari and Al-Khasawneh (2013) in their
own study on pre-university students writing in English when they reported that the
participants also had problems with content and grammar. The students rendered these
problems to lack of writing practice and the fact that they were not exposed to writing
at school level. This is also confirmed by the outcome of a research conducted by
Petric (2002) which found that students at university often complained of trouble with
language, the types of writing they were required to produce, the teaching approaches
and the topics assigned to them.
Similarly, it is interesting to note that even native speakers of English struggle
in learning writing due to social and cognitive factors (Raimes, 1987) and for second
language learners, social and affective factors are indeed instrumental in the
development of their writing since they have to learn a new language in many
different contexts (Silva, 2001). In addition, according to Sabariah Md. Rashid and
Melor Md. Yunus (2003), on top of the linguistic problem commonly faced by second
language learners, they also struggle with the development of content of their writing.
They further added that even though the students are able to come up with ideas, most
10
of the time their ideas are not well supported and well developed. Hence, it cannot be
denied that although linguistic aspect plays a crucial role in learning a second
language, many ESL experts agree that it is not the only problems inhibiting second
language learners’ learning (Matsuda, 1999).
1.2.3 The Current Study
The study was conducted at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). At
the IIUM, English is the medium of instruction and communication. As such, each
kulliyyah or faculty has determined its own minimum language requirement for the
students to obtain before they are allowed to embark on their courses in the
kulliyyah/faculty. Generally, students are required to achieve an average band 6.0 in
the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), 550 in the Test of
English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or band 6.0 in its own English Placement
Test (EPT). Should the students fail to attain the required band, they would have to
undergo the pre-sessional English Language courses for a minimum of one semester
or a maximum of two years. These pre-sessional courses are conducted by the Centre
for Languages.
The English Language proficiency courses offered by the language centre are
divided into six levels. The levels are illustrated in the following table:
11
Table 1.1 Pre-sessional courses offered in regular semesters
LEVEL HOURS PER WEEK DURATION OF
INSTRUCTION
1 Level 1 (Zero English/ true
beginner)
20 1 semester (14 weeks)
2 Level 2 (Beginner) 20 1 semester (14 weeks)
3 Level 3 (Very low
intermediate)
20 1 semester (14 weeks)
4 Level 4 (Low intermediate) 20 1 semester (14 weeks)
5 Level 5 (Intermediate) 20 1 semester (14 weeks)
6 Level 6 (High intermediate) 20 1 semester (14 weeks)
As illustrated, level 1 (zero English) is for students who have no knowledge of
English at all upon registering at the university. In the EPT, these students are those
who scored Band “0” according to the EPT writing band descriptor (Appendix I)
which is equivalent to not attempting to answer the question at all or writing a totally
memorized answer which are related to the question. Meanwhile, students placed at
level 2 or the beginner’s level are those who scored Band “1” in the EPT. Students
who are placed at this level may know some words in English but have no ability to
string sentences. The other four consecutive levels are for very low intermediate, low
intermediate, high intermediate and intermediate. The detailed descriptions of the
writing skills that should be possessed by the students in these levels are elaborated in
the EPT band descriptors (Appendix I). The task based language teaching (TBLT) is
being practiced in these pre-sessional courses and the instructors will teach according
to themes. Different themes are dealt with on a weekly basis and the instructors
teaching the writing, reading and speaking components will teach using the same