LANGUAGE INSTITUTE THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY...
Transcript of LANGUAGE INSTITUTE THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY...
INTERFACE BETWEEN WRITING APPROACHES AND
ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT: AN ACTION
RESEARCH IN EFL ACADEMIC CONTEXT
BY
MR. VORAKORN TUVACHIT
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
(INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM)
LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2017
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
INTERFACE BETWEEN WRITING APPROACHES AND
ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT: AN ACTION
RESEARCH IN EFL ACADEMIC CONTEXT
BY
MR. VORAKORN TUVACHIT
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
(INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM)
LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2017
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSIY
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
DISSERTATION
BY
MR. VORAKORN TUVACHIT
ENTITLED
INTERFACE BETWEEN WRITING APPROACHES AND ALTERNATIVE
ASSESSMENT: AN ACTION RESEARCH IN EFL ACADEMIC CONTEXT
was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English Language Teaching
on June 14, 2018
Chairman
(Assoc. Prof. Supong Tangkiengsirisin, Ph.D.)
Member and Advisor
(Asst. Prof. Kittitouch Soontornwipast, Ed.D.)
Member
Member
Member
(Asst. Prof. Saksit Saengboon, Ph.D.)
(Asst. Prof. Saneh Thongrin, Ph.D.)
(Ajarn Chanika Gampper, Ph.D.)
Director
(Assoc. Prof. Supong Tangkiengsirisin, Ph.D)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(1)
Dissertation Title INTERFACE BETWEEN WRITING
APPROACHES AND ALTERNATIVE
ASSESSMENT: AN ACTION RESEARCH
IN EFL ACADEMIC CONTEXT
Author Mr. Vorakorn Tuvachit
Degree Doctor of Philosophy in English Langauge
Teaching (International Program)
Major Field/Faculty/University English Language Teaching
Language Institute
Thammasat University
Dissertation Advisor Asst. Prof. Kittitouch Soontornwipast, Ed.D.
Academic Years 2017
ABSTRACT
This action research was initiated from the observation and reflection of the
researcher as an English academic writing instructor in the tertiary education. It was
noticed that a large number of students had difficulties improving their academic
writing ability to meet the objectives of the course. The preliminary investigation
revealed that the problem was caused by the dependence on a single approach of
instruction, the product approach. Besides, the method of assessment was solely the
summative assessment. Synthesizing the strengths of different approaches of writing
instructions: the product approach, process approach, genre approach and process-
genre approach, the intervention was designed to tackle the problems. In addition,
owing to their potentials in promoting learning, alternative forms of assessment were
integrated in the pedagogy. The objective of this mixed-methods study, under action
research framework, was to find whether the adapted approaches of writing
instructions and alternative assessment could improve the students’ academic writing
ability. Through the steps of plan, act, observe, and reflect of action research, data on
benefits and shortcomings of different aspects of the intervention were analyzed and
used in reshaping the instructions. Results from the statistical analysis of the pre-test
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(2)
and post-test scores showed a significant improvement in the students’ academic
writing ability. In addition, the findings from multiple qualitative sources showed that
the students developed positive opinion towards this pedagogical approach, finding it
helpful in developing their academic writing ability. Finally, informed by the data, a
model of academic writing instructions is proposed.
Keywords: academic writing, action research, alternative assessment, EFL writing,
writing instructions
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(3)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Upon the completion of my dissertation, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude
to my advisor, Asst. Prof. Dr. Kittitouch Soontornwipast, for his continuous supports,
patience, encouragement, and valuable advice to me throughout the process of
conducting this study. During the time of working closely under his supervision, Dr.
Kittitouch has instilled the virtue of hard work, devotion, and perseverance to me, for
which I feel deeply graceful. I consider being his advisee a privilege. Dr. Kittitouch
did not only provide immense knowledge and guidance to me in becoming a
researcher but he also displayed the picture of the great teacher I aspire to become.
I would also like to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Supong Tangkiangsirisin, the Director of
the Language Institute, Thammasat University, for his constant academic support and
motivation. My thankfulness also goes to the esteemed dissertation committee
members for the advice given to me to improve my study. My further thanks go to all
the experts for the time and effort in kindly reviewing my research instruments and
marking the tests.
My sincere appreciation goes to Asst. Prof. Dr. Linchong Chorrojprasert, Dean, and
Dr. Raman Shashi Kumar, Associate Dean, Institute for English Language Education,
Assumption University for their unfailing support in my pursuit of academic
advancement.
A special thank is given to Ajarn Savika Varaporn, Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart
University, a fellow Ph.D. student, for tremendous academic and moral supports.
Lastly, I would like to thank my parents and everyone in my family for their kind
supports and understanding. I hope my academic success makes all of you proud.
Mr. Vorakorn Tuvachit
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(4)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT (1)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (3)
LIST OF TABLES (11)
LIST OF FIGURES (13)
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Backgroud of the study 2
1.2 An overview of English proficiency 6
1.3 The importance of writing 8
1.4 Teaching of the English writing skill 10
1.4.1 Practices in teaching writing 10
1.4.2 Factors for success and failure in writing 11
1.5 Rationale 12
1.5.1 Research on the teaching of English language writing 13
in Thailand
1.6 Preliminary investigation 16
1.6.1 Investigation and analysis of students’ texts 17
1.6.2 The pass/fail ratio of students taking the course 18
1.6.3 Teacher interview 19
1.6.4 Students’ response to open-response questionnaire 30
1.7 Action research in writing class 39
1.8 The use of action research in this study 42
1.9 Research objective 42
1.10 Research questions 42
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(5)
1.11 Significance of the study 43
1.12 Organization of this dissertation 44
1.13 Operational definitions of key terms 44
1.14 Conclusion 46
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 47
2.1 The shift in teaching paradigm 47
2.2 English for Academic Purposes (EAP) 48
2.3 Academic writing 49
2.4 Approaches in writing instructions 50
2.4.1 Product approach 51
2.4.2 Process approach 52
2.4.3 Genre approach 55
2.4.4 Process-genre approach 56
2.5 The relationship between reading and writing 58
2.6 Assessment 59
2.6.1 The relationship between learning and assessment 59
2.6.2 Summative assessment 60
2.6.3 Formative assessment 61
2.7 Assessment of writing 64
2.8 Alternative assessment methods 65
2.8.1 Portfolio 65
2.8.2 Writing portfolio 67
2.8.3 Feedback 69
2.8.4 Peer assessment 75
2.8.5 Journal 81
2.9 Conclusion 84
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(6)
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 85
3.1 Context of the study 85
3.2 The participants in this study 88
3.3 The action planned for this study based on the preliminary 89
investigation
3.4 Research design 99
3.4.1 Action research 99
3.4.2 Action research cycle 100
3.4.3 Action research model for this study 102
3.5 The writing instructional model in this study 108
3.5.1 Steps in the model of writing instructions 110
in this study 3.6 Alternative methods of assessment integrated in this study 116
3.7 Data collection 119
3.7.1 Qualitative data collection 120
3.7.2 Quantitative data collecton 122
3.8 Data Analysis 125
3.8.1 Qualitative data analysis 125
3.8.2 Quantitative data analysis 126
3.9 Ethical considerations 131
3.10 Reliability and validity issues 132
3.11 Conclusion 133
CHAPTER 4 IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION RESEARCH CYCLES 134
AND REFLECTION
4.1 Pre-intervention classes 134
4.2 Genre 1: Writing in response to a reading passage 135
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(7)
and opinion writing
4.2.1 Action research cycle 1 135
4.2.2 Action research cycle 2 143
4.3 Genre 2: Data interpretation 152
4.3.1 Action research cycle 1 152
4.3.2 Action research cycle 2 158
4.4 Genre 3: Report writing 166
4.4.1 Action research cycle 1 166
4.4.2 Action research cycle 2 175
4.5 Genre 4: Argumentative essay writing 182
4.5.1 Action research cycle 1 183
4.5.2 Action research cycle 2 190
4.6 Reflection on the intervention 197
4.6.1 The use of the adapted approaches of writing instructions 197
4.6.2 Prewriting activities 199
4.6.3 Teaching materials 201
4.6.4 Peer evaluation 202
4.6.5 Teacher feedback 204
4.6.6 The roles of the teacher 205
4.7 Conclusion 206
CHAPTER5 ACTION RESEARCH FINDINGS 207
5.1 Research question 1 207
5.1.1 The difference between the pre- and post-test scores 211
5.2 Research question 2: from the questionnaire responses 213
5.2.1 The administration of the questionnaire 214
5.2.2 The finings from the questionnaire 215
5.2.3 Conclusion 224
5.3 Research question 2: from the student reflective journal 226
5.3.1 Theme 1: Learning 231
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(8)
5.3.2 Theme 2: Opinions towards the instructional methods 237
5.3.3 Theme 3: Opinions towards the writing assignments 251
5.3.4 Theme 4: Opinions towards peer evaluation 253
and teacher feedback
5.3.5 Theme 5: The reaction and opinion on class materials 263
5.3.6 Theme 6: The opinion towards the teacher’s roles 264
5.3.7 Theme 7: Perceptions on examinations 272
5.3.8 Theme 8: Students’ personal concerns 276
5.3.9 Conclusion on the finings from the student reflective journals 278
5.4 Research question 2: from post-intervention interview 280
5.4.1 The participants’ perception and impression 281
towards the pedagogical approaches in the study
5.4.2 How they produced texts with the multiple-draft writing 285
5.4.3 Their preferred prewriting activities 287
5.4.4 The roles of authentic texts in their writing 290
5.4.5 How they made use of the model texts and 291
the collaboratively constructed models
5.4.6 The opinion towards peer evaluation 293
5.4.7 How they made use of teacher feedback 299
5.4.8 The use of portfolio in their writing development 302
5.4.9 What made them become a better writer 304
5.4.10 Suggestions on what should be improved 306
5.4.11 The benefits of giving scores for improvement in the 309
writing assignments
5.5 Conclusion 310
CHAPTER6 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION 312
6.1 The improvement in students’ academic writing ability 312
6.2 The students’ opinion towards the teaching and learning 313
approaches and alternative assessment used in the study
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(9)
6.2.1 Perceiving the course useful 314
6.2.2 Positive opinion towards the adapted approaches of 315
writing instructions
6.2.3 Preference on the teacher feedback over peer evaluation 320
6.2.4 The formative power of student reflective journal 323
6.2.5 The roles of writing portfolio 324
6.3 Research question 3: the roles of the adapted approaches 325
of writing instructions and alternative assessment in developing
the students’ academic writing ability
6.3.1 The teaching methods of writing that effectively 326
improved the students’ academic writing ability
6.3.2 The roles of the teacher 327
6.3.3 The roles of the students 333
6.3.4 The benefits of the authentic texts in writing 337
development
6.3.5 Integrating alternative assessment in the process 338
6.4 Conclusion of the discussion 342
6.5 Implication for academic writing instructions 343
6.6 Proposed model of academic writing instructions 344
6.6.1 The instructions phase 348
6.6.2 The prewriting phase 349
6.6.3 The composition phase 352
6.6.4 The post-writing phase 355
6.7 Conclusion 356
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 358
7.1 Summary of the acrtion reserach 358
7.2 Professional development 359
7.2.1 The impact on the role of teacher 362
7.2.2 The impact on the role of researcher 363
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(10)
7.3 Action research and academic writing instructions 363
7.4 Limitation of this study 364
7.5 Recommendations for further studies 365
REFERENCES 367
APPENDICES 385
APPENDIX A 386
APPENDIX B 409
APPENDIX C 411
APPENDIX D 414
APPENDIX E 416
APPENDIX F 417
APPENDIX G 419
APPENDIX H 421
APPENDIX I 426
APPENDIX J 427
APPENDIX K 431
APPENDIX L 439
BIOGRAPHY 440
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(11)
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
1.1 The pass/fail ratio of students enrolled in the course 18
Academic Year 2014 and 2015
1.2 Summary of data from the preliminary investigation 34
3.1: Summary of data from the preliminary investigation 90
with proposed actions in this study
3.2: Data collection instruments in research stages 124
3.3: Summary of data collection instruments and analysis 127
in relations to research questions
4.1: Summary of implementation of action research cycle 1: 141
Writing in response to reading passage/ opinion writing
4.2 Summary of implementation of action research cycle 2: 150
Writing in response to reading passage/ opinion writing
4.3 Summary of implementation of action research cycle 1: 157
Data Interpretation
4.4 Summary of implementation of action research cycle 2: 165
Data Interpretation
4.5 Summary of implementation of action research cycle 1: 173
Report Writing
4.6 Summary of implementation of action research cycle 2: 181
Report Writing
4.7 Summary of implementation of action research cycle 1: 188
Argumentative Essay
4.7 Summary of implementation of action research cycle 2: 195
Argumentative Essay
5.1 Descriptive statistics of the pre-test by 2 raters 209
5.2 Pearson correlation for inter-rater reliability in the pre-test 210
5.3 Descriptive statistics of the post-test by 2 raters 210
5.4 Pearson correlation for inter-rater reliability in the pre-test 211
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(12)
5.5 Descriptive statistics of the pre and post-test 211
5.6 Difference between the means of the pre and post-test scores 212
5.7 The reliability statistics of the pilot questionnaire 213
5.8 The reliability statistics of the questionnaire 214
5.9 The interpretation of mean scores 215
5.10 The mean and standard deviation of responses 215
in the area of the pre-writing activities
5.11 The mean and standard deviation of responses 216
in the area of using multiple-draft approach
5.12 The mean and standard deviation of responses 217
in the area of peer evaluation
5.13 The mean and standard deviation of responses 218
in the area of perceptions towards giving feedback
5.14 The mean and standard deviation of responses 219
in the area of perceptions towards teacher feedback
5.15 The mean and standard deviation of responses 221
in the area student reflective journal
5.16 The mean and standard deviation of responses 221
in the area of perceptions towards student portfolio
5.17 The mean and standard deviation of responses 222
in the area of perceptions towards the usefulness of
teaching and learning methods
5.18 The mean and standard deviation of the participants’ 223
self perception after taking the course
5.19 Summary of themes and subthemes analyzed 227
from student reflective journals
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
(13)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1.1: The number of ESL writing research in Thailand from 2004-2013 13
1.2: Number of research studies on writing in Thailand 14
3.1: Action Research Cycle Model 101
3.2: Steps in Action Research for the present study 104
3.3 The process model of writing instructions 109
3.4 the model of adapted writing instructions used in this study 115
3.5 Operationalization of this study 129
3.6 Lesson plan for each genre based on the adapted approaches 130
with alternative assessment methods
6.1 The model of adapted approaches of writing instructions 345
6.2 The model of adapted approaches of writing instructions with details 346
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This study focuses on the English academic writing ability of students at
undergraduate level. The site of the research is on the advanced academic English
course, of which the researcher is an instructor. It is an action research study that
explores the process approach for instructions of academic writing. Also, the research
integrates the use of alternative forms of assessment in the intervention.
The initial idea of conducting this research came from my observations on the
students’ ability in composing academic texts. Through the insider’s view of a
teacher, some problems have caught the researcher’s attention to investigate further.
The problem of concern is that while obviously trying very hard to meet the objective
of the course, a considerable number of students were not able to produce academic
texts effectively. Taking a closer look, there were many problems, ranging from
general linguistic knowledge issues such as vocabulary and grammar to the lack of
ability to express critical ideas with linguistic features of academic writing.
As for the assessment system, it was found that students have trouble with
working in timed-writing tests in the formal assessment system, such as the final
examination.
Reflecting on this situation, I saw that the lack of effective writing ability
among the students was an issue to be addressed. Also, realizing that writing in a
second language is a very difficult skill to master as well as to teach (Zhou, 2015), I
decided to conduct an investigation on the area of teaching and learning of English for
academic writing.
After extensive reviews of literature related to second language writing
pedagogy, it became clear that the teaching approach was a vital part in the
development of students’ writing ability. After all, writing is no one’s first language,
necessitating proper instructions. Also, in the context of university, it is crucial that
students possess competency in academic writing, as it is a requirement for them to
complete their study programs. Therefore, this study was conducted with the aim of
finding ways that help promote students’ academic writing ability.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
2
In addition to the personal reflection, I gathered more information from
colleagues and students on the subject of investigation. Two teachers with extensive
experience teaching the course were interviewed for information about their teaching
methodologies and assessment systems, perceptions on the course and their
perceptions towards students’ performance. On the other hand, students taking the
course were asked to state their learning experience with the English course. They
also expressed the way they learned writing in the previous courses through an open-
response questionnaire. The findings provided baseline data for this research.
Research questions were then formulated. In accordance with the principles of action
research, this study is expected to bring about an improvement in the practice of
English academic writing instruction to both the researcher and other practitioners of
similar subjects.
This chapter consists of the background of the study starting from the current
scenario of teaching and learning English in Thailand. Then it points out the problem
with the overall level of English among Thai people. After that it stresses the need for
research in the area of English writing. The latter part steps closer to the research
context of this study.
1.1 Background of the study
English language is regarded as a necessary skill for the global economy. It
has become the medium in almost all domains of communication in the present world.
It is undeniable that English is now, as it has always been, the language for trade,
diplomacy, technology, international relations, economic prosperity, and the pursuit
of education. In order to adjust to the global trend, governments around the world
have put a lot of efforts and allocate vast amounts of their budgets and resources to
their educational sectors with the ultimate aim to improve their people’s proficiency
in English.
The same is true with Thailand. English proficiency has always been one of
the pillars for educational development. Successive Thai governments realize that the
economic prosperity of the country depends largely on the capacity of the Thai people
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
3
to function effectively in the international context. The first manifestation of
Thailand’s ambition to become competitive in the world economic realm is evident in
the first 15 Year Long-Range Plan on Higher Education in Thailand (1990-2004). The
Thai government at that time came up with the idea to reform Thai education in order
to produce personnel who could work effectively in the changing economic structure
that required closer contacts with other international entities. The term
‘internationalization’ became a buzzword for Thai education authorities, particularly
at the level of higher education. Simply put, the internationalization of Thai higher
education means the country’s practice of adopting ideas and practices from abroad
and adapting them to the local environment. Several strategies were initiated around
the ‘terms global awareness’, ‘economic competitiveness’, and ‘international-level
competence’ (Lavankura, 2013)
The turning point of education in Thailand took place when the country
suffered the Asian economic crisis in 1997. It was the factor that forced Thailand to
reconsider the position and directions of its education system. Consequently, the
education policies shifted focus from an outward direction of imitating the
educational structure of other countries to establishing a sufficient and sustainable
education system internally. The once-aspired to idea of internalization of education
was replaced by the new term of localization. Nonetheless, English proficiency still
held its spot of being a strategic goal as it was then inevitable that Thai people still
needed to be proficient in English. Therefore, there have been many strategies applied
to the Thai education system to improve the teaching and learning of English
language as part of Thai education reform since then.
Up until the present, the Thai governments have been making even greater
efforts to promote English competency. One of the reasons is the changing landscape
of international economic cooperation. Since the end of first decade of the
millennium, the governments have been promoting English proficiency extensively as
preparation for the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). In gearing Thai people
towards preparedness, the idea of internationalization was revisited and brought back.
Now, the term has been reinterpreted in a more subtle way when compared with the
first version in 1990 (Lavankura 2013). More importantly, when compared with the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
4
other member countries in the region such as Singapore, the Philippines, and
Malaysia, Thailand is inferior in terms of its people’s proficiency in English.
Therefore, it was the priority for Thai education authorities to find measures to
improve English competency in order to again international competitiveness for Thai
people. That awareness has materialized in the second 15-year Long-Range Plan on
Higher Education of Thailand (2008-2022). As part of the plan, it is the aim of the
Thai government to produce graduates with more globally relevant knowledge and
skills including English proficiency.
The same attempt is reflected in the 11th Economic and Social Development
Plan (2012-2016) (ESDP) as it stresses that there is a connection between AEC and
the country’s strategy in human development. Under the ESDP, one of the five
guidelines for children development states that Thai children, in addition to the proper
use of Thai language, should be able to use English as a second language. However,
this proposal was later withdrawn for the reason that it could lead to a
misunderstanding of the Thai national identity. Nevertheless, English remains the first
chosen foreign language in education according to the ESDP (Laoriendee, 2014).
Currently, Thailand is under the the12th Economic and Social Development
Plan (2017-2021) which was developed with the country’s 20-year national strategy,
2017-2036. Similar to its previous version, the 12th ESDP focuses on gearing the
country towards six areas, six primary strategies, and four supporting strategies.
The first strategy of the plan is to develop the potential of human capital. In
the plan, one of the goals in human development states that Thai people will be
provided with international standard education and become autonomous learners. In
addition, in the area of competitiveness enhancement, one of the supporting strategies
involves international cooperation.
These two strategies imply that Thailand still needs human capital who are
capable of using English in developing the country’s competitiveness in the
international economic arena. Hence, English still holds its status as the language of
education that will help gear Thailand towards reaching its aspirational goals of
development.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
5
In Thailand, the status of English language is that of a foreign language (FL)
(Chuenchaichon, 2013), and it is mainly used in academic settings. English is a
compulsory subject in all levels of education starting from primary and secondary
school to undergraduate studies. The increased awareness of English as a key to the
globalized world can be seen at many levels in the Thai education system. The fact is
reflected in the emergence of many English-medium and bilingual programs in both
basic and higher education levels. Both private and public tertiary education institutes
in Thailand have been putting their efforts into responding to the changing trend in
education driven by globalization and the Thai government’s policy of
internationalization of education.
According to the Bureau of International Cooperation Strategy of the Office of
Higher Education Commissions (OHEC), in 2016, there were 769 international
programs offered at higher-level education institutions in Thailand. It should also be
noted that the terms international program and English program are used
interchangeably in Thailand (Chalapati, 2007). The term ‘international program’
refers to those that use English solely as the medium of instruction. Among these
programs, there are 249 bachelor’s degree programs, 290 programs at the master’s
degree level, 224 doctoral programs, and 6 others. Additionally, these programs
include those operated by Thai institutions and those jointly run with renowned
foreign institutes. The major reasons for adopting English as the medium of
instruction is to produce graduates who have a good command of English and are
capable of using it effectively for future academic advancement and business
operations with foreigners.
On the learners’ side, students, Thais in particular, decide to enroll in
international programs believing that the English-speaking environment will help
them have English proficiency and consequently enable them to access better job
opportunities.
To conclude the present situation, Thailand needs graduates who are
competent in English for the country’s economic survival. Unfortunately, regardless
of the exponential fund and efforts invested on improving the English proficiency of
students, the results are never of satisfaction. Many surveys such as by Boonnag,
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
6
(2005) and Bolton (2008), cited in Khamkien (2010), show that the proficiency level
of Thai students in the two international standardized English tests, namely TOEIC
and TOEFL, are below the benchmark. The scores of the tests also indicate that Thai
learners of English have lower proficiency than those from other Southeast Asian
countries.
Another survey by English First in 2012 shows that the English proficiency
index of Thailand is ranked at the bottom, 53 out of 54 countries (Lavankura, 2013).
The same survey was repeated in 2015 and it yielded similar result. Thailand is still
regarded as ‘very low proficiency’ in the English Proficiency Index, being ranked 62
out of 70 nations. Among Asian countries in the same index, Thailand is the third
worst country in English proficiency.
One of the reasons behind this lack of success in English education in
Thailand is the fact that the opportunities for Thai students to practice their English
skills are limited to their classroom (Warawudhi, 2017 and Low, 2017). In the case of
EFL writing in Thailand, Thai students and teachers found that English writing is the
most difficult skill to improve (Dueraman, 2012). According to Kimolva (2012), the
lack of opportunities to practice is the major factor that hinders the development of
the students’ ability to write.
From the above-mentioned report, it is undeniable that the effort of the Thai
education authorities as well as the institutions promoting English language
proficiency in Thailand has born no fruits. This illustrates that the situation needs to
be addressed.
1.2 An Overview of English Proficiency
The unpleasing results in the English proficiency index report of Thailand
have alarmed Thai education authorities and motivated them to find measures to
improve the current situation. In the field of English Language Teaching (ELT),
‘proficiency’ is generally referred to as the goal of language learning (Harsch, 2016).
For a second or foreign language, the term proficiency is defined as what
someone can do or knows in relation to the application of the language in the real
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
7
world (Council of Europe, 2001). Based on that definition, it can be seen that
language proficiency comprises two aspects which are, first, the ability to do
something with the language and, second, the knowledge about the language. A
proficient learner of a second or foreign language should, therefore, possess
communicative abilities, knowledge systems, and skills in that particular language
(Harsch, 2016).
There are generally two schools of thoughts about language proficiency. The
first view holds that language proficiency is unitary. Oller (1979) claims that all
language use is influenced by only one factor and, hence, proficiency is not divisible.
Nonetheless, the idea is rejected by many scholars who counter-argue that
language proficiency is complex and multifaceted in nature. Bachman and Palmer
(1996) have proposed a concrete model of aspects of language proficiency. The
writers highlight the fact that language proficiency intertwines pragmatic, textual,
strategies, and grammatical competences with the context for purposeful and
appropriate application. Also, Palmer and Bachman (1981) propose a view that
proficiency is divisible. Many different skills and linguistic competences altogether
comprise proficiency. Therefore, proficiency is regarded as multidimensional rather
than a single entity.
Nowadays, views on language proficiency have become more complex.
Added to the view of either-unitary-or-divisible, language proficiency is perceived as
highly complex, multilayered, and multicomponent (Harsch, 2014). One of the most
pioneering illustrations of the concept is the BICS-CALP model by Cummin and
Swain (1983). This is supported by some research works such as by Cummins (2008)
and Hulstijn (2010) which found that learners do not only display a wide range of
competencies but also there are levels of skills. To put it simply, language
competency is now conceptualized from its width of skills and proficiencies as well as
the depth of different layers of them.
The conceptualization of language proficiency as multidimensional composing
communicative skills, communicative abilities, and linguistic competences including
socio-pragmatic and the level of competency such as metalinguistic competency, has
a vital role in educational context (Harsch, 2014). The pedagogical implication is that
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
8
it dictates the way the course is designed, teaching and learning, and assessment. As
Hulstijn (2011b) asserts, in context of education, levels of proficiency has a great
influence Therefore, success in learning a language is indicated by the level of
attainment that person reaches.
However, language professionals, especially in the field of English language
teaching, have realized that general proficiency in English is not enough for students
to guarantee their academic success. Saville-Troike (1984), in Adamson (1993),
proposes the term academic competence as what students need to possess along with
language proficiency. The term refers to the knowledge and abilities that students
need to advance academically. In the setting of academic English such as this present
study, it is necessary for students to possess a specific variety of academic skills
features. To be specific, this study focuses mainly on improving the students’
academic writing ability as it is a vital skill that students needs in their tertiary level of
education (Wiggle, 2011).
1.3 The importance of writing
Writing skill has a very prominent role for students, especially for their
academic advancement. It is one of the tools for students to access knowledge in their
study years. The importance of writing extends to beyond the classroom setting. With
the rapid and constant development of technologies in information and
communication, writing is the most commonly used form of communication
(Kimolva 2012).
Writing is a tool that can be used to meet a variety of goals. It allows people to
communicate with others regardless of distance and time. In addition to that, writing
serves as a means of learning, thinking, and organizing knowledge or ideas. Despite
its tremendous benefits, most students do not develop enough competence to prepare
for future needs. Lacking the ability to write can greatly hinder their opportunities to
pursue their academic goals. In terms of career, many students strive to work in an
international context. With the nature of workplaces today, English serves as the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
9
medium of communication, not having the ability to write narrows and shortens the
students’ future academic and career paths (Diamond, 1999; Graham, 2006).
In the higher education setting such as where this study focuses on, an ability
to write effectively is vital. For students, being able to write effectively increases their
progress through their education. As Weigle (2011) contends, writing is perceived
beyond just a standardized system of communication. It is an essential tool for
learning.
As Walsh (2010), cited in Kimolva (2013), articulates, the importance of
writing lies in the fact that it is used extensively in higher education and the
workplace. If students lack the ability to express themselves in writing, they will not
be able to communicate well with others such as professors, employers, colleagues, or
almost anyone else. Additionally, much of both academic and professional
communication is done in writing and it is part of the daily life of a college student
and successful graduates. In sum, it is not arguable that writing is crucial to students’
academic success in higher education.
It is widely claimed that of all the four language skills, writing is the most
difficult to master, especially in a foreign language. The acquisition of writing skill
involves the knowledge of other language skills. In addition, as Kellogg (1999)
contends, success in writing depends on the ability to retrieve and grapple with
relevant procedures, knowledge of the subject and facts. Also, when it comes to
second language (L2) writing, the task of writing becomes extremely challenging to
the writer (Da Silva, 2014).
Mastering the writing skill requires both cognitive and metacognitive skills as
well. In the process of writing, learners have to exercise their cognitive skills as they
have to analyze their sources and synthesize them in a piece of writing (Kimolva,
2013). On the other hand, learners of writing are required to also have the
metacognitive skill as they need to see clearly the objective of writing, plan carefully,
set forward logical connections between ideas, and revise it (Hyland, 2003). In line
with that claim, writing and critical thinking are closely linked. Students who have
mastered the writing skill show that they also possess the cognitive skills required at
the tertiary level of education (Weigle, 2011).
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
10
As mentioned, writing ability has a very essential role in developing English
competency among learners. It is the skill that students who pursue their education are
required to master as it opens opportunities for them to acquire knowledge of
whatever discipline they are in. Therefore, English writing skill is a field that needs
constant and dynamic development, which also requires more and continuous
research.
1.4 Teaching of the English writing skill
1.4.1 Practices in teaching writing
As writing, as claimed, is the most difficult skill for learners to master
as well as the most difficult skill to teach, several teaching methodologies have been
proposed in order to improve the practice.
In foreign language writing, there are two main practices. The first one
is the writing-to-learn approach. In this practice, writing is viewed as a means to
foster the development of proficient communicative abilities (Omaggio-Hadley,
2001). Advocates of this practice commonly focus on the form of text with the aim of
students being able to produce the final product with original grammar construction. It
is very typical for the advocates to select artificial topics and assign them to students
with a heavy focus on grammar (Lefkowitz, 2009, cited in Reichelt et. al., 2012).
In contrast to the first practice, the other model of writing instructions
is learning-to-write. This approach aims to help students to become skilled writers in
the target language. The teaching and learning covers a wide array of activities such
as brainstorming, free writing, group discussion, and conferencing (Reichelt et. al.,
2012.) Teachers in this practice will train students to write for different purposes and
for different audiences. Pragmatics and sensitivity to discipline and cultural norms are
also addressed. The pedagogical implication of this approach can be seen many of the
English as a Second Language (ESL) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
courses (Ferris and Hedgecock, 2005).
However, it needs to be addressed that neither practice is superior to
the other. According to Crossley et al., (2014), writing is a complex and demanding
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
11
process. It requires multiple cognitive and knowledge skills. To cite an example,
Kellogg and Whiteford (2009) argue that the complexity of the nature of writing
includes the demand for writers to possess discourse awareness, goal setting,
sociocultural knowledge, and memory management.
The reality in the teaching and learning of writing is that there are
times when students needs to improve their grammatical accuracy as it is part of
acquiring overall writing proficiency. Then, the writing-to-learn approach might be of
benefit. In the meantime, it is also very important for students to develop rhetorical
competency and discourse knowledge. This is where the learning-to-write practice
comes into play (Brynes, 2011).
1.4.2 Factors for success and failure in writing
Despite the understanding of the complexity of writing and the
pedagogical implications of different models that describe the nature of writing,
attaining success in writing remains a difficult task to most students. Recognizing the
cognitive demand and skills required by the writing process, several studies on
unsuccessful writing have been conducted with the hope that they will help develop
pedagogical approaches that help advance students’ writing skills.
Crossley et al. (2014) point out that successful writers usually display
many characteristics related to three features: knowledge domains, discourse, and
language. First, writers with strong domain knowledge, according to Ericsson et al.
(2006), will produce texts with better structure through the use of sophisticated
strategies.
Second, from a discourse perspective, it is essential that writers
possess greater discourse knowledge that allows them to properly select the discourse
that are suitable with the type of text they are producing. A study by Crossley,
Weston, et al. (2011) shows that unsuccessful writers employ the use of narrative
features. On the contrary, more successful writers produce texts that contain a
substantially higher number of rhetorical structures relevant to the text type. Finally,
linguistic knowledge such as cohesion and syntactic and lexical complexity serve as
cognitive resources that enable writers to produce texts with ease. In addition, such
advantages reduce the cognitive workload in generating and organizing ideas and help
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
12
them to focus more on rhetorical structure (Deane, 2013). At the other end,
unsuccessful writers are less proficient with syntax, lexicon, and grammar (Applebee
et al., 1990, in Crossley et al., 2014). Moreover, less successful writers produce texts
with shorter, less complex sentences. As for lexical knowledge, less successful texts,
based on human judgment, contain more base forms of verbs (Crossley, Weston, et
al., 2011) and fewer number of words before the main verb phrase in a sentence
(McNamara et al., 2010).
From the studies and categorization of features of successful writing, it
is sufficient to say that the cause for the failure to attain the writing proficiency for
many writing students is the lack of ability to display their knowledge in the three
domains to make the text they produce successful texts with quality. Therefore, it is a
very challenging task for teachers of writing to emphasize training their students to
become knowledgeable of the features needed.
In line with the instruction, assessment plays a vital role in the
promotion of language proficiency. The general perception of assessment is that it is a
separate entity from the instructions. Nevertheless, Hyland (2004) contends that such
a viewpoint does not accurately reflect the nature of language instructions. He asserts
that teaching and assessment are intertwined rather than unconnectedly functioning.
Hence, it is sufficient to state that in order to improve the language ability, the
instructions and assessment methods should be matched.
1.5 Rationale
As English language will remain preeminent in the global setting, English
language pedagogy should receive utmost attention in order to improve the
proficiency of learners. Hence, research on teaching and learning of English is vital at
all levels ranging from language policy planning, adoption of plans, implementation,
to classroom practices.
This study investigated the practical level of teaching and learning of English
language. It aimed to find out how to improve the English academic writing ability of
undergraduate-level students. The rationale behind the necessity to investigate the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
13
writing skills was that, of all four linguistic skills, writing holds the most prominent
position especially in academic and professional settings (Hyland, 2003, and Matsuda,
2003). Also, the study integrated the alternative assessment methods and investigates
their impacts to find out whether they can improve students’ ability in writing.
1.5.1 Research on the teaching of English language writing in Thailand
Despite the awareness of the needs for research related to English
writing skills, the number of research works that have been produced in Thailand
suggests otherwise. In a survey on the English as a foreign language (EFL) writing
research gathered from journal articles published in Thailand by Chuenchaichon in
2014, the findings show an alarmingly low number of the total research works in
Thailand in this area. The survey indicates that the total amount of research on EFL
writing was as low as 48.
Figure 1.1: The number of ESL writing research in Thailand from 2004-2013
(Chuenchaichon, 2014)
Figure 1.1 shows the number of research studies in EFL writing in
Thailand by year, from 2004 to 2013. Obviously, it was not until this decade, as
marked by a substantial increase in the number of works between 2009 and 2010, that
researchers have become more interested in the areas of writing research. Even with
such a fact, the total number of research works having been produced was still
considerably low despite the awareness of the importance of English writing skills
among Thai education authorities and scholars.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Num
ber o
f ESL
writ
ing
rese
arh
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
14
Figure 1.2: Number of research studies on writing in Thailand, adapted from
Chuenchaichon, 2014
From figure 1.2, out of the total number, there are only 7 works related
to approaches to teaching writing. Meanwhile, the survey reports that the number of
studies on assessment of writing is as low as 4, mostly dealing with only one aspect of
writing cohesion. Therefore, this research sees an opportunity to investigate further on
these two areas, as there is an apparent need for more studies concerning them.
Based on the figure from the research on the number of research works
produced over the past years in Thailand, additionally, it is not arguable that there is
still a demand for more research works on writing of English especially in the area of
teaching methodology and assessment of writing.
As English will remain essential as the language in academic context in
Thailand, such as in schools and universities, and the language of the expanding
international professional setting, together with the fact that writing is an essential
skill to master, it is sufficient to say that there should be more research works on
writing of English and assessment of writing. Therefore, the researcher sees an
opportunity to produce another research work that is related to the two areas to fill in
such research gap.
012345678910
Num
nerofResearchWork
ResearchArea
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
15
Realizing such necessity, this study aimed to contribute to the EFL writing in
Thailand, especially in the area of writing instructions where there have been a very
limited number of studies. From investigation, I found that there was space for this
study to take a stand in the present situation. Starting with the area of writing
instruction, most of the existing works focus on genre-based instructions, such as by
Chaisiri (2010) and Amnuai & Wannarak (2013). In the meantime, the number of
studies on the process approach is less than a handful. The researcher sees an
opportunity to conduct a study on using process-based approach of instructions as it is
still scarce. Among the very few is one by Puengpipattrakul (2014) who studied the
effects of the process approach on undergraduate students’ socio-cognitive skills. The
results show a positive correlation between the process approach and the students’
increased socio-cognitive skills. However, the study is a quasi-experiment and the
writing ability is not discussed. Another work on using process approach as the
instructional method is by Dejsiri (2008) in the context of a study that focuses on the
secondary level students.
Moreover, in terms of research design, most studies on writing-related topics
were conducted with the quasi-experiment or experiment research design. There is no
report on studies that employ the use of action research on instructions of writing. To
address this to some extent, Yang (2010) conducted a quasi-experimental study on
using different methods of teaching English writing to develop creative thinking
skills. The setting of that study is in secondary level. Another example of research
that employs the same design is by Suthiwartnarueput & Wasanasomsithi (2012),
which focuses on the effects of content-based instructions in teaching grammar to
undergraduate levels. Therefore, evidently, an action research such as this present
study can offer a new perspective to the study of writing instructions.
In the area of assessment of writing, most of the very few existing research
works in this area emphasize the traditional kind of assessment. For example, a study
conducted by Kansopon (2012) investigates the validity and reliability of the
summative test of writing in relation with learning strategy. On the other hand, using
alternative forms of assessment has not been deliberately investigated. The area of
alternative assessment that some research works have explored is the provision of
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
16
feedback. An example of studies on feedback is by Ongphet (2013) who studied the
effects of different types of corrective feedback and teacher-student conferences on
students’ writing ability. The research setting is in an upper secondary school.
Another work is by Puengpipattrakul (2013) who conducted a longitudinal
study that expands over five years, focusing on the impact of teacher-integrated
feedback on grammatical accuracy. The feedback used is the traditional form of
corrective and facilitative feedback. The approach of instructions is the product
approach.
Seeing all the opportunities, namely the scarcity of action research on
instructions of writing, the lack of studies on alternative assessment, and the
difference in context of study, this study was then designed with an action research
framework to investigate the impact of process approach of writing instructions,
integrated with the use of alternative forms of assessment, on the English academic
writing ability of students at tertiary level.
As a result, this study focused on English academic writing at tertiary level.
The specific areas of research were the teaching approaches and the assessment
system that could contribute to the improvement of students’ academic writing ability.
The research context in this study was an advanced academic English course at a
private international university in Thailand. The focus of this course was on advanced
English for academic and career purposes. As a teacher of this course, it was practical
to conduct an investigation in my own setting. The reason was that the natural
classroom environment would provide authentic and valid data derived from the real
teaching and learning atmosphere.
1.6 Preliminary investigation
In order to bring about changes to the situation, the problem should arise from
solid information rather than a hunch of an observer (Burns, 2010). A preliminary
survey, which is a fact-finding process, is necessary for researchers to prepare for
systematic investigation (Burns, 1999).
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
17
This study started with a preliminary investigation to obtain the baseline data
on the teaching and learning process and the assessment strategies used in the context.
The sources of data are 1) the researcher’s observation and analysis of students’ texts,
2) the pass/fail ratio of students enrolled in the course, 3) teacher interviews, and 4)
students’ response to open-ended questionnaire.
1.6.1 Investigation and analysis of students’ texts
The initial idea of conducting a study on ways to improve the ability in
English academic writing was derived from my observation in the practice. Over the
years of teaching, I have seen that the majority of students seemed to have difficulties
in improving their writing ability to the desired level.
After careful observation, a number of problems in teaching and
learning have been identified. The problems cover a wide range. Starting with the
most obvious, the rate of students passing the course in each section was relatively
low. Out of 30 students in a class, merely half of them managed to pass with only a C
grade, which is the minimum requirement for passing. The discrepancy between the
course objectives and the students’ actual performance was high. Although teachers
and students devoted considerable time and efforts, the outcomes were never
satisfactory.
An analysis of students’ written works displayed further problems. In a
larger perspective, students were found to be unable to accommodate linguistic
knowledge and features of academic English in their texts. Most of their work lacked
features necessary for academic texts such as the selection of lexical items and
rhetorical expressions that are essential for the text type and pragmatics. The result of
the analysis also showed that the students also depended largely on memorizing
model texts provided by the teacher. When it came to the production stage, evidence
has shown that students memorized sentences, presented the model texts and used
them without considering whether it would fit the context.
Another problem observed is that students had difficulties in making
an argument that reflects their critical and analytical ability. When they are asked to
write a paragraph to express their opinions in response to a reading passage, students
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
18
mostly would use the information from the text instead of forming their own
argument. This could be due to the lack of language ability to express their ideas.
Linguistic accuracy was, as always, another major issue. Regardless of
the amount of the corrective feedback, which was the main type of feedback that the
teacher provided, that they received, the same kind of grammatical errors always
resurfaced in the next assignment. Those grammatical mistakes not only showed that
the students lacked syntactic competency in composing sentences, but they also
greatly affected the quality of the text in both local and global features. For example,
a sentence that contained an error on tenses could mislead the reader and
consequently distort the meaning of the text, resulting in a substandard work. These
problems drove the researcher to pay attention to the following points: the teaching
methodology of writing, the students’ learning strategy, the material, and the impact
of feedback on improving their production of academic text.
The further step in this study was to gather more information to confirm that
the problem exists not only in the researcher’s personal practice but also in the
practice of other instructors of the same subject.
1.6.2 The pass/fail ratio of students taking the course
The first set of information gathered was the statistical figures of the
pass/fail ratio of the advanced academic English course in 2 academic years.
Semester/ year Pass (%) Fail and withdrawal (%)
1/2014 59.77 40.23
2/2014 71.81 28.19
1/2015 65.61 34.39
2/2015 67.91 32.18
Table 1.1: The pass/fail ratio of students enrolled in the course in academic years
2014 and 2015
As displayed in table 1.1, the average passing percentage of students
taking the course was approximately 65. This indicates that the number of students
meeting the standard is relatively low. Consequently, the figure drew the researcher’s
attention to consider the factors responsible for such result and, more importantly, to
find ways to improve the students’ ability in acquiring academic English writing skill.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
19
The stakes of failing the course are significantly high. To start with,
the course is a core subject for all students in all programs at the university.
Furthermore, as an international university in which most of the courses are offered in
English, this course is a prerequisite subject for many other courses such as Business
Communication, the architecture students’ senior project, and most of the Business
English major courses. Therefore, not passing the course can result in delayed
graduation for students.
Added to the above problems, as the essence of the course is to train
students with academic English necessary for their studies at the university level, if
students are not able to meet the objectives of the course, it is natural to make an
assumption that they will find it very challenging to study in an English-speaking
environment, such as in the context of this study, when they take their advanced
concentrated courses in their study discipline.
After seeing the pass/fail ratio of the students taking the course, the
fact that students have problems meeting the requirement to pass the course is
confirmed. This has, therefore, confirmed to the researcher that the problem requires
immediate attention and investigation.
To obtain further information regarding the teaching and learning of
academic English writing in this research context, views from teachers and students
were necessary. Hence, two data collection methods were designed and used to obtain
information from representatives of teachers and students. The first one was a semi-
structured interview with two teachers teaching this course of academic writing. The
second information source was the open-response questionnaire responded to by 30
students enrolled in this course.
1.6.3 Teacher interview
The second source of data in the preliminary investigation is from
interviews with teachers. Based on the principle of action research, the practitioners,
or, in this case, the teachers who teach the course being investigated, are ones with
direct experience with the classroom. Hence, they can provide insights about the
different aspects of the classroom which, importantly, reveal the problems in their
practice. Therefore, in addition to the researcher’s interpretation on the observed
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
20
phenomena, views from other teachers can provide valuable information to the
present study as baseline data to be further developed into a framework for the study.
The aim of the interview was to obtain the information about the
teachers’ current practices and the teaching methodologies they used in their
instructions. It also investigated the assessment methods that they used in class as
well as the measures employed by them in monitoring students’ progress. Also, their
perception towards the course and the students were also inquired about.
(1) Views on English for Academic Purposes
The first question of the interview let the teachers express their
view and asked them to define the term English for Academic Purposes (EAP). One
of the teachers defined it as the type of writing that goes beyond the personal level. It
reflects the third person’s point of view and it should be objective, formal, factual, full
of prescribed rules and standards that writers, in this case students, must comply with.
In the same manner, the other teacher defined EAP as the English course that targets
specific skills for future use. It trains students to be able to work in the future,
especially in the multilingual environment. The students need to be proficient. Then
both teachers were requested to express their perceptions on the course objectives
regarding whether they aligned with the definition of English for Academic Purposes.
Both of them agreed that the course that they are teaching, which is the subject of this
study, is regarded as academic English.
(2) Teachers’ expectation from students
The next question focused on the expectation that the
participants have on their students taking this academic English course. The first
participant said students were expected to learn to write academic papers, which were
content-based, and texts that would be related to their future occupation. Moreover,
students would be exposed to academic articles on a wide range of topics which
eventually guided them back to the learning of academic English. Also, according to
her, students were also expected to learn the linguistic features and skills necessary in
producing academic texts in order that they will be able to use them in their writing
such as the use of paraphrase, jargons, and avoiding personal pronouns.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
21
In response to the same question, the other teacher said that he
personally believed that students who take this course should be able to have at least a
minimum understanding of what advanced level English is. Also, the capability in
thinking and expressing ideas through the proper use of academic English is a
requirement for them. At the end of the day, students will need these skills in their
future academic and daily life.
The sequential question asked the participants whether or not
their students are able to meet their expectations. The first teacher described the
reality about the matter as worrisome. The majority of students might show that they
could cope with the requirements from the course and they tended to improve during
their learning. However, according to the teacher, a vast number of students still
found the content of the course too challenging, resulting in failure. The teacher then
concluded that the situation needed to be addressed, as most students were not able to
meet the expectation of both the course and the teacher herself.
The other participant said that his students could not meet his
expectations, let alone the efforts that he had put into training them to become
competent writers of academic English. He asserted that his students rationalized their
struggle with the course that it was because the course was too challenging for them.
Moreover, the teacher claimed that, from what he had observed, students could not
really see the benefits that the course had to offer them. Students, in other words,
perceived that academic English was not the type of English that they expected to use
in the future. Additionally, his students pointed their fingers to their previous English
learning experience, in their primary and secondary levels, that it did not prepare them
to encounter the kind of advanced English they are studying now. This indicates a
misunderstanding of the concept of academic English among students.
(3) The methods of writing instructions
The participants were then asked to explain their methods in
the instructions of writing. They said that, in general, they started with theory such as
the relationship between reading and writing. Then, the concept of writing process
was introduced. One teacher added a comment on the writing skill. He said that
writing was the hardest skill to teach. Students are required to be able to construct the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
22
meaningful sentence and the process is complex. They have to properly use the
lexical items, correct grammar, have semantic knowledge, and pragmatic skills too.
From the answers concerning the process of writing, the
teachers were asked further if they explicitly taught and used the process approach in
the instructions of writing. The answer was no. However, some steps in the process
approach were employed when the teachers saw fit. One of the teachers said that she
used the brainstorming technique, which is part of the pre-writing stage in the process
approach, in the guided discussion of the topic that she was going to assign to her
students to write.
Then the next question asked the teachers to describe their
approach to teaching. The answers confirmed that they employed the product
approach. Evidence was seen in one of the participants’ answer. She said that she, for
each writing genre, would give 2-3 writing exercises as practice on different topics.
Additionally, each exercise focused on a different linguistic knowledge. To illustrate
this, in the first exercise, the emphasis might be on the use of discourse markers.
When moving to the second exercise, on a different topic, the teacher would highlight
grammar. According to the teacher, this kind of practice would help students have an
awareness of their learning performance. She believed that it was an effective method
because she could observe that students have retention of knowledge regarding those
particular features and they also had the ability to transfer them to the later works. To
her, this method of providing exercises was considered constructivist approach.
For the other teacher, he explained that he employed many
different teaching methodologies for the writing component of the course. It started
with activating the students’ knowledge schemata, showing them the form and
structure of the text, letting them practice on different exercises from the textbook,
and trying to engage them in discussion. He also adopted collaborative learning
techniques.
However, both interviewees asserted that there was a
considerable use of model texts in their instructions. One of the teachers believed that
showing students the model texts benefited them as they can see it as a good input for
them to see how to properly write. It also meant that teachers who used this method
were trying to do as much as possible to help their students improve. It was actually
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
23
rote learning. Another reason for using this method was the time constraint. In one
class, the students may have the time only to finish one exercise. Hence, using models
could become helpful in his scenario.
Nonetheless, the teacher expressed his concerns over adopting
such method in his teaching. He said that there were some downsides of this method.
He was aware that showing students the model writing was somewhat like giving
students some handicap, which eventually would hinder them from becoming
autonomous learners. He also expressed his concerns on rote learning - to memorize
the format, the structure of paragraph, the lexical items, and the vocabulary words -
that it would negatively hinder students from developing their learning ability. They
would see it as a one-size-fit-all pattern for the writing of any topic. Eventually, they
would not make an attempt to create the language by themselves, thus limiting their
creativity and affecting their overall academic writing skill.
The other teacher mentioned the change in his teaching style
when he was asked whether he had tried to include other teaching techniques such as
drafting and rewriting in his teaching. He said that he used to have “one set format”
for students to see and try to imitate. He then realized, as he had been teaching longer,
that he should start from the scratch. It means that he tried to show his students his
thinking process when it came to paragraph composition. The purpose of doing so is
to give students a springboard to scaffold them in developing the writing process on
their own.
When asked to further explain why he did not adopt the use of
multiple-draft method in his teaching, the participant stated that he felt that such
approach could be counterproductive to students learning of writing. Besides, he
stated that using multiple-draft writing, asking students to work on the same
assignment and topic, would be redundant and students would get bored.
(4) Assessment methods used by the teachers
The later part of the interview concentrated on assessment
methods. The participants were asked to explain the assessment process or methods
that they use in class. All of them, after students have completed 2-3 exercises, would
give a writing test, which was also called “practice writings.” The grading rubric used
in this test was based on what is prescribed in the formal tests, namely the quizzes,
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
24
midterm exam and final exam. The scope of assessment was on grammatical
accuracy, content, and organization.
The other participant also used the same approach. The teacher
stated that he also gave practice writings to students in order to see their individual
linguistic needs. There are about 2-3 exercises given in a writing genre. The focus of
the work is on both the language and form. For the assessment methods that he uses in
class, the teacher stated that he generally followed the rubrics suggested by the course
(derived from the ones given for grading exam papers). Then, he looked into the
individual needs of the students. It is worth noting here, however, that while the
grading rubric in the practice writing appears to be analytical, the actual practice is
arguably holistic as there are no clear descriptors and ranges of score, unlike those
used in the formal test. To him, the purpose of the assessment is to see how much
knowledge students attain, in the given time, and whether they can follow the scheme.
Also, he looks into the students’ needs in terms of grammatical knowledge. Another
important point was to see whether the scores the students got from the assessment,
which was mainly the practice writing, could instill the ability to transfer the
knowledge to other types, or genres, of writing.
The results of using practice writings are satisfying in general.
Students seem to show marked improvement from the first exercise to the quiz and
the formal exams. The stake of the test is significantly lower too. For one teacher, the
total marks for a piece of practice writing are 3 from 500 total marks of the course.
This is equal to less than 1 percent of the total marks.
Apart from the writing exercises given in class, both teachers
agreed that the course largely depended on the formal tests to assess students. Then
they were asked whether they used the formative kind of assessment in their classes.
One of the teachers said that he used formative assessment in
class. Then he was asked to elaborate on how he applied the formative assessment
method. He said that he showed some work from students in the past to the current
students in order for them to realize the criteria for performing well on the tests.
Students would then be exposed to more input as well as seeing examples of what
they should do.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
25
However, his claim of using formative assessment methods is
in fact a practice of product-based approach that does not align with the principle of
formative assessment. This, therefore, displays a lack of clear understanding of the
concept. He asserted that formal tests were important and they do have formative
power. In his point of view, repetition of exams for formative purposes could help
students improve their linguistic knowledge and ability. He suggested that, for each
writing genre, students should be formally tested twice. However, a different skill
should be the focus of each single test. For example, while the first test focuses on the
content, the second can emphasize the errors. Additionally, he disagreed that the
nature of the formal tests in the course, which is timed writing, had impact on
students’ performance.
The other teacher refused to say that the assessment methods in
the course were only summative. She contended that there were follow-ups tests. For
example, a quiz, as part of the course’s assessment procedure, is arranged prior to the
final exam. Both the quiz and the final exam test the students on the same topic,
which is report writing. So, according to her, the quiz is considered a formative
assessment while the final examination is a summative assessment.
However, the teacher, in the interview process, paused for a
while before she concluded that the way the students are tested in the course is not
really formative type. Even though the same writing genres are repeated, the focus of
the text composition and organization are different. The tests are in separate entities.
Next, the interviewees were asked if they saw any discrepancy
between the students’ writing performance in their classwork or practice writings and
the formal tests. One of the teachers observed that the overall quality of writing
became better when it came to the formal tests. The reason, according to her, was that
the stakes are different. This implies that students have more motivation to perform
when it comes to higher-stake tests in formal settings.
To sum up this point, the teacher pointed out that the
summative assessment procedure, with scores bounded to them, of the course might
be the factor hindering the use of formative assessment.
Comments from the other teacher pointed in the opposite
direction. When he was asked if he could see any difference between the formal and
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
26
informal tests, he admitted that the stakes of the test played an important role in terms
of students’ performance. However, he claimed that there was not a significance
difference between the score of the in-class assessment and the formal test like
quizzes. He explained that those who performed well in the practice writing tended to
perform well in the quizzes too. On the other hand, those who constantly did poorly in
the practice writing tests had a tendency to perform poorly in the exam as well. He
hypothesized that it was because those low-performance students were not able to
transplant the knowledge into the exam results.
Hence, the teachers were asked if it could be concluded that
students were exam-oriented and the assessment procedure of the course was the
factor driving them. One teacher did not see it that way. She claimed that the students
show that they are willing to learn but the effort they put on the classwork and the
low-stake tests are not leading them to producing “good papers.” In other words, this
teacher believed that her students took the class assignments lightly and it was not
enough for them to do well in the summative test.
After expressing their ideas on the assessment procedure of
both formative and summative assessment, the participants were asked to express
their viewpoints on the formal timed-test, which is a major part of assessment of this
course. They were asked to reflect their ideas on its ability to assess the students’
writing ability in relation to the objectives of the course. The first participant
explained that the major problem was that in some formal tests such as quizzes, many
students have found it difficult to complete the exam. Even for those who could
manage to complete the tasks within the given time, the quality of the work barely
met the teacher’s expectation.
The teacher agreed that a timed-test does not really represent
the true nature of writing. In reality, producing a text does not have a time limit.
However, she agreed that timed-tests are still necessary for their practicality in
managing thousands of students who take the course all at the same time.
For the other teacher’s view on the timed-test, he said that it
was valued for its practicality. However, there are issues to consider for the students’
side. He contended that he had notice that anxiety played a vital role in the students’
performance. To him, such exam anxiety affects greatly the quality of the work. From
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
27
his experience, students’ performance on the timed-test does not really reflect what he
knows the students can do, meaning it is normally below their capability in writing.
The teacher cited an example of a student who could usually write in sound English.
When it came to a formal timed-test of writing, that particular student ended up, to his
surprise, writing sentences that were very much influenced by her L1 and depended
largely on direct translation. He hypothesized this phenomenon as the student could
feel threatened by the concern that the text needed to be completed within a very
limited time. He summarized his opinions towards the formal time-test as both not
matching the nature of writing and not able to reflect the students’ true ability in
writing. He added that he wished there would be a more effective kind of test to
assess students.
(5) The provision of feedback on students’ writing
Then, the interviewees were requested to discuss the provision
of feedback to their students. They particularly provided written feedback in
exercises, quizzes, and exams. One teacher said that the main focus of the feedback
that she provided was corrective feedback, both written and verbal, on linguistic
knowledge such as grammar and mechanics. However, the teacher said that she found
the results of providing constructive feedback to students worked only to a certain
extent but it was quite frustrating for her for the fact that, when students were
assigned new writing tasks, they kept making the same errors, both global and local.
Another issue that the teacher encountered regularly was that
students who received the teacher’s corrective feedback and showed that they
comprehend such mistakes, have a better understanding of the rule as reflected in
their future work, but still have problems when it comes to explicit grammar lessons
and tests, which is error recognition. The teacher explained the situation as students,
after receiving corrective feedback, made fewer grammatical mistakes in those areas
in their written work, but they could not perform well in the error recognition exercise
even when they were tested on the same types of errors.
The teacher was further asked if she provided feedback on the
content and organization. She spontaneously answered yes. When requested to
elaborate how she provided such feedback, the teacher said that she would normally
look at the text and see whether it contains any ideas irrelevant to the answer or the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
28
topic. Then she would use marks and draw arrows linking ideas in the paragraph to
point out the organization issues. However, she said that she did not judge the quality
of ideas.
The other teacher claimed that the feedback he gave to students
was derived from his diagnosis of errors. Most of the time, the feedback was verbal,
mainly through consultations. He disagreed with written feedback as he saw that the
students would be demotivated when they saw their work inundated in red ink.
In terms of following up whether students make use of the
feedback to enhance their writing skill, the teacher said it was mainly the students
who might, in her case, approach the teacher to ask for clarification on the feedback
they received or for suggestions on how to improve. For the teacher herself, what she
normally does is to pick a sample of the graded work with her feedback and use it as a
model for the whole class to discuss, showing the strengths and weaknesses of the
work, and explain the comments in detail.
One of the teacher reported that sometimes she asked her
students to rewrite the work after getting the feedback. However, she would employ
this only with the marked practice writing and only for students who did not perform
well in their first attempt. The reason for her to ask them to rewrite was that it was a
mechanism to ensure that students could perform well in the exam. The focus of the
rewrite would mainly be on the grammatical errors. But she was not able to follow up
to see whether major changes were made, as she had suggested, due to time
constraints.
(6) Concluding remarks
In the last part of the interview, the participants were asked to
conclude whether they thought that their students had met the objectives of the course
and if there had been a major improvement in their writing ability. They said that the
students did show some improvements but not significantly. Their grammar got better
but a more worrisome issue was the overall quality of the writing that was still not
satisfactory or at an acceptable standard in general.
To elaborate on this, the teacher said that the most obvious
problem was that students, though they seemed to be able to write better, still had
problems with the creation of language. They still ended up copying the content from
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
29
the reading input. They memorized the sample sentences. But they could not construct
the sentence with good content on their own.
The other teacher commented that at the beginning of the
course, most students were afraid of learning difficult things and failing the course.
During the course, about 70-80% of them seemed to be able to go along with the
course with some knowledge attainment. By the end of the course, they had become
familiar with the course and the English lexical items in the context of academic
English, as reflected in their writing. They developed a sense of self. However, he
hoped the students would be able to produce the language more accurately and
meaningfully, especially in their writing.
(7) Summary of the teacher interviews
From the interviews, a conclusion can be drawn that the
participants rely mainly on the product-based writing instructions. The use of model
texts were prevalent for the students to imitate the language structure and the
vocabulary items. It was evident when one of the participants said that her students
were unable to independently write without verbatim copying. It could also be argued
that the principles of the product-approach to writing are very much transferred to the
syllabus and teaching methodologies.
Although, to a certain degree, there were attempts to
incorporate the use of the process writing approach in the teaching, there were three
main factors that obstructed the utilization of it. The first factor concerned the
incomplete use of the process approach. A general process-based writing approach
involves several steps starting from planning, to drafting, editing, revising, and
publishing. However, in the real application, the participants used only the first step in
the form of brainstorming for ideas. The second factor was time constraint. According
to the participants, this advanced academic writing course was a fast moving course,
which comprised many activities and drills for the students. Using the process
approach was viewed as time consuming. That was the reason for them to adopt the
counterpart product approach, as it was more practical in terms of completing the
work needed for students to get ready for exams. The last factor that stopped the
teachers from using the process approach was a lack of a clear understanding towards
the concept of other approaches, such as the process approach. One of the teachers in
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
30
the interview stated that it was a fear of redundancy that would end up demotivating
students from learning effectively. It made him decide not to adopt it in his teaching.
For the provision of feedback, it was evident that the
participants focused mainly on corrective feedback for students in order to achieve
accuracy. In line with my practice, provision of corrective feedback had been
ineffective. Students still made the same grammatical errors. Another type of
feedback that the participants provided to their students was on the text organization
with the purpose of ensuring that students would follow the format of the text type.
Comments on content and creativity were usually provided via verbal feedback.
In terms of assessment, the teachers provided writing exercises
and graded practice writings to students. Those practice writing works were seen as
having formative power. However, it appeared that the teachers might not fully
understand or make use of formative kinds of assessment. All the assignments and
small formal tests were arranged as preparation for students to take the formal exams,
while the assessment itself was based on the scores rather than seeing development in
the learning process. Additionally, from the data obtained in the interviews, none of
the participants claimed that he or she had adopted any form of alternative
assessment.
Both of the participants expressed similar opinions on the
assessment system of the course. Students are assessed mainly with the formal
summative tests. They both saw the necessity of such a form of assessment as it
provided practicality. Nonetheless, they both articulated their concerns that the
summative assessment used in this course, mainly timed writing tests, are not fully
able to reflect students’ true ability and learning progress.
The final point, to conclude the summary of interviews of the
participants representing the teachers of the course, is that, despite the countless
efforts in their teaching, the results are still not ideal. The majority of the students still
could not perform as they were required to. Hence, the number of students who could
achieve the objectives of the course is below what the teachers would hope for.
1.6.4 Students’ response to open-ended questionnaire
The other source for baseline data was the students’ written responses
to the open-ended questionnaire. The objective was to inquire about the instruction
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
31
methods in writing that the students have experienced, as well as the learning
strategies and views on the assessment system that they used to cope with the course
demands.
In this task, the students were asked to express their experience in
learning in previous English courses at the university and address their learning
techniques as well as their concerns about their English language ability. The
response from each student was in paragraphs. Then the researcher investigated the
response and came up with different themes. There are four major themes: 1)
strategies used in learning the writing, 2) methods of instructions, 3) the role of the
teacher 4) personal concerns, and 5) personal feelings towards the learning
experience.
The findings from the descriptive analysis on the first theme, the
learning strategies, show that there are two sub-themes, which are practices and
exercises and learning by imitating model texts. A number of students stated that they
did a lot of writing practices, both as assigned by the teachers and by themselves. The
ones assigned by the teachers were either as in-class writing or homework. Most of
them had a firm belief that doing a lot of writing exercises was a means, probably the
only means, to improving their writing skills. Some students stated that they search
for exercises from the Internet to practice by themselves. The following excerpt from
a student’s response shows an example:
“The way I learned and practiced my writing skill in the previous
courses is writing a lot. Luckily, my teachers in English 1, 2, and 3 (courses) gave me
a lot of writing practice. That is why I know what I should or shouldn’t write.”
The next sub-theme was the use of model texts. Students reported that
they learned to write by seeing the model texts that their teacher showed to them. As
one of the students stated in the following excerpt:
“The main way I learned and practiced my writing skill was by seeing
examples of writing in the textbook and following the format.”
While some students did not explicitly state that they had depended on
the model texts, there are some keywords that are related to the concept such as
pattern, how to write, and structure.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
32
“Also, I practiced the writing of memo, paragraph many times because
it made me remember the structure of those writings. I usually write the same thing
but different topics…”
The next theme was about the teachers. Most of the students’
responses mainly explained their teachers’ roles in class. Also, students tended to be
teacher-reliant as their responses repeatedly stated the phrase “my teacher(s)”.
Aligning with their learning strategies, students stated that their teachers provided
model texts for them to follow. An example is in the following excerpt:
“I learned from examples that Ajarn [teacher] gave me, such as the
topic that we have to write. I learned from the model writing.”
Students also explained the role of their teachers in terms of providing
feedback to them. Most of the feedback was in the form of corrective feedback on
grammar. Students tended to view that the corrective feedback was useful for them to
improve their writing ability.
“I can learn a lot when teacher sended me back my homework and told
me what are wrong.”
“Normally, I like to review what I did on writing, and remembered the
mistakes that teacher comments. I think this would help me improve my writing
(skill).”
However, some students indicate that the feedback does not facilitate
their learning of writing.
“…and send to the teacher then get it back and learned nothing except
the red ink from the correction by the teacher.”
The next theme found in the students’ responses was their concerns
about learning English, writing in particular. The three major areas that most students
are concerned about are grammar, vocabulary, and getting good marks, as can be seen
in the following excerpts.
“My weaknesses are sometimes I used a word or grammar that above
my skills and I made it wrong.”
“I always found that teacher doesn’t understand my sentences or the
meaning that I want to say. I think that it’s because my grammar and vocabulary.”
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
33
The last theme found from the analysis was their personal feelings that
they have towards their learning experience. While the previous themes express that
they are well aware of what they thought they should do in order to improve their
English skills, this theme was derived from students’ expressions of their negative
experience in working on numerous writing exercises. They felt that the work was
redundant and boring; the mark was not worth their effort; and they do not feel that it
is useful in improving their writing skill.
“I had writing homework every day and the teacher let us think the
topic by ourselves and it is so hard to create. It’s very boring because I had to do it
every day and the marks are little. I mean 1 work for 1 mark but each work need 2-3
hours for me.”
“In the previous courses, I studied English III and it had many
practice writings such as memo, email. I don’t like it at all because it is very boring
but I need to pass the course…”
“For me it (teacher assigning many writing works) is too much for
students that they have to write many different topics and send to the teacher then get
it back and learned nothing except the red ink from the correction by the teacher.
Another thing was that students (in the previous course) can easily memorize only the
pattern and just change other information. In my opinion, this kind of study didn’t
help students to improve their writing skill.”
The data from the students’ responses to the open-ended inquiry
confirm that the teaching methodology of writing that they were taught with was only
the product-based approach. The results also showed two perceptions on the approach
by the students. The first group saw that model texts provided by the teacher are
useful and able to assist them to improve their writing skills. In contrast, the other
group viewed the product-based approach as an unnecessary burden for them.
Besides, they also found that imitating the model text by changing only the topic did
not help them develop their writing ability.
For the assessment, which was the graded writing, the students tended
to value and believe that it was a useful way to help them learn to write better.
However, a concern was addressed that the stake was low in terms of marks. Students
could not find it motivating enough to spend time and effort on it.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
34
From the preliminary survey of the representatives of both teachers and
students, it was clear that the major approach of teaching and learning of writing was
product-based, which relied heavily on the use of model texts for students to imitate.
Although there were quite a number of benefits that this approach could provide,
criticisms have been made on its effectiveness in fostering students’ writing skills. As
reflected in the interview, the major pitfall of the product approach was that it
obstructed students from composing the text on their own.
As for the assessment methods used in class, in addition to the formal testing
systems dictated by the course syllabus, writing practice was the key instrument for
both training and assessing students’ development. The many exercises on different
topics however did not focus on students’ continuous improvement in academic
writing skill. More importantly, there were issues of concern from both the teachers’
and students’ sides regarding the effectiveness of the present teaching and learning
situation- teachers were not fully satisfied with the outcomes in terms of perceived
improvement from the students, as well as students still having concerns about their
personal development, even though it was only at the local level of their writing
ability such as grammar and vocabulary use.
Table 1.2 summarizes the data from the preliminary survey including the
researcher’s observations, the teacher interviews and responses from students to the
open-ended questionnaire. Through data reduction and thematic coding method, the
current practice and problems are categorized into different areas of investigation,
namely the teaching method, the assessment methods used, and provision of
feedback. From the data, plans to help tackle the problems and improve the teaching
of academic writing are proposed in order for the researcher to design the lesson
plans.
Aspect Source of information
Current practice Problem/Concern
Teaching/ Learning Method
Researcher • The teacher takes the traditional role of being the center of the classroom and the provider of knowledge. The approach used is
• Students falsely assume that the model text is universal and can be used with any topic.
• While the theory of the product approach suggests that it can train students to
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
35
Aspect Source of information
Current practice Problem/Concern
mainly product writing with extensive use of model texts.
increase their linguistic knowledge such vocabulary, syntax and cohesion (Badger and White, 2000), students are unable to produce their works with original and creative ideas.
Teachers • The teachers use the product approach with extensive use of model texts for students to imitate.
• The teachers assign several writing exercises focusing on different topics.
• The benefit of using the product approach is that it helps cope with the time constraint.
• Students imitate the language features presented in the model texts without trying to create their own sentences.
• All assignments are separated. They do not focus on continuous development of writing.
Students • Students learn by looking at the model texts and imitate them.
• Students practice with
many exercises in each text genre.
• A group of students claim that it is easy for them to follow the pattern of the model texts.
• The other students claim that they cannot improve their writing skill by memorizing the pattern.
• Students perceive that doing a lot of exercises is the only means to improve their writing ability.
• Students assert that they have been given too many exercises, which made them end up not learning anything.
• They find that following the same writing drill is redundant and boring.
Process Approach/ multiple
Researcher • Since the researcher, when performing the role of the teacher,
• Evaluating students’ many drafts is laborious for the teacher and it is one of the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
36
Aspect Source of information
Current practice Problem/Concern
drafts uses the product approach, the process approach is never utilized.
factors hindering the utilization of the process approach.
Teachers • Teachers do not employ this approach due to the time constraint. They view the use of multiple drafts as time consuming.
• Teachers do not have a clear understanding of the process approach.
• When they tried to adopt it, they only touched on the first stage, which is pre-writing though brainstorming.
Students • They are never taught with the process approach.
Assessment System
Researcher • The main method in assessing students is the timed-writing tests both in-class and formal tests such as final exams.
• The researcher found that sometimes the test scores do not illustrate the students’ true ability because this kind of test does not represent the nature of writing. Also, it could be due to personal factors such as exam anxiety that students might have. Most of the cases are that students tend to perform below the anticipation of the teacher.
Teachers • The major assessment system they use is the formal timed-tests dictated by the course syllabus.
• Teachers use timed,
graded practice writings in class to prepare students for the formal tests.
• Students have to work under a lot of pressure to complete all tasks in the test, affecting their performance.
• The formal timed-tests do not reflect the nature of writing.
• Students perceive it as a low-stake test. Hence, they do not put their effort into it.
• Students do not see the benefits brought by this kind of practice writing.
Students • The formal • They focus on the score
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
37
Aspect Source of information
Current practice Problem/Concern
summative tests will determine whether they will pass the course or not.
• They were given graded practice writings.
they can obtain from the formal tests, overlooking the development of their writing ability.
• They found the graded practice writings repetitive and boring, and not worth their effort. The investment is high while the mark is very low.
• They believe that graded writing practices cannot help them pass the course.
• Students associate assessment systems with passing and failing the course. They do not see them as ways to improve their writing ability.
Provision/ receiving of feedback
Researcher • The provision of feedback targets mainly grammatical accuracy in the form of corrective and facilitative feedback.
• Feedback on the content part is also provided.
• Students do not utilize the feedback in their works as it is evident that the same mistakes are repeated.
Teachers • The main type of feedback that the teachers provide is corrective feedback focusing on grammatical accuracy and vocabulary that is contextually appropriate.
• Teachers observe that students still make the same mistakes despite the corrective feedback given. This affects the overall quality of the texts.
• Teachers do not emphasize giving feedback that helps improve other aspects of writing skills.
Students • Most of the time, teachers will correct the grammatical mistakes in their works.
• Most students see that grammar corrections are essential in their writing development.
• Other students say that
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
38
Aspect Source of information
Current practice Problem/Concern
they only see their work full of red ink but it does not instruct them on how to improve their writing.
• Most students still perceive that the only way to produce a quality text is to make it error free.
Table 1.2: Summary of data from the preliminary investigation
From the table, it can be seen that using the product approach of writing,
despite the merits perceived by the teachers and students, has undesirable impacts on
students writing development in many aspects such as constraining students from
creating original work. This is in line with the argument made by Ho (2006) which
states that the product approach inhibits students with the idea of trying to produce
works that look linguistically correct while disregarding creativity and expression of
thoughts.
In terms of assessment, providing one-shot practice writings on different
topics of the same text type based on the same governed rules and features would only
result in students attempting to transform the model texts provided to them into their
own works. Letting students work on a controlled drill focusing on accuracy and
format does not put assessment to its place at the center of students’ progress in
having control over their writings (Hyland, 2007). Besides, one-shot practice writing
assignments do not open an opportunity for students to improve in subsequent work.
This is clearly against the characteristic of academic writing that the work should
influence its subsequent text (Wiegle, 2006).
From the analysis of the baseline data which included my observations, the
pass/fail ratio of the students enrolled in the course, the teacher interviews, and the
student responses, it is sufficient to say that the problem of students being unable to
write English academic texts effectively enough to meet the standard required by the
course needs to be addressed and solved immediately. In doing so, this study will
adapt different approaches of writing instructions as the teaching methodology for
English academic writing. As the literature suggests, each approach has its own
strengths that can complement another’s weaknesses. In addition, this study also
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
39
combines alternative forms of assessment as they have the power to monitor students’
progress and reflect students’ actual ability (Brown, 2004). As for the design, the
study is in the form of action research situated in actual teaching practice. In sum, the
study is an integrative approach (Hylan, 2004) of teaching and assessment to the
teaching and learning of the writing of English for academic purposes.
1.7 Action research in writing classes
In the methodology of research on the instruction of writing, the use of action
research as a paradigm is not novel. Many researchers have adopted this participatory
study for its usefulness in grasping the reality of the classroom at its natural setting.
The efficacy of action research is that it helps the researchers, most of the time the
teachers, to improve their practice of teaching writing. The following are some
examples of research works on writing instructions that employ action research as the
methodology.
He (2016) conducted a study to develop vocational students’ sentence
composition skills using action research. The initial idea of this particular study is that
the researcher observes that the students are unable to produce sentences that are
correct, neither in grammar nor structure. The author finds the problem via the use of
questionnaire and plans an 11-week action research plan. During the process,
adjustments have been made. The results from the post-test show that there is a
significant improvement in the students’ ability to compose. In a more complicated
setting, Ahn (2012) designs a study that employs action research on teaching writing
skills using genre approach to L2 primary students of year 5 and 6 in a public school
in Australia. The study period is in a 10-week term. The teaching methodology
adapted to the action research model is three-stage learning cycle (TLC). Two specific
genres, which are report writing and essay writing, are the focus of the study. The
results from comparing the pre-intervention and post intervention writing samples
shows significant improvement, particularly students’ risen awareness of the
rhetorical features of different text genres. In the report of findings, the researcher
comes up with practical instructional framework and activities in presenting genre
approach.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
40
Another work is by Suzuki et. al (2009) who conducted a case study on using
action research in an online writing course in a large scale. The participants comprise
55 students from 2 universities and 152 high school students. The course employs
process-oriented approach as the teaching methodology. The findings suggest an
improvement in the following areas: 1) vocabulary richness, 2) students’ language
awareness, and 3) the presence of scaffolding among the students.
For the teachers’ side, the teachers in this study use retrospective journals to
reflect the effectiveness of the intervention. They claim that using action research
helps them gain insights on the causes of problems in writing that the learners face.
Moreover, the teachers also articulate that using action research enables them to
become more observant and receptive of students’ struggles and improvement. Then,
after the reflection, the teachers work on adjusting the lessons to help learners
overcome their struggles.
Abraham (2015) conducted an action research on an academic writing class in
a university. The results of the study claim that action research helps the researcher
gain an insider perspective on the students’ problem in learning and writing academic
texts. With careful reflection on the findings, the researcher identifies what works and
what does not work in the classroom. The end result is that the action research paves
ways for the researcher to improve the practice of teaching as well as the students’
learning of academic writing.
The use of action research is also pertinent in assessment of writing. Wang
(2016) overcomes the problem in using peer assessment in a writing composition
class for non-English major at a university by conducting an action research. The
writer starts with problematizing the situation based on observation. It is found that
the major obstacle in maximizing the use of peer assessment in writing is the fact that
students are reluctant to do it. Then, the writer designs an intervention and applies it
with action research framework to improve the situation. After the research cycle is
complete, the findings suggest that the intervention works effectively in promoting
the use of peer assessment among the students. Consequently, the quality of written
works improves.
The above research works presented are a manifestation of the tremendous
merit that action research can bring to the practice of teaching writing. It is a research
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
41
approach suitable with the natural classroom setting. The insider view from the
researcher and other participants can provide relevant and useful data to solve
problems as well as improve the situation in teaching and learning. More importantly,
the findings can inform the practitioners of writing instructions of the pedagogical
strategies and methodologies that work, or do not work, in the actual teaching and
learning situations.
Nonetheless, an investigation has shown that some studies that claim
themselves as an action research still possess some shortcomings in terms of design
and utilization of the nature of action research.
One study to illustrate this is the work by Nasir, Naqvi, and Bhamani (2013)
who conducted what they claim to be an action research project on using flashcards
and vocabulary lists to enhance creative writing skill among grade 5 students. The
results from the difference in pre and post-test scores show a marked improvement.
However, a criticism at this point is that, while the writers claim that the study is an
action research, it still lacks several features of action research. To start with, the
researchers design an intervention to the classroom but there is no evidence that
suggests the implementation of the information gained in the next research cycle.
Moreover, there is no discussion on the reflection of the researchers on the process of
research. The findings focus solely on the statistical analysis of the difference
between the pre- and post-intervention tests. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
design of the study is rather more experimental than an action research.
Another example is a study by Pratama (2016). The researcher conducted an
action research on using the mind map technique in improving the narrative writing
skills of grade 7 students. The study covers 2 research cycles and both shows positive
results of the intervention. However, like the previously discussed study, this research
work does not report any reflection from the researcher or practitioner on the
effectiveness. The efficacy is proven by the statistical analysis only. Furthermore,
there is also no report on the change informed by research cycle 1 to research cycle 2.
To summarize, while there are many studies that claim to be an action
research, the actual practice suggests otherwise. Several are found to be a one-shot
experimental design as there is no reflection of the researcher on the findings that lead
to improvement of practice.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
42
After reviewing the previous works, the benefits of action research to the
improvement of writing are clear. Additionally, there is still an opportunity to conduct
an action research in writing class at the tertiary level. Hence, the researcher decided
to adopt action research as the methodology of this study.
1.8 The use of action research in this study
The design of this study is action research because it is a useful approach to
understand the actual teaching and learning situation in the research context, which is
the English academic writing class. The participants in the research were individuals
involved in the real-world context who can provide data from insiders’ views.
Therefore, information derived from this action research could bring about changes to
the pedagogy of academic English writing. Finally, conducting an action research is a
way of professional development (Burns, 2013). It was expected that doing an action
research project will contribute to a better understanding about the efficacy of
adapting different approaches in writing and alternative forms of assessment to the
researcher and others practitioners of academic English writing in order to improve
the practice.
1.9 Research Objective
After getting the baseline data on the current approach to teaching and
learning of English academic writing in the research context, together with a planned
intervention, the objectives of the research were drawn.
The purpose of this action research was to better understand EFL academic
writing approaches and alternative assessment in improving students’ academic
writing ability.
1.10 Research Questions
Based on the objective of this study, research questions are formulated. The
research questions are:
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
43
1. To what extent can the adapted writing approaches and alternative assessment
improve students’ academic writing ability?
2. What are students’ opinions towards using the adapted writing approaches and
alternative assessment in improving their writing ability?
3. How can students’ academic writing ability be improved through adapted
writing approaches and alternative assessment?
a. What are the teaching methods in writing instructions that can
effectively improve students’ academic writing ability?
b. What are the roles of teachers?
c. What are the roles of students?
d. What are the roles of teaching materials?
e. What should be the assessment methods for English academic writing?
1.11 Significance of the Study
Derived from the researcher’s practice, findings from the preliminary
investigation suggest that the teaching and learning of English academic writing of
undergraduate students need attention. Moreover, the need for research in the field of
writing instructions and assessment pertain to this. Hence, the findings from this
action research are expected to contribute to different areas of teaching and learning
of academic writing.
First of all, the findings helped formulate the knowledge about instructional
methods of English academic writing for its practitioners. In this context, teachers of
this advanced academic English course will be informed of the effects of the adapted
approaches of writing instructions in improving students’ academic writing ability.
Furthermore, this action research hopes to constitute informed knowledge of the use
of alternative forms of assessment in academic writing. Besides, the findings illustrate
an example of teacher reflection for other practitioners to improve their personal
practice. It can be considered as a pathway for their professional development.
Next, for the learners, this study could provide an informed practice model
that fosters learning among students of English academic writing. It is expected that
the adapted approaches, which synthesizes different aspects of multiple approaches,
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
44
and the alternative forms of assessment could improve the learners’ academic writing
ability. And more importantly, it should help students become autonomous learners
and independent writers.
As a practitioner of the subject being investigated, this study was an
opportunity for professional development, both as an aspired researcher and a
competent teacher of academic writing.
To a larger extent, the knowledge of the teaching and assessment methods
presented in the findings of this action research should be transferred to the
instructional pedagogy of similar writing classroom context. Finally, the merit of the
rich and valid data gathered from the natural setting, in which the actual teaching and
learning took place, will provide concrete examples that are resources to help
curriculum developers of academic writing course.
1.12 Organization of this dissertation
This dissertation is composed of seven chapters. Chapter 1 presents the
background of the study, its rationale, research objectives, and research questions.
Chapter 2 discusses literature works on related topics namely instructional approaches
of writing, types of assessment, and the principle of action research. Next, Chapter 3
presents the research methodology, data collection instruments, data analysis
methods, and models of intervention of writing instructions with selected alternative
assessment forms for the study. Chapter 4 displays the implementation of action
research in sequential cycles. After that, the findings from both quantitative and
qualitative data are presented in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 discusses the research findings
and proposes a model of academic writing instructions based on the findings of this
study. Finally, Chapter 7 presents the conclusion and recommendations for further
studies.
1.13 Operational definitions of key terms
Academic writing: The writing skill required in academic context that
includes the rhetorical forms, the convention of texts, self-presentation of writers in a
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
45
text, how texts are read, and influences on the subsequent texts; in this study,
academic writing genres include 1) writing to respond to a reading passage and
opinion writing, 2) data interpretation, 3) report writing, and 4) argumentative essay
writing.
Action Research: A systematic study designed to enquire participants who
are members of the research setting; the aim is to identify problematic situation to
come up with informed changes to the practice; under action research framework, the
researcher of this study employed the steps of plan, act, observe, and reflect in the
implementation of adapted approaches of writing instructions and alternative
assessment to improve the students’ academic writing ability.
Adapted approach of writing instructions: A teaching method of writing
designed for this study based on the strengths of each instructional approach namely
the product approach, process approach, genre approach, and the process-genre
approach; it involves a range of writing activities and requires a number of steps and
skills that are recursive. They include identifying the communicative context of the
text, drafting, reviewing, evaluating, writing and rewriting before the final work that
is meaningful and understandable is produced. This also includes multiple drafts in
the process.
Alternative assessment: The process of assessing students’ ability in certain
areas that does not rely on conclusive information but to assess students in their
normal classroom activities; it also touches the students’ higher-order of thinking
ability. It also requires teachers to take the role of assessor; the alternative assessment
methods in this study include peer evaluation, teacher feedback, teacher journals, and
writing portfolios. Furthermore, while the student reflective journals had the main
purpose of being a data collection instrument, it was partly used as another alternative
assessment form as it revealed writing fluency among the students.
Writing ability: The ability of having control over the mechanics of syntax in
producing a written text as well as the expertise in tailoring and controlling
information and interpersonal aspects to the readers. It also entails the ability to write
as a member of a discourse community, which in this study is the academic
community.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
46
1.14 Conclusion
This chapter discusses the scene of the proposed action research. It starts with
discussing the present situation about the teaching and learning of English language in
Thailand. Then it points out the need for a study on academic writing. From the
observation of the researcher’s own the professional practice of teaching academic
writing at a university, students seem to have difficulties in learning to write academic
texts effectively enough to meet the standards. Then, the preliminary investigation on
different sources was conducted. The findings confirmed the existence of the
problem. Voices from the teachers and students regarding the perception towards the
course of investigation and the perceived problems were matched.
Informed by the baseline data about the researcher’s professional context, an
action research method is proposed. The focus of the action research is on the
integration of the process approach to writing and the use of alternative assessment
methods in improving students’ academic writing ability. The reasons for adopting
action research is that, from an investigation of the current research works related to
instructions of writing and writing assessment in Thailand, there is not a single work
that employs action research despite its tremendous benefits. Also, most of the
existing works are quasi experimental or experimental in design. Then, the research
questions are formulated. The intervention and investigation will be in the real
classroom setting where the researcher also takes the role of teacher. Finally, this
study is expected to contribute informed knowledge on the teaching and assessment
strategies that are suitable for instructions of academic writing to be transferred to
practitioners of similar subjects.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
47
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter discusses the theoretical backgrounds of the concepts that
construct this action research. It as well presents the findings from previous research
works in the areas related to this present study.
The discussion starts with the changes of paradigms in language teaching in
general. Then, the chapter is geared towards the theoretical concepts of the topics that
build the framework of this study. The first topic to discuss is English for Academic
Purposes. After that, it moves to the characteristics of academic writing together with
its distinctive features. The next topic to visit is the approaches in writing instructions
namely the product, process, genre, and process-genre approaches. Their strengths
and criticisms on their drawbacks are presented. In relation to that, the relationship
between reading and writing is examined. Another topic to discuss is the concept of
assessment. This part begins with discussing the general concept of assessment. Then
it categorizes the types of assessment. After that, the concept and characteristics of
alternative forms of assessments are presented. Following that, the types of alternative
assessment tools applied in this present study are discussed. The last part of this
chapter discusses the concept of action research. It presents the theoretical concept
that provides justification for adopting this research method for this study.
2.1 The shift in teaching paradigm
In the recent years, there has been a shift in the teaching paradigm from
emphasizing content and the results of learning to highlighting the process of learning
and the capacity of learners to take control of their learning. In this process-oriented
teaching approach, teachers do not act as the center of instruction. It is the learners
who play an active role in finding their strengths and diagnosing their weaknesses
(Nunes, 2004). Also, students take part in selecting processes and strategies to
monitor and perform self-assessment of their learning. As summarized by Macaro
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
48
(2001), students are responsible for the acquisition and development of their own
linguistic skills and knowledge.
2.2 English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
As a branch of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), in which the role of
English in a language course is tailored by the specific needs of particular
professional or vocational groups (Richards and Schmidt, 2000, in Bruce, 2015),
English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses have grown around the world over the
recent years. The main objective of EAP is generally to prepare non-native speaker
students for English-medium academic study as well as to support those who are
already taking courses in universities or pursuing higher education.
Widdowson (1983) is one of the pioneers to define the term English for
Academic Purposes (EAP). He states that EAP courses lie in the area where the future
academic language needs of students relate to the development of capacity and
competence. Flowerdew & Peacock (2001) came up with a more precise definition of
EAP. They articulate that EAP is the teaching of English with the specific aim of
helping learners to study, conduct research, or teach in that language.
However, if the definition by Widdowson is followed, the understanding
towards the essence of EAP could be too narrow. To illustrate this, it is normally,
with such a definition, understood that EAP refers to a single set of linguistic features
while the reality is that each academic discipline varies in terms of values,
assumptions and communicative purposes (Bruce, 2015). EAP, thus, is the study of
English for the purpose of participating in higher education centered on the texts in
academic contexts, including the discourses and practices that surround and give rise
to them (Bruce, 2015). EAP also acknowledges a wide range of knowledge areas
such as social, cognitive, and linguistic knowledge that are practiced across particular
subject disciplines.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
49
2.3 Academic writing
Derived from the definition of English for Academic Purposes (EAP),
academic writing can be defined in a broad term as the skill in writing academic genre
that is required in academic context (Bruce, 2015). It deals with a wide range of
knowledge areas such as social, cognitive, and linguistic knowledge practiced in
particular academic communities. Hyland (2009) asserts that this written genre of
academic texts from different subject areas differs in the use of specific linguistic
features such as hedges and self- mention.
Despite the general understanding, writing is not solely a product of an
individual but also a social and cultural act (Weigle, 2002). It takes place within a
context that accomplishes a particular purpose intended at a particular audience
(Hamp-Lyons & Kroll, 1997:8). Therefore, learning to write academic texts deals
with more than simply learning the grammar and vocabulary. It includes the rhetorical
forms common to the context of academic writing, the convention of texts in a
discipline, how individual writers present themselves in a text, how texts are read, and
how one text influences the subsequent texts (Spack, 1988, in Weigle, 2002).
However, the distinction between academic texts and texts with general
English may be hard to clearly make. Nonetheless, students need to possess
knowledge such as grammar and word choice, which are universal across all types of
genres. It can be clearly seen that even though the written text being produced is
labeled an academic essay, it still requires general English skills to produce. As a
consequence, many writing scholars agree that it is rather difficult to pinpoint the
difference between general English writing and academic English writing.
In distinguishing academic English writing from general English writing,
Charles & Pecorari (2016) illustrate the difference between the two by comparing the
linguistic features of a textbook, as an academic genre, and a novel as a genre of
general English. They claimed that for the academic written text, there must be
features of the language or their unique usage that exist in a specialized domain. In
other words, written academic texts differ from general texts along a number of
parameters.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
50
Another definition that can illustrate the principles and dynamics of academic
writing is by Dong (1997), in Paltridge (2004), who argues that academic writing
involves learning a new set of rules and learning how to play by these rules. These
rules change depending on the disciplines. Also, the audience and the purpose of
writing vary to fit each writing context.
In today’s education, students pursue their studies to the tertiary level. Having
an ability to adapt to new ways of learning in an academic discipline is necessary for
them to become successful in higher education, especially in institutions and
universities in which English is used as a medium of instructions. One of the reasons
is academic knowledge is mostly in form of written text in L2, English in this
research setting. In order to be competent in their disciplines, learners should possess
an ability to understand and interpret the new knowledge. This acquisition of
knowledge is challenging to students (Ivanic & Lea, 2006).
In measuring their academic success, students, most of the time, are assessed
through their written assignments. Those who fail to express the knowledge they have
acquired in their studies are regarded as incompetent. In fact, the problem of inability
to show their competency in a subject depends solely on students’ lack of skill in
producing academic written work.
However, it is far from being easy for students to write academic works. The
same problem is even more substantial for students of English as a non-native
language. As addressed by Paltridge (2004), students in English medium universities
find coping with the requirements of academic writing in English difficult because of
their lack of familiarity with the conventions and expectations of the subject.
2.4 Approaches to writing instructions
In order to find out the most appropriate method of teaching writing in this
present study, there is a need to understand different teaching approaches that are
used.
Because of the increased awareness of the importance of writing skills in a
foreign language in the present day, different approaches to writing have been
employed to writing instructions. The two most common approaches are the product-
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
51
based approaches and the process-based approaches. Later on, in the 2000s, the
approach that has gained popularity in the classroom is the genre approach. Recently,
a new approach that has come into play is the process-genre approach, which
synthesizes the strengths of the genre approach and the process approach.
Another approach to writing instruction that has currently come into the scene
is the product-process approach. This concept, as the name suggests, is a result of the
combination between the product and process approach. The rationale behind such
integration lies in the argument that, according to Brookes & Grundy (1990) in
Pasand & Haghi (2013), L2 writing students will face the problem of unbalanced
writing performance if the two approaches are taught separately. Hence, proponents
of this approach contend that (EFL) learners will gain more benefits from the transfer
of skills offered by one approach to the other, resulting in a better writing
performance.
Nevertheless, the following section of this study will compare and contrast the
product approach and the process approach only as, based on the preliminary survey
of the research context, the product approach is mainly employed in the instructions
of writing while its counterpart, the process approach, is touched on the surface level
only. Additionally, the focus of this research is, as will be explained in detail in the
later part, the process approach in its effectiveness in improving students’ academic
writing ability.
2.4.1 Product approach
Traditional approaches to the teaching of writing focus on the product.
The assessment of students’ writing ability depends, mostly if not fully, on one single
production of a piece of work. Students are trained mainly to imitate models of neat,
grammatically sound writing works. As defined by Pincas (1982a), cited in Badger &
White (2000), writing is primarily about linguistic knowledge focusing on the
appropriate use of vocabulary, syntax and cohesive devices. Nunan (1999) defines
product approach in a similar way. He asserts that producing a final product that is
coherent and error-free is the goal of this approach. Students in the product approach,
he furthers, will initiate, copy, and transform models provided by textbooks or
teachers. In other words, leaning to write in the product approach is seen as what
Pincas (1982) calls ‘assisted imitation’.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
52
The advocates of product-based writing approach argue that modeling,
which is the central part of this approach, is beneficial to learners as it provides an
opportunity for feedback from teachers. Moreover, if appropriately integrated, the
product approach serves as an effective writing instructions tool.
In a writing class that employs the product approach, the teaching and
learning involves lateral stages which are familiarization, controlled writing, guided
writing, and free writing. Moreover, writing activities in product-based classrooms
normally involve the teacher assigning different topics to students in relatively test-
like conditions (Lo & Hyland, 2007, in Lee, 2014).
However, critiques on the use of the product approach argue that the
principles that underpin such approach expresses power that constrains the originality
of writing produced by learners. Opponents of the product approach also heavily
criticize this methodology on its major drawback of limiting the opportunity for
students to express their own thoughts or ideas as the focus is only on producing
correct works that are linguistically sound. Raimes (1983), in Ho (2006), voices his
concern on such approach that it inhibits writers and provides a misconception of
writing.
Similarly, as addressed in Pasand & Haghi (2013), Murray (1980), the
writers point out that the main disadvantage of the product approach is that model
texts actually prevent learners’ creativity. In such practice of product approach, the
models serve only as the texts for students to imitate.
This also means that the product-based approach encourages the
learners to use the same plan regardless of the text type they are writing. They will
also apply the same form regardless of topic and context of writing. Therefore, the
approach is restraining the learners rather than liberating them to acquire writing
skills. To put it simply, product-based writing dictates the way learners write into
certain patterns rather than enabling them to facilitate self-expression.
2.4.2 Process approach
In contrast with the product approach, the process approach puts less
value on the ability of learners to ability to produce texts that look like the target
model and views writing as a process comprised of many different stages and sub-
skills.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
53
The birth of process writing is in the context of L1 writing in North
American universities (Hyland & Hyland, 2000, cited in Gonzalez, 2010). The
emphasis of this writing approach is on the importance of developing students’ ability
to plan, identify issues and analyze and implement possible solutions (Hyland, 2003).
Process approach views writing as the exercise of linguistic skills.
Providing input and stimulus for students to imitate is, on the other hand, less
important. It views the development in writing skill as an unconscious process, which
happens when teachers facilitate the exercise of writing skills (Badger & White,
2000). Another view on the nature of writing is that it is the outcome of processes that
are not linear. Hayes & Flowers (1980) describes that the process of writing is in fact
cyclical and recursive. Also, new thoughts are generated through the process of
writing. In contrast with the view of product-based pedagogy, writing is not a matter
of sequentially following the steps of setting an objective or purpose, making a plan,
and writing (Bruton, 2005). In brief, the acquisition of writing skill does not develop
linearly though it is learnt formally.
Reid (1994) defines the teaching of writing as a process of discovery
that creates awareness among students of the nature of the composing process as
recursive. There are steps in the process that teachers and students take in developing
their written works. These steps include brainstorming, journal writing, multiple
drafting, feedback provision, and editing. Also, process approach to writing allows
teacher and peer collaboration and intervention in the process. Holding such a view in
mind, practitioners of process-based writing instruction claim that the most
distinguished merits of process writing pedagogy is that it represents the nature of the
target behavior along with the social and psychological dimensions of writing skill
acquisition. Studies by Badger & White (2000), Casanave (2004), and Bruton (2005)
support such claim saying that the social and psychological dimensions of both
language learning and language use are projected in the use of process writing
instructions.
Throughout the years, there have been many research works on the
effectiveness of using process approach in English writing class. Some of those
research works, such as by Hayes & Flowers (1980); Zamel (1983); and Flowers &
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
54
Hayes (1980), show that adopting the process approach offers a vantage point to
teachers to intervene successfully in the development writing ability of students.
In contrast with the aforementioned benefits, there are some criticisms
about the process approach. First of all, using the process approach in writing
instructions can be effective only when learners have the opportunity to receive
feedback on their written text (Myles, 2002). In reality, the process approach may not
be easy to practice in classroom writing, particularly a larger one, since it requires
time and effort from the teacher to provide feedback on the students’ written works.
Critics have, moreover, asserted that that the principles of the process approach do not
completely discard the importance of the final outcome. Moreover, linguistic
knowledge such as grammar and text structure is not ignored. In fact, in this
approach, students are thought to be at different stages of writing that help them to
write freely and eventually produce a written product of good quality
Another point on the possible disadvantages of process approach is
raised by Badger & White (2000). They contend that process approach represents a
monolithic view of writing regardless of what is being written. In addition, the writer
and audience do not receive much emphasis. To illustrate this, the number of pre-
writings in producing an academic essay is presumably higher that that required in
writing an invitation letter; however, this fact is not much voiced in the practice of
process approach.
In the view of social-constructivism claiming that writing skill is
acquired through social interaction, process-oriented instruction of writing has also
long been questioned for its lack of focus on the construction of social meanings of
the text being produced. While it is not deniable that this inductive and discovery-
based approach provides students with the freedom to read and encourages fluency, it
does not emphasize the fact that writing is context and culture specific and students
may not share the same knowledge background (Hyland, 2007). It fact, the process
approach still bounds students to the constraints of syntactic structures and
vocabulary. It does not incorporate into the teaching the ways language is used in
specific contexts.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
55
2.4.3 Genre approach
In response to the changing views of learning of writing and in order to
incorporate a better understanding of how language is structured to achieve social and
contextual objectives, increasing attention has been given to the notion of genre
approach of instruction. Genre approach, according to Hyland (2003), views writing
as purposeful and responsive to achieve communicative purposes in a particular
context. In the same vein, Tribble (2009) articulates that, in the eye of genre
approach, writing is socially oriented with the focus on the interaction between the
text and readers. Communication between the writer and readers is established if and
when the latter party can recognize the purpose of the text. For Charles & Picarori
(2016), genre-based approaches are derived from the view of systematic functional
linguistic (SFL) and perceived as a reaction to the personal emphasis of process
approaches returning to focusing on texts and it is a widely used approach in
academic writing.
The genre approaches share many similar characteristics with the
product approaches and, in certain ways, it is considered as an extension of product
approaches (Badger & White, 2000). The genre approaches predominantly emphasize
the linguistic skills. The genre approaches are also influenced by the pattern of
organization, which is the essence of the product approaches, but the form of writing
is contextually derived linked to different situations. Therefore, a writing instruction
that adopts the genre approach deals mainly with analyzing the rhetorical structure
and linguistic features of each genre convention (Phichiensathien, 2016).
Hyland (2016) discusses the advantages of genre-based writing
instructions as systematic and explicit in nature, making clear what is to be learnt to
facilitate the development of writing skill, which leads to teachers playing a central
role in scaffolding the students’ learning. Next, genre-based instructions provide
access to the patterns and possibilities of variation in target texts. Finally, for teachers,
the genre approach increases their awareness of texts to advise students on writing. In
a wider perspective, genre approach enables teachers to design their courses based on
the texts that students will need to write: academic, professional, or social context. In
other words, teachers adopting genre approach of writing instructions are preparing
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
56
their students to participate effectively in the world beyond the ESL classroom
(Hyland, 2007).
There have been, on the other hand, some criticisms on adopting genre
approach to classroom instructions. Dias & Pare (2000), in Hyland (2007), for
instance, argue that writing cannot be leant in the inauthentic context of the classroom
because it is always related to goals and occasions. Moreover, other critics such as
Raimes (1991), in Hyland (2003), question the reproduction of the target discourse
adhered by genre approach. The argument is that explicit teaching of genre approach
with sets of specific formulas restricts the creativity of learners.
2.4.4 Process-genre approach
Process-genre approach is derived from the integration of the genre
and process approaches (Tuyen et. al, 2016). The primary aim of this approach is to
bring together the strengths of the process and genre pedagogical approaches. On the
one hand, it includes the skills in using the language, content knowledge and writing
process from the process approach. On the other hand, this approach emphasizes the
communicative purposes of the text, its target readers, and social contexts in which
the writing is situated, which are the essence of the genre approach (Flowerdew,
1993; Yan, 2005, Nordin & Mohammad, 2006, and Tuyen et.al, 2016). Hyland
(2003b) highlights the text and context as being the centrality of written
communication in the view of the process-genre approach. He further explains that
the process-genre pedagogy of writing emphasizes the process of learning and
acquiring genres rather than solely focusing on the end product.
In the process-genre approach, writing is viewed as a series of steps
starting from defining the communicative situation of a text. Then teachers need to
facilitate support for learners to determine the purpose of the text and its readers
(Ghufron, 2016 and Yan, 2005). Then, students go through the process of planning,
drafting, revising and editing to ensure that the text reaches its communicative
purposes. In other words, the process-genre approach equally weights the importance
of the natural process of writing and the necessity of directing the text to achieve its
communicative purposes.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
57
The role of teachers who adopt the process-genre approach is different
from those who practice the traditional way in the teaching of writing. Li (1992), in
Gonzalez (2010), identifies the role of teachers in this approach as not being the
authoritative figure in the classroom but they are facilitators of knowledge,
consultants, assistants, and co-participants of students learning. The responsibility of
teachers employing process-genre approach is to train students to become self-aware
while they write. Their awareness is reflected in the activities and strategies used
(Hyland, 2003). Furthermore, the duties of teachers in the process-genre approach
also include provision of linguistic input of knowledge and skill such as sample texts,
vocabulary, and grammar (Badger & White, 2000).
According to Yan (2005), the process-genre approach is an effective
instructional approach in teaching academic writing. The writer also proposes the
model for teaching with this approach as comprising six steps. First, the instruction
begins with setting a certain context of writing. Then it moves forward to providing of
language input via text modeling. The third step entails the preparation by formulating
the purpose of the text embedded in the genre. The next two steps are joint
construction and independent construction of the text. Finally, the text is revised in
the last step.
While the model text is part of the process-genre writing instructions,
Badger & White (2000) state that unlike the use of model texts in the product
approach, which serve as the model for the students to imitate, the sample texts in the
process-genre provides opportunities for students to consider real situations and
audiences, and enables them to practice the language use. The writers also assert that
sample texts are useful in training learners to identify the purpose of the text as well
as the social contexts and mode of writing.
A few concerns over the pragmatic aspect of process-genre approach
in the classroom have been addressed. First, the development of writing varies
between learners. The fact is that individual learners are at different stages of writing
development (Badger & White, 2000). In most cases, teachers are not able to find out
about such differences beforehand, making it difficult for them to be prepared and
requiring much effort for them to effectively facilitate the learning for all students.
Additionally, the writers also stated that different genres have different requirements
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
58
in terms of knowledge and skills. However, it is an inevitable fact that teachers may
have limited knowledge about particular genres. Lastly, Yan (2005) comments that
the process-genre model proposed by Badger & White (2000) does not put much
emphasis on revising and editing. It also neglects the role of the teachers in
recognizing students’ individual differences.
2.5 The relationship between reading and writing
Most of the EAP courses have the overall aim to prepare students for pursuing
academic life in their higher education. This setting requires a balance of the four
skills: listing, speaking, reading and writing. The cycle of teaching and learning
generally progresses with establishing contextual knowledge with the receptive skills
of listening and reading followed by the productive skills of speaking and writing. In
genre-based pedagogy, the teaching of the receptive skills focuses on content,
discourse, and organizational and linguistic knowledge to build a foundation for the
productive skills (Bruce, 2016).
Focusing on reading and writing skills, Olson (2003, p.17) contends that
reading and writing, while most of the time viewed as separate skills, have several
common aspects. To begin with, both skills require cognitive strategies from students
in planning and setting goals, activating existing knowledge, making connections
between ideas, and drawing meaning. Furthermore, reading has a vigorous role in
providing comprehension input for writing. It establishes contextual knowledge and
contextual knowledge is incorporated into writing skill (Bruce 2016). To illustrate
this, readers will automatically pick up vocabulary and language structures while
reading and make use of them in their writing work.
A number of studies have confirmed that reading more is connected to better
writing skills (Lee 2001, 2005; Lee & Hsu, 2009; and Huang, 1996, in Mermelstein,
2015). In the same manner, a study by Salehi et.al. (2015) on the impact of reading on
writing found that the experimental group with more reading opportunities
significantly outperformed the control group with regular teaching and reading
amount in the post-intervention writing tests.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
59
Therefore, it can be concluded that reading has a significant influence on the
development of writing ability. EFL teachers are required to create a link between the
teaching of reading and writing. Students of academic writing need to be provided
with ample opportunities and resources in order to become competent in both reading
and writing academically. More importantly, EAP courses should train students
to understand that both writing and reading are indivisible activities with
communicative purposes (Salehi et. al, 2015). This requires teachers to
integrate readings which emphasize the content and language knowledge of the
target academic texts into the curricular progression.
2.6 Assessment
Assessment is an important part of language learning and teaching. Beyond
the general perception of assessment as part of evaluating students’ performance
according to the desired course objective, assessment is an integral part of learning.
Such integration means that assessment can and should be utilized not only to foster
student learning, but also to enhance specific aspects of learning necessary to success
in the course and their lives.
2.6.1 The relationship between learning and assessment
In most writing classrooms, or even the language classrooms in
general, teaching and assessment are viewed as separate entities. The fact is that
assessment is an integral aspect of the teaching-learning process. It is also, according
to Hyland (2007), central to students’ progress towards having more control of their
writing.
The role, the value, and the importance of assessment in higher
education have been one of the most extensively investigated fields. The results of
those works reach a consensus that assessment is a driving force in the learning
process of students (Bound, 1990 and Joughin, 2010, in Kearney, Perkins, &
Kennedy-Clark, 2016).
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
60
Assessment is most commonly categorized into two types based on the
objective of the assessment itself. The first type is known as the summative
assessment and the other type is formative assessment.
2.6.2 Summative assessment
Summative assessment is concerned with, as the name implies,
summing up the achievements of the students. It is directed towards reporting of
students’ performance, based on the criteria set in the course syllabus, at the end of a
course of study. Summative assessment does not have an immediate impact on
learning. Nonetheless, reports from summative assessments often influences decisions
that have profound consequences, both personal and education-related, for the
students (Sadler, 1989).
According to Brown & Abeywickrama (2010), in line with Sadler
(1989), summative assessment aims to measure what students have grasped in their
learning. It is a summation of what students have learned and whether they have
reached the learning objectives as described in the syllabus. The practice of
summative assessment usually occurs at the end of a unit of instruction and/or the
course through quizzes and final exams. However, with the conclusive information
provided by summative assessment, it does not suggest the way for learner to progress
in the future.
Traditionally, the techniques used in assessing learners’ language
development were mostly summative discrete-point tests such as multiple-choice
question format. Time-restricted writing tests at the semester’s end are a typical
method used in the assessment of writing. The traditional summative assessment is
mostly, if not completely, tied in with the term testing and it usually involves
evaluation.
However, there have been lots of arguments about the effectiveness of
such kind of test. The first criticism on the use of summative assessment, in
traditional form, is that most of the time grades are score dependent solely by the
teacher. This constitution of a one-way knowledge elicitation by the teacher diverts
the attention away from fundamental judgments and criteria for marking the students
(Sadler, 1989). Therefore, a grade, as a representation of summative evaluation on
students’ achievement, is actually counterproductive for learning. Taken into
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
61
consideration the complexity of language learning, there has been a call for methods
that help approach assessment from different angles.
2.6.3 Formative assessment
During the past few decades, studies on classroom-based assessments
within the EFL/ESL contexts have begun to emerge (Cheng, Rogers, & Hu, 2004
cited in Çakir, 2013). Alternative forms of assessments such as the use of portfolio
and classroom-based teacher assessment have become of interests of both researchers
and classroom practitioners. These methods of assessments are generally labeled
formative assessment.
Formative assessment has its prime focus on making judgments on
students’ performance. In contrast, with summative assessment, the information about
students obtained from formative assessment can be used to shape, reshape, and
improve students’ competence. In language classes, formative assessment deals with
evaluating students in the process of forming their linguistic competency and skills.
The goal of this type of assessment is to help students continue to grow in the process
of acquisition of such competency and skills (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010).
To elaborate, formative assessment targets the provision of feedback
on performance to improve and accelerate learning. Bachman & Palmer (1996) give a
concise explanation on the purpose of formative assessment. They state that the
purpose of formative assessment is to help instructors to modify their teaching
methods and materials to make them appropriately suitable with students’ needs. For
the learners’ side formative assessment aims to help them guide their subsequent
phases of writing and other skills.
With the emergence of these new methods, assessment procedures then
range, according to Brown & Hudson (1999), from discrete-point tests to more open-
ended performance assessment. Definitions of assessment, consequently, cover a wide
range of scope. As Çakir (2013) summarizes, language assessment means:
1. the process of collecting information about a student to help teachers
make a decision about the learning progress and language development of students
(Cheng et al., 2004);
2. the process of gathering information about student learning
systematically to support teaching and learning (Norris, 2006);
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
62
3. a general term that includes the full range of procedures used to gain
information about student learning (Sullivan, 2006).
In recognition of the critical roles of assessment in the teaching and learning
continuum, together with the perception of assessment as an integral part of learning
and realizing certain drawbacks of the traditional assessment methods, a shift has
occurred from measuring an individual’s discrete knowledge of a subject to a more
open, collaborative, and authentic approach to assessing student learning (Kearney,
Perkins, & Kennedy-Clark, 2016). Hence, a variety of alternative assessment methods
have become popular among language educators in the past recent years. The focus
has also shifted from the conclusive information derived from summative assessment
to the formative values of non-traditional kinds of assessment.
Brown & Hudson (2004) summarize the characteristics of alternative
assessments proposed by Aschbacher (1991), Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters
(1992), and Hueta-Macias (1995) and summarize that alternative assessments:
1. require students to perform, create, produce or do something;
2. use real-world contexts or simulations;
3. are nonintrusive in that they extend the day-to-day classroom
activities;
4. allow students to be assessed on their normal daily class activities;
5. use tasks that represent meaningful instructional activities;
6. focus on process as well as products;
7. tap into higher level thinking and problem-solving skills;
8. provide information about both the strengths and weakness of students;
9. are multi-culturally sensitive when properly administered;
10. use human scoring and judgment
11. encourage open disclosure of standards and rating criteria; and
12. call upon teachers to perform new instructional and assessment roles.
On the other hand, there are certain challenges in using alternative assessment
methods in the classroom. To begin with, one of the key principles of alternative
assessment is that the tasks should be authentic and reflect the real-world language
use. However, the process of designing such tasks that provide students with
opportunities to express authentic performance is extremely complex (Leung &
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
63
Lewkowicz, 2006). In addition to that, teachers need to ensure that the task covers all
skills, processes, and knowledge that need to be assessed.
Another issue that usually hinders language teachers from using alternative
assessment methods is that it requires a lot of time and effort. Unlike its traditional
counterpart such as the true-false or gap-filling tests, teachers need to spend a lot of
time to grade students works designed with alternative assessment measures (Norris et
at., 1998, cited in Çakir, 2013).
As previously mentioned, the ability to write is the central part of learning in
higher education. Even with that fact being understood, assessment practices do not
seem to align with the concept of learning in tertiary education (Hout, 2002; and
Shrestha & Coffin, 2012).
Although there are a number of research works on writing assessment, most of
them tend to focus on the summative aspects of assessment and testing such as inter-
rater reliability and rating scales in standardized tests. The investigation of the linkage
between writing assessment and the process of development in writing ability is still
under-researched despite the recognition of the value of formative assessment (Hout
2002; Walker, 2009; and Shrestha & Coffin, 2012).
Regarding the research works on alternative assessment in language classes, it
is quite obvious that studies on how teachers assess their students are still scarce. As
contended by Edelenbos & Kubanek-German in 2004, there are very few reports
about the integration of assessment and learning in foreign classroom. Also, most of
the previous research works view the use of alternative assessment as an entity
separated from teaching. Hence, the focus of research is mainly on the application of
such assessment methods while their relationship to the teaching methods are not
considered. Another point that is noticeable about research in this field is that
although there have been a number of investigations on using alternative assessment
methods such as portfolio assessments and self and peer feedback, most them are
mostly quantitative in nature.
In response to the points mentioned, this action research attempts to
investigate the alternative assessment methods in an English academic writing
classroom integrated with the teaching process writing approach. Also, the nature of
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
64
this research is mixed method having the qualitative aspect as the predominant part to
express in details the use of alternative assessment measures.
2.7 Assessment of writing
The primary purposes of language assessment are to make inferences about
language ability and to make decisions based on those inferences (Bachman &
Palmer, 1996). In the case of assessing writing, it deals with the process of making
inferences about the ability to write and how it manifests in the real-world language
use (Weigle, 2002). The ability to use the language, in this case in the form of writing,
to achieve a communicative function consists of interaction between language
knowledge and strategic competence. The knowledge of writing, according to
Douglas (2000), features the taxonomy of an array of language knowledge, which
includes grammatical knowledge, textual knowledge, functional knowledge, and
sociolinguistic knowledge. In the meantime, the strategic competence means a set of
metacognitive components that allow one to make use of the language knowledge to
appropriately meet communicative goals (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). Therefore,
assessment of writing generally refers to the process of assessing one’s ability to
apply the knowledge of language to achieve a communicative goal.
In attempting to accurately assess learners’ writing ability, recent assessment
practice leans towards performance assessment (Weigle, 2012 and Yi, 2009). The
rationale behind the shift in the writing assessment paradigm from the traditional
paper-and-pencil tests, for example multiple-choice questions, to assessing learners’
actual performance of writing is because the actual written product represents the
writer’s actual knowledge and writing ability (Weigle 2002). For the assessment of
academic writing, unlike general EFL courses that assess language proficiency with a
wide range of activities, it focuses more specifically on language outcomes that relate
to higher education context. The emphasis is on procedural as well as decorative
knowledge and a holistic rather than an atomistic approach to reflect the complex
nature of writing (Bruce, 2015)
Nevertheless, in the classroom setting, there has been a question of the
representativeness of the writing test to the actual natural process of writing tests in
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
65
which writers have time to reflect, consult sources, and seek help and feedback. To
elaborate on this, while the efficacy of the timed writing test is for its practicality,
most real-world writing is not done in a controlled condition and with limited number
of tasks. Besides, assessment is in fact an integral part of the teaching and learning
process. Therefore, assessment method alternatives to the timed-test have been of
interest to scholars, especially ones that can help promote teaching and learning of
writing in parallel with providing information about learning such as writing portfolio
assessment (Lam, 2016)
Furthermore, a mismatch between the methodology for teaching writing and
the assessment process has been reported in many research works. While the
instruction of writing has shifted toward observing the process of writing, the
assessment of writing has still been centered on the product-oriented approach. As
Hinkle (2002), cited in Lee (2016) wrote, standardized and institutional tests have
continued to focus on written products even though the teaching itself is now process
oriented. This displays the conflict between the demand for the learner-centered type
of pedagogy and the focus on the outcome of learning as a product rather than on the
process of learning and skill development.
2.8 Alternative assessment methods
As this action research is examining the effect of using alternative assessment
to improve undergraduate students’ academic writing ability, literature and research
on alternative assessment methods are reviewed.
2.8.1 Portfolio
Professionals in many vocations keep portfolios to show the collection
of their work. The idea of using portfolios in the language classroom also has become
an interest of language teachers. They encourage their students to select, compile, and
display their work too. Portfolio assessment began to draw attention around the mid-
1980s as a reaction against the psychometric prevailing at the time (Park, 2004).
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
66
Brown and Hudson (2004) define portfolio assessments as purposeful
collections of students’ work in any aspects that display the story of their
achievement, skills, efforts, abilities, and contributions to a particular class. Agreeing
with the definition, Hirvela and Swetland (2005) state that a classroom portfolio can
enhance teaching and learning, especially in a learner-centered classroom.
Literature signifies the merits of portfolio assessments in at least three
aspects namely students, teachers, and the assessment process.
First, for students, portfolio assessments strengthen student learning.
Using portfolios can help students to focus on their involvement in the learning
process through practice and revision of meaningful activities. Furthermore, using
portfolios provides the means for establishing minimum standards for classroom
works and progress. Additionally, students will learn the metalanguage necessary for
language growth.
Second, portfolio assessments can enhance teachers’ roles by
providing them with a clearer, compared with the traditional form of assessments,
picture of students’ language growth. Consequently, teachers will gain insights on the
progress of each student. As importantly, using portfolios will change the role of
teachers from the authority figure of the class to becoming the coach for students.
The last aspect to which using portfolio assessments can benefit is the
assessment process. It is believed that adopting the portfolio assessments improves
the assessment process by involving both the teacher and students. The teachers and
students can work collaboratively to assess the students’ language growth. The
teacher will have an opportunity to observe students performing meaningful language
to accomplish a variety of authentic tasks. Moreover, it provides multi-dimensional
assessments for language learning. This will sequentially provide the teacher a variety
of information about students.
There have been a number of theoretical researches that suggests the
use of portfolio assessments in English language classroom (Hedges, 2000). In the
eyes of teachers, the use of portfolios is part of the growing interest in adopting
alternative assessment in their classrooms.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
67
In line with the shift to the current language pedagogy that focuses on
learners and the process of learning, portfolios serve not only as an assessment tool
but also as a mechanism that fosters learners’ linguistic development.
Portfolios in the language classroom can be a useful tool to promote
active participation among students. Nonetheless, care should be taken in order to
maximize the use of the portfolio as an assessment tool. According to Nunes (2004),
to optimize the benefits of portfolios assessments, two principles should be followed.
The first idea is that they facilitate on-going interaction between teacher and students.
For the second tenet, a portfolio should reflect learners’ cognition process as it is a
crucial element of education.
2.8.2 Writing portfolio
In the context of writing instruction and assessment, a portfolio is
defined as “a collection of texts the writer has produced over a defined period of
time” (Hamp-Lyons, 1991, p. 262 cited in Park, 2004) and the collection may consist
of “selected but not necessarily polished or finished pieces”. The idea is also
supported by Weigle (2007) who indicates that a writing portfolio demonstrates
students’ effort, progress, and achievement in writing over a period of time. This
means that the use of multiple drafting methods should be a technique that supports
the use of portfolios as the assessor can have records of students’ process with one
writing task.
Many researchers have pointed out that portfolio assessment can as
well provide other great benefits to the writing class. For example, Graziano-King
(2007) states that portfolio assessments is a direct method of writing assessment that
align assessment of writing with the cognitive and social views of writing.
Getting closer to the setting of this research, portfolios are considered
to be useful especially for non-native English students (Hamp-Lyons & Condon,
2000). Whereas timed essay writing tests are claimed to be discriminatory against
non-native writers, portfolios can provide a broader measure of what (non-native)
students can do.
For teachers, using writing portfolios provides more information about
students’ progress (Hyland 2007). Compared with the traditional summative
assessment, this offers teachers a clearer picture of what students need; hence teachers
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
68
can make informed decisions on measures to support students to improve their writing
ability.
Although portfolio assessment might be seen as an alternative to
traditional approaches to writing assessment, there are some concerns about
portfolios, particularly when used for large-scale performance evaluation. One major
area of concern is the complexity involved in grading such collections of writing,
such as developing appropriate grading guidelines (Hamp-Lyons & Kroll, 1996),
maintaining consistency in portfolio grading (White, 1994), and avoiding subjectivity
in grading (Smith, 1991).
A possible solution to these problems is the development of explicit
instructions for both students and instructors that ensure consistency and reliability in
both the compilation and evaluation of portfolios (Herman, Gearhart, & Aschbacher,
1996, Park, 2004).
The biggest misconception of portfolio assessment is that it is viewed
as only a tool for summative assessment. Teachers and students tend to ignore the
even-greater benefit of portfolio assessment as serving as a formative assessment
mechanism to students, especially in the grade and exam-driven educational
environment. According to Lam and Lee (2009), attention is drawn to the summative
purpose of portfolio assessment as it can become another form of testing and a means
for students to get a better grade.
A writing portfolio is not popular among teachers of the academic
writing course despite its potential benefits. Students’ learning outcomes are
evaluated with the final grades. The assessment process in the course is mainly
summative through the use of timed writing tests, quizzes and examinations. These
methods, though very practical, are claimed to be unable to help make an accurate
judgment of students’ development in academic writing.
On the contrary, using portfolios instead of writing tests under
restricted circumstances to evaluate students can provide teachers a better ground to
make an informed judgment about the students’ writing ability. This idea is supported
by Hedges (2000) who states that portfolio assessment portrays a more
comprehensive picture of students’ writing ability than a one-shot essay writing
within a given time.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
69
From the benefits of portfolio reviewed from the literature and
previous studies, as well as the lack of usage of this assessment tool in the
researcher’s context, this research will attempt to use portfolio assessment as one of
the tools in assessing students’ academic writing ability.
2.8.3 Feedback
Feedback is the information about how successfully or poorly
something has been done. In assessing for quality, teachers judge the students’ works
in relation to the concept of quality as defined by the tasks. As Ramaprasad (1983),
cited in Johnson (2016) discussed, feedback is information about the gap between the
actual level and the reference level of a system parameter, which is used to alter the
gap in some way. Therefore, good feedback is not only valued for its informational
content but also its effect on helping the students reduce the discrepancy between
their actual performance and the extent of quality they are expected, by the teacher or
the course criteria, to reach.
Research on feedback shows that students put highest value on teacher
feedback in comparison with other forms of feedback. Moreover, studies also indicate
that most students of English writing prefer to receive feedback from teachers on
content and ideas in their work (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Badger and Yu, 2006,
in Lee 2008).
Feedback, adding to being the most common tool for practitioners of
alternative assessment, is the key information delivered by a teacher to students on
their performance with the purpose to form their learning and to sustain the
continuation of it (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010). In case of writing instructions,
teachers provide feedback on student writing to support students’ writing
development and nurture their confidence as writers.
In this study, based on the preliminary investigation, feedback in
writing mostly refers to the correction of grammar and spelling. This is a conventional
practice of providing feedback in EFL product-oriented writing classes. It is given to
single drafts and followed by some input on grammar and vocabulary. It is very
common for teachers in the product approach teaching to use feedback as a means of
producing error-free texts and preparing students for exams. Such practice indicates
the dominating role of teachers as the center of learning.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
70
As Lee (2014) points out, the chief focus of conventional feedback is
on errors in the local level. The students are instructed to do the corrections as
suggested by the teacher while the revision of content and organization is ignored
although the teacher gives some comments. Hence, the provision of feedback,
particularly in the product-oriented writing class, deals mainly with providing
corrections, mostly in codes, to surface errors in one-shot writing tasks, from which
students can copy without considering other areas of improvement. Such practice of
feedback giving presents sequential problems to students’ learning. To begin with,
students will keep repeating the same kinds of errors even in their corrections. They
can be discouraged by their teacher’s corrective feedback. The major concern for
them is still the score. In terms of learning ability, provision of this kind of feedback
in product-approach classrooms is counterproductive to students learning autonomy.
This means that the teacher’s effort and investment in time do not pay off. In
conclusion, providing conventional feedback is a problematic area for both teachers
and students (Lee, 2014).
Another study that reports the ineffectiveness of conventional feedback
is by Furneaux, Paran, & Fairfax (2007) who examine feedback practice on EFL
essay writing among teachers in Cyprus, France, Korea, Spain, and Thailand. The
researchers report that the teachers overwhelmingly focus on grammar and the
provision of feedback through coding schemes. The results of both studies point to
the same direction; that conventional error-correction feedback is unproductive.
A work on teacher feedback in EFL writing by Lee in 2014 shows the
same result about the drawbacks in the provision of conventional feedback. The
findings of the study create an awareness of the ineffectiveness of using conventional
feedback. It concludes that the reason for the ineffectiveness is due to the inadequate
level of mediation that those conventional feedback activities provide to students.
Then it proposes a new idea of how feedback in EFL writing classes should be.
Moreover, when feedback practices are dominated by the teacher of
the product approach, with the orientation of producing error-free writing texts,
students will have to rely solely on the teacher. This consequently instills the idea of
dependency among students. In other words, this kind of practice produces passive
learners who sometimes do not even consider making changes to their written text
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
71
based on the feedback. Besides, it is in contrast with the idea that students can and
should be active agents in the feedback process (Hyland & Hyland, 2006a).
For the teacher side, although EFL writing teachers realize that the
conventional method of feedback they practice has many shortcomings, it is still
widespread among them. A study by Lee in 2009 investigated written feedback given
by teachers in 174 written texts and their beliefs on the type of effective feedback they
hold. The results show a large discrepancy between what they know and their real-
world practice. Some highlights of the findings are as follows.
First, while they contend that good feedback should not only focus on
grammatical accuracy but should also cover the development of ideas and
organization, the majority of the teachers display that they inordinately focus on the
language form.
Next, most teachers agree that students should learn to correct the
errors only pointed out by teachers, also known as indirect feedback. In real practice,
they do not provide opportunities for their students to do so. The feedback usually
comes with instant corrections by teachers. Besides, they also contend that even when
they use correction codes when they provide feedback, most students have limited
ability to decipher the codes. Still, it is a common method that most teachers employ.
This affects the development of students’ learning autonomy. Most teachers agree that
the corrective feature of conventional feedback hinders students’ autonomy. It in fact
negatively promotes reliance on teachers for correction instead of students taking
control of their own learning. All students have to do is to rewrite the work with the
teacher’s corrections.
Furthermore, the teacher participants in the study express their
understanding that good feedback provides both positive and negative comments to
focus on both strengths and weaknesses of the students. Nonetheless, the analysis
shows that the teachers mostly respond to the weaknesses. This practice can
consequently demoralize the students to strive to improve.
It can be concluded from many studies that the conventional type of
feedback has proven itself ineffective in fostering students’ writing ability.
Consequently, many literatures have proposed views on better methods and types of
feedback.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
72
However, there are no concrete suggestions on the characteristics of
good feedback. Some researchers have tried to formulate guidelines on providing
effective feedback. To begin with, good quality feedback is information that helps
students troubleshoot their own performance and self-correct. In other words, it helps
students reduce the discrepancy between their intention in writing and the actual
results. Also, good feedback should provide high quality information that help
substantiate students’ self-regulation in learning (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006).
This implies that feedback should be made in a timely manner and it should cover
both praise and constructive criticism. This idea is supported by the work by Hyland
(1998) on student responses to teacher feedback. The findings suggest that students
welcome and believe that both praise and constructive criticism from their teachers
are useful for them to improve their writing ability.
The essence of such ‘effective feedback’ is within the view of
Vygotsky’s sociocultural construct theory. The practice of such view is common in
many methods of assessments, such as dynamic assessment (Lantolf & Poehner,
2011). In this proposed model, the centrality is on the transformation of the teacher
from dominating the class to mediating it in order for effective feedback to take place.
In line with that, the conventional feedback activity, which focuses mainly on
marking each piece of student writing in the same manner and with the attention on
grammatical errors, should be transformed to responding to student writing with a
clear purpose. Besides, the process should begin with the stage of prewriting
instruction such as the orientation, the sequence of information, and the tense used. It
is also important that the students are presented with opportunities to interact with the
teacher. The characteristics of feedback are then categorized as follows.
First, the object of feedback should not be on error corrections only. It
is necessary that teachers provide formative feedback to help students in other aspects
such as learning skills and motivation to make them become autonomous writers.
Second, the feedback that is more informative and diagnostic should
replace the error-focused kind. To make the practice more effective, it is ideal that the
feedback is exercised in the process-oriented classroom. The reason is that students
are involved with the feedback process.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
73
Third, in order to make this feedback work, there should be multiple
sources of feedback. This means that teachers are no longer the center of the
classroom. Also, student roles need to change from passively receiving teacher
feedback to becoming active agents of their own learning (Throne, 2004). They will
also have to engage in setting their learning goal, participating in self and peer
evaluation, acting on the feedback they receive, and setting their further goals.
To conclude, one of the ways to improve the quality of feedback that
can enhance students’ learning is to replace the conventional feedback provision that
focuses mainly on the linguistic form with feedback that is comprehensive and socio-
culturally derived. The desired type of feedback should mediate learning experience
among students. At the same time, EFL writing teachers should provide feedback that
are meaningful and purposeful for students to improve as autonomous writers.
Nevertheless, the complete fruition of using this kind of feedback can only be
achieved in the process-oriented classroom where the assessments methods are
formative in nature, including the use of formative feedback.
In another research that is more specifically related to assessment of
essay writing, Lundsford (1997), Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006) propose some
guidelines on feedback provision. First, the ideal number of well-though-out feedback
comments to give to students is three. It is the optimal number for students to act on
the comments. The writer also suggests that the comments should be in a non-
authoritative tone. The other point that the writer proposes is that the teachers should
shift their roles of authoritative figures evaluating the students’ works to that of a
reader. The feedback then should focus not on judging the quality of the work but on
expressing how the teacher, acting as the reader, experiences the text.
While the conventional feedback is associated with the practice of
product-based writing approach, the process approach counterpart requires feedback
that goes beyond the surface level of form-focused. In process approach writing, one
of the keys in achieving successful writing work is to have effective revision between
drafts. Writers should be able to deal with feedback from their readers, which in the
students’ cases, is the teacher and peers. However, the revision should aim at the
meaning of the text. So, in order for the feedback to be effective, based on the process
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
74
approach principle, the feedback should help writers to revise the text to the meaning
level.
To be specific, in the process-oriented writing classroom, feedback that
goes beyond the local feature of grammar plays a vital role in the development of the
writing work. There are some evidence that students pay great attention to teachers’
feedback and incorporate it in the revised works for improvement (Ferris, 2003 and
Lee, 2014). This is due to the nature of the pedagogical approach that influences the
students to utilize teacher feedback immediately in improving their work in the
multiple-draft writing context.
Several investigations on the link between feedback and writing
development such as by Cohen & Cavalcanti (1990); Hedgecock & Lefkovitz (1994,
1996), cited in Ferris (2003), show that provision of teacher feedback proves that it
certainly and often helps student writers in the process-oriented writing classrooms
that employ a multiple-draft approach. Evidence shows that students display marked
improvement in their writing between drafts by accommodating the feedback from
their instructors.
For research, formative feedback is an area that has received great
attention from researchers. In addition, recent studies tend to maintain the interest in
finding learner perceptions about tutor feedback and how they value it. Most of the
studies in this area are directed towards investigating teacher feedback using a variety
of methods in different perspectives (Shrestha & Coffin, 2012). Furthermore, those
research works mainly include students’ perception of teacher feedback. One example
is by Lee (2008) who surveys the preferences of students on teacher feedback. The
results suggest that the type of feedback most demanded by students is the written
comment. In fact, they prefer the teacher’s comments to correction of grammatical
errors.
One point of concern about the information gained from those works is
that, although they have provided insights on the perceptions on feedback, they do not
analyze the impact on the students’ writing performance to see if feedback provides a
positive force on students’ writing ability. Besides, according to Stern and Solomon
(2006) cited in Shrestha & Coffin (2012), most of the teacher feedback is found to be
corrective feedback aiming at the local features such as grammar and spelling. What
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
75
is lacking is the concentration on the formative feedback that contributes to the
comprehensive writing development for students.
However, some exceptions are found in the work of Duncan (2007)
and Ellery (2008). The former research was conducted on the impact of the formative
feedback given by the teacher on writing. The results show the there is no substantial
gain in terms of writing performance through the use of such type of feedback. The
latter work by Ellery is a small-scale study which reports that students improved their
subsequent writing skill as reflected in assignment drafts as a result of formative
feedback. Both studies, nonetheless, fail to describe the framework of the feedback
used in the investigation or as the intervention.
Realizing the constraints in the availability and variety of the research
in this field, this present study looks at the effect of feedback on the development of
writing skill among undergraduate academic English writing students as part of the
investigation. The data obtained are in both quantitative and qualitative form. The
methods of data collection proposed here are the writing score for the quantitative part
and student interview for the qualitative part as a method of data triangulation to see
whether the feedback given to students has impact on their writing performance.
2.8.4 Peer assessment Peer assessment holds its value in learning in multiple ways. To begin
with, it is the most readily available material to work on. Other advantages of using
peer assessment is that, according to Sadler (1989) in Sadler (2013), students are
working on a task of the same type; so, they are brought together with a wide range of
moves or solutions to creative, design, and procedural problems, and they will be
exposed to these, incidentally expanding their own repertoire of moves.
There are several theoretical supports for peer assessment but the most
recognized notion is Vygoskyan notion that writing, like all other learning and
knowledge, is acquired through socially constructed activities. Writing skill is a result
of cognitive development from social interactions. To date, many teachers of different
disciplines have started to use peer assessment in classes. The most basic form of peer
evaluation is when a teacher encourages students to exchange their work with one
another.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
76
Peer assessment, also called peer evaluation, is a common formative
assessment method used in language writing classrooms, both L1 and L2 (Lundstrom
& Baker, 2009). It is as important activity that allows teachers to help their students
receive more feedback on their papers.
Adopting peer assessment also gives students opportunities to practice
a range of skills that are important to the development of language and writing ability.
For a start, peer assessment reflects the very principle of formative assessment in the
sense that it helps learners develop learning autonomy. Besides, it is a means to
improve learners’ higher-order thinking skill through critically reading their peers’
written works. Other benefits include meaningful interaction with peers, a greater
exposure to ideas, and new perspectives on the writing process.
The use of peer assessment is not limited to L1 composition but a
number of practical benefits of using this assessment method is suggested for L2
writing classes by many authors, as summarized by Ferris (2003, p.70). The author
concludes that, by reading their peer works, students can gain confidence,
perspectives, and critical thinking skills. Moreover, students will get feedback from a
more diverse audience, which is no longer limited to their teacher. Consequently, they
will receive feedback from non-expert readers, so they will know if their texts or ideas
are not clear. Finally, this kind of activity foster a sense of community among the
students.
The adoption of peer assessment in writing classes follows the
principles of many writing pedagogies. To elaborate on this, constructive appraisals
and criticisms by a fellow student foster the practice of reader-writer relationship. It
can, moreover, enhance the skills necessary for doing peer review, which is a feature
of academic English.
Combining the process-oriented writing approach to formative
assessment, peer assessment plays a crucial role in the formative developmental
process. It gives writers the opportunity to discuss their texts and discover others’
interpretation of them (Hyland, 2000). Proponents of process-based writing optimize
the use of peer assessment as a strategy in the provision of feedback. In other words,
peer assessment is incorporated as one of the steps in the process. The writer will use
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
77
the feedback to improve particular aspects of their writing in the step of revision and
creation of the new draft.
Another advantage of using peer assessment in class is that it can, if
properly prepared, complement teacher assessment in the facilitation of writing. In the
undergraduate context in Thailand, it is undeniable that the class size is large.
Teachers also have to bear other administrative requirements apart from their normal
teaching duty. On top of that, applying formative assessment to the exam-driven
culture normally means laborious work for teachers as it requires close monitoring on
the process and progress of the students’ learning. Using peer assessment helps reduce
the workload of the teacher. In other words, the assessment method can function as
the first frontier to evaluate the works before they reach the teacher.
The benefit of being a complementary tool for assessment is presented
in a quantitative study by Matsuno (2009), which investigates how effectively self,
peer, and teacher assessments work in university EFL writing classes. The study
reports that peer assessment can compensate for shortcomings in teacher assessment.
Internal consistency is also high among peer assessors alongside the fact that the level
of bias, on the other hand, is low.
A work by Hedgecock & Lefkowitz (1992) examined the impact of
peer feedback in comparison with teacher feedback and found that, through process
writing, students who only give peer feedback outperform students who only receive
peer feedback in terms of overall score in their final draft essays. In the follow-up
detailed analysis of the text, those who receive the teacher feedback mostly only make
surface level revisions. On the other hand, those who receive only the peer feedback
make substantial changes in the meaning level, namely content, organization, and
choice of words.
Peer assessment also promotes cooperative learning and morale in
class. More importantly, students become a more active agent of learning. From the
researcher’s observations in the preliminary investigation for this present study, when
students are assigned to perform peer evaluation in class, the dynamic of the class
gradually and significantly improves from passive learning to active engagement.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
78
Furthermore, as communication progresses, the feedback and comments made by the
reviewers become more effective and useful for the writers to revise their works.
From the dynamic created by peer interaction, the benefits of using this
formative assessment method are not specific to the writers only. Much literature has
demonstrated the benefit of peer assessment for both the assessors and the receivers.
For example, Roscoe & Chi (2007) claim that, from their study on
using peer assessment in writing class, engaging in a cognitively demanding activity
such as writing benefits students who assess their classmates’ works in terms of better
understanding of subject matter and writing skill.
Through communicating with each other, both writers and reviewers
can improve their writing ability. In an empirical study conducted by Lundstrom &
Baker (2009), students of an L2 writing class are divided into two groups: the givers,
those who perform peer review on their classmates’ writing works, and the receivers,
those who receive only feedback from the givers but do not review their classmates’
works. The difference between the pre-test and post-test scores show that both groups
of students show an improvement in their writing ability in different aspects such as
the organization, development, cohesion, vocabulary, and mechanics. However, it is
worth noting that the giver group has shown a more significant improvement than
those who only received peer evaluation. Hence, a conclusion can be drawn that peer
assessment is a beneficial tool in promoting students’ writing ability not only from
receiving their peers’ comments but also from giving feedback to their friends’ works.
Another work by Mendonça & Johnson (1994), which investigates the
negotiation strategies that students use in peer review activity, proves the efficacy of
peer review. It finds that as reviewers, students ask questions, explain certain points,
and provide comments and recommendations. They also correct grammatical
mistakes for their friends. As a result, the students who receive the peer revision
incorporate those comments, though selectively, into their revised works. Follow-up
interviews on the students’ perception on the usefulness of peer review reveal that the
students find it useful especially in terms of idea development.
Regardless of how many research works suggest the positive impact of
using peer assessment, there have also been reports on students’ resistance to such
method. Some literature suggests that students normally will question the validity of
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
79
their fellows’ comments. The need for the teacher’s assessment over peer assessments
still prevails among students despite the benefits they can bring. Studies by Zhang
(1999) and Paulus (1999), and Yang, Badger, & Yu (2006), cited in Zhao (2014),
affirm such argument. Those studies find that, through the self-report data, students
prefer teacher feedback to peer feedback and, in the revision of their writing, they
incorporate more comments from teachers than those from their peers. Many studies
on the resistance of students to peer assessment, such as by Nelson & Murphy (1993)
and Paulus (1999), agree that the bottom line is that students do not trust their peers’
critiques and recommendations because they are themselves learning the same subject
and their peers are perceived as not qualified to give recommendations.
Other studies report concerns about the perception of students on the
fairness of peer assessment for both the assessor and the receiver of assessment. In a
study by Kaufman & Schunn (2010), the researchers conducted an investigation on
students’ negative perception about online peer assessment through a survey at the
end of a writing course. The findings show that students see peer assessment as unfair
and believe that peers are not qualified to review and assess students’ works.
In line with that, Smith et al. (2002), in Kaufman & Schunn (2010), put
forward that, over time, students tend to develop confidence in the peer assessment
and their peers’ comments, although doubts about the fairness and consistency of peer
assessment remain.
While there has been only a handful of research works attempting to
identify the factors driving students’ negative attitude towards the effectiveness and
resistance to peer assessment with empirical and conclusive information, writers such
as Cheng & Warren (1997); Rushton et at. (1993); and Liu & Carless (2006) contend
that one of the reasons is the lack of teacher input in the peer assessment process. The
hypothesis is that such unease and negativity are due to the fact that students lack
familiarity with the non-traditional idea of assessment, particularly when the assessor
is their peer.
To alleviate students’ resistance to and negative perceptions of peer
assessment, studies suggest several steps in the process of using peer assessment in
classrooms. To begin with, teachers need to make a clarification of the purposes and
criteria in peer assessment (Falchikov, 2005). Additionally, more peer assessment in
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
80
both forms of both group and one-on-one can lead to better revision as well as more
positive attitude towards peer assessment (Falchikov, 2005, and Berg et al., 2006).
What is needed further in order for peer assessment to be successfully
used in classrooms is the students’ capacity to discern their peers’ performance (Saito,
2008). In fact, there are numerous volumes of research studies on the effect of
training for the peer revision process such as by Hu (2005) and Liu and Hansen
(2002), in Saito (2008). The findings from these studies suggest that students who
have received training on peer evaluation can produce more specific responses than
those without the training. Not only in terms of the frequency and the amount of
comments, the trained group also displays advantages over their untrained
counterparts in terms of the quality of the reviews as well. The researchers then
conclude by asserting that training in peer assessment leads to more changes in
revision and it is crucial in the improvement of the final written product.
Another experimental study on the effects of training in peer
assessment is by Saito (2008). The study compares two groups of participants: the
treatment group who has received training on rating their peers’ texts and the control
group who has not. The findings show that the treatment group is more superior to its
counterpart in terms of both quantity and quality of products. Then, the researcher
concludes that with the meta-analytic summary, training in peer assessment may
enhance student comments and reduce the impractical comments.
To conclude, with proper guidelines from the teacher, the exchanges of
students’ peer feedback are mutual and will not cause any resentment among students.
Also, less-proficient students will not feel threatened. The reason is that evaluating
each other’s work in a cooperative learning environment means students are holding
the same objectivity. They will become less defensive of other students’ work than on
their own.
The training does not only pave the ground for effective peer
assessment but it enhances students’ ability to evaluate their works by themselves as
well. Before they are able to become an evaluator of their fellow students, students
need to be able to judge the quality of their works and should also be aware of what
they are doing in the process.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
81
2.8.5 Journal
In the education arena of the present day, journal writing has a
prominent role in language learning, especially in the teaching and learning of writing
that emphasizes self-reflection and learner autonomy. It is also a widely used method
of assessment that helps teachers develop an in-depth idea about individual students
as well as their relationship with them.
Brown & Abeywickrama (2010) concisely define journal as a log of
one’s thoughts, ideas, feeling, reactions, assessment, or progress towards goals. With
journal writing, students can articulate their thoughts without having to worry that the
teacher will judge them. Therefore, keeping a journal is a means to record personal
experience, reflect thoughts, and develop insights on those experiences.
Journal writing, according to Hashemi & Tayebeh (2015), refers to any
writing that students perform to reflect on past situations and how they might perform
in a future similar situation. The most simple, yet suitable, type of journal for students
is the learning journal. It can be in the form of a simple handwritten note in a
notebook. However, with the growth of computer technology, it is rather more
common for students to keep their journal in their personal computer or online.
For learning, a journal serves as a tool to aid learners in terms of
personal growth, synthesis and reflection on the information acquired. In can also
help learners to monitor their learning progress (Hiemstra, 2002). There are many
categories of journals employed in classrooms. To name a few, there are language-
learning logs, grammar journals, strategies-based learning logs, and self-reflection
journals (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010). Nonetheless, they are similar in the
fundamentals.
The very purpose of learning to journal, particularly in a writing
classroom, is that it helps enhance frequent writing. The entries in the journal range
from recording what learners have acquired in class to their interaction with
classmates and the teacher. Nonetheless, the most important function of journal
writing is that it provides students an opportunity to reflect on their learning
experience. This kind of learning journal is called a reflective journal and has been
used extensively.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
82
In order to become competent in any skill, one has to practice. The
more individuals practice, the better at that skill they become. The same logic applies
with writing. Due to the known fact that writing is a skill that most EFL students have
difficulties with, constant practice is the key to become excellent in the skill. Most of
the time, in-class writing practices are not enough for students as there are many
limitations such as the pace of the class, the time constraint in a single class, and the
students’ lack of competency in general. Opportunities to write outside the classroom
can be helpful for students to enhance their writing skill (Chanderansegaran, 2000).
One of the measures to help support and provide opportunities for students to write is
through journal writing. Moreover, having more chances to write is regarded as active
learning technique (Tuan, 2010).
Self-reflection is the process of trying to develop a better
understanding of one’s self by deeply considering the feelings and emotions towards
an experience and asking thought-provoking questions to develop a deeper level of
understanding. Through self-reflection, learners will connect their thoughts and
feelings to the experience of learning activities they are engaged in (Andrusyszyn,
2007).
In promoting competency in writing, a student reflective journal can
bring about tremendous benefits. To start with, as previously mentioned, the primary
purpose of journaling is that it provides learners with more opportunity to write freely
(Hamp-Lyons & Heasley, 2006). Moreover, journal writing is claimed to be an
enjoyable experience for students because they can write without any pressure such as
time and concerns for grammatical errors (Spaventa, 2000). It subsequently fosters
students’ interests in writing. At the same time, students will develop fluency of
expression of thoughts, feelings, and ideas. In line with these claims, Mlynarczyk
(2013) states that journal writing gives students extensive practice. It is an opportunity
for students to express their attitude towards writing. The writer also contends that it
can foster the relationship between students and their teacher. This is because
students’ journal writing can help the teacher know and understand better about the
students, what they need, their concerns, and their strengths and weaknesses, so that
the teacher can tailor the instructions to meet those needs.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
83
In the case of process-approach writing, journal writing plays vital
roles. According to Yinger (1985), cited in Hashemi & Tayebeh (2015), keeping a
journal can improve students’ writing skill as it helps them to focus on the processes
rather than the end product. Furthermore, journal writing allows the students to
express their personal aspects. It also serves as a record of thoughts and expressions
of the students for future references.
Reflective journal writing, for its merit on learning development, is a
learner-centered strategy. With constant practice, learners will develop critical
thinking ability (Chabeli, 2001). A study by Hashemi & Tayebeh in 2015 analyzes
reflective journals of 65 medical students taking writing class. The investigation finds
that writing journals have a positive influence on the students’ writing styles,
reflections, attitudes towards writing, and improved sense of self. The researchers,
therefore, conclude that the improvement is mainly facilitated through journal writing.
Despite the benefits, the practice of student journaling is arguably
underutilized especially in writing classes. However, there are some literary works
that articulate the benefit of journal writing.
Another pedagogical implication of journaling is for assessment.
Journal writing is one of the effective methods of assessing students writing ability.
To begin with, journal writing improves communication between students and the
teacher because journals are dialogic. It, therefore, provides the teacher an
opportunity to deeply understand the students’ needs and offer feedback to them.
More importantly, most of the traditional methods attempt to assess the students
writing skill at only a certain point in time and then draw a conclusion about them
based on one single performance. The information gained from such method may not
be able to provide a true and accurate picture of the students. With journal writing,
teachers will have an opportunity to closely and continually observe students’
progress and ability. It means that journal writing can provide longitudinal data that is
from the real learning context. So, the information gained from analyzing students’
journals in both richer and more valid than that reported by a single writing test
(Brown 2001).
In addition to the results of the qualitative inquiries, students’ voices
and perception on the usefulness of the two methods, process writing and alternative
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
84
assessment, will also be taken into consideration. This quantitative information can
shed light on how academic English writing teachers decide to embrace the use of
process writing approach and/or alternative assessment in their class in order to foster
students’ learning.
From the review of literature and research works on the use of
journals, this action research decides to employ it as another instrument in promoting
students’ writing ability. Another reason for journal writing in this research is as a
data collection instrument. There are two types of journal in this study. First, the
student reflective journal that has the purpose of collecting qualitative data from the
students about their perception on the intervention methods in the teaching and
learning of academic writing. The second type of journal is the teacher’s journal. For
this instrument, it is the place in which the researcher, who is also the teacher, records
the data observed in the practice. It serves as a place to reflect on the effectiveness of
the activities in the intervention. The qualitative information from the journal will
then be analyzed for improvement of the sequential research cycle.
2.9 Conclusion
This chapter begins by stating the theoretical background of English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) and defining the characteristics of academic writing. Then,
definitions of the theoretical frameworks, namely approaches in instructions of
writing and the forms of assessment are explained. After that, literatures on the
theories as well as previous research works related to this action research are
reviewed. The findings of the reviews suggest the efficacy of using the product-
approaches in the teaching of writing. Moreover, the benefits of using alternative
forms of assessment to foster learning are also discussed. However, there is no
evidence of a research work that employs the two theories in real classroom practice.
The last part of this chapter reviews the origin and importance of action research to
educational research. The benefits and contributions that this kind of practitioner-
based investigation offers are tremendous. Nonetheless, some criticisms on its
drawbacks are mentioned. Then, suggestions by different writers on measures that
help to repudiate such shortcomings are presented.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
85
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research methodology and design of this study. It
starts with describing the context of the study namely the course to be investigated,
the participants, and the writing genres and tasks required by the course. Then, the
methodological approach of this study, which is action research, and the rationale for
using it are discussed. The next part shows the theoretical framework of the model of
adapted approaches of writing instructions and the types of alternative assessment
used in the study. As well, different data collection instruments and procedure of both
qualitative and quantitative methods are presented. This chapter, finally, ends with the
methods of data analysis.
3.1 Context of the study
This study is conducted over the period of 1 semester or approximately 15
weeks at an international university in Bangkok, Thailand. Most of the programs,
undergraduate and post-graduate, are offered with English as the medium of
instructions. Additionally, the university has declared that English competency is one
of the qualities that all its graduates must possess.
All students at the university are required to complete four English courses,
which are English I, English II, English III, and English IV. The course to be
investigated in this study is an advanced academic English course, which is a 90-hour
course, in a semester, and the last foundation English course that all students have to
enroll. The course is described as advanced English for academic and career purposes,
emphasizing critical and analytical skills and formulating logical and coherent
opinion. Like all of the English courses the university, this course is composed of two
main components, which are Reading and Writing and Listening and Speaking. There
are two teachers; the first one is responsible for the Reading and Writing component
for 67.5 hours while the other teacher is in charge of the Listening and Speaking part
for 22.5 hours.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
86
The class meets two times a week. Each class lasts three hours. Out of 6 total
hours in one week, students spend 4.5 hours on the Reading and Writing component
and the other 1.5 hours for the other part. In this study, the researcher takes the role of
the teacher in the Reading and Writing Component. It means that the researcher will
meet the students two days per week for 3 and 1.5 hours respectively.
In terms of mark allocation, the Reading and Writing component holds 400
out of the total 500 marks, which is equal to 80 per cent while the Listening and
Speaking part has the other 100 marks. In order to pass the course, students are
required to acquire 70 per cent, which is 350 marks, of the total marks from the two
components combined for a grade of C. Getting a grade below the C means failure,
resulting students having to take the course again.
In the Reading and Writing Component of the course in this present study,
there are five units of study.
(1) Writing to Respond to A Reading Passage and Opinion Writing
The first genre is writing in response to a reading passage. In this unit,
there are two sub-genres, namely writing to show comprehension in reading and
writing to express opinions on the given reading passage. The reading comprehension
skill, however, is separately taught prior to the writing. In this study, the main focus
of the writing instructions and the assessments used is on the later part whose
objective is to train students to form their knowledge of making an argument and
generating warrant and data to support it.
(2) Editing and Proofreading
This unit reviews the previously learnt grammar. The students are
trained to identify common grammatical errors in a paragraph. The objective of this
unit is to instill the ability to transfer their syntax knowledge to proofreading and
editing their own text. However, there is no production of text involved in this unit.
(3) Data Interpretation
The second genre is data interpretation. As described in the course
syllabus, the objective of this unit is to train students to discuss the statistical and
graphical information in form of writing. In presenting the information, students are
trained to observe, select, and discuss key features of a graph or chart. They are
required to use the linguistic and rhetorical features specific to this genre such as the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
87
vocabulary items used to describe the movement of the number. Also, students are to
write to explain their interpretation of the reasons for the observed information in the
numeric and graphical information that they observe. This part requires them to
exercise their logical thinking skill and present their argument in a well-organized
paragraph.
(4) Short Report
The third writing genre in this course is short report writing in form of
memo report. In each drill, students are given a reading passage related to a current
issue on the topic related to environment, business, social movement, or government
policy and produce a report based on the information in a reading passage. This kind
of writing instructions fosters both analytical and logical thinking skills. Students,
after reading the passage, are required to develop a report composed of different parts
that are interconnected and sequential. This also means that they need to practice their
analytical skill in choosing appropriate method of analysis to effectively develop the
paragraphs.
In the next part of the report, students will have to present
recommendations in response to the analysis in the previous part. It is necessary for
the students to be able to come up, and write, the recommendations that are practical,
logical, precise, and relevant to the content of their analysis. Hence, this reflects that
this part of the report aims to, like the other parts, enhances students’ higher-order
thinking skill. In addition to the linguistic features and critical thinking ability that
students need to master, this writing genre requires the students to follow specific
format as report writing is considered as professional technical writing.
(5) Argumentative Essay
The last genre that students are taught in this course is argumentative
essay, which is a widely practiced type of academic writing. The objective of this unit
of the course is to train students to exercise their logical thinking to persuade the
readers to agree with their stance on a debatable topic. In details, students will have to
learn to evaluate conflicting views, examine their own thoughts, and articulate them
as well as consider the ideas of others and refute them in a logical and pragmatically
correct manner.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
88
However, it is necessary to mention that, although the study is based on the
course contents and lesson plans dictated by the syllabus, the study focused on the
units that the students were required to produce texts. The error recognition study unit
was not part of this research.
3.2 The participants in this study:
In each semester, approximately 2,100 students are enrolled in this advanced
academic English course. For this present study, the participants of this study were 32
students. The convenient sampling was used as the sampling method. The
participants were an intact group of students who enrolled to this course through the
university’s regular registration process. Moreover, since the course was a core course
requiring all students to take, the participants in this study were students from
different disciplines and faculties.
After the students were enrolled, the class was assigned to the researcher as
the teacher for the Reading and Writing component of the course.
For their preexisting knowledge of English, the students, as a requirement of
the university, must have completed the three previous prerequisite courses. In those
courses, the students had learned progressively from the basic paragraph composition,
grammar rules, essay writing, to English for academic purposes (EAP). Therefore,
their knowledge is presumed to be at the same level.
One remark that should be made here is that, as presented in pass/fail ratio of
the students enrolled in this course in Chapter 1, the percentage of student passing this
course was relatively low. Therefore, it is certain that the participants in this study
were a mixture of students who had taken this course but were unsuccessful and
students who was taking it for the first time. However, this fact was not considered as
a threat to the internal validity of this study. The reason was that this study employed
the theoretical framework of action research whose primary focus was on the
development of the teaching practice and learning process of students. Therefore,
regardless of whether or not the participants had ever taken this course, they
represented the population of students of this course and consequently help the study
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
89
focus on the problems predetermined and generate the knowledge that answers the
research questions.
3.3 The action planned for this study based on the preliminary investigation
Derived by the observation that the researcher has made when performing the
role of teacher in the advanced academic English course, further investigation were
conducted to confirm that the problem of students not meeting the course objectives
and not developing their writing ability. The interviews with two teachers who
regularly teach this course indicate that they are experiencing the same phenomenon.
The findings of the preliminary investigation also show that the methodology of
teaching was mainly the product approach with extensive use of model text.
Furthermore, the assessment methods used in their classes were mainly formal,
graded timed writing test.
Student voices were also inquired. Through the use of open-response
questionnaire, students expressed their learning approach to writing and assessment
systems. The results align with the findings from the teacher interviews that they had
learnt their writing skill by following model texts. Moreover, emerging data also
showed that students received only feedback on their accuracy of the local grammar.
After the problems were identified and confirmed, the data from the
preliminary investigation were categorized four areas: teaching and learning methods,
the use of product approach in writing, the assessment systems, and the provision of
feedback. Then, based on the aggregated data, actions were planned to tackle the
current problems and improve the situation.
Table 3.1 revisits the summary of problems and current practices in the
advanced academic English class found in the preliminary investigation as presented
in Chapter 1 of this study. Added to that, this table also proposes the actions planned
to improve the situation.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
90
Aspect Source of
information
Current practice Problem/Concern Proposed plan
Teaching/
Learning
Method
Researcher
observation
• The teacher took the traditional
role of being the center of the
classroom and the provider of
knowledge. The approach used
was mainly product writing with
extensive use of model texts.
• Students falsely assumed that the
model text was universal and can
be used with any topic.
• While the theory of product
approach suggests that it can train
students to increase their
linguistic knowledge such as
vocabulary, syntax and cohesion
(Badger and White, 2000),
students are unable to produce
their works with original and
creative ideas.
• This study combined different
approaches as the teaching
methodology of academic
writing to improve the
students’ writing ability.
• Multiple drafts writing method
was utilized.
• Students were taught with the
main focus on generating ideas
and language and less
emphasis on form (Hyland,
2013).
• The writing process and
orientation on communicative
Teachers • The teachers used product
approach with extensive use of
model texts for students to imitate.
• The teachers assigned several
writing exercises focusing on
• The benefit of using the product
approach is that it helps cope
with the time constrain.
• Students imitated the language
features presented in the model
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
91
Aspect Source of
information
Current practice Problem/Concern Proposed plan
different topics. texts without trying to create
their own sentences.
• All assignments were separated.
They did focus on continuous
development of writing.
context can foster positive
attitudes in students as it helps
create a sense of ownership
(Ho, 2006 & Badger and
White 2000).
• To emphasize the development
of language and ideas and to
lighten the workload, which
Students • Students learned by looking at the
model texts and imitated them.
• Students practiced with many
exercises in each text genre.
• A group of students claim that it
is easy for them to follow the
pattern of the model texts.
• Other students claimed that they
could not improve their writing
skill by memorizing the pattern.
• Students perceived that doing a
lot of exercises was the only
means to improve their writing
ability.
• Students asserted that they had
been given too many exercises,
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
92
Aspect Source of
information
Current practice Problem/Concern Proposed plan
which made them end up not
learning anything.
• They find that following the
same writing drill was redundant
and boring.
was perceived by the students
as counterproductive, there
will be 2 assignments, for
which students will write 3
drafts, in each writing genre.
Process/
genre/
process-
genre with
multiple
drafts writing
Researcher • Since the researcher, when
performing the role of the teacher,
used the product approach, the
other approaches were never
utilized.
• Evaluating students’ many drafts
was laborious for the teacher and
it was one of the factors
hindering the utilization of the
other approaches.
• Integrating peer evaluation in
the process can help reduce the
workload of correction for
teachers while it diminishes
the shortcomings in teacher
assessment (Matsuno, 2009).
• The lesson plans are designed
with all steps in the process
model of writing approach
(Hyland, 2013).
• Instead of giving exercises on
different topics, there will be 2
Teachers • Teachers did not employ multiple
draft writing due to the time
constraint. They view the use of
multiple drafts time consuming.
• Teachers do not have a clear
understanding of the process
approach.
• When they tried to adopt it, they
only touched only the first stage,
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
93
Aspect Source of
information
Current practice Problem/Concern Proposed plan
which was the pre-writing
though brainstorming.
assignments, for which
students will write 2 and 3
drafts, in each writing genre.
Students • They were never taught with any
approaches other than the product
approach.
• To raise the awareness of the
new teaching methods that
students were going to
experience, at the first two
meetings, the concept and
details of multiple-draft
writing will be introduced to
students. Samples of multiple
drafts will be presented to
them.
Assessment
System
Researcher • The main method in assessing
students is the timed-writing tests
both in-class and formal tests such
as final exams.
• The researcher found that
sometimes the test scores do not
illustrate the students’ true
ability because this kind of test
• Alternative forms of
assessment of writing will be
introduced. The types of
assessments are student
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
94
Aspect Source of
information
Current practice Problem/Concern Proposed plan
does not represent the nature of
writing. Also, it could be due to
personal factors such as exam
anxiety that students might have.
In most cases, the students
tended to perform below the
anticipation of the teacher.
reflective journal, teacher
journal, peer assessment,
teacher feedback, and student
portfolio.
• To accurately project the
students’ development in their
writing ability, a portion of
scoring on their writing
assignment will be given to
progress, which is observed
from the different drafts to the
final product.
Teachers • The major assessment system they
used was the formal timed-tests
dictated by the course syllabus.
• Teachers used timed, graded
practice writings in class to
prepare students for the formal
tests.
• Students had to work under a lot
of pressure to complete all tasks
in the test, affecting their
performance.
• The formal timed-tests did not
reflect the nature of writing.
• Students perceived it as a low-
stake test. Hence, they did not
put their effort in it.
• Students did not see the benefits
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
95
Aspect Source of
information
Current practice Problem/Concern Proposed plan
brought by this practice writing.
Students • The formal summative tests would
determine whether they would
pass the course or not.
• They were given graded practice
writings.
• They focused on the score that
they can obtain from the formal
tests, overlooking the
development of their writing
ability.
• They found the graded practice
writings repetitive and boring,
and not worth their effort. The
investment was high while the
mark was very low.
• They believed that graded
writing practices cannot help
them pass the course.
• Students associated assessment
systems with passing and failing
the course. They do not see them
• In addition to practice writing
scores, a portion of classwork
marks is allocated to portfolios
with grading guidelines
(Hamp-Lyons and Kroll, 1997)
developed particularly for this
study.
• Using alternative forms of
assessments, particularly peer
evaluation and students’
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
96
Aspect Source of
information
Current practice Problem/Concern Proposed plan
as ways to improve their writing
ability.
reflective journals would
create an environment that
promotes autonomous
learning, hence improving
their writing ability (Birjandi
and Tamjid, 2011).
Provision/
receiving of
feedback
Researcher • The provisions of feedback
targeted mainly on grammatical
accuracy in form of corrective and
facilitative feedback.
• Feedback on the content part was
also provided.
• Students did not accommodate
the feedback in their works as it
was evident that the same
mistakes are repeated.
• The recursive nature of
multiple-draft writing can help
students reflect their
performance and focus on the
development of their writing
works in good quality (Reid,
1994).
Teachers • The main type of feedback that the
teachers provide is corrective
feedback focusing on grammatical
accuracy and vocabulary that was
contextually appropriate.
• Teachers observed that students
still made the same mistakes
despite the corrective feedback
given. This affected the overall
quality of the texts.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
97
Aspect Source of
information
Current practice Problem/Concern Proposed plan
• Teachers do not emphasize on
giving feedback that helped
improve other aspects of writing
skills.
• The provision of teacher
feedback focuses on both
aspects of the writing. The
corrective and facilitative
feedback will be provided on
the linguistic knowledge as
accuracy pertains in the
grading rubrics of the formal
tests. At the same time, a
combination of evaluative,
descriptive, procedural, and
cognitive feedback will be
given to improve the skills that
students need in producing
academic texts (Jang, 2014).
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
98
Aspect Source of
information
Current practice Problem/Concern Proposed plan
Students • Most of the time, teachers
corrected the grammatical
mistakes on their works.
• Most students saw that the
correction on grammar was
essential in their writing
development.
• Other students said that they
only saw their work full of red
ink but it did not instruct them
on how to improve their writing.
• Most students still perceived that
the only way to produce a
quality text was to make it error
free.
• As part of the alternative
assessment, students will be
trained and asked to provide
peer feedback to their
colleagues. Peer feedback is a
mechanism that reinforces the
social and psychological
dimension of writing (Badger
and White, 2000).
Table 3.1: Summary of data from the preliminary investigation with proposed actions in this study
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
99
3.4 Research design
The design of this study was mainly under the theoretical framework of action
research with the combination of the strengths of different approaches of writing,
namely the product, process, genre, and process-genre approach, for the instructions
part and the alternative assessment methods for the assessment part. The data
collection procedure is mixed-methods approach.
3.4.1 Action research
As discussed, the main objective of this study was to better understand
EFL academic writing approaches and alternative assessment in improving students’
academic writing ability. The setting of the study was the real classroom environment
where actual teaching and learning took place. Hence, this study was non-
experimental but was designed in an action research approach in order to examine the
impact of the use of adapted writing approaches and alternative assessment methods
on improving students’ English academic writing ability. The rationale for adopting
action research was that it was suitable for capturing the authentic classroom teaching
and learning.
According to Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) action research refers to an
approach of inquiry carried out by classroom practitioners, which is collaborative in
nature and aimed at bringing about change. This view suggests that action research is
about bringing changes to the classroom practice rather than a mere observation and
report by the practitioner, and it has to involve other parties in the context of the
study. In the same vein, Burns (2013) provides the idea that action research involves
two related forms of activities: action and research. The former term “action”
represents the situation in which participants enact plans embedded in their daily
lives. The latter term “research” is where the participants systematically investigate
the impact of these plans.
Nunan & Bailey (2009) assert that action research is one of the
prominent methodologies of research in the field of language teaching and learning. It
is a form of self-reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in order to improve the
rationality and justify their own practice, their understanding of those practices, and
the situation in which the practices are carried out. Furthermore, Burns (2010) and
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
100
Hyland (2016) contend that action research is the process of the progressive problem-
solving method through collecting and analyzing data. The objective of conducting an
action research is to improve some original action that is worth investigating.
In the field of education, classroom action research is a measure steered
towards self-improvement of the practitioners since they are the ones who design,
conduct, and use the research themselves. Such approach bridges the gap between
research and practice because researchers and practitioners are the same individuals.
Hence, classroom action research is specific to a situation. The findings are relevant
to the context and can be used directly to improve their practices (Cross, 1987, 449).
Therefore, the information gained from the natural setting can shed light on the
efficacy of the planned intervention. Simply put, it was believed that the study would
provide information on what methodology works and what does not work in
improving students’ academic English writing ability under the scope of process
writing approach combined with alternative forms of assessment.
At a more personal level, conducting a classroom action research was a
means for me to further my professional development. I had the opportunities to go
through the steps in action research, which are planning, acting, observing, and
reflecting. Eventually, the systematic observation and mindful reflection on teaching
and learning in the real setting will provide valuable information on the effectiveness
of the researcher’s professional practice in order to understand and improve it. This is
in line with Hyland (2016) who addresses that the practices of action research
professionalize teachers by giving them new skills and knowledge. The information
derived from conducting an action research can lead the practitioners to an
improvement of their work context.
3.4.2 Action research cycle
This study was based on the action research cycle model proposed by
Kemmis and McTaggart (1998). This model is the most widely recognized display of
the action research cycle. According to Burns (2010), this model is considered
‘classic’ and useful as it summarizes the essential phases of the action research
process.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
101
Figure 3.1: Action Research Cycle Model (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1998)
The steps in this action research model are defined as:
(1) Planning
The first phase is for identifying the problem and developing a plan of
action in order to bring improvements to a particular issue of the research context.
The researcher needs to consider about the possible actions, constraints of the
teaching, and potential improvements.
(2) Action
The intervention is introduced to the teaching situation. The
intervention is derived from the assumptions about the current situation.
(3) Observation
This is the stage where the researcher conducts a systematic
observation on the effects of the actions and records the context, reactions, and
opinions of participants involved. It is, therefore, very crucial that the researcher be
aware of what is going on the classroom.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
102
(4) Reflection
This is the stage of making sense of what has happened regarding the
effects of the actions through reflection, evaluation, and description. Consequently,
the researcher will make a decision as to whether another investigation is needed to
further improve the situation or to share it as part of professional development.
However, some criticisms have been made on the model. To start with,
many critics, such as McNiff (1998), describe the model as too rigid and prescriptive
whereas the nature of action research should be more flexible and spontaneous. Also,
Burns (1999), in Burns (2010), asserts that the action research processes are
interwoven by many different aspects. They include exploring, identifying, planning,
collecting information, analyzing and reflecting, hypothesizing and speculating,
intervening, observing, and finally writing a report on the findings. Therefore, more
details of action in each step are necessary to capture the complex reality of classroom
dynamics.
Despite such criticisms, the action research model by Kemmis and
McTaggart still serves as a platform for this present study as it can help capture the
broad view of phases in action research. The steps in action research with more details
are adjusted to fit the context of this present study by the following stages.
3.4.3 Action research model for this study
The steps in the action research cycle, as defined by Kemmis and
McTaggart, include planning, action, observation, and reflection. For this study,
however, the first step started with the preliminary investigation to confirm the
existence of the problem. Based on the findings, the current approach of instructions
of academic writing was product-based. As for the assessment, summative formal
tests were the main method used in assessing and evaluating students’ performance.
The findings showed that students were unable to produce texts with quality at both
local and global levels. The investigation suggests that it is due to excessive reliance
on the model texts. Furthermore, there was a mismatch between the summative form
of assessment, which was timed-tests, and the nature of writing. As a consequence,
students were unable to meet the objective of the course resulting in a high failure
rate.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
103
Then, I hypothesized that the causes of the failure for students to
achieve academic writing ability were the teaching methodology and the lack of
formative assessment. Thus the intervention was designed and applied in the
sequential steps of the action research cycle. This section gives a brief explanation of
the procedure in each step and explains the actions to be taken and activities planned
for the present study.
When the research cycle was complete, the information gained from
the data collection and analysis on the effectiveness of the intervention were
interpreted and served as the baseline information for the next research cycle. The
following figure displays the research cycle model in this study. It is worth noting
that, unlike the traditional action research model by Kemmis and McTaggart, the
adjusted model of this study was more flexible. As can be seen, the processes
involved are non-linear, more recursive, adaptable, and adjustable. This model opens
room for spontaneous changes. To illustrate this, when an intervention was introduced
in the learning process in the action stage, I would perform the observation and
reflection. An immediate change could take place in response to the need without,
unlike the traditional model, having to wait for the research cycle to end.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
104
Figure 3.2: Steps in Action Research for the present study
Step 1: Preliminary investigation In this study, this stage of action research started with problematization
of the situation.
While performing the role of instructor in the course, the problem of
students being dependent on the use of model texts in writing had triggered my
interests. Additionally, it came to my attention that the majority of students, being
Observation of the result of the action • Qualitative data collection • Quantitative data collection
Reflection: Data Analysis • Qualitative data analysis • Quantitative data analysis
Action • Operationalization of the
plan
Planning: Intervention • Adapted approaches of
writing • Alternative assessment
Preliminary Investigation: Problematization/ Baseline data/ Hypothesis • Researcher’s observation
and document analysis • Teacher interviews • Student Response
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
105
reliant on the model input, were either unable to produce written works or at least
reach the expected level.
Then, information on the pass/fail ratio of students taking the course
over the past 4 semesters, in the academic years 2014 and 2015, was obtained. The
figure shows that an average of 35 percent, which was considerable, of students were
unable to meet the passing standard. This confirmed that the problem should be
addressed.
After the existence of problem was confirmed, the preliminary
investigation was conducted. As discussed in Chapter 1, the baseline data were
obtained from semi-structured interviews with two teachers of this course. The
elicitation focused on four different areas: the teachers’ perceptions on the course,
their teaching method of writing, the assessment systems, and the students’
performance. They were also asked to describe their teaching methodology. Then,
their opinions towards the lack of formative power of the existing formal tests were
voiced.
The next part was an open-ended questionnaire applied with students
taking the course. The response was in the form of short written responses to the
questions asking the students’ learning styles. They explained about how they learned
in the previous English courses, especially with the writing component. Then the data
was analyzed using thematic analysis approach.
The information that formed the baseline data points to the direction
that the problem exists. Therefore, an investigation and a plan to improve the teaching
and learning of the academic writing situation are necessary. Consequently, through
literature reviews on the different approaches in writing instructions, the intervention
was designed synthesizing the strengths of each approach. Furthermore, the strength
of one approach could help complement the shortcomings of another approach as
well.
Also, as suggested by the literature, assessment is regarded as a vital
part of the pedagogy alongside the teaching process. Additionally, regarding the data
derived by the preliminary investigation, most of the assessment practice in the course
was summative in nature. Therefore, the use of alternative forms of assessment was
integrated in the study for the fact that they have formative power in improving
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
106
students’ learning and ability to improve the target skill, which in this case the
English academic writing.
Step 2: Plan
In this phase, the intervention is introduced to the class. The planned
interventions were the application of the process writing framework and the use of
alternative assessment tools. For this study, the plan started with the instructions
introducing the students to the genre of academic writing. Then, it employed the
model, which was the essence of the product approach, in displaying the structure of
the text and genre-specific language features to the students. After that, the students
had the opportunity to learn to compose the texts. This was the stage in which genre
pedagogy came into play. The students were to identify the communicative context of
the text. Next, the process of writing was based on the adaptation of Flower and
Hayes’ process model of writing through the multiple-draft writing. For each writing
practice, students went through the steps in the writing process as described in the
previous section, starting from the selection of topic, brainstorming, drafting,
response to feedback, producing a new draft and response to feedback from peers and
teacher, editing and proofreading, and finally publishing.
In the meantime, students also had to perform the role of evaluators for
their peers’ works. The reason was that, from the view of learning as social
constructivism, this method of alternative assessment was expected to help the
students construct their body of knowledge, in this case the academic writing ability,
through interactions with their peers as both the provider and receiver of feedback.
Step 3: Action
At this stage, the intervention is put into action in the actual classroom
setting.
Step 4: Observation
Observation generally started with seeking answers to the question of
what was going on in the classroom. At this phase of this study, I constantly observed
the participants’ reaction to the intervention and, more importantly, the effects that the
action brought to the study. In other words, this was the stage of data collection of the
research.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
107
Literature has supported the efficacy of such participation. For
example, Cohen et al. (2007) asserted that participant observation, being a research
process, holds a unique advantage of providing the action researcher an opportunity to
gather real-time data that naturally occur in the real social situation. In this study, data
are collected through the use of alternative assessment tools, which are the teacher’s
observation and the teacher journal.
However, since I was also the teacher of the class, then, the role of the
researcher was participant as observer, having the participant role more salient than
the observer role (Cresswell, 2013). Thus, the participants will be aware of the dual
role of the researcher.
However, parallel with this investigation, the formal form assessment
as prescribed in the syllabus was still preserved. The students in this study still have
to follow the quizzes, midterm and final examination centralized by the school as
required by the course as part of evaluation.
Step 5: Reflection
This point was to reflect on, evaluate, and describe the effects of the
action made to the context. The purpose was to try to understand the issues that have
happened. In this particular study, both the researcher, taking the role of the teacher,
and the students had the opportunity to reflect. I kept a teacher reflective journal
which was the tool that not only recorded what was observed in class but also helped
me deeply reflect on the practice and the effectiveness of the intervention in each
class. The entries in the journal could provide rich descriptive data to identify what
kind of intervention and what aspect of it worked effectively in improving the
students learning of academic writing. Eventually, the data would be analyzed and
yield an informed practice for the design of the sequential cycle.
As for the students, they were assigned to keep a learner journal
recording the activities in each meeting and their reflection on their learning. The
insights from students reflected in their journal entries could provide useful
information to the research. In the classroom setting, students are considered as agents
that provide insiders’ views (Al-roomy, 2013). I could observe the opinions, attitudes,
concerns, and voices of the students towards the intervention or other aspects in the
classroom. Like the teacher reflection, students’ voices would help in planning the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
108
next research cycle. Another contribution that the learner journal provides is that it
would give more opportunities for the students to develop writing fluency in addition
to classroom practice (Tuan, 2010).
3.5 The writing instructional model in this study
The next point to discuss is the intervention for this study. As the objectives of
the study were on developing students’ academic writing ability and solving problems
in learning that students face, the first intervention was laid upon the pedagogical
methodologies for teaching writing. From the baseline data retrieved in the
preliminary investigation, the methodology in teaching writing was mainly the
product-based approach from which students saw samples of writing shown by their
teachers and imitated them. The result of adopting such approach, according to the
preliminary investigation, was not satisfactory both in terms of students’ academic
achievement and linguistic development.
Seeing such problems, the intervention planned for this study was to
synthesize different approaches which were 1) the product approach, 2) the process
approaches, the genre approaches, and the process-genre approach. Then, the
investigation was conducted to find out whether such adaptation of these writing
approaches could help students develop their English academic writing ability. This
section then discusses the model of adapted approaches of writing instructions that
this study employed as the theoretical framework for teaching.
While there are several models of writing instructions that teachers of writing
courses use, most of them are similar in the major components. For example, it is
widely understood that the process-based writing model comprises brainstorming,
drafting, editing, and publishing. Most of the models attempt to explain the factors
influencing the process such as the mental activities involved in writing, the sources
of knowledge upon which writers draw, as well as other factors.
However, it has to be accepted that there is no model that can completely and
accurately describe the complex nature of writing as a cognitive activity.
Nevertheless, those instructional models of writing are still beneficial in considering
the factors that influence writing and its process. They are also useful for both
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
109
educators in preparing curriculum for writing courses and for examiners in preparing
writing tests. Those models also can help define the skills to be trained and tested
more precisely (Weigle, 2011).
One of the pioneer models and perhaps the most recognized is by Flowers
(1989) and Flowers and Hayes (1981) which describes the process of writing as being
influenced by the task environment that includes writers’ experience in writing, the
ability to recall their long-term memory of such experience, and the knowledge of the
topic. Their description of the process of writing extends to a number of cognitive
processes, which include planning, translating thought into text, and revising (Weigle,
2011).
Another, and most important, insight that the model provides is that, unlike
other models which see the process of writing as linear and one directional, this model
captures the nature of the writing process as non-linear, exploratory, and generative. It
can be seen in the writers’ later work in 1981 and 1989 when the model of process
writing instruction is proposed.
Figure 3.3: The process model of writing instructions (Flowers, 1989; Flower and
Hayes, 1981)
As can be seen in figure 3.3, this process model of writing instructions allows
writers to discover, rediscover, and reformulate their ideas as they attempt to generate
meaning. Unlike in the model in which planning, drafting, and editing go in a linear
direction, students can go backward or forward between steps in the process (Hyland,
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
110
2003). Another advantage of using this model is that it allows student-to-student and
teacher-student interactions. With the benefits this model of writing instructions
offers, this present study, hence, adapts the process model established by Flower and
Hayes (Flowers, 1989; Flowers and Hayes, 1981).
Combining the features of other approaches of writing instructions, the use of
model texts in the process approach and the consideration of the communicative
context as the essence of the genre and process-genre approaches, a model of writing
instructions for this study was drawn. With the multiple-draft writing techniques that
this adapted model employed, the students had opportunities to be engaged in the peer
evaluation process. Consequently, students can accommodate the feedback from their
peers and teacher, do more research for new ideas, and revise to improve the quality
between drafts until they produce the final piece of work.
3.5.1 Steps in the model of writing instructions in this study
With the suitability of the process writing model instructions by
Flower and Hedges, this present study adapts it to fit with the teaching and learning
context as follows:
(1) Selection of topics:
This included the selection of topics by both the teacher and students.
In academic writing, the common themes and topics are those concerning social
issues (Hyland, 2013). The same was true in this course of study. The topics of
reading and writing included contemporary issues such as the environment, crime,
government policies, and education. For writing to respond to a reading passage and
opinion writing, data interpretation, and short reports, the inputs were from the course
book. Both the teachers and students took part in selecting the passage and graph to
work on. On the other hand, for argumentative essay writing, students had
opportunities to propose topics that are of their interests. The class, with guidance
from the teacher, will express their opinion and vote for the topics to work on.
(2) Prewriting:
This step began with letting the students identify the objective of the
texts and the target audience. They needed to consider in what form and media the
text would appear. After knowing the communicative context of the text, the students
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
111
brainstormed for ideas to write about. At this point, scaffolding from the teacher was
vital in helping them to acquire the knowledge schema to create an effective text
(Hyland, 2013). As supported by Lantolf & Poehner (2011), while students are the
center of the process, the teacher provides the relevancy of the information, sequence
of information, and other language features such as tense used and use of technical
terms, in order to help the students realize the direction of the text as well as to
provide an opportunity for them to interact with the teacher
The students could also work collaboratively to share and establish
contextual knowledge. There were several activities that can foster student
engagement in this stage. The prewriting activities included 1) the teacher’s guided
class discussion, 2) group brainstorming, 3) pair discussion, and 4) individual work.
(3) Composing (Draft1):
In the first composition, the student put their ideas on paper to
compose the first draft of the text. The composition took place in class. The reason
was that it would enable the teacher to monitor their progress. Monitoring also
provided opportunities for the teacher to detect problematic aspects of individual
learner performance. Then intervention was targeted to tackle such problems
(Shrestaa and Coffin, 2012). Also, as suggested by literature on the teachers
subscribing to the process and process-genre approach, the teacher should perform the
role of coaching rather than being the central authority of the teaching and learning.
(4) Response to draft 1 (Peer evaluation):
In this step, the peer evaluation was implemented. The students would
review and give feedback to their classmates’ works in terms of language features,
content, organization, rhetorical features of the text, and grammatical accuracy. It
should be noted here that while the original model does not look at accuracy at this
stage, the instructional model of this study decided to include it. The reason for this
was that, based on the course syllabus, the students were expected to produce texts
that were grammatically sound. So, this was an opportunity for them to practice it.
Training on providing effective feedback and comments on peer
writing was necessary. At this stage, I planned to conduct a training session to ensure
that the students were capable of implementing the assessment to their peers’ work. In
the meantime, the training would ensure that the receivers of feedback would
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
112
understand their peer evaluation. Studies show that the provision of training on peer
review in L2 writing leads to finding out that students who received training tended to
provide more specific responses than those who did not receive the training; also, the
receivers are more responsive to comments from their peers. In addition, training
enables students to make more changes of meaning in their revised works (Stanley,
1992; Berg, 1999, in Saito, 2008). In the training, a sample of a student’s authentic
writing of each writing genre will be used. Guidelines on the criteria in reviewing will
be provided to students.
It should be noted here that the reason to use peer evaluation before the
teacher feedback was to prevent the students from jumping to the conclusion that the
feedback from the teacher was final. A handful of studies on peer assessment, such as
by Paulus (1999), have shown that students have a tendency to resist the evaluation
from their peers and give more trust to the evaluation from teachers. Hence, if the
teacher’s feedback were given before the peer evaluation, the evaluators might not be
willing to provide their comments overriding the feedback from the teacher.
(5) Revising and composing draft 2:
This stage refers to writers taking back the work to revise according to
the peer feedback as they see fit. In other words, this is the step in which the writers
prepare to compose a second draft.
After the students received feedback from their peer evaluator and
planned the revision, the writer would have a recursion to the composing step to
prepare draft 2. The writers could add and/or delete information as suggested by their
peers. However, due to the time constraint on the course, the writers would be
allowed to complete this process outside the classroom.
In addition, in this study, the writers will have to perform the task of
evaluating their peers’ works too. It was expected that the opportunity to see their
peers’ works would provide them some insights, examples, or new information,
which could be useful in revising their own content. Then, the writers will submit the
second draft to the teacher for feedback.
(6) Response to Draft 2 (Teacher feedback):
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
113
After producing draft 2, the texts are submitted to the teacher for
written feedback. A study from Lee (2008) suggests that the most preferable form of
teacher feedback to students is in written form.
The feedback to be given by the teacher was formative in nature. It
aimed mainly at content, discourse features, and organization of the text.
Nevertheless, the traditional corrective feedback focusing on grammatical accuracy
and linguistic features are not completely ignored, as accuracy was still part of the
formal assessment system of the course. More importantly, based on the preliminary
investigation, students had an expectation that the teacher should provide feedback on
their accuracy.
For the content, the teacher looked at the overall meaning, word
choice, complexity of sentence structure, and the overall cohesion. The types of
feedback used in this aspect were 1) descriptive feedback providing detailed
comments about the strengths and weaknesses of the work, 2) procedural feedback
focusing on procedural mistakes related to their performance on the task, and 3)
cognitive feedback targeting the gap between the students' knowledge and their
cognitive strategies (Eun, 2014, p.21). For the linguistic features, on the other hand,
the teacher provided a combination of direct (corrective) and indirect (facilitative)
feedback for the writers to improve the accuracy in grammatical features associated
with the text genres.
To utilize the use of teacher feedback, the provision of it in this study
adopts the following principle:
1. The feedback covers both praise and constructive criticism (Nicol
and Macfarland-Dick, 2006) focusing on learning skills and motivation (Lantolf and
Poehner, 2011).
2. The feedback also needs to be informative and diagnostic of
students’ strengths and weaknesses (Lantolf and Poehner, 2011).
3. The optimum number of feedback should be three well-thought-out
comments for the students to accommodate it in their revision. More importantly the
feedback should express how the teacher experiences the text as a reader. (Lundsford
1997, in Nicol and Macfarland-Dick, 2006).
(7) Response to teacher feedback and composing the final product:
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
114
In this stage, the students would revise the texts based on the teacher's
feedback. After accommodating the feedback and suggestions that the writers saw as
appropriate, they were now preparing the final version of the text.
(8) Proofreading and editing:
Before submission, the writers are required to proofread for
grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and edit the content as well as organization.
(9) Evaluation:
In this stage, the teacher would evaluate the texts and give numerical
values in terms of marks. The criteria in marking were based upon the grading rubrics
prescribed in the course teacher’s guidelines. The major areas were, according to the
guidelines, on grammar, content, and organization. However, as part of the instruction
model emphasized the process of writing, in which the students produced their work
with multiple drafts, a proportion of the score would be designated to the progress that
they make.
However, beyond the marking, the teacher still utilized recursive
nature of the process model of writing instruction. In any case, when the teacher saw
that the texts still needed more revision, they would be sent back to the writers. The
writers will then edit the texts and submit them to the teacher for another evaluation.
When the students received their work back, they would file it in their
student’s writing portfolio. The objective of the portfolio was twofold. The first
reason was for them to use their portfolio for self-monitoring on their development
progress by looking at the feedback from their peers and the teacher and how they
improve their text in each draft. Secondly, to encourage them to make use of the
portfolio, the students were asked to submit their portfolio to the teachers as part of
the evaluation.
(10) Publishing:
In order for the students to see the value of their learning of writing
and the works that they produced, as well as to create a sense of ownership,
outstanding works based on the marks that the teacher gave would be displayed online
and published in print. At the beginning of the research period, a Facebook page for
the class was created for the works by students to be displayed. All students in the
class could access their peer works and leave a comment on them. Moreover, any
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
115
students who would like to have their final works evaluated by their peers can post it
on the page.
One remark that should be made here is that while the original model
includes the step of follow-up tasks, which requires the teacher to design a task that
specifically addresses the student’s weakness, when evaluating the final texts, the
teacher still has the duty of addressing the weaknesses of the writers. However, this
present study excludes the step due to the fact that the period of this action research is
limited to 15 weeks only with four writing genres to cover. A designated stand-alone
task may not be applicable. The following figure 3.4 summarizes the model of writing
instructions in this present study adapting different approaches.
Figure 3.4: the model of adapted writing instructions used in this study (adapted from
Flowers, 1989; Flowers and Hayes, 1981)
Selection of topic: teacher and students selecting, voting for, and proposing the topic to work on based on the material in the course book
Setting communicative contexts:
Indentify the objective and target reader of the text; deciding on what form andwhere the text would appear
Prewriting: brainstorming, collecting data, teacher elicitation, free writing, group discussion; teacher providing feedback
Composing draft1
making outline, drafting based on outline, focusing on linguistic features and structure
Response to draft 1 (Peer assessment)
peers responding to ideas, organization, format, language features and accuracy
Revising and Composing draft 2
revising and refining ideas, reorganizing, adjusting both content and accuracy based on peer feedback
Response to draft 2 (Teacher feedback)
teacher responding to ideas, organization, language features, and corrective through formative feedback and facilitative feedback on accuracy
Revising and composing the final draft
revising and refining ideas, reorganizing, adjusting both content and accuracy based on teacher feedback
Proofreading and Editing
correcting grammatical error, spelling mistakes, and writing the final product
Evaluation and portfolio
teacher evaluating the final work and giving numerical value based on grading rubrics including progress that students have made between drafts; the works being filed in the student’s portfolio
Publishing posting selected and outstanding work on the class’ Facebook page
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
116
The implementation of each stage in the model of instructions was then
translated into the lesson plan of each class meeting. In the design process, three
experts were requested to evaluate the lesson plan to indicate whether the
instructional and assessment activities met the objective of the lesson and the course.
They also provided suggestions for improving the lesson plan (see appendix A).
3.6 Alternative methods of assessment integrated in this study
To assess students writing ability, several methods of formative assessment
were used. At the pre-intervention state, a pre-intervention test was administered to
the students to assess their present ability in writing. The same test would be used at
the post-intervention stage as the post-test is a means to indicate whether or not the
intervention helps improve their writing ability.
The intervention in the action part of this research was the integration of the
alternative assessment methods with the process writing approach of instructions.
Based on the baseline data, students’ writing ability had been assessed with the
traditional form of assessment that was the formal timed-test. While it was true that
there were writing practices given to students, most of them are one-shot writing,
which would be graded and given feedback by the teachers.
In this study, hence, alternative forms of assessment were utilized. The
rationale for using alternative assessment was twofold. First, the formative power of
this kind of assessment offers information to students regarding their strengths and
weaknesses in order for them to improve both the local and global features of their
writing. At the same time, this form of alternative assessment helps the teacher to
understand individual students’ specific needs and enables the teacher to provide what
is necessary for students to improve their academic writing ability.
The alternative assessment methods to be used in this action research are:
(1) Teacher Observation
Observation was one of the key mechanisms for collecting qualitative
data and is one of the most useful instruments in the educational setting (Cresswell,
2013). In this study, I used observation to gather two types of data from the students,
which were the reaction to the intervention and classroom atmosphere. Then, I
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
117
expected to gain an insider’s view as, according to Taylor (2006), cited in Al-Roomy
(2013), observation is a useful tool for action research due to the fact that it places the
researchers in close proximity to the setting.
Nonetheless, caution should be taken in using observation as a data
collection instrument. The major limitation is that, according to Richards and Farrell
(2011), teaching has a complex and dynamic nature and many things occur
simultaneously in a lesson. Also, the difficulty in employing this tool is that it is a
demanding method, especially when the researcher is performing the role of teacher
(May, 2001).
In addressing such issue, it was nearly impossible for me to take note
of everything that took place in class. The observations would then mainly be based
on the research objectives and research questions. Therefore, I would emphasize
obtaining information about the use of the adapted approaches of writing and the
alternative forms of assessment for mundane details, such as the students’ reaction,
behavior, and attitude towards the intervention, while other classroom phenomena
would be secondary.
(2) Teacher Journal
From the observation in each class, I would transform the phenomena
which emerged in class into a journal entry that explained the activities and other
behaviors of students. More importantly, the journal served as a place for me to put a
retrospective description of what was observed in class (Brown, 2004).
For this study, an entry would be added to the journal after each class
meeting. The input was derived from the observation, especially regarding the
students’ responses to the intervention, which are the application of process writing
and the alternative assessment method used in each meeting as well as other important
events. Moreover, students’ participation, classroom behavior, and interaction with
the teacher would also be recorded.
(3) Student reflective journal
In this study, the student reflective journal was a type of learning
journal in which students recorded both what they learned in each class and their
reflection on activities derived from the intervention. The students were assigned to
keep their journal in English after each class meeting.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
118
The format of the journal was online via the use of Google Doc
application. A document was created and sent to individual students for their entries.
The journal was only accessible to a particular student and the researcher who would
put some response to encourage writing. In order to get rich and naturalistic data,
there were no specific topics assigned to the students. The students had the freedom
express their personal aspects concerning their learning.
(4) Peer evaluation
For this particular study, peer evaluation was utilized as a step in the
process model of writing instructions. The information from peer assessment could
help student writers to revise their drafts and prepare their next draft. Also, as
mentioned, before the students took the role of assessor of their peers’ writing,
training would be provided. Checklists were used to help guide the evaluators on
specific points to look for and give feedback to. Also, they would need to give open
comments to the work being evaluated.
(5) Teacher feedback
Similar to peer assessment, teacher feedback was one of the steps in
the process model of writing instructions in this study. After the students revise their
work in draft 2, the text will be submitted to the teacher for feedback.
The feedback to be provided was in written form composing a
minimum of three statements. The type of feedback focusing on the content and ideas,
as well as rhetorical features of the text, could be descriptive, procedural, and
cognitive feedback depending on the needs of each work. More importantly, to
enforce the formative power of teacher feedback, it should be composed of both
praise and constructive criticism to motivate students to improve in the next drafts.
Besides, the feedback from the teacher will focus at the meaning level in order for the
students to have an effective revision for their final draft (Lundstorm and Baker,
2009).
Nonetheless, while some literature on provision of feedback,
particularly in the process approach of writing, such as Furneaux, Paran, and Fairfax
(2007) and Lee (2014) point out the adverse effects of conventional feedback on form
and grammatical accuracy, this still pertains in this study as grammar is part of the
mark allocation according to the grading rubrics in the formal tests that students have
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
119
to take. Besides, based on the preliminary investigation, students still value the
provision of feedback on accuracy as a means to help them improve their writing
ability. Therefore, the feedback on accuracy was provided in corrective and
facilitative forms.
(6) Student Portfolio
All of the participants in the study were asked to keep their portfolios,
which was a collection of their writing works throughout the period of this research
study (one semester). The portfolio was not only a form of alternative assessment
which the students and teachers can use for monitoring students’ progress but its
formative power will help strengthen students’ development of writing ability and
their learning process (Hirvela and Swetland, 2005). Additionally, since part of the
intervention is on the process writing with multiple drafts, students are required to
keep all the drafts of each writing assignments in their portfolio so that they could
illustrate the learning progress.
3.7 Data collection
In order to obtain rich and accurate data to justify the validity of the
information gained from the complex natural setting of the classroom, more than a
data collection method was necessary. This action research, aiming at finding the
effectiveness of adapting different writing approaches in combination with the
alternative form of assessment to improve students’ academic writing ability,
embraces the methods on the two ends of the continuum: the qualitative and the
quantitative. This approach is known as the mixed-methods approach that employs
both psychometric and naturalistic inquiries.
To be specific, with the data collection methods, this study was designed in a
mixed-methods paradigm. The fundamental idea of adopting the mixed-methods
approach of inquiries is that it provides more complete understanding of the research
problem than using either the quantitative or qualitative approach alone (Cresswell,
2014, p.19). This approach is suitable for this action research as the setting is the
actual classroom. The data obtained reflect a pragmatic worldview and hence create
informed knowledge for the researcher and practitioners of similar settings.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
120
Moreover, from the review of previous research works in the area of process approach
as well as the adoption of the alternative assessment in classroom, most of those
works employed only one approach. This leaves their works with questions about the
validity of the data.
As a consequence of the aforementioned rationale to employ the mixed-
methods approach, another important reason for this study to have multiple methods
of data collection was to tackle the validity of findings and generalization issues. With
the use of multiple data sources, together with a systematic analysis, the process of
triangulation would be utilized. The rich data obtained from these collection
instruments could then provide conclusive valid information that could surpass the
issue of generalization. In addition, while it is claimed that the very purpose of
conducting an action research is not for generalization of the findings but to be used
for improvement of practice, the payoff of action research is the transferability of the
body of knowledge. Consequently, to a large extent, practitioners of similar English
for Academic Purposes writing classes can adopt the findings from this research into
their own practice. This is supported by Kohsy (2005), cited in Al-roomy (2013) that
the main purpose of action research is not to generalize data but to generate
knowledge.
3.7.1 Qualitative data collection
Qualitative data collection focuses on the issues that take place in a
natural setting and it takes into account the complexities and contextual idiosyncrasies
of students (James, 2006, in du Plessis, 2012). In contrast with the quantitative data,
the qualitative data aims at giving meaning to the information obtained in the research
(Nunan and Bailey, 2009) In this action research, situated in the real English for
Academic Writing classroom, the qualitative data were derived from parties involved
in the study which were the researcher, acting as the teacher of the course, and the
students, who were the participants of the study. The data were considered as from an
insider-perspective (Nunan, 1992). Hence, the qualitative data in this action research
would provide rich descriptions retrieved from analysis and extraction of information
from the data collection instruments.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
121
The following part explains the qualitative data collection instruments
and their operationalization in 3 stages: pre-intervention, during the intervention, and
post-intervention stages of this study. The instruments are:
At the preliminary investigation stage of this study, three qualitative
data collection methods were employed to gain insights into the existing teaching and
learning situation in the writing component of the course. To start with, document
analysis was conducted on the students’ written texts. The second source of data was
the semi-structured interviews with the representatives of teachers who teach this
course in order to draw the baseline data.
The other approach used for data gathering is the open-response
questionnaire. Thirty students presently taking the course are asked to explain the way
they study in the English courses at the university. The responses were then analyzed
using data reduction, particularly meaning condensation method, and thematic coding
to find their learning approaches to writing.
The next part describes the qualitative data collection instruments used
during the intervention process.
(1) Teacher journal
The first source of the qualitative data was from the teacher journal
which was a reflection of the observed phenomena taking place in each class meeting.
The information gained from the observation would be clarified through the
description in the journal in order for the researcher to understand what has been
observed.
The purpose of the teacher’s journal was not only for keeping records
of what had taken place in class but it also provided information for the teacher to
make adjustments of the lessons to fit with the phenomena of the classroom. Also, the
teacher’s journal could help the researcher keep track of and monitor the progress of
the class, which eventually encouraged more reflection. This, finally, was a way to
utilize the flexible nature of the action research cycle model in this study.
At the end of the research cycle, the data from the teacher journal
would be analyzed for information regarding the impact of the intervention; whether
it worked or not on improving students’ writing ability and why. The findings shall
provide informed practice for the next action research cycle.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
122
(2) Student reflective journals
The next source of data was the student reflective journal. As students
were assigned to keep their journal for every class meeting, their entries should
provide rich, detailed and useful information for the researcher regarding their
perception and attitudes towards the intervention. Furthermore, the student reflective
journal could also provide emerging data that sheds light on the other aspects of the
teaching and learning of academic writing that motivate further investigation
(Cresswell, 2013, p. 47). The data from their journals would go through the process of
analysis in the next phase of the research.
(3) Semi-structured interviews
For the post-intervention stage, after students respond to the
questionnaire in the form of 5-point Likert scale, also post-intervention, those with
outstanding answers, based on descriptive statistical analysis, such as scoring below
the mean on particular items, would be asked to participate in the follow-up
interviews. The reason was for further investigation on the students’ responses for
more and deeper details concerning their reflection, attitude, and perception towards
the use of process writing approach and alternative assessment in developing their
academic writing ability.
3.7.2 Quantitative data collection
To answer the research question regarding to what extent using the
adapted writing approaches alongside the alternative forms of assessment can
improve students’ academic writing ability, empirical information from a quantitative
source could help illustrate the result more concretely. Additionally, quantitative data
was a measure of triangulation of data obtained from its counterpart, the qualitative
method.
(1) Pre and Post-intervention writing test
The pre-intervention test and post-intervention test scores were used to
address whether the intervention, the application of process writing and alternative
assessment methods, can encourage any significant improvements in the students’
writing ability. The writing test was in the form of academic essay writing that
reflects the features of the academic English taught in the course. The major focus
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
123
was on the ability to express opinion towards a topic and providing logical and
substantive supporting arguments to support one’s standpoint.
In the development of the tests, three experts comprising two authors
of the course book and an experienced teacher of this course were invited to assess the
content validity through the use of item-objective congruence (IOC). Their comments
were taken into consideration in the revision of the test material. Furthermore, to
ensure that the grading of the test is fair and unbiased, two experienced teachers
teaching the same subject were asked to grade the pre and post-tests. A grading rubric
was provided.
In assessment of writing, there are two common types of rubric used,
which are the holistic scoring and the analytic scoring. The holistic scoring is a
method of assigning a single score based on the overall impression of the written text.
Each writing work is judged by the rater based on a rating scale or scoring rubric. To
explain further, the holistic scoring is equipped with benchmark scripts at each level
to illustrate the criteria of a particular level (Weigle, 2011, p.112).
The other type of scoring is analytic scoring. In this method, several
aspects of a written work are assessed. Compared with the holistic approach, the
analytic scoring provides more detailed information about a student’s performance in
his or her writing work by addressing different aspects of the writing based on the
purpose of the test (Weigle, 2011, p.114).
In the pre and post-intervention writing test of this study, the scoring
rubric is designed based on the ESL Composition Profile by Jacob et al (1981). There
are five aspects to be assessed, which are grammar, content, organization, word
choice, and mechanics. Additionally, the inter-rater reliability test method using
Pearson correlation would be applied.
After the intervention, the post-test was administered to all
participants. The purpose of providing the post-intervention test was to measure the
students’ achievement in terms of their academic writing ability when compared with
the result of the pre-test. The discrepancy between the scores of the two tests should
provide information about whether the intervention has impacts on the students’
academic writing ability. In finding whether the intervention had any impact on the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
124
students’ writing ability, the discrepancy between the pre-and post-tests were
statistically analyzed with t-test.
(2) Closed-response questionnaire
At the post-intervention stage, a set of questionnaires would be
administered. In order to provide the information that helps answer the research
questions, the questionnaire in the form of a 5-point Likert scale would be used. The
students are asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statements. The
statements related to the research questions address the following major areas:
1. Students’ perception towards learning with process writing approach
2. Students’ perception towards alternative assessment methods
3. Perceived usefulness of learning with the integration of the process
writing approach and alternative assessment for each writing genre
4. Assessment system in the course
5. Self-perception
In the development of the questionnaire, three experts would assist in
validating the content of the questionnaire through item-objective congruence
method (IOC). To conclude, the data collection procedure of this study was under
the design of mixed-methods approach that gathers both qualitative and
quantitative in different stages of the research process. Given the fact that action
research is dynamic in nature as various information occurs concurrently, the
design of data collection approach is convergent mixed-methods. The following
table 3.2 summarizes the data collection instruments used in this action research at
different stages.
Research Stage Qualitative Data Collection
Instruments
Quantitative Data Collection
Instruments
Pre-Intervention - Pre-test
Intervention - Teacher journal
- Student reflective
journal
Post-Intervention - Semi-structured - Post-test
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
125
interview
- Closed-response
questionnaire
Table 3.2: Data collection instruments in research stages
3.8 Data analysis There are different measures of data analysis. The qualitative data were
analyzed from teacher journal derived from observation, student reflective journal,
and semi-structured interview. Also, the counterpart quantitative data from pre and
post-test scores and close-response questionnaire were analyzed with statistical tools.
3.8.1 Qualitative data analysis
For the qualitative data from teacher journal and student reflective
journals, it was expected that the amount of textual data would be large. In order to
effectively analyze the data related to the research questions, it needed to be refined to
a manageable level. So, a data reduction process was necessary. This study then
employed the technique of meaning condensation, which abridges both the teacher
and the students’ journal entries into a shorter form of formulation. The large quantity
of texts will be shortened into briefer statements for analysis (Nunan & Bailey, 2009,
p.418).
The next step in analyzing the data sets was to look for patterns
through keywords and repeated words and categorize them using coding method.
Coding refers to the process of grouping textual data from the journal entries into a
small category of similar information and then assigning a label to the code. Then, the
theme is formed by combining several related codes to a broad unit of information
(Creswell, 2013, p. 184-186).
For the analysis of the data obtained through the semi-structured
interview, the participants’ responses from the post-intervention interview would be
transcribed, analyzed, coded, and assigned to the themes using the same method as
with the student reflective journal.
In summary, the data derived from the qualitative data collection
would provide insights to the research in two areas. First, they are part of the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
126
information to answer the research questions regarding the effectiveness of the
intervention in improving students’ academic writing ability. The students’
perceptions are also investigated. The other merit that the qualitative data provided
was for the action research cycle. The summative information could be considered as
the reflection stage of the research cycle. Consequently, it should serve as the baseline
data for the next action research cycle. In other words, the informed data should help
start the planning stage of the next cycle in order to improve and implement the
intervention.
3.8.2 Quantitative data analysis
There were two types of quantitative data in this study. Both of them
would be analyzed with statistical tools to interpret the data in numeric form.
The first type was from the pre and post-intervention writing test. After
the students took the tests, the scores of the pre and post-intervention tests were
statistically compared. The methods of analysis were in both descriptive and
inferential statistics. The descriptive statistics looked at the overall distribution of the
scores and general tendencies. The types of statistical information are the measures of
central tendency, which is the mean, and the measures of variability, which is the
standard deviation. On the other hand, the inferential statistical analysis used is paired
sample t-test, which is to indicate if the discrepancy between the two data sets, the pre
and the post test scores, was statistically significant.
The next part was the analysis of data from the 5-point Likert scale
closed-response questionnaire. After the participants answer the self-administered
questionnaire stating their level of agreement to the statements related to the research
questions, the responses in numerical value would be analyzed. The analysis
employed the descriptive statistics method. To be specific, the data would be
processed to find the mean score of each item as well as the standard deviation. The
result should inform the researcher of the level of perceived impact, either positive,
negative, or both, of the intervention in improving the students’ academic writing
ability. The summary of data collection instruments used and the analysis methods in
answering the research questions is presented in the following table.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
127
Research Question Data Collection
Instrument
Data Analysis Method
1. To what extent can the
adapted writing
approaches and alternative
assessment improve
students’ academic writing
ability?
-Pre and Post-test scores
- Descriptive (Mean and
S.D.) and inferential
statistics
(Paired sample t-test)
2.What are students’
opinions towards using the
adapted writing
approaches and alternative
assessment in improving
their writing skill?
- Student reflective journal
- Semi-structured interview
- Closed-response
questionnaire
- Data reduction, meaning
condensation, and
coding for themes
- Descriptive statistics
(Mean and S.D.)
3. How can students’
academic writing ability
be improved through
adapted writing
approaches and alternative
assessment?
a. What are the teaching
methods in writing
instructions that can
effectively improve
students’ academic writing
skill?
b. What are the roles of
the teacher?
c. What are the roles of
- Teacher journal
- Student reflective journal
- Semi-structured interview
- Closed-response
questionnaire
- Data reduction, meaning
condensation, and
coding for themes
- Descriptive statistics
(Mean and S.D.)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
128
Research Question Data Collection
Instrument
Data Analysis Method
students?
d. What are the roles of
teaching materials?
e. What should be the
assessment methods for
English academic writing?
Table 3.3: Summary of data collection instruments and analysis in relations to
research questions
The following Figure 3.6 summarizes the operationalization of this study
starting from the preliminary investigation for baseline data. Then, it shows the next
stage of the research, which is the intervention planned under the framework of action
research having the adapted approaches of writing instructions and alternative
assessment integrated as the instructional methods. Post-intervention data, both
qualitative and quantitative, were gathered next. Then all data would be analyzed in
the stage of reflection. The findings from the data analysis would be used as a
baseline data for the next action research cycle. More importantly, the end result of
this study is to establish informed knowledge of effective instructions of academic
English writing.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
129
Figure 3.5 Operationalization of this study
Preliminary investigation - Researcher’s observation and document
analysis - Pass/fail ratio - Teacher interviews - Student open-response questionnaire
Pre-test: Writing test based on the content of the course as qualitative data Plan intervention -Action research as the framework -Adapted approaches of writing instructions -Alternative assessment
Action - Lesson plan and implementation based on intervention to each genre * see figure 3.7 for detail of implementation
Observation on the results of the action - Qualitative data collection: Teacher journal,
Student reflective journal
Reflection: Qualitative Data Analysis - Teacher Journal - Student reflective journal - Semi-structured interview - Analyzed with Data reduction,
meaning condensation, and thematic coding
Reflection: Quantitative Data Analysis - Pre-Post-test with descriptive statistics
and inferential statistics (Paired t-test) - Closed-response questionnaire with
descriptive statistics
Post-intervention data collection - Post-test - Closed-response questionnaire - Semi-structured interview
Informed practice and knowledge for the next research cycle/ Transferrable informed knowledge
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
130
Figure 3.6 Lesson plan for each genre based on the adapted approaches with
alternative assessment methods
Figure 3.6 shows the instructional procedure in the lesson of each writing
genre. Each lesson starts with a pre-lesson writing to provide baseline information of
the students’ writing ability in each genre. In the instructions, there are 2 writing
assignments using the adapted approaches framework with alternative assessment
methods. The observation and reflection were an indication of action research within
each lesson. To elaborate on this, the observation on the impact of the intervention,
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
131
together with the feedback from student reflective journal, would help me reflect on
the effectiveness and inefficiency of the intervention both during and at the end of
each research cycle. The reflection should lead to adjustments in the instruction of the
next assignment.
3.9 Ethical consideration
In order to maintain the integrity of this action research project and its
findings, ethical issues are put into consideration. As Dörnyei (2011) points out, it is
inevitable that social research concerns people’s lives in the real social setting and
therefore involves ethical issues. Also, Bryman (2008) asserts that ethical issues arise
at different levels in social research and the researchers should not neglect them.
For this study, several measures are taken in ensure the research ethics. To
start with, the students of the course to be studied are informed of the research project.
They were asked to give a written consent form (see appendix B) stating that they
would voluntarily take part. Furthermore, the students’ anonymity was maintained in
the report of the research findings.
Another point of concern on the integrity of the research was the power
relationship between the researcher and the participants. Since the researcher was
taking up the role of teacher in this study, the participants might misunderstand that
their response in the data collection process would impact their performance in the
course. To prevent this, the participants would be informed through the consent form
that their participation in the research, particularly the provision of input for data
collection, was strictly separated from their course work scores. Moreover, the
participants are entitled to withdraw from participation in the study if they wish to at
any stage to the research.
Another ethical point of concern common in classroom research is that the
intervention can impact the participants’ normal activities in the classroom when
compared with other groups of students taking the same course. However, since the
research was conducted in the real classroom, the course syllabus and all its contents
were followed. Moreover, the course content would prevail. This ensures that the
students in this study would follow the same course objectives as those in other
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
132
classes. Additionally, as a policy of the university where this study took place, the
teachers have the academic freedom to choose the instructional methods that they
believe appropriate to foster students’ learning. Thus, the intervention in this study is
justified.
3.10 Reliability and Validity issues
It is undeniable that trustworthiness and credibility issues are a critical point of
the validity of action research findings. As this present study is a mixed-methods
research in design, the data obtained from multiple sources, both qualitative and
quantitative, will be the measures of triangulation to verify the validity of the data.
As for the reliability issue, as stated earlier, the questionnaire would be validated by
three experts in this field. Then, their suggestions and IOC scores would help in the
revision of the items. The same measures would be applied with the content validity
of the pre-and post-intervention test materials and the grading rubric. Moreover, for
the pre and post intervention tests, inter-rater reliability will be utilized.
In order to achieve trustworthiness of the research findings in this study,
particularly the qualitative part, I employed different validation strategies. According
to Cresswell (2013), regardless of the type of qualitative approach that the study
employs, multiple validation strategies are necessary to prevent any threats of internal
validity. In the present study, I adopted three strategies in the validation process. The
first strategy was triangulation by making use of different sources of data. To
elaborate on these sources, the data were obtained from the teacher journal, student
reflective journals, and post-intervention interviews. The second strategy was peer
review. A peer debriefer helped review the findings, inquiring about methods,
meanings, and interpretation of data to keep them honest and truthful. Lastly, negative
case analysis was employed. This study also reports any negative evidence and rivalry
explanation in order to provide realistic and truthful assessment of the findings in the
study.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
133
3.11 Conclusion
This chapter describes the research methodology of this study and justifies the
use of action research using mixed-method research design. The reason for using this
approach was that it would provide rich and valid data from the natural setting of an
academic English writing classroom. The chapter also presents the model of adapted
writing instructions and alternative assessment tools designed for this particular study.
The data collection instruments of both qualitative and quantitative are discussed. As
well, the overview of data analysis methods is also presented. The data reduction
process would be conducted through the method of meaning condensation. Then the
thematic coding method would be used in the data analysis process. Meanwhile, both
descriptive and inferential statistics were to be employed in the process of quantitative
data analysis. The insights gained from the data analysis would, according to the
principle of action research, provide and transfer the informed practical knowledge of
academic writing pedagogy to other practitioners. Finally, issues regarding the ethical
concern and validity issue are addressed.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
134
CHAPTER 4
IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTION RESEARCH CYCLES AND
REFLECTIONS
This chapter reports the implementation of the intervention in academic
writing instructions, which follows the action research steps. Before the instruction of
each writing genre began, I designed the lesson plan that included the different
mechanics of adapted writing instructions, which was part of the plan step. The step
of act was when the implementation of the plan took place and for this study, the
actual teaching. Concurrent with teaching, I also observed the results of implementing
the plan to collect data from the participants regarding the outcomes of the
intervention. Then, the observation was transformed into the reflection on the
effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the intervention. After each research cycle had
ended, the information obtained would be used in planning the recurring step of plan
for the next cycle. It is important to note that there were two action research cycles in
the instructions of each writing genre.
4.1 Pre-intervention classes
The actual instructions of writing with the planned intervention took place in
the third meeting of the class. I spent the first two classes on breaking the ice,
presenting the students with the course overview, collecting students’ profiles and
conducting the pre-test. More importantly, during these meetings, the students were
informed that the class would be for research with the objectives of the research and
teaching and learning methods explained.
In one of these meetings, I informed them that the multiple-draft writing
would be the method used in the writing activities. The steps in the process were also
elaborated. The students realized that, instead of writing different pieces of texts on
different topics, there would be two writing assignments for each genre and they
would be required to do 2 and 3 drafts respectively. I explained the rationale behind
using this approach instead of the traditional instructions that the students were
familiar with.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
135
Then, the students were informed that they were expected to evaluate their
peers’ works. At this stage, I discussed the benefits of using peer evaluation and they
were assured that trainings would be provided to them. Also, I reassured them that
they would still be getting teacher feedback. Lastly, I also mentioned that the students
had to keep online journals to reflect their learning after each class meeting.
After being informed of the teaching and learning methods and requested to
voluntarily participate in the study, all 36 of them agreed to participate and signed the
consent form.
4.2 Genre 1: Writing in response to a reading passage and opinion writing
4.2.1 Action research cycle 1:
Plan:
The first academic writing genre to be taught was writing in response
to a reading passage and opinion writing. The students were supposed to read a
passage adapted from an article or news report. Then, they needed to write 2
paragraphs of approximately 150 words. The first paragraph was to respond to a
question of reading comprehension and the second paragraph was to express their
opinion; whether they agreed or disagreed. This part also required them to formulate
relevant and logical supporting arguments for their standpoint on a certain issue in the
reading text.
Starting with the reading part, the sample reading passage would be
used. However, since the students had been exposed to this type of academic reading
from the previous prerequisite course, this part would be mainly a revision of reading
comprehension skill. Nevertheless, I would give a lecture on new techniques in
reading such as word and paragraph analysis.
The instructional method of writing that I planned to use was the
explicit teaching in the form of a lecture on the text type in this genre focusing on the
structure and language features of the text. In showing the type of text that the
students were expected to produce, there were two types of models namely the model
answer in the course book, or the sample of texts, and the collaboratively constructed
model by the class with me guiding the process. To elaborate on this, I planned to use
the sample reading passages with model answers presented in the textbook to display
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
136
the structure and organization. Also, I would use them to highlight the language
features of this genre, especially the phrases and expressions to state opinions. In
addition, in the writing assignment, I would ask the class to model the text together.
For the prewriting activity in the assignment, after letting the students
read the passage, I planned to conduct a class discussion on the main idea of the
passage and essential information that the students extracted from it. Besides, I would
ask the students to express their opinion towards the reading passage. Therefore, the
main activities would be a guided class discussion and elicitation. In line with that,
the activities would also help me to get to know the students about their personality,
present language fluency, and the level of motivation.
For the composition of text, I planned to start using the multiple-draft
methods. In the first research cycle, they would produce 2 drafts of the assignment.
After the first draft, the students would evaluate their peers’ draft using the peer
evaluation checklist that I prepared. Prior to that, I planned to conduct a training
session on the peer evaluation process. Then, the students, after receiving the peer
evaluation, would revise their text and submit the second draft to me for teacher
feedback.
Act and Observe
The instruction of this unit began with the students being shown some
examples of the academic reading passages from the course book. The type of text
was not novel to them. They had already been familiarized with it in the previous
prerequisite course. I selected a sample passage in the textbook and let them read.
After that, I conduct a short class discussion with them on the main ideas and
important details of the passage.
The implementation of action research cycle on the writing instructions
started with the explanation on the key concepts of academic writing, with specific
focuses on the linguistic features of academic text. Through explicit teaching, steps in
the writing process and elements of paragraphs such as the topic sentence, the claim,
the controlling ideas, and the supporting sentences were discussed. To strengthen this,
I displayed a model text, the sample answer to the passage that they had read earlier,
in order for them to see the structure of the text. In addition, linguistic features of
opinion writing were addressed.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
137
After that, the class moved forward to their first writing task. To
incorporate one of the principles of process approach of writing instructions into this
assignment, which is to create the sense of ownership of the text, I asked the students
to browse through the passages in the textbook and select the one that they wanted to
work on. The majority of the students voted for the passage about Uber services in
Thailand.
The prewriting activity, after the students had read the passage, used in
this assignment was a guided class discussion by the teacher. The idea of discussion
was the general information about Uber services. The purpose was to establish a
schema on the topic. However, of the whole class, only a few students had shown
good participation by responding to the questions that I posed. The majority of the
class passively listened to the discussion and gathered information. In my opinion,
this could be due to the fact that this meeting was one of the early classes. The
students were not yet familiar with the teacher and what was expected from them.
Therefore, they decided to be reticent.
The next prewriting activity for this assignment was the modeling of
text, the whole class collaboratively construct a model text. I reminded the students it
would be one of the regular activities for this course and their ideas were highly
necessary. During the modeling process, I tried to elicit ideas from students but only a
few students constantly attempted to share their views. In response to this, I had to
call individual students by name and pose questions or ask for comments. Most of
those who were called seemed nervous and unconfident in giving answers.
Nonetheless, I understood that it was the first time for the students to work with the
teacher. Besides, I wanted to display to them my role as the facilitator of their
learning. Eventually, the first model was constructed, mainly by me, with some help
only from a few students. The emphasis of the model was on the text convention,
rhetorical feature, vocabulary items and expressions, and development of ideas in the
paragraphs.
The first training on peer evaluation
Before writing, the students were provided with training on giving peer
evaluation. I explained in details the idea of giving constructive feedback. Two drafts
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
138
of a text by a student from a previous semester were given to the students to practice
with. Along with the sample texts, the peer evaluation checklist (see appendix C) for
this genre was also given. The checklist was designed to be simple with statements
that required the evaluators to mark ‘Yes’, ‘Moderate’, and ‘No’. Also, sections for
open comments and suggestions, as well as compliments, were given for them to
indicate specific points. However, they were not required to assign grades or scores to
their peers’ work. In the training, I guided the discussion on evaluating the first
sample text against the checklist.
Students started preparing their draft 1 of assignment 1. While they
were writing, I walked around the classroom to monitor and observe their process. I
could see that the students had consulted the textbook and the model texts in it to find
language input and see the organization of the answer. Some of them referred to their
personal notes, which contained the text that was modeled earlier in the class. Most
students could not finish the draft in class. Hence, they were assigned to complete it
on their own time and were supposed to bring it to class in the next meeting.
Peer evaluation
In the following class meeting, after collecting the first draft, I shuffled
the works and randomly distributed them to the students along with the peer
evaluation checklist. Now the students were asked to evaluate their classmate’s work.
As part of the observation state, I, again, walked around the classroom and monitored
the activity while they were working on evaluating the works. During which time, I
received some questions regarding the evaluation. The questions ranged from “How
to do it?” to “What should I comment?” For a number of students, I had to
demonstrate the process by working with them individually. Nevertheless, there were
some students who seemed to be able to fully engage in this peer evaluation. In
addition to trying to thoroughly read, analyze, and provide comments and suggestions
on their peer’s text, some students also expressed their opinion towards a particular
student’s work to me. For example, a student told me that his classmate’s work should
look more advanced in terms of vocabulary and sentence structure. I told him that he
could put the comment in the peer evaluation checklist.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
139
It took longer than I had anticipated for the evaluators to complete the
evaluation. This was, nonetheless, understandable since this was the first time that the
students had an opportunity to evaluate each other’s works. When they finished, the
works the marked checklists were returned to the writers. Then the students were
assigned to write a subsequent draft incorporating their peer comments and
suggestions into it. Then they were supposed to submit the revised draft, stapled to the
first draft and the checklist, and submit it to the teacher for feedback.
Teacher Feedback
In this study, I intended to provide the kind of feedback that looked
beyond the surface level of the text. It was idea-based and at the meaning level. The
feedback was composed of recognition of effort, emphasis on points that the students
needed to improve, and, most importantly, encouragement for them to strive to
perform better. However, the corrective feedback was not ignored. Based on the
preliminary investigation, students stated that they perceived the teacher’s feedback
on grammar as necessary. Therefore, in this action research, I included the direct
corrective feedback on linguistic knowledge. Comments on patterns of grammatical
errors were also explicitly provided.
In the first cycle of this genre, the students submitted their second draft
of the first assignment after they had revised it based on the feedback that they
received from their peer evaluators. I went through the checklist to see the feedback
and comment that the evaluators provided to the writers. Then, it was checked against
the first draft to see if the evaluators made valid points. However, a close look at the
peer evaluation showed me that most of the evaluators marked the checklist without
giving substantive suggestions on the way the writer should improve. Most of them
only went through all items in the checklist.
When I checked the revised draft, the revisions were mainly on the
surface level such as on the use of articles, capitalization, and spelling as identified
and suggested by the evaluators. The revision at the meaning level or the content was
rare. In other words, the content of the text in both drafts was mostly similar. In terms
of the language use, it was evident that the majority of the students were reliant on
sample texts provided in the course book. For example, a number of students imitated
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
140
the same topic sentence displayed in the model text from the book such as “There are
several reasons for the Land Transportation Department to say that Uber is illegal,”
Few students, in contrast, followed the topic sentence in the class-constructed model.
Other mechanics such as the transitional phrases were taken from the textbook as
well.
At the end of the first cycle in this genre, the students received their
revised texts with the feedback that I provided, together with the first draft and the
marked peer evaluation checklist. From observation, many students looked concerned
when they first saw their texts inundated with red marks and comments from me.
However, to make sure that the feedback did not become counterproductive, I asked
them to read my comments carefully and explained that the feedback was constructive
criticism with some messages of encouragement. I gave them the opportunities to
come and discuss the points that needed clarification. Nonetheless, only a few
students did.
Reflection on the first cycle
From my observation, it was appropriate to state that the effect of the
intervention in this research cycle was generally less than satisfactory. Starting with
the collaboratively constructed model, in which I led the discussion and creation of
the text, the majority of the students took a passive role. While the intent was to shift
the class towards student-centeredness, it was found that the students were still
heavily dependent on the teacher’s instructions without contributing much ideas and
efforts. My reflection on this matter was that the students could not yet discard their
learning style of the traditional lecture-based instructions since it was the very first
time that the teacher had opened an opportunity for them to work with autonomy.
For the use of peer evaluation, the students might not have a clear
understanding of what they were expected to do in the revision of the text. Hence, the
revised text only had mere corrections of some grammatical errors and spelling
mistakes. The evaluators did point out that the texts needed improvement. In my point
of view, it could be for 2 reasons. First, the evaluators were new to evaluating their
fellow students’ works. Taking an active role in learning with others could be
challenging to them at the beginning. Besides, they were also student writers learning
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
141
to develop effective texts themselves. Therefore, they might not have enough
confidence to critique their peers or have a clear idea what the ideal text should be.
The more important reason could be the cultural factor. It is very common for a
classroom in Thailand or most Asian context that students would hold back the
comments they have for other students to save their peer’s face and avoid conflict. In
this phase of study, the students came from different faculties and most of them did
not know one another. It might be considered very impolite to provide honest but
relatively negative comments to another student with whom they were not acquainted.
This consequently affected their writing performance. While generally
the students started to have the ideas of the composition of this text type, the fact was
that they still relied mainly on the model text and the reading passage in terms of
language use. This was evident in the fact that most of the students used the same
lexical items and organization as they had seen from the textbook, making most of
their texts look rather identical. In my reflection, this fact could be the result of the
students’ concern over making the text correct rather than trying to develop their
writing style. To cite an example, a number of students had the same topic sentence
which was “In my opinion, Uber should be allowed to continue,” using the phrase
“In my opinion” as shown in the textbook’s model answer.
From the data gathered through the observation and reflection, I had
adjusted the intervention to see whether the result could be more satisfying, which
marked the recurrence of the action research cycle for this subgenre.
The following table summarizes the results of the implementation of
different aspects of the plan in action research cycle 1, my reflection, and the
proposed plan for the next research cycle.
Genre: Writing in response to a reading passage/ opinion writing Action Research Cycle 1
Plan Actual Practice /Action
Result Reflection Plan for the next cycle
Teaching and learning approach
-Explicit instructions with lecture
- Good but short attention
- Long lecture making them lose concentration easily.
- Focus more on the writing activity.
Prewriting - Guided - Passive, only - New to the - Continue for
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
142
Activities discussion, elicitation - Creating model text
a few involved in the discussion.
course and the teacher; - Culture could be responsible.
more familiarity between teacher and students - Elicit individual students
Use of models
- Textbook models -Collaboratively constructed model
- Mainly imitated the models for language input.
- Used to writing with the product approach.
- Provide supplementary authentic texts for more linguistic input; - Use process-genre approach (objectives of text and setting the target readers; write and revise) - Model the text only in sentence level, emphasizing the language features
Peer evaluation
- Training - Using checklist
- Not effective, only went through the checklist without giving solid suggestions.
- Lack of experience in evaluating their classmates’ works
- Closely monitor the peer evaluation process and provide assistance in finding points to improve
Multiple-draft
- Writing 2 drafts -All drafts to be kept in the portfolio
- No major changes between drafts
- No sufficient suggestions from the peer evaluators; not knowing what to revise
- Writing with 3 drafts to let them see and revise based on teacher’s feedback in the 3rd draft
Table 4.1: Summary of implementation of action research cycle 1: Writing in
response to reading passage/ opinion writing
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
143
4.2.2 Action research cycle 2:
Plan
In the plan of cycle 2 for writing in response to the reading passage
and opinion writing genre, the students were stipulated to write 3 drafts of the
assignment. The first draft was evaluated by their peers using the checklist, and the
second draft was given feedback and comments by the teacher. Then the students
were assigned to prepare the final draft that incorporated the teacher’s feedback and
suggestions and edit the work for the final submission. This assignment was graded
by the teacher based on the grading criteria derived from the grading rubric prescribed
in the course curriculum. Additionally, to encourage the students to maximize their
capability in writing, a portion of the score was allocated on the perceived
improvement between the three drafts. Eventually, the score was recorded as part of
their course work marks.
Some adjustments had been made based on the reflection on cycle 1 of
this genre. In the construction of the collaborative model, it would be in sentences
instead of complete paragraphs. This was in response to the problem of students
imitating the text. In addition, I would provide authentic texts about opinion writing to
show the students more expression and language styles used in the genre.
In regard to the peer evaluation, the students would use the checklist.
However, I would closely look at the process of evaluation and provide assistance to
the students on identifying important points for improvement, to which they could
offer suggestions, in the texts.
Act
The action state of this cycle began with the selection of topic for
writing assignment 2. Similar to the first cycle, the students voted for the academic
reading passage they preferred from the exercises in the course book. The majority of
the class selected the article about electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). The passage
discussed the controversy over the benefits and possible harms of e-cigarettes. The
students were asked to write a paragraph describing the possible dangers from
consuming e-cigarettes. As for the opinion part, they were required to state their
standpoint on whether such kinds of products should be legalized in Thailand and
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
144
provide supports. Other prewriting activities in this assignment included class
discussion and collaborative modeling of texts. Once the students had read the
passage, I mediated a discussion on whether they agreed with e-cigarettes being
legalized in the country. During the discussion, only a few students stated their
opinion voluntarily. For the rest, I had to call them by name asking for ideas.
Nonetheless, the level of participation became higher compared to the first research
cycle.
After getting some ideas on their opinions, I switched to
collaboratively constructing the model. As planned, I did not write a full paragraph
given that the students had already been trained with the structure of the paragraph in
cycle 1. In contrast, the focus of the modeling was on emphasizing ideas, language
formulas used in expressing opinion, and providing supporting arguments.
Observe
Writing draft 1
The students prepared the first draft of this assignment in class. When
they submitted the drafts, I shuffled the work and, like in cycle 1, randomly
distributed them to other students to evaluate using the checklist. Before the students
started to work on the peer evaluation, I reminded them of the importance of this
method, that it was useful to let the readers, in this case their peer evaluators, show
how they perceived the text. In addition, I stated that it was a good opportunity for
them to investigate their classmates’ ideas. During the peer evaluation process, I
walked around the classroom to closely observe how the students worked with the
checklist and gave comments on their peers’ texts. In comparison with the first cycle,
more students asked me for advice. For example, some students stated to me “I don’t
know what he is trying to say” and asked what they should do in the evaluation. Then
I pointed out that they had the right as the reader of the text to ask the writer such a
question. I also informed them that they could comment on the checklist to address it
to the writer that they had difficulty comprehending the message because of either the
word choice or sentence structure. The fact that more students called for assistance
from me in evaluating their peers’ texts gave an optimistic view to me. It could mean
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
145
that the students had started to familiarize themselves with the pedagogical methods
used in this study and now tried to engage better in the activities.
After finishing the peer evaluation, the evaluators returned the texts to
the writers. From observation, some of them started to put remarks on the text in
addition to the checklist such as circling the grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.
Besides, there were question marks on some papers, stating that the evaluator did not
understand a particular part of the text.
Referring to the findings from research cycle 1, the majority of
students still tried to imitate the language from the model text without considering the
appropriateness and relevancy to the topic they were writing. For example, in the
assignment, the students were asked to describe the advantages of e-cigarettes over
the traditional ones. Some students, using the topic sentence from the previous
assignment, started their text with “There are several reasons for the advantages of
smoking e-cigarettes.” To response to this, a new reading text was provided to the
students and another prewriting activity was conducted.
Writing draft 2
Before starting draft 2, the revision draft based on peer evaluation, I
distributed a supplementary handout to the class. The handout was an authentic
example of an article about the consumption of e-cigarettes in Britain. The text,
written by a health expert, was taken from an opinion section of a British newspaper
website. The rationale behind providing this extra material was for the students to see
a real-world example of opinion writing. On top of that, the extra material was
expected to provide more language input useful for them in writing their texts. In the
handout, I had highlighted the phrases and expressions used in introducing supporting
ideas, citation of facts, and expressing opinion. Then, I let the students read the text
and asked them to pay extra attention to the expressions. When they finished reading
the text, I guided a brief discussion on the overall organization of the text and the
language use.
Before writing draft two, I asked the class to set the communicative
context of the text, meaning to set the target reader and the objectives of text. This
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
146
was an adaptation of the process-genre approach which states that student writers
would be able to organize their text more effectively with clear direction if they had
an idea of who their target audience would be. I raised a general question to the whole
class asking what they thought a text about their opinion on e-cigarettes should be
about and who the target readers would be. During the discussion, a student proposed
that the text should appear on a website of a health magazine and the target readers
were those who were interested in trying e-cigarettes or traditional smokers who were
considering switching to e-cigarettes. The whole class accepted the idea. However, as
part of the text concerned the students’ opinion on whether the product was a better
alternative to traditional cigarettes, the objectives of writing between those who
agreed and those who disagreed were different.
Then the revision began. While the students were preparing the second
draft, I monitored their progress and provided some consultation when needed.
Students who asked for help mostly were looking for some words to use in their text.
Some students requested me to help see if what they were writing was correct. In my
attempt to make them more independent, I did not provide much scaffolding, apart
from looking at the language features in their text. I told them to be more confident
and I would provide my comments to them later when the text was finished. The class
managed to finish their second draft on time. They submitted both the first and second
drafts together with the peer evaluation checklist to me for teacher feedback.
Teacher Feedback on draft 2
The process of teacher feedback provision went beyond checking the
second draft. I made a close observation of the first draft and compared it with the
peer evaluation checklist. I found that most students still did not put much effort into
evaluating their peers’ text. In general, most of the evaluators only provided
suggestions on the surface level similar to what they did in the first assignment such
as a simple “good” or “the words are too easy.” Nonetheless, some students had
begun to provide comments and give substantive suggestions at the meaning level of
the text. For example, a student put her comment in a text “The writer needs to add
more ideas in the first paragraph. Also, the use of key noun is too frequent.” In
addition, a number of students also encouraged the writers to perform better with
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
147
messages praising them such as “Your writing is good but you still can improve it and
make it perfect.” This showed that the students, taking the role of evaluators, had
started to learn to provide constructive feedback.
In the second draft, it appeared that students started to follow their
peers’ suggestions if they had received them, even though most of them were on the
surface level. For the global features of the text, some students who were asked by the
evaluators to explain more on some points tried to elaborate their ideas. This revealed
the fact that the students had begun to embrace the idea of peer evaluation. In
contrast, there were some students who still did not revise their text based on their
peer’s suggestions. In response to this, when a suggestion was found having valid
points, I would write down advice for the writer to follow. This was an effort to
reassure the trustworthiness of peer evaluation system.
When I examined the revised texts and checked them against the first
drafts, the works appeared to be in better quality in terms of content. The second draft
was longer with more details. I assumed that the students had revisited the reading
passage and had more understanding of it. Then they tried to add more ideas into the
revised version of the text. Moreover, it was also possible that they were exposed to
new ideas and saw some good example from their peer’s idea while evaluating their
texts. Hence, they revised their own texts accordingly. The investigation also showed
that some students also tried to incorporate the language input from the authentic texts
earlier provided to them, especially the phrases to introduce ideas. However, they still
were not able to compose the texts to suit the determined target readers.
As for the provision of teacher feedback, the process was similar to
that in cycle 1. The constructive feedback was provided with encouragement.
Straightforward comments were given on the meaning level of the text. When a
student wrote an ambiguous sentence, I would asked that student to revise it and make
it clearer to understand. In addition, corrective feedback was given. It was interesting
to find that most of the errors in the surface level of the text came from students who
incorrectly imitated the text. To illustrate this, for example, while the model text used
a singular subject, some students would write it in the plural form without changing
the verb to make subject-verb agreement.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
148
Looking at the second draft in general, some improvement was
observed. The students showed a tendency to engage more into the process writing as
evident in the content of their texts. With the comments and corrections from the
teacher, the students then worked on the final draft in a class meeting.
Writing the final Draft
When the students received their second draft with the feedback from
the teacher, they looked surprised to see a lot of suggestions and corrections. Some
students approached me to ask for clarification about the comments. One student
displayed a genuine ambition to improve. The student spent time discussing the text
with me and asked me for approval of ideas to be revised. Even though some students,
particularly those sitting at the back of the class, still tried to work independently
without any advice from the teacher, in general, the level of interaction between the
class and me became higher. After I had shown that I was available to scaffold their
writing, more students approached me for consultation. As for the interaction among
students, I could observe that students also sought advice from their classmates who
sat around them. They both asked the classmates for some ideas and to help revise
parts of their texts. At the end of the meeting, however, less than half of the students
were able to finish their final draft.
After the students turned in the final draft, which was attached to the
first 2 drafts and the peer evaluation checklist, I checked the final draft and assigned
scores. As previously mentioned, a portion of the score, 20 percent of the total score
to be exact, was also allocated on the improvement between 3 drafts. From
observation of draft 3, most students mainly corrected the grammatical errors that I
pointed out while they did not revise the text at the global level. In some cases, even if
I had requested them to rewrite some sentences or parts to clarify their arguments, the
revision strategy that they used was only changing the words. It was also observed
that, for a few students, there was no major change or improvement within the three
drafts that they composed, especially in terms of content.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
149
Reflection on Cycle 2
At the end of research cycle 2, writing in response to a reading passage
and opinion writing, it was appropriate to conclude that the intervention worked
slightly more effectively compared to cycle 1. However, I perceived that there was
still much room for improvement in the pedagogical methods.
From my reflection, the most glaring problem in the intervention was
the use of peer evaluation. While the students seemed to have better accommodated
their peers’ suggestions into the text comparing to the first cycle, the quality of the
feedback was still questionable. Furthermore, the students not only provided feedback
mostly on the surface level of the text but they were also unable to offer their peer
writers possible revision solutions. The reason could be that they still required more
training on evaluating and assessing their peers’ texts. Nevertheless, there had been
only one training session due to the time limitation. Therefore, I planned to provide
another peer evaluation training in the next research cycle.
Student reticence remained a challenging task for me. They still did not
participate well in the class discussion. The assumption was that, like in the reflection
on research cycle 1, the students were not confident in showing their ideas in front of
the whole class due to the cultural factor. In tackling this issue, another kind of
discussion activity might be helpful.
For the multiple-draft writing method, the students started to see its
benefits by making efforts to improve their texts. However, the revision was mainly
limited to the feedback they received from their peers and teacher. While the students
could write with better language accuracy, the ability to transfer such linguistic
knowledge to future work was still of question. Moreover, they were still expected to
compose the texts with more uses and varieties of the linguistic features of academic
writing.
Plans for the next action research cycle
The observation and reflection on the two action research cycles had
shed light on ways to improve the practice. I then used the information to plan some
adjustment of the teaching and learning methods for the next cycle in the second
genre of the course. To start with, bearing in mind the complexity of the peer review
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
150
process, another training on peer evaluation was needed. Furthermore, to ensure that
the students could harvest the utmost benefits of peer evaluation, it was necessary that
I encourage more interaction between the evaluators and the writers. From my
reflection, while using the checklist provided convenience, the students might have
perceived it as prescriptive, consequently hindering them to comment beyond what
was on the list.
For other instructional methods, the use of authentic texts would
remain. In this research cycle, the students had shown a great interest in the real world
samples and some of them tried to incorporate the language input from the sample
into their works, making the texts more interesting and outstanding.
The role of the teacher would be adjusted as well. While I initially put
my stance on being the facilitator of learning who provided assistance and several
aids to promote learning as well as tried not to dominate the class, the students still
saw me as the legitimate figure of authority and judge of their learning. In the
meantime, the instructions were mainly lecture-based. I could observe that the
students could not maintain their participation and focus. It was assumed that the long
lecture made the students bored and they preferred more hands-on tasks and different
instructional methods. Thus, the plan was revised to introduce more methods of
collaborative learning, such as group work rather than teacher-led class discussion,
with me providing only assistance. Also, different instructional media would be
introduced. Table 4.2 summarizes the result of the implementation of the plans and
my reflection on it, as well as proposes the plans for the next research cycle.
Genre: Writing in response to a reading passage/ opinion writing Action Research Cycle 2
Plan Actual Practice /Action
Result Reflection Plan for the next cycle
Prewriting activity
- Guided discussion, individual elicitation in setting the purpose and
- Still passive and reticent
- Large class size and cultural factor, lack of confidence in speaking up
- Provide more activities- small group work
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
151
readers Use of models
- Class-constructed model
- Still mainly imitated the models for language input; - More variation of language use
- Used to writing with the product approach.
- Provide a variety of language input in the next genre
Peer evaluation
- Using the checklist with teacher’s monitoring and assistance in finding points to improve
- Slightly better but not effective; - Only on surface level, no revision solutions offered
- Starting to understand the process but not confident enough to offer revision - Prescriptive nature of the checklist
- Provide more training on peer evaluation; for the next genre- data interpretation (key features)
Multiple-draft methods
- Writing 3 drafts with scores for improvement -All drafts to be kept in the portfolio
- Started to adapt to the approach; - Revision based on peer evaluation and teacher feedback; - Substantive revision on content by some students
- More familiar with the process - Seeing examples from a peer’s work
- Continue the use in the next genre
Teaching material
-Authentic text: Sample articles from news
- Seemed interested; some incorporated that language input.
- Affective value from the real-world text
- Provide more authentic texts
Table 4.2: Summary of implementation of action research cycle 2: Writing in
response to reading passage/ opinion writing
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
152
4.3 Genre 2: Data interpretation
The next genre in this course of study was data interpretation. The features of
language focused on in this unit was the use of lexical items, collocations, and
expressions to explain, compare, and contrast the variables, values, and numbers
displayed in the graphical information. Besides that, the students were expected to
illustrate the movement of variables through textual format. In addition to the use of
linguistic features for data interpretation writing, the students were required to discuss
the reasons that explained the phenomena observed in the graph.
4.3.1 Action research cycle 1:
Plan
In the instructions of this genre, I would use the explicit teaching on
the objectives of writing about graphs and the essential vocabulary used in describing
the graphs. However, as reflected in the first cycle of the previous genre, the students
could lose their attention listening to a long lecture. In response to such problem, in
this research cycle, I planned to break the lecture part into smaller sessions. I then
planned to employ a teaching media, which was a video clip on describing graphical
information.
The prewriting activities would start with a class discussion led by me.
Moreover, a new activity of group brainstorming would be introduced. The objective
was to foster the interactions among the students to establish rapport, which could
later benefit their learning process as well as improve the peer evaluation system. In
the actual writing part, the students would be given the freedom to select the
assignment. I also planned to set the objective of writing and the target reader of the
text with the students. They would be required to produce 2 drafts of the assignment.
After the first draft, I planned to provide training on peer evaluation before letting
them evaluate their peers’ texts. Then the revised draft would be evaluated by me for
feedback and comment.
The instructional materials in the research cycle would include the
textbook and a supplementary handout of essential vocabulary, collocations, and
expressions that I prepared.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
153
Act
The intervention started with a teacher-led class discussion. I
questioned the students to see if they had had some experience writing about graphs.
The level of participation was not high. Only those who regularly engaged in
answering the teacher’s questions showed enthusiasm. In the lecture, which I planned
to keep short, I extracted the language convention, lexical items, and expressions used
in the genre from the textbook and used Power Point for the visual aids.
To assure that the attention from the students was maintained
throughout the class, I added a video clip retrieved from Youtube to the lecture. The
clip featured a native English speaker showing the use of vocabulary and collocations
used in academic data interpretation. From my observation, the students were
interested in the video and paid good attention. This helped draw a conclusion that it
was necessary for teachers to try to employ different instructional media instead of
depending solely on the traditional lecture style.
With a teacher-guided discussion, the model texts in the textbook were
used to exhibit the format of data interpretation texts. The students were also asked to
take part in the analysis of the graphs in the model texts.
Assignment 1: Bar graph
The assignment began with the prewriting activities. Firstly, I let the
students selected the graph to write. The majority selected the bar graph with the topic
of reasons that prevented Thai consumers to make online purchases. Then, I led a
brief class discussion to investigate their background knowledge about the variables
in the charts. Some of the questions that I posed included “Have you ever made an
online purchase?” and “Were you really sure that you would receive the product?”
The students seemed to have a good schema on the topic. This gave me an idea that
the students might find it more motivating if they were provided with an opportunity
to work on a topic that they had some schemata on.
Then, in adapting the principles of genre approach of writing
instructions, the target reader and objectives of writing were set by the whole class.
The students agreed that the purpose of interpreting the pie charts was to inform the
owner of a newly established online company of the Thai consumer behavior in
online shopping.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
154
As planned, I let the students work in groups of 4 of which they
selected the members by themselves. The purpose of this collaborative learning
activity was for the students to share ideas, especially in the reasoning part. It could
be seen that they chose to work with those sitting around them. I observed that the
students were enthusiastic working together in a group. It could be because the class
was in the fifth week of the course. They students had already been acquainted with
one another. However, I did not assign roles for the group members.
Observe
Writing draft 1
In the actual writing, the students worked individually. While they
were preparing the first draft, I was available for their queries. It was quite clear that
more students were now seeking advice from me. Most of the inquiries were about
whether they had chosen appropriate word choice to describe the pie charts. In my
point of view, this could be interpreted in two aspects. On the positive side, the
students could understand the essence of data interpretation writing, that it dealt
mainly with unique language features. Besides, it indicated that I could establish
better rapport with the students and gain trust from them. On the other hand, it could
also mean that the task itself was considered rather challenging for the students.
Hence, scaffolding from the teacher was necessary. While monitoring, I observed that
the students sought advice from one another on the work. Many of them also asked
their peers to help check their work in the process.
It took longer than expected for the students to complete the first draft.
It was an understandable situation since, for many of them, this was the first time that
they learned to write data interpretation. I let them take as much time as they had to.
They were allowed to finish the draft at home and asked to bring it to the next
meeting for peer evaluation.
Peer Evaluation
The students submitted their first drafts of assignment 1 to the teacher.
Then the texts were randomly distributed to the evaluator. Along with that, the peer
evaluation checklist for data interpretation (see appendix D) was given. However, the
training on peer evaluation deviated from the plan. Instead of giving them the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
155
training, I went through all items in the checklist with the class to make sure that they
understood the criteria. Besides, they were reminded to provide comments, both
positive and constructive criticisms in the open comment part.
The students seemed to become more familiar with this peer evaluation
system. Many of them started to put more efforts into reading their classmates’ texts.
A few students approached me and asked me to help them with the peer evaluation.
The main concern was that the evaluators could not understand what the writers were
trying to express. They were suggested to write it down in the text to inform the
writers of such problem. Another student showed me that the classmate whose work
she was evaluating was in a format different from the model text. I suggested her to
point it out to and inform the writer of the correct format. Another observed fact was
that some students started to evaluate their peers’ work at the meaning level. To cite
an example, an evaluator wrote down “I think the phrase ‘rely on’ can be
misleading.” However, such kind of feedback was still spare.
From these situations, it appeared that while the students started to take
seriously the process of giving effective evaluation to their peer writers, they were
still not confident enough to do so and they had to seek approval from the teacher.
Teacher Feedback
Once the students finished evaluating the texts and providing feedback
to their classmates, the works and the peer evaluation checklists were returned to the
writers. They were now to revise the text and prepare the second draft for the
teacher’s feedback. By the end of a 3-hour meeting, most of them had turned in the
second draft.
I scrutinized the feedback and found that more students started to
provide more feedback to help the writers improve at the meaning level of the text.
For example, some evaluators advised the writers to include more numbers in the text
to illustrate the change. However, to the majority, lacking substantive suggestions was
still prevalent. Besides, many students showed the tendency of giving only positive
comments and praises to the writer.
Looking at the second draft of the text, a number of students
incorporated the feedback they received from their peer in the revised draft. Most of
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
156
the feedback was on the use of vocabulary items to describe the graph and some
grammatical errors that the writers made. As for the content and organization, only a
few students made important changes. When traced back to the first draft and the peer
evaluation checklist, there was no evidence that the writers had been suggested to do
so. I assumed that the writers made the attempt to improve the content of the text by
themselves or they could have seen good examples from the classmate whose work
they evaluated.
From my observation, the second draft generally marked some
improvements. Nevertheless, typical problems of grammatical errors still remained. I
provided corrective feedback to address those errors. Another glaring problem in
writing this genre was that most students still had very limited use of the vocabulary
to describe the features of the graph. Repetition of the same lexical items was
common among them. Besides, they were not yet able to display a competent use of
expressions and collocations to display the degree and speed of movement of
variables. In tackling these problematic issues, I pointed out the problems that
individual students had through written constructive criticism. An example of my
comment was “You may try to use different words to describe the same movement to
make your texts more interesting.”
In terms of meeting the objective of the text and reaching the target
audience, the students could not show that they were able to accomplish such tasks.
Although the quality of the text was at acceptable level, the texts still looked like a
student assignment that was highly influenced by the model text from the textbook.
Reflection on the first cycle
By observing and reflecting on the implementation of the intervention
in the first research cycle of this academic writing genre, I realized that I should
integrate more collaborative learning activities into the lesson. During the fifth week
of the course, the students had already reduced the personal distance between them. It
would be wise to make use of this newly established rapport to benefit the learning
process. Therefore, the plan for the next research cycle was to use the group
discussion for students to brainstorm for ideas to write. This should also be applied to
the peer evaluation system. I planned to make a change to the peer evaluation process.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
157
The process would now include the provision of oral feedback in addition to the use
of the checklist.
In terms of writing instructions, as most students already had a clear
picture of the structure of the text, then the next action research cycle would employ
the collaboratively constructed models to help guide them on the use of language as
well as to show them the composition process. It also aimed to help them foster the
ability to make the text sound more natural and authentic. To strengthen that, samples
of authentic texts on writing about data would be provided. Table 4.3 exhibits the
summary of the results of and reflection on the implementation of the plans in
research cycle 1 of data interpretation. The plans for next cycle are also displayed.
Genre: Data Interpretation Action Research Cycle 1
Plan Actual Practice /Action
Result Reflection Plan for the next cycle
Teaching and learning approach
- Explicit teaching in small parts - Use of the video clip
- Better concentration - Highly positive; students paid full attention
- Could focus on one main point at a time
- Revise the key language features of the genre such as the collocations
Prewriting activities:
Class discussion guided by the teacher; students choosing the graph
- Participated better; offering ideas
- Motivated if they had sufficient schemata
- Let them choose the graph that they want to work on
Group discussion, 4 students per group
- Enthusiastic and dynamic
- Students becoming acquainted with one another
- Provide more collaborative activities
Teaching material
Model from the textbook
- Understood the structure and format; - Imitating the text - Not able to meet the
- Felt that following the model was safe
- Model the text to show writing process - Use authentic texts to show different styles
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
158
Table 4.3: Summary of implementation of action research cycle 1: Data Interpretation
4.3.2 Action research cycle 2:
Plan
In this action research cycle, as presented, I planned use the
collaboratively constructed model to display the process of writing and the language
features in giving reasons to the students. Additionally, another authentic text would
be provided.
While the teacher-guided class discussion would remain, other
prewriting activities would lean towards collaborative learning with group
brainstorming as it was effective in the previous cycle. In line with this, oral peer
feedback would be encouraged along with the checklist in the peer evaluation process.
For the composition of text in the writing assignment, the students would produce 3
objective and target readers
Training on peer evaluation (familiarizing the students with the key features)
- No full training; going through the items on the checklist with the class due to time constraints
-Seemed to understand better
-Started to see the benefits of peer evaluation
- Provide another training on peer evaluation
Peer evaluation (using the checklist)
- Using the checklist
- Offered some useful suggestions - Sought advice from the teacher; - Incorporate more of peer feedback; - Not directly communicating with the writers
- Reduced personal distance
- Make oral feedback part of peer evaluation
Multiple-draft methods
Writing with 2 drafts -All drafts to be kept in the portfolio
- More revision on the content and language that helped with clarity ideas
- Understood the process better
- Continue the use in the next cycle
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
159
drafts. I would assign scores on the final draft as part of the coursework with a portion
of the score on improvement between drafts.
Act
Assignment 2: The pie charts
From the previous research cycles, the students could develop a sense
of freedom when they were allowed to pick the topic they would like to work on.
From my anticipation, such freedom of choice would lead them to develop a sense of
text ownership, which was an important part of process writing. Moreover, the level
of engagement in the discussion was higher. Therefore, the second research cycle for
data interpretation began with students selecting and voting for the topic to write. For
this assignment, the students chose pie charts comparing the top social media sites in
Thailand.
While the topic might look similar to the one in the first assignment,
the reasons preventing Thai consumers to purchase online, the focus was different. I
reminded them of that fact. After that, the students got into groups of four to discuss
the pie charts and brainstorm for ideas to write. They had about 30 minutes to
brainstorm. During which time, I walked around the classroom to monitor their
activities. It was observed that most students were engaged in the brainstorm process.
After the brainstorming, the class had a discussion for each group to
share ideas that they came up with. The elicitation was mainly about the main features
of the pie charts and how each group would rationalize the phenomena they observed.
Each group had a representative to share their ideas.
The next activity was to construct a model collaboratively. The
students contributed ideas to develop the paragraph while I assisted them with the
language. The modeling process was separated into 2 parts based on the writing drill
of this subgenre. The first part was to describe the key data observed from the pie
charts; the second part was to explain the reasons for changes in the value of the
variables.
As planned, I distributed 2 samples texts on writing about numbers and
changes, which focused on the terms and collocations used. The texts were about
weather forecasts and rankings of countries with a high number of foreign tourists.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
160
The language features for describing numbers were highlighted in the texts. The
former sample displayed the lexical items and phrases used to discuss movements of
numbers in different degree and speed and the latter focused on order and
comparison.
In modeling the first part of the text, the same problem arose. The
students seemed reluctant to show their ideas in front of their classmates. I still had to
put a lot of effort into motivating them to overcome their reticence. Some students,
mostly the usual ones, tried to give ideas to construct the model, which greatly helped
maintain the class dynamic. The rest were only waiting for the teacher to write the
ideas down, quiet and reserved. They would show their ideas only when asked
individually. In a worse case, some students would not even try to answer. This made
it difficult for me to take the role of facilitator of learning, especially when time was
of essence.
It should also be noted that, in creating the model text with the class, I
decided not to display the whole paragraph. In fact, the ideas were presented in bullet
points. Like in the previous cycle, the purpose was to prevent the students from
imitating the text directly. After coming up with some ideas for possible inclusion in
their texts, I led the class in modeling the text using some of the features from the
sample texts. Then, the students would produce the first part of their first draft on
their own time and bring it to the next meeting.
In the next class meeting, the continuation of the last class, the students
were put in groups to discuss the ideas that they had generated for the interpretation
part of the text. By this 14th class meeting, they had already become familiar with one
another. This made me realize that in order to have effective and dynamic
collaborative learning activities, students need time to reduce their personal social
distance.
After that, the next prewriting activity was the modeling of the second
part of the text. Similar to the previous class, the problems of students not being fully
engaged arose. Even those students whose writing performance had been improving
still remained reserved and gave some ideas only when they were asked directly.
Nonetheless, the class managed to come up with a model text from the class
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
161
discussion. I still used the same format of text which was information on bullet points
focusing on different expressions used in describing the information from the graph.
Writing Draft 1
The next step in the process was to prepare the first draft of the second
writing assignment. With the detailed discussion and the modeling, the students could
finish the first draft relatively quickly. It became quite clear that, in order for the
students to compose their text smoothly and naturally, it was important that they had
enough input in terms of both language and background knowledge of the topic. In
composing the text, many students stilled referred back to the course book and the
class-modeled text to look for vocabulary items to use.
Peer evaluation
In the same manner as with the previous research cycle, I randomly
assigned the students to perform the peer evaluation on the first draft of this
assignment. However, as planned for in the research cycle, the peer evaluation
process would incorporate oral feedback. Hence, I asked the evaluators to approach
the writers and vice versa to ask for clarification on the text and comments. From my
observation, the evaluators did not attempt to question the writers. On the other hand,
some writers had been found to approach their evaluators asking for explanations for
the comments they received.
When I scrutinized the marked checklists, I found that the evaluators
started to give comments on the meaning level of the text. Many pieces of advice
were valid and useful. For example, an evaluator commented on a writer’s text “The
reasons are good but I think the concluding remark is not clear. I think you should
rewrite it.” Nevertheless, the evaluators did not offer the writers any ideas for
revision. In addition, corrections on the surface level such as spelling and
capitalization were common.
Writing Draft 2
The students, after working on the peer evaluation, progressed to
writing draft 2 and submitted it to the teacher. A close look at the revised texts
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
162
showed that the writers still did not follow the advice from their peer evaluators. And
from my assumption, there were two possibilities. The first was that, since the
evaluators did not propose any revision strategy, the writers decided to ignore those
comments. Secondly, the writers still did not develop a trust in the peer evaluators.
Teacher feedback
Looking at draft 2 from the students, it was apparent that many
students put more effort into revising their texts. A cross checking against the peer
evaluation checklist showed, however, that most students revised their text by adding
more ideas and reorganizing the paragraphs by themselves as their peer evaluators did
not provide suggestions on revision options. While it could be said that the students
still could not perform their peer evaluation task as effectively as I hoped, they were
becoming more independent in their writing. From the analysis of the second draft, I
found that there was a significant improvement in the language used in describing the
movement and the use of collocations to express the degree and speed of change in
the variables. To cite an example, in the first draft, a student wrote:
“Facebook had the highest percentage of uses in both years, 37% and
40%.”
In the second draft, the same student employed the use of collocation and revised the
statement to:
“Facebook had the highest percentage of uses in both years. It slightly
increased by 3 percent, from 37% to 40%.”
A number of texts had also shown that the writers tried to make use of
the language input from the authentic texts provided to them. Besides, the students
tried to adapt the ideas and language from the class-modeled text as well. However,
the majority of students still depended heavily on the topic sentences in the model
texts in the course book.
One common problem that many students shared in the interpretation
part was the subject of discussion. Many of them focused on the variables as the
factors responsible for changes observed. In fact, they were supposed to describe the
human behavior. To illustrate this, instead of saying “More Thai people turned to use
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
163
Instagram,” many students wrote, “Instagram increased its percentage.” I addressed
this problem for them and directly and asked them to specifically revise it in the next
draft. Also, I provided direct corrective feedback for grammatical accuracy.
Writing the final draft
As part of the coursework, the final draft would be submitted for
grades. I returned the first two drafts with my feedback to the students. From the
observation, the students started to get used to the way I provided feedback and
comments- using constructive feedback with praise and encouragement. The process
of writing the final draft did not take the students long. They managed to finish it in
class. During which time, many students approached me asking for clarification on
the comments. This made me realize that even though the written feedback was
detailed, the students still preferred oral feedback because it could give them a clearer
picture of what they should improve and a more effective revision strategy.
In marking the final draft, the texts generally improved after multiple
revisions. The students could understand and wrote in the proper format of the text.
The use of suitable collocations to describe the variables and numbers were evident in
most students. As for the interpretation part, many students seemed to understand and
turn their focus to sensibly explaining the phenomena with human behavior as the
driving force of changes. Meanwhile, the problem of students revising only the points
that the teacher suggested still remained. In contrast, some students avoided
correcting their grammatical errors that I pointed out by completely changing the
sentence structure.
Like in the first genre, the score for improvement between drafts was
also given. The idea was to let the students see their learning progress and, at the
same time, know that their efforts were recognized.
Reflection on research cycle 2 of data interpretation writing
Upon the completion of this research cycle, I had reflected on the
effectiveness of the intervention on the instructions of data interpretation as well as on
the other facts that had emerged during the teaching and learning.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
164
Starting with the writing instructions, the students, after seven weeks of
the course, had become familiar with the multiple-draft approach. Many students
started to show their efforts in improving their texts between drafts. However, there
were still some students who did not make important changes between the drafts,
apart from what was suggested
For the prewriting activities, the researcher could conclude that
collaborative learning started to play a vital role in the steps of generating ideas. The
students showed enthusiasm when they worked in groups. However, for the
composition of text, most of them obviously preferred individual work. What was
reflected from this observation was that the students needed time to get acquainted
with one another before they could work collaboratively, especially in this setting
where most students came from different faculties and did not know one another prior
to enrolment.
Another instructional tool for effective instructions of data
interpretation was the use of authentic texts highlighting language features for this
genre. As the nature of data interpretation writing deals mainly with the use of
collocations and expressions to describe the variables, it is helpful to let the students
see the actual use of those features in real word writing in order for them to
understand and be able to write with such features correctly and naturally in their
texts.
The use of peer evaluation slightly improved. The students started to
put more effort into providing feedback to their peer writers. However, concrete and
useful suggestions were still lacking. This could be for the fact that the evaluators
were still not confident with what to suggest. Also, some evaluators might still
associate evaluation with grammar checking. On the other hand, it occurred me that
the students started to gain benefits from seeing and evaluating their peers’ texts.
Compared to the previous research cycles, the students began to state specifically in
the peer evaluation form what they admired about their classmates’ texts. The
researcher then made an assumption that they could see some good examples of ideas
and language use that could be used in their texts.
For the teacher feedback, the students valued and followed what I
suggested strictly. Moreover, the improvement and revision of their texts still relied
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
165
heavily on my feedback. The fact the students still held their teacher in high esteem
could prevent them from questioning the validity of the teacher’s comments on their
work. Besides, it would also hinder them from trying out new ideas.. Another
significant fact that I found in this cycle was that the students demanded oral feedback
regardless of how detailed the written feedback was. Table 4.4 summarizes the results
of and reflection on the implementation of the intervention. It also displays the plan
for the next genre, the report writing.
Genre: Data Interpretation Action Research Cycle 2
Plan Actual Practice /Action
Result Reflection Plan for the next cycle
Prewriting activity
- Teacher- guided class discussion on the topic selected by the students (popular social media sites)
- High participation
- Motivated if they had sufficient schemata
- Let them choose the passage that they want to work on
- Group discussion, 4 students per group
- Highly enthusiastic and dynamic
- Shared knowledge and learned from one another
- Provide more collaborative activities
Peer evaluation
- Using checklist - Valid and useful on the meaning level; - Still no revision strategy offered - Not directly communicating the writers
-Seeing the benefits of peer evaluation
- Provide more training on peer evaluation; - Make oral feedback part of peer evaluation - Let them choose their evaluators
Teacher Feedback
- Focusing on language convention, accuracy
- Strictly followed
- Perceived as final
- Offer oral feedback as follow-ups
Multiple-draft methods
- Writing 3 drafts with scores including improvement
- More revision on the content and language that helped with
- Understood the process better
- Continue the use in the next cycle
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
166
between drafts -All drafts to be kept in the portfolio
clarity of presented ideas
Use of authentic texts
- Providing 2 real-world articles (weather forecast and tourist spots ranking)
- Started to use the language seen in the samples e.g. verb, collocations
- Saw more language input and had more options
Table 4.4: Summary of implementation of action research cycle 2: Data Interpretation
4.4 Genre 3: Report writing
The next genre in the writing component of this advanced academic English
course was report writing. In the tertiary education level, report writing is one of the
common genres of academic writing that students need to master. In the course on
which this action research was conducted, the type of report taught was memo report.
It required students to display their reading comprehension skills since the content
was mainly based on an academic reading passages. Another focus of this writing
genre was for the students to show their critical thinking ability by proposing effective
recommendations to the case that they read about.
4.4.1 Report Writing: Action Research Cycle 1
Plan
In planning the instructions for report writing, reflections from the previous
research cycles were taken into consideration. Moreover, the lesson plans were also
based on the complex nature of the report, which was highly structured and formal.
So, I decided to use the inductive approach as the instructional method by letting the
students see and analyze the model report. The purpose was to help the students see
the structure of the report, discourse structure, and language conventions in report
writing. Another reason was derived from my reflection on the previous lessons that
students were unable to engage in a long lecture session and they tended to prefer
more hand-on tasks.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
167
The plan for the prewriting state in this action research cycle included
more use of collaborative learning strategies especially in getting the gist in reading
and generation of ideas for the composition of the report. Therefore, I planned to ask
the students to work in pairs as it might help them communicate their ideas to each
other effectively.
For the writing assignment, unlike the previous genres where students
wrote 2 drafts for the first assignment and 3 drafts for the second assignment, with
report writing, they were stipulated to write 3 drafts for each assignment. In addition,
there were two types of report convention to be taught, namely the advantages-
disadvantages report and causes-effects report. Hence, the first assignment would be
on the former and the second would be for the latter.
For the evaluation process, I would introduce the self-evaluation
checklist to the students after they wrote the first draft of the report. The intent was to
help them evaluate their own work on writing with the correct format of report,
language convention, and accuracy. More importantly, it was my assumption that the
self-evaluation would help the students see clearly what was expected from them and
they could transfer this knowledge to evaluating their peers’ texts. As for the peer
evaluation, oral feedback would be encouraged among the students. Next, in terms of
teacher feedback, the use of constructive criticisms would continue. In line with that,
a verbal feedback was planned. It would be provided to the students individually. The
following table concludes the implementation and results of the plan as well as offers
the plan for the next research cycle.
Act and observe
The instructions on this genre began with the introduction to the type
of report taught in this course. Then, objectives of writing reports were discussed. In
contrast with the teaching in the previous subgenres, I decided to use the inductive
approach in the teaching of this unit of the course. In the instruction process, the
students were assigned to read a sample passage in the textbook with the topic of a
plan to construct a nuclear power plant in Thailand. Then, they were assigned to read
and analyze the components of the report from the model text. I, in the meantime,
guided them through the structure of the report and scaffolded the discourses used in
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
168
this text type. Other key features such as the organization, coherence, and
construction of the problem statement were also highlighted based on the model
report in the textbook.
However, from my observation, the students seemed to be unable to
follow the instructions and to develop a clear understanding on the structure of the
report. The assumption was that the students were more familiar with the deductive
approach in which the teacher helped build and form the knowledge. In contrast,
analyzing and extracting parts of a text might work only when the students had solid
ground on the text format. Noticing the problem, I swiftly adjusted the plan and
assigned the students to study another sample report in the textbook and prepared for
discussion in the next class meeting.
In the continuation of the lesson, I started with a revision of the content
of the previous lesson with more explanation on the key points. Realizing that the
previous inductive instructional method did not work effectively, I switched to its
counterpart deductive approach. Now, the students seemed to have a better grasp of
the structure and organization of each part of the report as well as understand more
clearly the conventions of the text such as discourse features. The students paid good
attention and engaged fully in the discussion now that they had more background
knowledge from the self-studying.
Assignment 1: Writing advantages and disadvantages report
The first writing assignment for this genre was the advantages and
disadvantages report. As usual, I let them choose the topic from the course book. The
topic was a proposal to construct a water tunnel in the central part of Thailand.
Starting with the prewriting activities, the students were assigned to read and discuss
the passage in pairs. After the reading, the teacher conducted a short class discussion
in which the students were asked to show important information they obtained from
reading, especially the general information, the advantages, and the disadvantages of
the proposed project.
Since the target audience of the report was already assigned in the
instructions of the exercise, the teacher then discuss with the class on what the
purpose of the report was. The class came to the conclusion that the main objective of
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
169
this report was to provide analytical information to help the recipient make decision
over the proposal. Then, they started drafting their report.
Writing Draft 1
In this assignment, being aware of how challenging report writing was
for the students, I asked them to compose the first draft in pairs. It was another
attempt to utilize collaborative learning, especially when the students had become
close to each other. While they were working, I made an observation on their writing
process and provided assistance to them. Most of the queries that I received were
about the construction of the recommendations. Some students asserted that they
found this part most challenging in report writing.
From the observation, the students engaged fully in brainstorming with
their partner. It was also observed that the level of dependency on the teacher
reduced. However, some pairs of students still requested my opinion when they had a
dispute. As for the writing part, the students were found to consult the textbook and
looked at the model reports provided for language input. However, the students were
not able to complete the first draft during the class time. Hence, they were assigned to
finish it on their own time before the next class meeting.
The use of self-evaluation and training on peer evaluation for report
writing
As the use of peer evaluation had been proving less than effective
particularly for the evaluators to provide useful suggestions for the revision at the
global level of the text. Hence, I realized that another training session on peer
evaluation was necessary. Seeing that the evaluator should be able to understand the
report clearly before they could evaluate their classmates’ works, a measure to
strengthen their understanding was the use of self-evaluation. The use of self-
evaluation was expected to help the students to understand the purpose of the
assignment as well as the criteria in assessing the quality of text. Hence, they could
transfer such understandings to the peer evaluation process. The self-evaluation
checklist was designed based on the format, structure, language convention, and
relevancy and quality of ideas (see appendix E).
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
170
After the students used the self-evaluation form to assess their works, I
asked for their opinions regarding their works. Most students agreed that the draft still
did not meet the standard in many dimensions such as lacking sources of information,
missing the statement of problems, and having many grammatical and spelling errors.
One student stated that it was an eye-opening experience.
For the training on peer evaluation, I randomly selected a first draft
from a pair of students to use in the training. The peer evaluation checklist for report
writing was distributed (see appendix F). The text was displayed on the screen and the
students tried to evaluate it using the checklist. When they finished, I initiated a class
discussion and used the same checklist to evaluate the sample work again. The class
went through each item on the list together and I requested comments from the
students in evaluating it. The main purpose of this training session was not for the
students to be familiar with the checklist but to demonstrate to them the process of
giving suggestions and revision strategies. The students paid good attention to the
suggestions that I provided to the sample text.
Peer Evaluation
When they finished the first draft, the students swapped their papers. In
this research cycle, they were allowed to choose their own evaluators. A measure to
foster the students ability to provide effective feedback was the implementation of
oral feedback. Before the evaluators filled up the checklist, they were given 10
minutes to discuss with the writers and give oral feedback. From my observation, the
level of participation was high, which made the class atmosphere dynamic. The
evaluators requested clarification from the writers and they put efforts into providing
comments to the writers. Then, the students went through the checklist, completed it,
and returned the first draft to the writers.
Scrutinizing the filled checklists, I found that the students still mostly
marked the items without writing down much on the suggestions and revision
strategy. When asked for the reasons, most of the evaluators claimed that they had
already given the suggestions in the oral feedback. In such case, I assumed that the
student might feel more comfortable giving their friends suggestions through the oral
form of feedback. Another point that was noticed by the researcher was that the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
171
students did not provide much of the surface level feedback. However, from the
checklists, most of the evaluators agreed that they saw some good ideas from the
writer, especially in the recommendation part.
Writing draft 2
After receiving the feedback from their peers, the writers revised the
report for the second draft to be evaluated by the teacher. While the first draft was
constructed in pairs, the students requested that the second and third draft be written
individually, which was accommodated. I examined the second draft against the first
draft and the peer evaluation checklist and found that the students did not incorporate
much of what was suggested by their peers. However, what had been changed most
was the recommendation part of the report. Clearly, the revision in this part was not
based on the evaluation checklist. Hence, it was appropriate to assume that the
revision was based on the discussion and oral feedback during the evaluation process.
Moreover, the fact that the students focused mainly on revising this part of the report
was in line with their perception that writing effective and sensible recommendations
was the most challenging task in report writing.
Teacher Feedback
By examining the second draft of the first assignment, I found that
most students could compose the text in the required format. There were only a few
students who missed some components of the report. For the language use, the input
was directly from the model report in the course book. In terms of the content, the
analysis part for advantages and disadvantages, most students could get the main
points correctly but the organization, as commented on by the teacher, needed some
improvement.
The most problematic part was the recommendations. While the
structure of the recommendations was followed, most of the students were still unable
to make logical and relevant statements to help the target reader make a decision. To
elaborate, most of the recommendations addressed the problems at the superficial
level without offering any practical solution. This was the point that I highlighted in
my feedback. Suggestions on language use, revisions for the content and organization,
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
172
and comments on the recommendations were given to the students to prepare the final
draft.
Writing the final draft
The last task for the student to perform in this research cycle was
revising the text and composing the final draft based on my suggestions. The students
seemed very concerned about the recommendation part. I then cited some
recommendations from the students and commented on how they were effective or
ineffective. Then before revising the text, I let the students discuss with their peers on
this point again.
The students submitted the final drafts of the first report. Detailed
checking of the last drafts found that some corrections on the local errors had been
made as I had suggested through the teacher’s corrective feedback. The students could
complete all parts and components of the report.
All students revised the recommendations. In general, it was only
slightly improved at best. The improvement was the choice of words and sentence
structure that helped form clear arguments. However, the ideas were still quite general
and relevant to the topic only at the surface level. I highlighted these problematic
points for individual writers in order that they would transfer the knowledge to the
writing of the next report in the next research cycle.
Reflection on the first research cycle
At the end of the first action research cycle, I reflected on the
implementation of the plan and its results. To start with, the inductive instructional
approach did not work effectively due to the fact that this type of writing genre was
complex and it required some background knowledge on the format, the purpose, and
clear explanations on different parts of the report. Hence, I had learned that the
instructions for this type of text should be deductive and lecture-based to pave a solid
ground for the students before they are able to analyze the structure and language
convention.
The use of collaborative learning strategies showed its merit in terms
of creating an active and motivating learning environment. The students tended to
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
173
productively discuss their assignments to formulate ideas and orally provide feedback
on their peer’s text. Thus, the use of collaborative activities would still be utilized in
the next cycle.
The peer evaluation was still not as effective as I hoped it would be,
even with another training. The factor for such failure was, from my reflection, the
amount of time spent on the training, as the students had other writing tasks to
complete. Also, report writing was challenging for the students in itself. The students
might not have a clear understanding to the level that they could offer any revision
strategy to their peers. Therefore, the plan in the next cycle in this regard was for the
teacher to provide close assistance when the students performed their peer evaluation.
The recommendation part was the most difficult task for the students,
apparently. Whilst the students could write with the language convention of the text
type, the quality of ideas was still not at the satisfactory level. The lack of knowledge
on the subject matter was the main factor hindering the students from creating
substantive and useful recommendations to the problems. Besides, they were not able
to create connections between the recommendations and the analysis. To tackle these
problems, the researcher planned to use the text modeling technique to demonstrate
the way to make the report coherent. Table 4.5 reports the results from implementing
the plans in this action research cycle. The plans for the second cycle are also
presented.
Genre: Report writing Action Research Cycle 1: Advantages and disadvantages report
Plan Actual Practice /Action
Result Reflection Plan for the next cycle
Teaching and Learning
- Inductive approach of instructions; - Analyzing parts of report
- Could not follow the structure and idea of each part of the report
- Too many details, complex structure with a different focus in each part
- Switch back to the deductive approach
Prewriting activity
- Pair work: reading and discussion; first draft
- Engaged fully - Lowered dependency on teacher’s assistance
- Had confidence in their partners, discussed at their own pace
- Provide more collaborative activities; reading and brainstorm
Multiple - Writing 3 - Observed - Had problems - Model the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
174
draft writing
drafts instead of 2 because of the complexity of the text -All drafts to be kept in the portfolio
slight improvements between drafts; - Could follow the format
making text coherent and content relevant
text with the class to demonstrate the writing process focusing on organization of the report - Writing 3 drafts
Self Evaluation
- Using self-evaluation checklist
- Could identify the weakness in their text
- Could transfer to peer evaluation, especially the structure
- Find more opportunities to use if time permits
Training on peer evaluation
- Using students’ text to demonstrate the process; asking for comments and revision strategy
- Saw the process of evaluation
- Had more confidence in offering suggestions
-Let the students evaluate the texts
Peer evaluation
-Letting the students choose their own evaluators and using more oral feedback
- More effective than randomly assigning; - Discussed in details, asked for clarification - Quite improved but not as expected
- Felt comfortable giving and receiving feedback from trusted classmates - Challenging task, the evaluators still struggled with the writing
- Continue letting them choose their evaluator - Provide close assistance in the evaluation process
Teacher Feedback:
- Providing oral feedback
- Most queries about recommendation writing
- Had problems with generating ideas for this part
- Model the report and demonstrate thinking process
Table 4.5: Summary of implementation of action research cycle 1: Report Writing
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
175
4.4.2 Report Writing: Action Research Cycle 2
Plan
In this research cycle, the students would learn to write causes and
effects reports. Since the format of the report was similar to what they previously
learned in research cycle 1, I planned to explicitly show them the language
convention for this type of report with the deductive approach.
I planned to make more use of collaborative learning. From the
reflection on research cycle 1 for report writing, it was obvious that using
collaborative learning methods had great merits for the students. Even though the
learning outcomes and the quality of the report produced still needed improvements,
the dynamics in the class was remarkable and the students were highly motivated. The
activity for the prewriting stage was jigsaw reading on a passage on which the student
would prepare a report.
For the writing part, the most challenging element of report writing
was the recommendations. The majority of the students could not come up with ideas
that were relevant and useful to meet the objectives of the report. This might be due to
the fact that writing effective recommendations in the report required extensive
topical knowledge and critical thinking ability. Hence, I planned to help the class in
collaboratively constructing the model text to show the process of writing. It should
be noted here that, like the second writing assignments in the first two genres, the
students would produce 3 drafts with the final drafts graded for coursework scores.
The scoring included improvement between drafts.
Act
Assignment 2: writing causes and effects report
The other convention of reports was causes and effects. Like in the first
assignment, the students would be given an academic reading passage and required to
analyze it for the causes and effects of the topic being presented in the text. Then they
had to propose solutions to the problems, which must be logical and practical, through
recommendations.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
176
Prewriting activities
In this research cycle, I did not let the students choose the topic but
prepared a reading passage for them. The topic was the problem of cyberbullying
among Thai teenagers. I used my professional judgment to choose this topic under the
assumption that it was the topic that the students already had schema about. The
instructions began with a collaborative learning activity of jigsaw reading. I separated
the passage into five different strips with each given to a member of a group of five
students. They were asked to find the main idea of the paragraphs that they received
and present it to the other members of the group. Then, they would come up with the
main idea for the passage when all the pieces of information were put together.
The students spent about 45 minutes on the activities. After that, I
elicited ideas from them about the information they found in the strips such as the
causes and effects of cyberbullying and the present situation in Thailand. To help the
students relate the information to their background knowledge, I asked them if they
had experienced or witnessed cyber bullying. The students paid good attention and
each group had a representative to answer my question. After the teacher-led
discussion, the students received the original passage. After that I presented to them
the structure of the causes and effects report, with the focus on language features used
in this text convention. Then, they were assigned to prepare the first draft of the
causes and effects report.
Observe
Writing Draft 1
From my observation, the students were already well aware of the parts
of the report but they still had to depend on the textbook’s model texts for language
input. While monitoring their writing process, I received a lot of queries regarding
writing effective recommendations. Some students mentioned that they could
understand the reading text and were able to compose the analysis part well but when
it came to proposing ideas to address the problems, a lack of concrete knowledge was
their limitation.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
177
Peer Evaluation
When the students finished writing their first draft, they went to the
peer evaluation process. They chose their own evaluator and the feedback types were
both oral and written with the checklist. The students took turns discussing their draft
with the partner. From the observation, they seemed more comfortable with giving
oral feedback. Evidence showed that the student whose work was being evaluated
took note of the feedback provided to them on the text.
A close look at the feedback provided in the checklist showed that the
students started to give feedback to their peer writers at the meaning level.
Furthermore, some students tried to master the use of constructive feedback with
compliments. An example is as follow:
“The recommendations are creative and related to the problem but, in
the fourth one, I think you should specify how the Minister of
Technology can judge or deal with large information.”
In addition to that, many of the evaluators suggested the writers to add
details or provide examples to make their statements have clarity.
Another point that I noticed in the checklists was that many evaluators
stated that they had seen some good examples from the works they evaluated. To be
specific, they stated that they found the writers’ recommendations part displayed
some good ideas for them.
Writing Draft 2
Before the revision of the text started, I conducted a class modeling of
a text with the students. I led the discussion and requested ideas from the students. My
intention in modeling the text was to both emphasize the discourse convention and
demonstrate the process of formulating ideas to be used in the recommendation part
of the report. The students paid full attention, reflecting that they found this part very
difficult. However, only a few of students who regularly contributed their ideas
engaged fully in the discussion. Inarguably, reducing student reticence remained a
very challenging task for me.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
178
After the modeling, in the next step of the process writing, the students
took their work and the peer evaluation checklist back and started to prepare the
second draft for the teacher’s feedback. In the revision process, it could still be seen
that the students consulted both the model in the textbook and the class model text for
language input. Also, the students sought advice from their partners, mainly their
evaluator, in the revision process.
Teacher Feedback
Looking at the revised draft, I found that, compared to their first draft,
most students accommodated the feedback they received from their friends. Most of
the revised texts were greater in length with more details added as suggested by their
peer evaluators. Besides, arguments about the causes and effects of the cyberbullying
problem were elaborated on with some examples.
In the provision of teacher feedback, in terms of language use, it was
evident that a number of students still imitated the language structure and sentences
from the textbook samples. Some of them failed to recognize that those sentences
were not applicable to the current case. For example, their topic sentence in the
analysis part wrote: “There are several causes of the controversial plan of cyberbullying.”
Apparently, the students had used the topic sentence in the textbook’s model for the
advantages and disadvantages report. Therefore, in the teacher feedback, I highlighted
those points and requested them to rewrite. Dependency on the collaboratively
constructed model text was also common among students.
Looking at the most problematic part, the recommendation writing, the
students tried to revise their recommendations to make them clearer with details.
Some ideas were removed and replaced with new ones, presumably from what they
saw in their friend’s work and the model constructed by the class. For instance, in the
first draft, a student wrote:
“First, bullying happens in school when children lack adult
supervision. Second, Thai adults…..”
In the revised version, the student added some details to provide supports to the
argument as:
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
179
“The first cause is the lack of supervision from parents to their
children. Then, the children do not know that their action is considered
as cyberbullying. Therefore, they keep performing it.”
Nevertheless, most of the recommendations still needed improvement
because they were relatively irrelevant to the case and some were found redundant,
although they included required components. For the language accuracy, I provided
corrective feedback to the common, yet persisting, errors on grammar and spelling.
Writing the final draft
Using detailed suggestions and revisions I provided, the students now
revised the text for their final draft. They seemed quite concerned with the comments
that I gave, especially on the recommendation part. A number of students came to ask
for explanation of the feedback and advice on the revision. However, the students
accepted the comments given without any rebuttal.
In the final draft, it was still common among the students that for the
language accuracy, they would correct the mistakes only as pointed out by the
teacher. It was obvious that the students did not put much effort in editing their work
as it could be seen that the grammatical errors that had not been corrected by the peer
evaluator and the teacher remained throughout the three drafts. It was, therefore, clear
to me that the students were not independent learners as they still perceived that only
the judgment from the teacher was final. In terms of content, after they saw my
feedback on the recommendations, the revised texts were slightly better in terms of
relevancy and clarity of ideas. However, it could be another proof that the students
were dependent on the teacher.
To sum up research cycle 2 for the genre of report writing, the
students, by this time, had adjusted to the use of writing with the multiple-draft
method. They also put a greater effort in giving their classmates peer feedback. Much
feedback on the global level was also made. In terms of composition of the report, the
students could use the genre-specific language features of report writing in their work
even though they had depended on the model texts and the class model.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
180
Reflection on research cycle 2
The implementation of the plan in this research cycle proved that
collaborative learning activities were powerful methods in helping the students
acquire knowledge of this academic writing genre. The type of report in this course
was highly structured and the language convention was technical. Having the students
working together in groups contributed greatly in the formulation of ideas for their
texts through group discussion and brainstorming.
The merit of collaborative learning was not limited to formulating
ideas. The students also benefited tremendously from it in peer evaluation. As the
students became closer, they could provide more constructive feedback to each other,
especially the oral feedback. The quality of peer feedback also improved as the
students could go beyond the surface level kind of feedback and offered suggestions
on the revision at the meaning level. Most importantly, it was evident that the students
accommodated their peers’ suggestions to their writing.
However, fostering a critical thinking ability among the students
remained a challenging task for the teacher. While constructing the model text
collaboratively was an effective method in exhibiting the language features and
composition of the text, it could not fully help the students make plausible arguments
that were relevant to the topic they worked on.
For the instructional method, the inductive approach had proved less
than effective for report writing. The structure of the text was complex with many
parts, each focusing on a different dimension. In order for the students to be able to
analyze the text for the structure, organization, and linguistic pattern, they should be
equipped with strong knowledge of these elements first. Therefore, I could conclude
that the effective way to instruct report writing genre was the counterpart deductive
approach through explicit teaching of different parts with discourse patterns
highlighted. Then, the students could analyze the texts and compose their own text.
Another matter of concern that I found was that the students were not
autonomous in obtaining more of the topical knowledge. Ideally, with limited topical
knowledge, the writers need to conduct extensive research on the subject matter to
form ideas that are useable for making valid arguments. The fact in this research case
was otherwise. The students depended solely on the reading passage with no
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
181
evidence of doing research to find additional information to be included in their
report, especially in making recommendations. While they revised the
recommendations to achieve clarity of ideas, which most students successfully did, no
novel or outstanding ideas had been proposed in the later drafts. In my point of view,
it could be due to the fact that most students perceived report writing as a course
assignment to accomplish. They then would try to keep it safe by following the
information provided to them in the passage rather than venturing for new ideas.
The mismatch between the nature of learning of this genre and the time
allotted by the course outline was another factor preventing students from effectively
learning the process of report writing. With only 2-3 weeks for 2 types of reports to be
instructed before the students took a formal test on this unit, the teaching and learning
primarily focused on training the students produce a complete report. Such limitation
obstructed the students from widening their knowledge on the subject matter through
research. The repercussion was that the students bound their ideas to what was
provided in the reading passage. Table 4.6 presents the results of and reflections on
this research cycle. It also proposes a revised plan for the next cycle of the genre.
Genre: Report writing Action Research Cycle 2: Causes and effects report
Plan Actual Practice /Action
Result Reflection Plan for the next cycle
Teaching and learning
- Using deductive approach for language convention
- Could understand the structure and convention of reports better
- Helped emphasize the focus of each part in causes-effects report
- Use deductive instructions for essay writing
Prewriting Activity
- Collaborative learning activities: jigsaw reading and group brainstorm
- Engaged fully in the discussion - Effective idea generation - Had more confidence in class discussion
- Gained confidence in their classmates - Different perspectives helping with generating ideas
- Provide more collaborative activities
Peer - Letting the - Incorporated - Learn from - Continue
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
182
evaluation students choose their own evaluators - Using more oral feedback
more of the feedback with more details and examples; - More revision of the content
classmate’s text, especially the recommendations
letting them choose their evaluator
Teacher feedback
- Focusing on recommendation writing
- Fairly acceptable in the final draft - A few used the wrong type topic sentence (copying the Advantages and Disadvantages report).
- Imitated the text without understanding the meaning due to fear of making mistakes
- Point out the problem and encourage them to explore the use of language features
Text Modeling
- Demonstrating the writing process with text modeling
- Saw the process, better organization - Still imitated the language
- Saw the model as final, no new ideas included
- Model only at sentence level; focus on key language features
Multiple Draft writing
- Writing 3 drafts -All drafts to be kept in the portfolio
- Slight improvement between drafts, especially supporting details
- Repetitive writing helped understand the text type.
- Use in the next genre
Table 4.6: Summary of implementation of action research cycle 2: Report Writing
4.5 Genre 4: Argumentative essay writing
The last genre of the academic writing part of this course was argumentative
essay writing. In this genre, the students would learn to compose texts based mainly
on their personal point of view on a given topic. In the meantime, they would have to
provide logical and substantive arguments to support their standpoint. Also, refutation
and counter arguments to the ideas opposing their thesis statement are required. While
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
183
in fact the students had been trained with essay writing in the previous courses, this
genre was more complex in terms of text structure, language features, and ideas.
4.5.1 Action research cycle 1
Plan
The instructions of this genre would be explicit teaching focusing on
the text structure and the discourse convention of argumentative essays. For the
prewriting activity, I planned to use the free writing as a tool for them to generate
ideas for the essay since there was no reading passage in this genre. The students
would learn the structure and received the genre-specific language input from the
model essays in the textbook. To strengthen that, I planned to use samples from real-
world texts to display the linguistic features and provide more input for the students.
Reflecting from the previous research cycles that the students had
already established strong rapport, the peer evaluation form should offer more
opportunities for the peer evaluators to provide open comments on their classmates’
texts. The students would choose their own evaluator to provide oral feedback to
them. Additionally, the peer evaluation checklist would encourage them to suggest
some revision strategies to the writers as well.
Act
The initial plan was to start with the lecture. However, the actual
implementation deviated from the plan because my teaching partner requested me to
swap the class. It resulted in reduced teaching hours for that particular class, from 3 to
1.5, which was too short a time period for the instructions of essay writing. Therefore,
I adjusted the plan. I started the instructions of this genre with letting the students do a
free writing. The topic given to them was “street food.” The students were given a
piece of paper to write down a paragraph or more about anything they think of in
relation to the topic. I reminded them that the task was not an essay; hence, they were
not required to follow any format, convention, and any idea was valid. The purpose of
this activity was twofold. First of all, this text type of argumentative essay writing
was the first and only time in the course that the students could produce a text based
solely on their ideas without any influence from a reading passage or graph. Thus, it
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
184
was a preparation for them to generate their own ideas. The second purpose was to let
them experience the freedom of expressing their worldview that would eventually
help build the sense of text ownership, which was one of the principles of process
writing approach.
The students talked to one another for a few minutes and began to
compose their texts. During the process, I observed how they approached their
composition. It was clear that the students enjoyed this kind of activity. Also, I could
see that the students wrote their texts smoothly and quickly. All students could
complete their task within the class period with at least 200 words in their texts. They
were told to hold on to it for future use in a writing assignment.
The instructions continued in the next class, which started with a
teacher-led class discussion. The students were asked to define the term argument.
Some students proposed their ideas. Then, the discussion moved on to a more specific
topic of “whether people should be allowed to carry guns” that I proposed. The
students were asked if they agreed with the topic. A student from the school of law
helped explained the current laws of firearm ownership in Thailand. After that, I
asked them the reasons to agree or disagree. In the discussion, I was surprised that the
level of participation was high and the students were fully engaged, compared to the
previous class discussions. The students proposed their ideas and tried to refute those
of their classmates who had the opposite view. This class discussion was the most
dynamic one so far.
The reason for such effective class discussion was, in my viewpoint,
the fact that the students were provided with the opportunity to express their personal
ideas without any influence of a reading passage or a graph, like in the previous
lessons. Then, they had the freedom to propose and elaborate their standpoint on the
topic and supporting reasons without concern for correctness.
Following the discussion, I started the lecture on the argumentative
essay. Informed by the reflection on the drawbacks of explicit teaching through
lecturing, I tried to make it brief and focused on essential elements of the
argumentative essay. In citing examples, I used the arguments made by the students
during the discussion. This could help the students understand the parts of the essays
being discussed well, since all the arguments were generated by them.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
185
After the lecture, I asked the students to look at the model essays in the
textbook. I highlighted the language features of the essays such as the linguistic
formulas used in making a claim, refutation, and counter argument.
Assignment 1: Argumentative essay on the topic “Women make better
teachers than men”
The prewriting activity used in the first assignment was another free-
writing text. The students were asked to do another free writing. The drill was the
same and the topic was “male and female teachers.” Like in the previous free writing
task, it could be seen that the students did not take much time to start the text. I
observed that the students could write fluently when they had less concern about
producing correct answers. After all students finished the text, the teacher gave them
the topic for their argumentative essay on “Women make better teachers than men.”
Before the drafting began, I distributed a supplementary handout of a
sample of an argumentative essay. The topic of the essay was the abuse of freedom of
speech. The language features such as expressions, formulas, and cohesive devices
were highlighted. I went through those elements with the class. Then, they were
assigned to study the model essays in the textbook and analyze them for the
structures.
Observe
Writing draft 1
The next step was writing the first draft, which was an individual work.
I observed that, unlike my previous experience in teaching this type of text, the
students could start writing their text immediately. They did not interact much with
their partners. It was also observed that some of them depended on the model essays
in the textbook. The students, nonetheless, could finish their first draft in the first half
of the 3-hour session.
It came to my attention that the students could complete their drafts
relatively quickly compared to the other genres that they had learned. I assumed that it
was because they already had some input for ideas from the prewriting activity.
Unlike in the previous units in which the students had to generate ideas based on the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
186
information provided in the reading material, the free writing was helpful for them in
composing the draft easily.
Peer Evaluation
The students chose their own peer evaluator. The evaluation checklist
for argumentative essay (see appendix G) was given to them. However, they read
each other’s essay and began to provide oral feedback even without an instruction
from me.
From the investigation on the peer evaluation form, the majority of the
students, as anticipated, did not provide a lot of comments in it. When asked for the
reasons, they contended that they already provided oral feedback to the writers and
they expected the writers to note down their comments. I also noticed that the
evaluators tried to request the writers to improve the text at the meaning level such as
to use more accurate word choice. Moreover, it was also seen in many peer evaluation
forms that the evaluators had asked the writer to add more ideas in making their
argument stronger. Additionally, some of the evaluators also offered revision
strategies to the writers. For example, one evaluator advised the writer to reorganize
the paragraph by asserting “It would be great if you try to group the same ideas
together.” Another noticeable point in using the peer evaluation form was that quite a
number of students specifically stated the points they saw as good about the essay. To
cite an example, an evaluator stated that she agreed with an idea because she could
relate it to her experience by saying:
“I agree that male teachers are better at giving advice because I have
the same experience.”
Another statement from another evaluator stated,
“I like the ideas that female teachers can help reduce sexual
harassment problems.”
It could be assumed that the evaluator could learn some good ideas
from the writers and might use them in their text.
After receiving the feedback, the writers were to prepare the second
draft, which would later be submitted to the teacher for comments.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
187
Writing draft 2:
When comparing draft 2 with draft 1, I could see that the students did
not include new ideas but tried to elaborate more on what was presented in the first
draft to make it sound clearer and more convincing.
The students revised their texts mainly by including more details in
their arguments as suggested by their peers. Furthermore, some specific examples
were also added as supporting statements. Another revision strategy that many
students used was personalization of the text. The students, from generally listing the
statements to support their points in draft one, tried to engage the readers in their
second draft. Evidence could be seen from the frequent use of personal pronouns. For
example, a student revised a statement from “When some students do not understand
the lesson…” in draft one to “When we don’t understand the lesson…” in draft 2.
This implied that the students had notice the language convention of argumentative
essay from either the model text or the authentic text provided to them.
Teacher Feedback
Most students could understand and follow the structure of an
argumentative essay well. Their texts were written in the agreed format. Nonetheless,
the teacher feedback on their first assignment indicated several areas that needed to be
improved.
The first area was the relevancy of the ideas to the topic. While it was
true that the students had solid background knowledge on the topic and made use of it
in forming their arguments, some ideas that they presented still did not help convince
their readers. For example, some essays addressed and compared the nature of male
and female teachers as individuals without relating those facts to the topic of why one
could make a better teacher than the other. For example, some students wrote “Male
were physically stronger than female teachers.” Hence, I informed them to be aware
of this problem and suggested that they link this idea to why they made better teachers
than women.
For the area of language used, the students who heavily depended on
imitating the topic sentences and expressions such as “There are several reasons why
men are better teacher than men,” which was in the same structure with the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
188
textbook’s model essays, were reminded that they should consider making their text
look like their own by exploring and trying to use different styles of writing.
Reflection on research cycle 1
A retrospective view of the implementation of the plan suggested that
the students needed to have background information in order to generate ideas for
their essays. Free writing had proven to be very effective for the students to activate
their schema about the topic. In composing the text, the students could refer back to
the free writing text and incorporate their thoughts into their essays.
The students could participate in class discussions and present their
ideas with much greater confidence when they were aware that the teacher did not
make any judgment on their contribution. Also, owing to the fact that their ideas were
original, there was less fear of giving a wrong answer.
The peer evaluation in this cycle seemed to be relatively more
effective. The students’ similar experiences related to the topic could be the factor
that helped provide useful feedback to the writers. Unlike the previous writing genres
that were more technical and bound with the information from a reading passage, the
format of the essay could help the evaluators to look at the text with the eyes of the
readers rather than an evaluator. Consequently, they could provide more authentic and
useful feedback on the points they believed would help them understand the essay
better. The following table presents the results of the implementation of planned
activities in this research cycle with the proposed plan for the next cycle.
Genre: Argumentative Essay Action Research Cycle 1
Plan Actual Practice /Action
Result Reflection Plan for the next cycle
Teaching and learning
- Explicit teaching including discussion
- Deviated from the plan - Fairly good, could understand the text structure
- Had experience with essay writing
- Use full process-genre approach
Prewriting activity
- Using free writing to generate ideas, giving broad topics and
-Enjoyed, looked confident, and fast, could come up with ideas
- Worry-free because of the absence of reading text
- Assign another free writing task
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
189
letting them write without concerns for format Using teacher-guided class discussion
Much improved, dynamic, and motivated;
- Gained confidence in their classmates - Different perspectives helping with generating ideas
- Provide more collaborative activities
Materials - Textbook model to display the essay format and language convention
- Understood the format and convention - Some imitated the language style.
- Felt that following the model was safe - Good for more variety of language use
- Provide more authentic texts; - Model the text with the class at the sentence level
- Authentic text: freedom of speech
- Only the more advanced made use of the language input
- Needed to consider the level and topic of text and the students
- Model the essay to demonstrate the language use
Multiple-draft writing
-Writing 2 drafts -All drafts to be kept in the portfolio
- Revised at both surface and meaning level
-Received effective peer feedback
- Assign new topic with 3 drafts
Peer evaluation
- Letting the students choose their evaluator - Include oral feedback
- Provided oral feedback - Asked the writer to strengthen their arguments with more details and better word choice - Started to offer revision strategies - Agreed with the arguments
- Evaluated more effectively because they had more confidence without the influence of the passage - Saw some good ideas and used them in their own text
- Continue letting them choose their evaluator - Use oral feedback with the checklist
Table 4.7: Summary of implementation of action research cycle 1: Argumentative
Essay
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
190
4.5.2 Action Research Cycle 2
Plan
In this research cycle, my plan was to fully employ the process genre
model of writing instructions. The students would be provided with options on the
topic they wanted to write, as well as setting the target audience and objectives of the
writing. As for the evaluation process, the peer evaluation would remain the same-
using oral feedback with evaluation from the peers and constructive feedback from
the teachers.
For the multiple-draft method, the students would be asked to write 3
drafts of texts. As usual, their work would be part of the class marks. Since the topic
of the first assignment was given to them, in assignment 2, the students would have an
opportunity to vote for the topic. Also, oral feedback along with the peer evaluation
checklist would be used. However, although the students had already shown that they
could follow the essay format, the modeling of texts would be used to emphasize
composing the introductory paragraph.
Act
Assignment 2: Argumentative essay on a social issue
The instruction of this research cycle began with letting the students
propose some topics regarding the current social issues that they preferred to write
about. I assisted them in formulating debatable statements from their topics. From
several proposed topics on the list, the class narrowed it down to 2 possible topics for
their essay. The first one was “Casinos should be legalized in Thailand” and the
second topic was “Street food should be banned from Bangkok.” The majority of the
class voted for the second topic because they already had some ideas from the
previous prewriting activity. However, I gave freedom to those who preferred to write
in the first topic.
The next prewriting activity for the second writing assignment was
identifying the communicative context of the text- the text’s objective and target
audience. After a short discussion, the class agreed that the essays, on both topics,
should feature in a travel magazine. The first topic would have the objective of
expressing the writer’s opinions on why Thailand should or should not have casinos.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
191
For the other topic, the objective of the essay was to inform the readers of the writer’s
viewpoint as to whether street food should remain in Bangkok. Therefore, the target
readers of both essays were foreigners planning to visit Thailand.
Observe
Writing draft 1
The first draft of this assignment was prepared in class. Before the
drafting started, the students were given time to discuss their ideas towards the topic
among themselves. During the drafting process, I observed that the students were
discussing the topics with their partners, asking for comments and language input
such as vocabulary items from each other. The students who chose to write on the
topic of street food could finish their first draft quickly, making use of the ideas from
their free writing text.
Peer Evaluation
In the same manner with the first research cycle of this genre, the
students chose their own evaluators. The evaluation process started with giving their
partners oral feedback on the first draft. Then they used the peer evaluation form.
What was also observed was that the students did not try to provide corrective
feedback on the text. Instead, they mostly commented on the content, especially the
clarity of ideas or lack thereof.
Scrutinizing the peer evaluation checklists, the results aligned with
what I had observed in the oral feedback. Most evaluators requested the writers to
elaborate more on the ideas and to provide detailed examples to make their argument
more convincing. In addition, it could also be seen that some of the evaluators had
deliberately claimed that they disagree with the writers on some certain points. For
example, one evaluator stated in the evaluation form
“Your ideas are good but I think some of them are not logical. A
cheaper price is good but the food may not be clean.”
In another case, the evaluator commented on the accuracy of information by saying
“I like the introduction but Bangkok doesn’t have a beach.”
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
192
While the students tended to give more useful feedback compared to the
previous research cycles, offering a revision strategy was still scarce. Most of the
evaluators only pointed out the area that they needed improved such as:
“Give more stronger ideas to support your reasons”
or “You should emphasize your standpoint.”
Finally, most of the evaluators stated that they could see good
examples from their classmates’ text. To cite a few examples, one evaluator stated
that
“The writer has clear supporting ideas and her counter arguments
attacked the weak points.”
Another evaluator claimed that she could see a good idea from the
writer and stated
“I like the idea that casinos will bring a large amount of money to the
country.”
All these statements enabled me to draw the conclusion that when
using the peer evaluation system, in this research context, the students could benefit
more from it as the evaluator than as being evaluated.
Writing the second draft
Before the students revised the text based on their peer evaluation, I
asked them to participate in collaboratively constructing the model text. However, the
modeling process only focused on two aspects of argumentative essay: the
development of the introduction and the use of language input from real world texts in
composing the students’ texts. The purpose of this text modeling was to help the
students develop an introductory paragraph that could attract the reader’s attention. In
line with that, the use of linguistic input form the authentic text was expected to show
the students ways to reach the objective of the text.
With the feedback from their peer and the samples from the
collaboratively constructed model, the students started to revise their texts. From my
observation, this time, the students did not discuss with their partners as much.
Instead, many of them sought advice from me on ways to revise their texts. To be
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
193
specific, it seemed like they were having a difficult time expressing their ideas due to
limited lexical knowledge as well as discourse knowledge.
Teacher feedback
In investigating and evaluating the second draft, I found that most
students tried to revise their text based on the peer feedback. Besides, major changes
in wordings, discourse features, and addition of ideas were also observed. Some texts
had become greater in length with elaboration of ideas.
For the language use, the majority of the students, as in the production
of texts of other previous genres, made use of the language input from the textbook’s
model. However, some students used it incorrectly in terms of grammar and meaning.
For instance, while the sample sentence showed the topic sentence “There are several
compelling reasons to support my stand on this topic,” some students wrote “There
are several compelling to support my stand.” In tackling this problem, I addressed it
in the feedback and suggested the students revise it. On the other hand, the use of
language from the authentic texts was limited to a few students who were more
advanced.
Writing the final draft
Returning the first two drafts with the feedback from the teacher, the
students started the last draft with the final revision. It did not take long for them to
complete the final draft. However, when I checked the final product against the
second draft, the students mostly corrected the grammatical errors as highlighted by
the teacher. As for the revision for content, no new ideas had been presented. The
revision that most students did was replacing the words that I remarked on as unclear
or inaccurate with new words. Incorrect uses of expressions in the model essay in the
textbook were still found in some texts.
When I went through all the drafts, generally, the quality of the text
kept improving from the first to the final draft. The ideas became clearer and relevant
to the topic with effective use of examples. The organization of the essays marked
slight improvement with better use of cohesive devices.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
194
The authentic texts provided did not prove helpful for the majority of
the students. Only the more advanced students were able to see the writing style in
those texts and adapt it to their own compositions.
Reflection on the second research cycle
In my reflection on the implementation of the plan, the use of multiple-
draft method was very effective in the teaching and learning of argumentative essay
writing. It was the writing genre in which the students had to rely on their own ideas
without being bound by the information from the reading text. Most of the major
revision at the meaning level took place in the second draft and the third draft was
mainly for language accuracy.
For peer evaluation, at this point, the students had fully gained trust
with their partners. They provided honest constructive feedback to each other to help
their peers improve their texts. It was clear to me that the most effective way of
providing peer feedback was the oral form.
Only a certain number of students attempted to make greater use of the
peer evaluation checklist as another medium to provide feedback to their classmates.
However, they did not offer a clear revision strategy to their friends. This could be
due to the fact that they were not yet at the state of confidence in their writing skill.
They then refrained from offering solid advice on how their classmates should revise
the text. What should be taken into consideration is that the teacher should instruct
them more on providing revision strategies in addition to giving only feedback.
Nevertheless, the observations on the use of peer evaluation in this
research cycle was further proof that the benefits of peer evaluation stretched to both
ends, both the evaluator and the evaluated.
For the use of model texts and collaboratively constructed models, the
students relied on both as the sources of linguistic input. The problem of being overly
dependent on those models was common among students, except in those who were
more advanced. From the observation, the advanced students tended to make more
use of the class-modeled text and the authentic texts.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
195
For the majority of the students, the authentic text was not quite helpful
in demonstrating the writing styles to them. From my reflection, the factor that
prevented the students to utilize the sample real-world text was the difficulty levels.
The chosen text might be above their level in terms of the topic, the content and
contextual knowledge, as well as the writing style. It is then very important for the
teacher to choose a sample authentic work that is suitable with the students’ present
level.
The last point of concern that I had was the inability to compose the
text to reach the target audience and meet the objectives of writing. Whilst it was true
that the students employed the personalization method to engage the readers, the
overall picture of the text still gave the sense of student-produced quality. Reflecting
on this fact, I concluded that the aim was set too high considering the level and
experience of the students. Given the fact that the students might not have had much
exposure to the real-world texts of argumentative writing, it was difficult for them to
comprehend and be able to produce a text that looked authentic. The only exceptional
case was with one highly advanced student in class.
Therefore, this reflection had shed light on how to help the students
produce texts that were similar to the real-world text. It was important that the
students’ current proficiency be considered in setting realistic objectives. Likewise,
since the language input from the real world is still necessary and of value for the
writing pedagogy, the students should be highly and frequently exposed to such kind
of texts. In addition, close scaffolding in analyzing the texts for linguistic input and
content knowledge could reveal the merit that the text could provide to the students.
Table 4.8 displays the results of implementing the plans and the
reflection.
Genre: Argumentative Essay Action Research Cycle 2
Plan Actual Practice /Action
Result Reflection Plan for the next cycle
Instructions - Using full process-genre
- Understood the objective and
- Already familiar with the
Use deductive
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
196
approach target audience approach; - Understood the structure and elements of essay
approach to focus on the text structure
Multiple-draft writing
- Writing with 3 drafts - All drafts to be kept in the portfolio
- Content revised in draft 2; accuracy revised in the final draft
- Had confidence in ideas with suggestions from peer checkers; - Based on the teacher for corrective feedback
- Assign a new topic with 2 or 3 drafts
Prewriting activities
- Using free writing to generate ideas -Letting them propose the topic, setting objectives and target reader
- Comfortable, confident, and fast; - Only the more advanced could meet the objective and target
- Worry-free because there is no reading text involved
- Use collaborative reading if a prompt is included
- Creating models with the class
- Contributed more ideas to the modeling; - Many still imitated
- Still perceived it as a school work, not a real text
- Use collaborative modeling with teacher’s guide - Display the model at sentence level
Use of authentic text
- Providing another real-world text about tourism
- Only the more advanced made use of it in style, vocabulary, and expressions
- Not having enough exposure to this text type
- Provide authentic texts with language feature highlighted
Peer evaluation
-Letting the students choose their
- Gave honest comments/ disagreement;
- Evaluated more effectively because they had
- Let them choose their evaluator;
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
197
evaluators - Asked the writer to strengthen their arguments with more details and better word choice; - Not many offered revision strategies; - Compliments on writers’ ideas
more confidence without the influence of passage - Saw some good ideas that could be used in their own text
use both oral feedback and checklist
Teacher feedback
Focusing on vocabulary used in presenting clear, convincing arguments
- Revised as suggested; - No major revision on the content
- Still perceived the teacher’s comments as final
- Encourage them to consider improving the content
Table 4.8: Summary of implementation of action research cycle 2: Argumentative
Essay
4.6 Reflection on the intervention
This section presents my emic perspectives reflecting the outcomes of the
intervention in this action research. The discussion aims to answer the research
questions of this study. The first point is on the effect of adapted approaches of
writing instructions and alternative forms of writing assessment in the course of
academic writing. The next is on the role of materials used in teaching and learning.
Finally, in the area of professional development, the role of the teacher of academic
writing is presented. The findings from the researcher are expected to provide insights
and informed practice to teachers of writing courses of similar context.
4.6.1 The use of the adapted approaches of writing instructions
The pedagogical approaches adapted to the instructions of academic
writing class in this study were the product, process, and process genre approaches.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
198
Model texts, provided in the course book, were used to display the
format, structure, and language convention of the texts that the students were required
to write. For this study, the model texts of all the genre types were presented in the
course book. The foremost benefit of using the model texts was that it provided
convenience for both the teacher and students, especially in the context of the present
study in which the class was large and time was of the essence. I could exhibit the
sample texts and show different elements of texts to the students. Its merit was
clearest in the instructions of report writing genre. Since the text type was highly
structured and formatted, using the model could help the students understand the
structure and format of the report and the focus of each part relatively quickly.
Regarding the collaboratively constructed model texts, from my
reflection, it was a useful method in showing the use of genre-specific language
convention in composing a text. It was also helpful in showing the students the
process of organizing ideas in the text. The utmost benefit of collaboratively modeling
the text, which the ready-made model could not offer, was that it demonstrated the
actual process of writing to the students.
The major pitfall of using both types of model texts in the instruction
was obvious. The students, in general, would directly imitate the language features,
such as expressions and cohesive devices, without considering the contextual use,
making the text sometimes sound irrelevant to the topic. Although it was acceptable
for the students to apply imitative learning strategy, a great concern in this regard was
that the students would then prevent themselves from the opportunity to develop their
own writing style. Most of the texts produced by the students, simply put, were almost
identical.
For the use of the multiple-drafting method, I found the results
satisfactory. With time, the students could learn to optimize the method to refine their
ideas, improve their organization, and correct their errors to achieve language
accuracy. Furthermore, they had shown great efforts, with fairly satisfying outcomes,
in incorporating more linguistic features of a particular genre in their texts.
To be specific to this research context, my close observation and
reflection suggested that the use of the multiple-draft approach was very suitable with
data interpretation and argumentative essay writing. For the former, the students could
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
199
have opportunities to reevaluate their critical arguments in describing reasons for the
changes in the variables. For argumentative essay, the students took the opportunity to
revise their texts, starting with the sentence level, to make the text clear. They also
added new ideas and details to make their arguments solid.
On the other hand, for the genres of writing in response to a reading
passage, I found that the multiple-draft approach was less effective. To rationalize this
claim, it was because the nature of the tasks required the students to make reference to
the reading passage. Hence, the answers were limited within the parameter of the
information presented the passage. The same was true in the introduction and the
analysis part. The students had to rely on the information from the reading passage.
However, they still tried to improve their ideas and language in the recommendation
part between drafts.
A conclusion could be drawn here. The degree of the effectiveness of
the method correlated with the format of the assignments. As can be seen, data
interpretation and argumentative essay writing opened the opportunities for the
students to explore their ideas freely without influences from the reading texts. In
contrast to the other genres, writing in response to a reading passage and report
writing could highly regulate the way the students provide the answers as they had to
shape their answers based on the information presented in the reading prompt.
4.6.2 Prewriting activities
There were a number of prewriting activities employed in the
intervention. Most of them were based on the principles of collaborative learning and
used mainly for the students to gather information to build knowledge schema for
composing their texts.
Before each writing assignment, I would help the class define the
objective and the target reader of the text. I found that setting the communicative
context was useful for students in the selection of words and expression, especially
when the objective was to inform or convince the readers. On the other hand, I found
that reaching the target readers with a text that looked natural and real-world like was
still beyond the students’ current ability. From my point of view, the students might
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
200
not have had enough exposure to such kind of authentic text, thus, limiting their
understanding of the text features.
The teacher-led class discussion was a usual prewriting activity. The
purpose was to elicit students’ ideas that could be useful for them in composing the
texts. Throughout the course, I found that only a few students would be regularly
engaged in the discussion. The majority of the class, on the other hand, would listen
carefully to the discussion and take part in it only when asked by the teacher. It is thus
appropriate to say that student reticence had been one of the major challenges for me.
Although more students began to participate more actively in the later part of the
course, it was still nearly impossible and not practical to involve all 36 students in a
discussion.
The next activity was group discussion. The students were assigned to
work in groups to discuss the passage or graph and brainstorm for ideas for their text.
Form the observation, most students, if not all, found that this kind of activity was
useful in helping them comprehend the task and providing information for them in
composing the text. It was also observed that the level of engagement by individual
students was high in the group discussion.
Pair work was another effective prewriting activity. When the students
were paired to discuss a task, it was necessary for them to be fully engaged in the
discussion. I could observe the dynamics of the discussion. This activity was
particularly helpful in the preparation for writing a complex text such as a report since
the students could check their comprehension and monitor each other regarding if
their text followed the report structure.
From the reflection, collaborative learning helped tremendously in the
prewriting activities. The students could be more engaged in the brainstorming
process, compared with in the class discussion. This might be because the students
found it less pressuring to work in a small group and they could overcome the fear of
doing wrong. However, there are two points to keep in mind in the use of group
discussion and pair work. Due to the fact that most students come from different
disciplines and they might not know one another before the course, it is the teacher’s
responsibility to help build group rapport and create the sense of belonging to the
students. Some activities could be used to strengthen group dynamics. In this study,
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
201
for instance, I used the jigsaw reading and the result was positive. The students were
clearly assigned their role and contributed equally to the group and eventually felt
themselves as part of the group.
The other point of concern was the method of grouping the students.
While it is ideal to provide the students with freedom to choose their teammates, the
teacher should take some intervention in assuring that each group of students is mixed
with students of different levels of motivation and proficiency in order to achieve the
maximum benefit of collaborative learning.
In the argumentative essay writing, I found that free writing was a
powerful activity to help the students generate ideas for their essay since it was the
only genre in the course where the students needed to solely rely on their ideas.
Besides, the student could write worry-free and bring out their potential and
knowledge. This fact was observed when the students could finish the free-writing
text quickly and it was evident that they incorporated the ideas generated in the
composition of the actual essay. It is then advisable that the teacher should try to
apply this technique in other genres as well.
4.6.3 Teaching Materials
The two major teaching materials used in the instruction of this course
were the course book and the supplementary authentic texts of different genres. To
start with, the course book was used mainly to display the model texts. Although there
are plenty of scaffolding exercises in the book, the short course duration did not
permit the maximum use of them. The students would mainly use it as a source of
language input.
However, while the model texts in the course book were useful as a
reference for the students to see the linguistic features of a genre as mentioned, there
are several drawbacks. As previously mentioned, a number of students would
constantly try to directly imitate the language in their composition without a clear
understanding of its contextual use. This could become very problematic when the
students were not aware that the expressions were not applicable in the topic they
were working on. Besides, it was a factor that hindered the students to develop their
own style of writing. Therefore, the teacher needs to closely assist the students and
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
202
give a clear explanation of the contextual use of certain lexical items, expressions, and
formulas.
The other material employed in this study was the authentic texts. The
objective was to provide the students with more linguistic inputs such as the language
features, the lexical items, and sentence structures, as well as input for content. From
the observation on the students’ texts, the students, mostly the more-advanced
students, tried to incorporate the language features and convention from the authentic
texts in their writing. Furthermore, the merits of the authentic texts were found in data
interpretation. The students could see examples of using certain expressions in
comparing and contrasting different variables.
In using a real-world text to display the authentic use of the language
of a certain genre, it is necessary that the level of difficulty and readability level of the
text match the students’ ability. From this study, I found that reading a text that is
somewhat too challenging could be overwhelming for the students and the result
could be counterproductive.
4.6.4 Peer Evaluation
It cannot be argued that, for the researcher, peer evaluation was the
most herculean task in the study. From reflection, there are several causes of the
ineffectiveness in peer evaluation. First, it was the students’ lack of experience in
evaluating peer writing. Throughout their academic lives, most students had been
dependent on the teachers’ feedback and judgment. Shifting the role from being
passive learners to taking a more active role in their learning, including evaluating
their peers’ works, was problematic for them. Moreover, another reason for the
students to not provide criticisms to their peers’ text was the fear of creating tension
and conflict among them, especially at the beginning of the course. Most importantly,
the evaluators themselves did not have much experience in writing the text. Given
that they were still learning to write themselves, they did not have enough confidence
in their linguistic competence to give feedback to their peers.
In terms of the instruments used in the process, the peer evaluation
checklist came with pros and cons. For the benefit, the checklist provided
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
203
convenience for the evaluators to scope the areas that they need to evaluate. Besides,
it also displayed the criteria in judging their own writings from which the students
could learn. On the contrary, most students did not try to utilize the checklist. The
majority would only go through the items and marked them without pinpointing
specific areas that they saw as problems. Another rational explanation I have is that
the students saw the checklist as prescriptive and finalized. Going beyond the items
on the list was superfluous.
Although trainings on peer evaluation were provided, it was quite clear
that they were not as effective as I had hoped. The reason for such a problem was the
time constraints. The nature of the course was fast going with several writing genres
to cover and examinations to meet. Hence, most of the class time needed to be
allocated to instructions and writing practices.
While it could be seen that using peer evaluation was a daunting task
for the students, the quality of feedback and suggestions given to the writers had
improved in the later research cycles. I assumed that the interpersonal relationships
among the students were the driving force towards such improvement. As the class
went on, the students became more familiar one another. The personal social distance
among them was closer, providing more comfortable feelings in providing honest
feedback on their peers’ texts.
Such reduced power-relation factor also enabled the students to
provide more effective oral feedback. From my observation, the students preferred
giving oral feedback and comments to their peer to using the peer evaluation
checklist. This might be because the students could discuss the feedback with the
writer and provide more solid and useful suggestions on revision strategy.
It is worth noting that care should be taken in assigning evaluators and
pairing students. From the observation, when two students with low motivation were
assigned to evaluate each other’s texts, they did not provide any substantive feedback
to their peer. Therefore, the teacher should consider pairing students who are more
advanced and motivated to work with those who need assistance.
Among these many points to consider in employing the peer
evaluation, there was also a silver lining. The use of peer evaluation had benefited the
students greatly in terms of seeing examples and ideas from their classmates’ works.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
204
4.6.5 Teacher feedback
My reflection on the provision of teacher feedback informed me that
the students highly valued the feedback from the teacher as pivotal to their
development of writing skill. Moreover, I learned that individual students had their
own weaknesses. Hence, it took observant eyes and extra care from the teacher to
provide quality feedback that effectively helped the students overcome their
limitations and improve their texts. Along with the honest constructive feedback,
praise and encouragement were important in motivating the students to improve. In
this present study, I was consistent in encouraging the students with positive, truthful
messages when the students showed an improvement between drafts. The praise could
be as simple as “Good work” or it focused on a certain point such as “The use of
numbers makes this draft much better than draft 1. Keep up the good work.”
Nonetheless, there were also some downsides to the provision of
teacher feedback by the teacher. As the students had high respect for their teacher as
someone who knew best in the class with legitimate power, providing feedback could
hinder the students from exploring new ideas. Simply put, it was evident that most
students would revise the text only on the part that the teacher had commented. The
same issue was also common in grammatical and spelling errors in which the students
would only make the corrections as suggested.
The most important point was that the teacher feedback always
overshadowed the peer feedback. In this study, although sometimes a peer evaluator
provided useful suggestions, the writer still ignored them. However, when the teacher
made the same comment on the same text, the writer now accommodated the
teacher’s suggestion. Literature suggests that such preference is not uncommon. In
their perception, the students might not feel that their peers were qualified enough to
critique their texts.
With this reflection, it is apparent that the teacher must take measures
to reduce such distrust in peer evaluation by continuously and closely monitoring the
quality of peer feedback. The teacher may confirm the validity of the feedback where
possible so that the receivers would gain trust in their peer evaluation.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
205
4.6.6 The roles of the teacher
From conducting this action research, I learned that the teacher has the
most pivotal role in the effectiveness of the intervention. As initially planned, I had
made attempts to change my role in the classroom from a traditional instructor to the
facilitator of learning. There were some challenges in so doing. From constant
observation and reflection, the students still perceived that I was the authority figure
in the class. Consequently, the majority of them remained passive in acquiring
knowledge. To rationalize this, I believe that students being passive in learning and
waiting for the teacher to instruct them on what to do is a challenge caused by culture.
It is quite common among Thai, and most other Asian students, to hold the teacher in
high esteem. Hence, the role of imparting knowledge to the students remains with the
teacher, especially when it comes to introducing the students to new concepts and
ideas.
Nevertheless, after I had constantly shown openness to the students’
ideas, they started to alter their perception. Then, the level of cooperation in
performing tasks became higher. The students became more confident and actively
engaged in the process of learning. Such self-confidence was also important for them
in presenting their critical arguments in their texts. It was evident that, after the
students had a higher level of trust in the teacher, they would seek advice from me in
ways to improve their learning, as well as discussing their personal issues with the
teacher.
As another factor for success in encouraging the students to engage in
the teaching and learning more actively, the teacher needs to consider the distance-
power relationship with the students. It is very important to encourage the students
and give them freedom to express their ideas without being judgmental, even when
the ideas are not agreeable. In other words, the teacher should show respect to the
students for their ideas and as individuals. When the rapport is established, the
students will be able to take an active role in approaching their teacher and will be
motivated to strive to improve their writing.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
206
4.7 Conclusion
Conducting this action research and implementing the intervention plan
broadened my horizons as a practitioner of academic writing teaching. Reflecting on
the whole process of this action research, I can assert with confidence that the results
of the intervention were satisfactory. The participants, the students in this academic
writing course, could make use of the adapted approaches of writing instructions to
develop their academic writing skill. Writing with multiple drafts was a useful method
that provided the opportunities for the students to improve the quality of their texts by
incorporating genre-specific language features in their texts. It was also a useful
measure of improving their accuracy in writing.
In applying the adapted approaches of writing instructions and alternative
assessment forms, the most significant factor for success was the cooperation from the
students among themselves. The students needed to be able to regulate their own
learning in many aspects such as finding strategies to improve their texts and being
consistent with their reflection on learning. More importantly, they needed to
establish relationships with their classmates for the use of collaborative learning
strategies, which proved effective, and the peer evaluation system. In this study, the
benefits of the intervention started to flourish in the later time of the course as the
students could build trust in one another. Therefore, the teacher has a vital role in
establishing and maintaining rapport among all parties in the classroom.
Consequently, the use of collaborative learning activities would come into play and
yield positive results in the learning of academic writing.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
207
CHAPTER 5
ACTION RESEARCH FINDINGS
This chapter presents the data collected from the multiple instruments
employed before, during, and after the intervention. The sources of data were the
students in the study who provided the insiders’ views on different dimensions of the
intervention. Since the design of this action research is mixed-methods, the data were
obtained with both quantitative and qualitative instruments. The purpose of collecting
and interpreting data from multiple sources was for the triangulation of data to ensure
the validity of research findings.
The findings then were used in answering the research questions of this study.
Starting with research question 1, the quantitative information gathered from the pre-
intervention and post-intervention tests provided information on the extent that the
intervention improved the students’ academic writing ability through statistical
analysis. Then to answer research question 2, information regarding the questionnaire
on the students’ opinions towards the adapted writing approaches and alternative
assessment methods used in the study gathered by the questionnaire was used. Next,
the findings from the qualitative data collected through the analysis of the students’
reflective journals and semi-structured interviews are discussed to provide a clearer
picture of their opinions. However, since research question 3 deals mainly with the
implication of the findings, in relation to different elements of the instructional
approaches and assessment methods, it is therefore appropriate to answer it in the
implication section in Chapter 6.
5.1 Research question 1
In answering research question 1- to what extent can the adapted writing
approaches and alternative assessment improve students’ academic writing ability, the
pre-test and the post-test were used to provide empirical evidence on the effectiveness
of the intervention (see appendix H). In addition, they should help provide insights to
answer research question 3 a- what are the methods in writing approaches that can
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
208
effectively improve students’ academic writing skills. As this study employed a
combination of different instructional approaches of academic writing and alternative
forms of assessment, it is appropriate to set hypotheses to answer these research
questions. The hypotheses are:
H0: The use of adapted approaches of writing instructions and alternative
assessment cannot improve students’ academic writing ability.
H1: The use of adapted approaches of writing instructions and alternative
assessment can improve students’ academic writing ability.
The pre-test and post-test were designed as an indicator of the effects of the
academic writing instructions integrated with the alternative form of assessment. The
tests covered the aspects of the academic writing genres taught in the course. In
assuring the content validity of the test, the item-objectives congruence (IOC) was
used. The content validity, appropriateness of language, tasks, and scoring rubrics
were reviewed by three experts (see Appendix I). For each area, each expert ranked
the score of -1 (inappropriate), 0 (neutral), and 1 (appropriate) for each statement
under a particular area. The total score for each statement was then divided by 3. Any
statement receiving a score of lower than 0.67 would indicate that a certain aspect of
the test needed revision. Moreover, the test was also adjusted based on the experts’
suggestions before execution.
The pre-test and post-test were administered at the beginning and the end of
the course, in the second class and the second to the last class of the course
respectively. The participants, 36 students who were enrolled in this class, were asked
to complete the pre-test in a class meeting. The post-tests were conducted in the same
manner in the second to last class of the course. One remark should be noted here. 36
students took the pre-test. However, at the end of the course, 4 students had dropped
out of the class. As a result of such mortality, only the pre-test and post-test scores of
the remaining 32 students were analyzed.
The pre-test and post-tests were marked by two raters who are teachers with
extensive experience in teaching this academic writing course. The scores were
analyzed using the program SPSS Statistics to find the descriptive and inferential
statistics.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
209
After the pre-test was administered, the answer scripts were photocopied and
given to the raters together with the grading rubric. Each rater worked independently
without the influences of each other. However, as mentioned above, 4 participants had
dropped out of the course resulting in an imbalance between the number of
participants between the pre-test and the post-test. Therefore, their scores were not
involved in the statistical analysis of the pre-test.
Table 5.1 below shows the descriptive statistics of the mean score and
standard deviation of each rater. The full score of the pre-test was 100 marks. For
rater 1 (R1) the mean score of the 32 participants’ scores is 39.25 while the mean
score of rater 2 (R2) is 38.625. For the standard deviation, the scoring of rater 1 (R1)
had the standard deviation of 8.8025 and the scoring of rater 2 (R2) showed the
standard deviation of 7.06536.
Table 5.1: the descriptive statistics of the pre-test by 2 raters.
One of the issues regarding the pre and post-test that this study was careful
with was the inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability refers to, according to Wang
(2009), the degree of consistency between two examiners in giving the same marks to
the same tests. It also occurs only when two or more raters yield the same score of the
same test (Brown and Abeywickmara, 2010).
To ensure that the scores between the two raters were valid and reliable, the
inter-rater reliability was statistically analyzed using Pearson correlation.
Group Statistics (Pre-test)
Rater N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Score R1 32 39.2500 8.80249 1.55608
R2 32 38.6250 7.06536 1.24899
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
210
Correlation Rater 1 Rater2 Rater 1 Pearson Correlation 1 .672**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 32 32
Rater 2 Pearson Correlation .672** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 32 32 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 5.2: Pearson correlation for inter-rater in the pre-test From the table, there was a positive correlation in the scorings of the pre-test
between the two raters, r= 0.672, n=32, and p < 0.01. Hence, it can be concluded that
the scorings between the two raters were consistent and reliable.
After 15 weeks of intervention, the participants were given the post-test. The
administration of the test was similar to that of the pre-test. The participants were
asked to complete the test in a class meeting. Then the answer scripts and rubric were
given to the same raters to score independently. Then the scores were analyzed with
descriptive statistics. As can be seen in Table 5.3, the mean score in the post-test
improved from the pre-test for both raters. For rater 1 (R1) the mean score increased
from 39.25 to 49.20. In the same manner, the mean score of the post-test from rater 2
(R2) surged from 38.26 to 49.75. However, the standard deviation also increased for
both of them.
Table 5.3: descriptive statistics of post-test by 2 raters
Similar to the pre-test, the scores of the post-test as marked by the two raters
were statistically analyzed to find the correlation. Henceforth, Pearson correlation was
used to see the correlation in scoring of the post-tests between the two raters. Table
5.4 shows the result of the analysis.
Group Statistics (Post-test)
Raters N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Scores R1 32 49.2031 12.22956 2.16190
R2 32 49.7500 10.57386 1.86921
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
211
Correlation Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 1 Pearson Correlation 1 .936**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 32 32
Rater 2 Pearson Correlation .936** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 32 32
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 5.4: Pearson correlation for inter-rater reliability in the post-test
As displayed in the Table 5.4, the statistical analysis showed that there was a
positive correlation in the scorings of the post-test between the two raters, r= 0.936,
n=32, and p < 0.01. Therefore, in line with the pre-test score, the scorings between the
two raters in the post-test were reliable.
5.1.1 The difference between the pre- and post-test scores
The next stage was to compare the pre and post-tests scores to find
whether the intervention had an effect in improving the participants’ academic writing
ability. The process started with finding the mean scores of the pre and post-tests
between the two raters using descriptive statistics. As can be seen in Table 5.5, the
mean score of the pre-test is 38.98 and 49.48 for the post-test.
Table 5.5: The descriptive statistics of the pre and post-test
Then the difference was analyzed with inferential statistics of paired sample t-
test to compare the mean score of the pre-test and the post-test between the two raters.
The significance value was set at 95 percent confidence (P≤0.05).
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Score
s
Pre-test 38.9375 32 7.26320 1.28396
Post-test 49.4766 32 11.21839 1.98315
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
212
Paired Sample Test
Paired Differences
t
*Sig.(2-
tailed)
Mean
difference SD.
Std.
Error
Mean
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Score Post-test
– Pre-
test
10.53906 9.85031 1.74131 6.98765 14.09048 6.052 .001***
*** P< .001, N=32
Table 5.6: Difference between the means of the pre and post-test scores
From Table 5.6, it can be seen that the t value is 6.052 and the
significance value is 0.001, which is less than the predetermined level of confidence
of 0.05 (0.001≤0.05). Hence, the H0: The use of different approaches of writing
instructions and alternative assessment cannot improve students’ academic writing
ability is rejected and the H1: The use of different approaches of writing instructions
and alternative assessment can improve students’ academic writing ability is accepted.
From the statistical analysis, the improved scores of the students can
therefore answer research question 1. The writing instructions using the adapted
writing approaches and alternative forms of assessment can significantly improve the
students’ academic writing ability.
To conclude, from the result of the information obtained from the use
of pre-test and post-test in this study, it is possible to say that using different methods
of writing instructions, ranging from the conventional product approach in which
students are trained to focus on accuracy and form, the process approach that
emphasizes the development of ideas and recursive nature of writing, and the process-
genre that fosters the acquisition of linguistic features of academic writing genre,
together with different alternative forms of writing assessment, can improve students’
academic writing skill.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
213
5.2 Research question 2: The findings from the analysis of questionnaire
responses
Another quantitative data collection tool used in this action research is the
questionnaire. It comprises three parts namely the personal information, the close-
ended questions, and the open-ended questions. The close-ended part was in the form
of 5-point Likert scale. The rating scale included 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree,
3= neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The participants were asked to rate their
level of agreement on statements in 9 areas. The purpose was to elicit the participants’
opinions towards the intervention in retrospect and their self-perception. The open-
ended part requested the participants provide comments and suggestions on the
teaching and learning system in the study.
For the development of the questionnaire, the items were developed based on
the design of the intervention and research questions. The questionnaire and its items
were reviewed by three experts through the use of item-objectives congruence (IOC)
(see appendix J). The criteria for the expert to evaluate each item were +1 congruent,
0 not certain, and -1 not congruent. Any items that received the score of lower than
6.77 would be revised. After receiving the IOC scores and comments, the researcher
revised the questionnaire by adding items, deleting irrelevant items, and rephrasing
some items for clarity. The pilot version of the questionnaire included a total of 70
items. The next stage of the development of the questionnaire was the pilot stage. The
questionnaire was tested with a group of 31 participants in the pilot study. Then the
result was statistically analyzed for the reliability of the questionnaire.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.895 .911 70 * r ≥0.05
Table 5.7: The reliability statistics of the pilot questionnaire (N=31)
As presented in Table 5.7, the statistical analysis shows that the
Cronbach’s Alpha value is .895. It means that the questionnaire was highly reliable.
However, when looking at the item-total statistics analysis, some items displayed low
total-item correlations (α<.30). Therefore, those items were deleted in order that the
reliability would improve in the actual questionnaire. Furthermore, some items,
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
214
though they showed low total-item correlation, were revised again for more clarity as
they were crucial to answering the research questions. After the pilot version of the
questionnaire had been analyzed statistically and revised, the total number of
questions went down to 62 in the actual version of the questionnaire.
5.2.1 The Administration of the Questionnaire
At the end of the course, in the last meeting in particular, the
participants were given the questionnaire eliciting their retrospective views of the
teaching and learning in the course over the past 16 weeks. The items in the
questionnaire were formulated based on the principles of the approaches of writing
instructions adapted for this study and the framework of selected alternative
assessment. Moreover, students’ perceptions towards the efficiency of the
pedagogical methods were elicited. In details, the items were categorized into 5 areas
of investigation.
1. The pre-writing activities
2. The use of multiple-draft approach
3. The perceived usefulness in receiving peer feedback
4. The perception on giving peer feedback
5. The perception on teacher feedback
6. The efficacy of the student reflective journal
7. The use of the student portfolio
8. The usefulness of teaching and learning methods in each writing genre
9. Self-perception
After the participants had responded to the questionnaire, it was
statistically analyzed for reliability using SPSS Statistics program.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items N of Items
.943 .946 62
Table 5.8: The reliability statistics of the questionnaire (n=32)
From Table 5.8, the reliability analysis shows a Cronbach’s Alpha value of
.943. It implies that the questionnaire is highly reliable and it should yield accurate
results.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
215
5.2.2 Findings from the questionnaire
The following section presents the results of the questionnaire using
descriptive statistics showing the mean (x̅) and the standard deviation of the response
to each item. Then, the interpretation of data and reflection by the researcher are
provided to describe the reasons behind the participants’ responses towards the
statements. To interpret the data, the mean score of each item was interpreted
according to the following intervals:
Mean interval Meaning
4.21-5.00 Strongly agree
3.41-4.20 Agree
2.61-3.40 Neutral
1.81-2.60 Disagree
1.00-1.80 Strongly Disagree
Table 5.9: The interpretation of mean scores
1. The prewriting activities
The first area of investigation through the questionnaire was the
students’ opinion towards the prewriting activities used.
No Item x̅ S.D. Meaning 1 Knowing the objective of writing helps me
construct my texts more effectively. 4.53 0.621 Strongly agree
2 It is important to know who the target reader is before writing. 4.44 0.669 Strongly
agree 3 Knowing the target reader helps me construct my
text more effectively. 4.50 0.568 Strongly agree
4 Knowing the target reader gives me a clear direction of how to write. 4.41 0.615 Strongly
agree 5 Collaboratively constructing the model texts helps
me understand how to write a particular type of text.
4.69 0.471 Strongly agree
6 Collaboratively constructing the model texts helps me to understand the kind of language necessary for writing each type of text.
4.66 0.483 Strongly agree
Table 5.10: The mean and standard deviation of responses in the area of the pre-
writing activities (N=32)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
216
From the table above, the overall picture shows that the participants
strongly agreed that the pre-writing activities, which were designed under the
framework of process-genre approach, helped them effectively produce the texts. The
most outstanding responses with high means are for items 5 “Collaboratively
constructing the model texts helps me understand how to write a particular type of
text” and item 6 “Collaboratively constructing the model texts helps me to understand
the kind of language necessary for writing each type of text”, with the mean scores of
4.69 and 4.66 respectively.
2. The use of multiple-draft approach
The next area of investigation was how the students performed on their
writing using the multiple-draft method, which is the essence of the process approach
of writing instructions, and their perception towards it.
No Item x̅ S.D. Meaning
7 Writing multiple drafts helps me improve my work. 4.75 0.440 Strongly
agree 8 Writing multiple drafts for one assignment is
better than one-shot writing. 4.63 0.554 Strongly agree
9 I usually make changes when I revise my work for the next draft. 4.31 0.693 Strongly
agree 10 I see that my work keeps improving in each draft. 4.28 0.634 Strongly
agree 11 The ideas in my writing get better in each draft. 4.19 0.592 Agree 12 I can spot grammatical errors and correct them in
the next draft. 3.97 0.897 Agree
13 I revise the sentences to make them better when I write a new draft. 4.38 0.660 Strongly
agree 14 My final draft is better than the first draft. 4.84 0.369 Strongly
agree 15 I can learn to write better with multiple-draft
method. 4.44 0.619 Strongly agree
16 Writing multiple drafts for one assignment is too much work. 3.19 1.120 Neutral
17 Writing multiple drafts helps me improve my thinking ability. 4.59 0.499 Strongly
agree Table 5.11: The mean and standard deviation of responses in the area of using
multiple draft approach (N=32)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
217
In this area of investigation, the participants showed that they strongly
agree with most of the items. The most glaring finding in this area was that the
participants perceived that they had improved from the first draft to the last draft
(item 14, x̅ 4.84). Moreover, the participants agreed that using this method helped
them improve their work (item 1) with the mean of 4.75. Also, comparing the practice
of writing one text for an assignment to multiple drafts, the participants preferred
using multiple drafts (item 8), with the average score of 4.63. Another interesting
point noticed is that the participants followed the fundamental idea of the multiple-
draft approach. This fact is relevant with their perception on the usefulness of this
method as presented in the scores of items 10 and 11. The same is true with item 17.
The participants strongly agreed that learning to write with the multiple-draft method
fostered thinking ability.
Nevertheless, for item 12, the mean indicated that the participants
agreed that using the multiple-draft writing approach could make them able to spot
their grammatical errors.
Lastly, when the participants were asked to rate if they considered
writing with the multiple-draft method a heavy workload for them (item 16), most of
them responded with only neutral with the mean score of 3.19. It means that using
this approach was perceived as manageable for them.
Form the overall responses, it is appropriate to conclude that using the
multiple-draft method of writing instructions is suitable for students learning
academic writing as they could understand and follow the principles. More
importantly, the method is also perceived as benefiting the students learning and
outcomes.
3. Receiving peer feedback
The third area of the investigation via the questionnaire is the
participants’ perception on receiving peer feedback.
No Item x̅ S.D. Meaning
18 Having a classmate read and evaluate my work is useful. 3.63 1.070 Agree
19 The feedback from classmates helps me improve the content of my work. 3.78 1.008 Agree
20 The feedback from classmates helps me improve 3.59 1.043 Agree
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
218
the language in my work. 21 The feedback from classmates helps me improve
the vocabulary use in my work. 3.41 1.132 Agree
22 The feedback from classmates helps me improve my grammar. 3.38 1.070 Neutral
23 I always make changes according to my classmates’ comments. 3.78 1.128 Agree
24 My classmates are qualified to check my grammar. 3.44 1.162 Agree
Table 5.12: The mean and standard deviation of responses in the area peer evaluation
As can be seen in Table 5.11, the mean scores of all items, except item
22, reflected that the participants agreed with using peer evaluation as one of the
assessment tools. It can be generally inferred that using peer feedback was useful for
them only to a certain extent. This is evident in item 18 in which the mean score from
the participants is 3.63. Moreover, the participants felt only neutral with the items
related to grammar. The mean score for item 22 “The feedback from classmates helps
me improve my grammar.” was 3.38, lowest in this area. In addition, when they were
asked if their classmates were qualified to give them feedback, the average score is
only 3.44, showing a slight lack of confidence in their peer feedback. Nevertheless, it
is found that the participant still accommodated the peer feedback into their texts
particularly in terms of content. This is displayed in items 19 and 23 whose mean
scores are 3.78, relatively higher than that of other items in this area.
4. Giving peer feedback
In line with receiving feedback on their writing works from their peers,
the questionnaire also asked the participants to state their perceptions towards their
role as peer evaluators. In this area, the means fell into agree and strongly agree
categories.
No Item x̅ S.D. Meaning
25 I give useful feedback to my classmates. 3.88 0.907 Agree 26 I believe my classmates should follow my
suggestions. 3.69 0.965 Agree
27 I compare my work with my classmates’ work. 4.13 0.976 Agree
28 I can see a good example of language use when I check their works. 4.47 0.567 Strongly
agree 29 I can see good ideas in my classmates’ works. 4.50 0.622 Strongly
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
219
agree 30 Giving feedback to my classmates makes me
think about my work. 4.47 0.507 Strongly agree
31 I revise my work using my classmates’ ideas that I see when I give them feedback. 4.13 0.707 Agree
32 I am qualified to give feedback to my classmates. 3.69 0.998 Agree
Table 5.13: The mean and standard deviation of responses in the area of perceptions
towards giving feedback (N=32)
As seen in items 28, 29, and 30, the participants strongly agreed that
they could see the benefits of being an evaluator and seeing good examples in their
peers’ texts as well as borrowing ideas for their own texts.
However, in terms of their self-perception as the evaluator, the average
participant responses were at agree level. The average scores in items 26 and 32 were
the lowest in this area. This reflected the fact that the participants might not have
strong confidence in the quality of the feedback they provided to their peer as well as
their overall qualification as the evaluator.
From the responses, it can be concluded that the participants saw peer
evaluation as beneficial when they took the role of feedback providers to their peer’s
writing. They perceived that it was a good opportunity for them to learn from their
peers in order to improve their own texts for content and ideas. In other words, the
participants might have seen this as one of the learning tools.
5. Teacher feedback
The next area of investigation was on the perception towards the
feedback the participants received from the teacher and its benefit to them.
No Item x̅ S.D. Meaning
33 The feedback from my teacher helps me improve the content of my writing. 4.78 0.420 Strongly
agree 34 The feedback from my teacher helps me improve
the language in my writing. 4.78 0.420 Strongly agree
35 The feedback from my teacher helps me improve the vocabulary use in my writing. 4.88 0.336 Strongly
agree 36 The feedback from my teacher helps me improve
my grammar. 4.81 0.397 Strongly agree
37 I make changes according to my teacher’s suggestions. 4.69 0.471 Strongly
agree
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
220
38 When I start a new assignment, I remember what my teacher suggested in the previous work. 4.50 0.622 Strongly
agree 39 The feedback from my teacher encourages me to
write better. 4.75 0.508 Strongly agree
40 I want my teacher to correct my grammar. 4.81 0.471 Strongly agree
41 I need more written feedback from my teacher. 4.41 0.798 Strongly agree
42 I need more oral feedback from my teacher. 4.41 0.712 Strongly agree
Table 5.14: The mean and standard deviation of responses in the area of perceptions
towards teacher feedback (N=32)
Form Table 5.14, it can be seen that the participants strongly agreed
with all items in the area of teacher feedback. The findings suggest that the
participants depended largely on the teacher feedback. From their responses, the mean
scores of items 33, 34, 35, and 36 show that the participants agreed that the feedback
they received from the teacher helped them improve in most aspects of the writing.
Moreover, from items 37, 38 and 99, with the means of 4.69, 4.50, and 4.75, it can be
inferred that the participants valued the feedback they received from the teacher. To
elaborate on this, they strongly agreed that they incorporated the teacher’s suggestions
to the next draft and they also tried to transfer those suggestions into their next works.
More importantly, they strongly agreed that the feedback that the teachers gave them
motivated them to improve their writing.
Another important point is that the participants stated that they still
sought feedback form their teachers, both in written and oral form. Finally, the
participants’ responses indicated that, for accuracy, the provision of indirect
corrective feedback was not enough for them. They still needed their teacher to
provide direct corrective feedback to them on grammatical errors, as stated in item 40
with the high mean score of 4.81.
6. Student reflective journal
Another alternative assessment tool used in this action research is the
student reflective journal. This part of the questionnaire investigated how the
participants kept their journal and whether they found it useful to their learning.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
221
No Item x̅ S.D. Meaning
43 I keep my journal regularly 3.69 1.030 Agree 44 I reflect my learning in the journal. 3.94 0.801 Agree 45 Keeping a journal is useful for me to improve my
writing performance. 4.09 0.818 Agree
Table 5.15: The mean and standard deviation of responses in the area student
reflective journal (N=32)
The overall picture suggests that the participants agreed with all items
in this area. However, the mean score of item 43 was the lowest among the items.
This could be due to the fact that the participants had also taken other subjects during
the time of this action research. Hence, they might have had to allocate their time for
studying and doing assignments for other courses, hindering them from keeping the
journal regularly. However, the standard deviation in this item (1.030) is considerably
higher than that of other items. It could indicate the two spectrums of those who
regularly kept their journal and those who did not.
On the other hand, when asked if they found journal writing helpful in
improving their writing skills, the mean score of 4.06 in item 45 indicates that most of
the participants agree that they did.
Another interesting fact found from the response is that the participants
used the journal as a way to communicate with the teacher. From item 46, the
participants’ average score is 4.19, indicating that they used the journal as a means to
express their concerns about learning to their teacher.
7. Student portfolio
In the area of using the student writing portfolio as an alternative
assessment tool, the participants were asked if they find it useful in helping them.
No Item x̅ S.D. Meaning
47 I monitor my learning progress using my portfolio. 3.94 0.801 Agree
48 I can see an improvement in my writing performance looking at my portfolio. 4.31 0.644 Strongly
Agree
Table 5.16: The mean and standard deviation of responses in the area of perceptions
towards student portfolio (N=32)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
222
Their responses to the questionnaire items regarding this area showed
that the participants agreed that they monitor their learning using the portfolio (item
47). Furthermore, they strongly agreed that they could see an improvement in their
writing performance looking at their portfolio. In other words, it shows that the
participants agreed that the portfolio was a formative learning tool for their writing
skill. 8. Perceived usefulness of instructional methods in each writing genre
The next area of investigation using the questionnaire is the perceived
usefulness of the instructional methods in the academic writing component of the
course. The items are divided into two aspects: collaboratively modeling text (items
49-52) and the use of multiple drafts together with the alternative forms of assessment
(items 53-56). In general, the mean scores of all items indicate that the participants
agreed that the teaching and learning methods used in the study was useful.
No Item x̅ S.D. Meaning
49 Collaboratively modeling texts is a suitable way to learn writing to respond to reading passage/ opinion writing (chapter 2)
4.06 0.716 Agree
50 Collaboratively modeling texts is a suitable way to learn data interpretation (chapter 4) 4.16 0.767
Agree
51 Collaborative modeling is a suitable way to learn report writing (chapter 5) 4.22 0.706
Strongly agree
52 Collaborative modeling is a suitable way to learn argumentative essay (chapter 6) 4.06 0.801 Agree
53 Writing multiple drafts, peer feedback and teacher feedback are suitable ways to learn writing to respond to reading passage/ opinion writing (chapter 2)
4.28 0.813
Strongly agree
54 Writing multiple drafts, peer feedback and teacher feedback are suitable ways to learn data interpretation (chapter 4)
4.41 0.798 Strongly agree
55 Writing multiple drafts, peer feedback and teacher feedback are suitable ways to learn report writing (chapter 5)
4.34 0.865 Strongly agree
56 Writing with multiple drafts, peer feedback and teacher feedback are suitable ways to learn argumentative essay (chapter 6)
4.25 0.803 Strongly agree
Table 5.17: The mean and standard deviation of responses in the area of perceptions
towards the usefulness of teaching and learning methods (N=32)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
223
For the first part, the participants agreed that the collaboratively
constructed model was a suitable way to learn writing in response to a reading
passage/ opinion writing, data interpretation, and argumentative essay. However, they
strongly agreed that collaboratively constructed models were suitable with learning
report writing. For this item, the mean score is 4.22.
Such findings can be explained. For the report writing, the participants
had to follow the report format and they were also asked to propose
recommendations, which required extensive critical thinking relevant to the topic. The
participants then sought advice and had their ideas evaluated through the construction
of model texts. On the other hand, for the other genres, the participants had more
freedom in expressing their ideas. So, they could be more independent in generating
ideas to write.
For the other part, the perceived usefulness of the multiple-draft
method and alternative assessment in each genre, the mean score for each item was
interpreted as strongly agree. In particular, the participants strongly agreed that using
multiple-draft method, together with peer and teacher feedback, was useful in learning
all genres, especially data interpretation (4.41) and report writing (4.34).
9. Self perception
The last section of the closed-ended part of the questionnaire elicited
the participants’ ideas of self-perception in relations to their experience with the
teaching and learning of academic writing. As one of the principles of the process
approach, learners should develop their own writing style and sense of text
ownership. These items were then formulated according to such principles.
No Item x̅ S.D. Meaning
57 After taking the course, I have more confidence in writing in English. 4.41 0.499 Strongly
agree 58 I think it is better for me to develop my own
writing style than following model answers. 4.19 0.896 Agree
59 I know what my writing style is. 3.81 0.998 Agree 60 I know my strengths in writing English. 3.97 0.897 Agree 61 I know my weaknesses in writing English. 4.69 0.644 Strongly
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
224
agree 62 After taking this course, I have become a better
writer. 4.28 0.634 Strongly agree
Table 5:18: The mean and standard deviation of the participants’ self-perception after
taking the course (N=32)
From the analysis and interpretation of the responses, the participants
agreed with items that implied that they had improved after taking the course as is
evident in items 58, 59, and 60. While they contended that it was more important for
them to develop their writing style than to follow the model texts (item 58), the mean
score of item 59 (3.81, lowest in this area) indicated that the participants might still be
in quest of their writing style. This could be due to the fact that, as prescribed in the
curriculum, the texts were highly structured with specific formats to follow. As a
result, the participant might associate writing style with the structure of the texts
instead of being aware of how they formulated and presented their ideas. Moreover,
the average score of knowing their strengths in writing is relatively low (3.97, item
60).
For other items, the results from the questionnaire responses suggested
that the participants strongly agreed that they had gained confidence in writing (item
57). Furthermore, the participants also stated that taking this course helped them
realize their weaknesses in writing English (item 61,). The mean score for this item is
4.69, highest in this area. This could be explained by the fact that the participants’
works had been reviewed repeatedly by their classmates and the teacher. Therefore,
they had plenty of opportunities to see their weaknesses.
5.2.3 Conclusion
To sum up, the data from the responses of the participants in the
questionnaire show that the intervention of this research worked considerably well in
terms of improving the students’ academic writing ability. Their level of agreement
with the effectiveness of the approach is in line with the improved score between the
pre-test and the post-test. As a result, it could provide some insights to teachers and
course designers in developing academic writing courses.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
225
The participants stated that collaboratively constructed models were a
useful method in helping them compose texts with appropriate linguistic features of
particular subgenres in academic writing. It was also important to identify the target
reader of each text because it would give the students a clear direction on the
composition of the text.
In terms of usefulness of the method for each genre, the results show
that the participant found collaboratively constructed models, multiple-draft writing,
and feedback most useful with report writing. This could be due to the fact that they
found this genre most challenging since it required the skills of reading
comprehension, writing skill, and critical thinking ability. Providing them
opportunities to write and rewrite the text with extensive feedback on different
features of the text could then help them effectively improve their texts. As for other
genres, the participants agreed that this method of instructions and alternative
assessment worked effectively well in assisting them in learning too.
Another area that the results of the investigation with the questionnaire
found positive is the use of the student reflective journal and portfolio. The
participants agreed that these two alternative assessment tools did help them improve
their writing ability, owing to the fact that they had more opportunities to practice
their writing with the journal and, at the same time, reflect on the lessons when they
put an entry in the journal. As for the portfolio, the participants might have used it to
look at the comments and feedback from both peers and teachers.
Regarding the self-perception, the teaching and learning, together with
the assessment systems, used in this action research helped the participants to
perceive improvements in their writing ability. Writing with multiple drafts and
receiving feedback from peers and their teacher could also help the students to see
their weaknesses in their writing.
What is of concern from the investigation is the use of feedback. The
participants tend not to fully trust their peers in evaluating their works and giving
them feedback. Instead, they saw that the peer evaluation systems worked better and
was more beneficial for them when they evaluated their peers’ works. They agreed
that they could see some good examples of ideas and language, which they could
adopt into their writing. As for the teacher feedback, it is obvious that the participants
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
226
highly valued the feedback from the teacher and perceived that it was useful in
improving their writing skill.
Finally, the results from the questionnaire also shed light on the fact
that students are still concerned with linguistic knowledge. Responses from some
items showed that the participants still associated their language ability with linguistic
knowledge. This may be due to the fact that most of them had been taught with the
conventional approach of English learning that focused mainly on the grammatical
knowledge. Hence, it should be kept in mind that the teaching of grammar and
corrective feedback are still necessary even in an advanced level writing course like
the present study.
5.3 Research question 2: from student reflective journals
The qualitative data, in addition to the teacher’s journal presented in Chapter
4, were collected through the student reflective journals and semi-structured
interviews from selected students. With respect to the quantitative data, the analysis
of the post-intervention questionnaire was used to display the students’ opinions
towards different aspects of the adapted approaches of writing instructions, together
with the alternative forms of assessment, used in this study. In line with that, results
from statistical analyses of the pre-test and post-test are presented to indicate the
students’ improvement in academic writing ability.
In this study, the students were assigned to keep a journal to reflect the
learning experience of learning academic writing in the course. Since the study was
situated in an international university using English as a medium of instructions, the
journals were in English. The purposes were, first, keeping the journal was another
alternative form of assessment that provided the students opportunities to practice
their writing skill outside the classroom context. Second, it was a record of the
students’ emic view towards the pedagogical methods and activities in the course. The
students were required to write a journal entry after every class meeting. Over 16
weeks of instructions, each student was expected to write 32 entries.
At the end of the intervention period, the journals provided a large
amount of rich data. The analysis of the large amount of data was through the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
227
technique of data reduction and meaning condensation. Then, I analyzed the refined
data by drawing the codes and assigning themes.
To find the information that was accurate and relevant to the study, I
conducted 2 cycles of the coding of data. The process of analyzing the student
reflective journal started with the reduction of data by going through all entries in the
journals to find repeated patterns and keywords. The following step was coding. The
method of coding that I employed was mainly the In Vivo coding, with a combination
of other methods such as initial, affective, and process coding. As stated by Saldana
(2013), more than one analytic coding method should be used to enhance the
accountability, depth and breadth of the findings. After codes were assigned to the
statements in the first cycle, I drew themes based on the responses by the students that
connoted similar meaning.
The initial themes assigned in the first cycle of coding were then
refined in the second cycle to obtain the themes that are more accurate to the study
while eliminating the data that were only marginal. There are altogether 8 themes,
which are:
1. Learning
2. Instructional methods
3. Writing assignments
4. Peer evaluation and teacher feedback
5. Class materials
6. The teacher’s roles
7. Examinations
8. Students’ personal concerns
After all themes were drawn, detailed analysis of the students’ journal
entries revealed that there were some subthemes for each main theme as well. The
following part discusses the findings in each theme and its subthemes. The following
table displays all the themes, subthemes, and opinions of students from the analysis of
their reflective journals.
Theme Subtheme Opinion Area 1. Learning 1. Metacognitive
learning strategies A. Self-planning B. Self-monitoring C. Self-evaluation
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
228
2. Perceptions on the lesson
A. Learning of writing
B. Finding the lesson difficult -Vocabulary -Content -Reading skill
3. The overall impression of the course
A. Help improve their writing ability
B. Useful for future career
2. Opinions towards the instructional methods
1. The use of model texts in the course book.
A. Usefulness of the textbook’s models
B. Drawbacks of using the textbook’s models
2. The use of collaboratively constructed models
A. Usefulness of the collaboratively constructed model
- Showing the writing process
- Showing the language use
B. Getting new ideas from classmates
C. The drawback of collaboratively constructed models
D. Comparison between the
two types of models
- Tendency to copy - Lack of cooperation
3. Opinions on the use of multiple-draft method in writing
A. Improving writing skill
- Perceived improvement - Knowing their mistakes
B. Gaining confidence in
writing
C. Limitation of multiple-draft
method
4. The benefits of the writing portfolio
A. Helpful in monitoring their
progress
5. Prewriting activities - Setting the
communicative context
- Class discussion
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
229
- Group brainstorm - Pair work - Free Writing
A. Appreciating the group
work
- Sharing ideas - Help with language issue - Improving reading
B. Unpleasant experience
6. Post writing- positive feelings towards publication of work
3. Opinions on the writing assignment
1. The assignments were challenging
A. The language issue B. The lack of content knowledge
2. The assignments were manageable
4. Opinions towards the peer evaluation and teacher feedback
1. The benefits and problems of receiving peer evaluation
A. The benefits of receiving peer evaluation
B. Following suggestions from peer evaluators
C. Finding peer evaluation ineffective
D. Doubt in the validity of the feedback
E. Counting on teacher feedback
- Striving to improve - Pointing out the mistakes
2. Evaluating peer’s texts
A. The benefits gained from giving evaluation
- Comparing their works
- Seeing good examples
- Using the ideas from classmates’ texts
B. Self-perception as evaluator - Having no comment
- Not confident about the quality of feedback given to classmates
3. Opinions on the teacher feedback
A. Helpful in improving their writing
- Seeing their mistakes
- Knowing
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
230
how to write better
- Gaining confidence in writing the next draft
B. Helpful in identifying individual problems in writing
- Idea - Composition
5. The reaction and opinion towards class materials
1. Reflection on the authentic texts provided
A. Perceived usefulness of authentic texts
- Seeing examples of writing styles
- Feeling inspired
6. The opinion
towards the teacher’s roles
1. Opinion towards the teaching style
A. Clear and interesting B. Encouraging them to
improve C. Involving the students in
the teaching and learning process
D. Creating supportive learning atmosphere
2. Complaints on the teaching
A. Boring lecture and hard to concentrate
3. Questions, requests, and suggestions to the teacher
A. Questions B. Requests C. Suggestions to the teacher D. Disagreement with the
teacher
4. Appreciation for the teacher
7. Perceptions on examinations
1. Worry about the exam
2. Self-assessment on the exam performance.
A. Optimistic about exam performance B. Unhappy with exam performance
3. Reaction to the exam results
A. Better than expected B. Not as good as expected
4.The complaint on the time allowed in the exam
A. Affecting their performance B. Wishing for more time to be
allowed
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
231
8. Students’ personal concerns
1. The workload A. Getting distracted B. Apologizing
Table 5.19: Summary of themes and subthemes analyzed from student reflective
journals
5.3.1 Theme 1: Learning
The first theme drawn from the journal entries was their reflection on
learning. With detailed analyses, there are 4 subthemes related to the students’
reflection on their learning namely 1) learning strategy, 2) reflections on the lessons
3) awareness of weakness, and 4) overall impression on the course.
Theme1, Subtheme1: metacognitive learning strategy
The first subtheme about learning was derived from the students’
articulation on their learning strategy. With a close look, it appeared that the students
employed metacognitive strategies to the learning of writing skills. These strategies
include self-planning, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation.
The way the students evaluated their learning and realized their
weaknesses provided to me the idea that the students, in time, applied metacognitive
learning strategy, whether they were aware of it or not. I, therefore, could conclude
that using the student reflective journal also gave the students the benefit of becoming
autonomous learners.
A. Self-planning
The first metacognitive strategy that the students employed was self-
planning. From the analysis of their journal entries, I found that the students tried to
initiate plans to assist them in learning more effectively. The following statements
display the findings.
“I plan to study harder with always study this subject with myself or
do the exercise over and over again to make me remember what I have
learnt from the class.” (Cartoon)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
232
“I think I have to read articles or reports about the graphs in order to
have an understandable work. To study better, I would probably have
to read more in English because being a writer is derived from being a
good reader. Moreover, I will try to learn everything with an open
mind and be an easy learner.” (Pear)
“Maybe I misunderstand so I just cut that part that I’m not sure out,
and I might not understand in concept of the report clearly. I will try to
improve it more by thinking like if I am a reader.” (Sata)
“I think that I can improve my graph analysis by using different verbs
and writing style. I do not want to write from ___to ___ again and
again. I will find more styles to expand my ideas in the graph.” (Bell)
B. Self-monitoring
A close look at the statements under this subtheme also revealed that
the students were aware of the state of learning they were in. It was reflected through
the use of self-monitoring as the strategy.
“I had to take a lot of time to write. So, I think that I have to compete
with myself and also compete with the time.” (Titi)
“I feel that I spend too much time and think too much. I waste a lot of
time on the introduction part. I have to change my thinking process.”
(Nuna)
“Today I try to use new technique of writing. Normally, I had to follow
the pattern that my previous English teacher gave to the whole class.
And I also know that it was the basic form. I think I need more time to
learn it by myself to understand more.” (Sata)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
233
“Today we start to write the argumentative essay. I’m still not sure
how to write it. I cannot start writing it in the class because I will not
have concentration. But when I stay in my room alone, my brain works
well and can write.” (Chompoo)
C. Self-evaluation
In their journal entries, the students also evaluated their learning and
found their weaknesses in learning English, particularly in academic writing. The
following excerpts are examples of the statements that drew this subtheme.
“I realise that I made a lot of mistakes in very small details such as the
s or tenses, which are always my problems in writing.” (Pat)
“I think my writing is very weak because I am not sure with grammar,
spelling, vocabulary and errors.” (Titi)
“The problem came after that is I didn’t know how to write in my owns
words because I didn’t know meaning many vocabulary items. Essay
writing is my problem because I always repeatedly write the same
things, and the flow of information is not in order too. Also, the title is
hard to create” (Sata)
“I have found a lot of my weaknesses such as unclear opinion,
inconsistent use of language, and the flow of information is not really
good. I also need to improve my usual mistakes by thinking well and
condensing the ideas first so I will use less of the whiteouts.” (Mark).
“I can feel that I have a weakness on writing Data, because from the
previous class, I couldn’t put much attention on your practice
writings.” (New)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
234
Theme 1, subtheme 2: the perceptions on the lesson
In the entry of every class meeting, the students usually used the
journal to record what they had learned in a particular class. Furthermore, the students
reflected their feelings and perceptions towards the day’s lessons, which could be
categorized into 2 aspects.
A. Learning of writing
The first aspect of the students’ reflection on the lesson was that they
could grasp the essence of the lesson and understand it well.
“In today’s class we began to study the writing part. I think I
understand more how to write a good essay and I also know what
Ajarn [the teacher] wants in our writings.” (Dew)
“The teacher taught the whole class about how to start an
argumentative essay. I think this is the best part of this course so far
which I understand easily. I wrote the draft 1 about the teacher right
away after I got home.” (Mark)
“The opinion writing is actually good because students get to learn
how to get the key words to see the main idea of the paragraph.
Moreover, this part gives students opportunity to describe their own
ideas. (Bew)
“On this day, I have learned how to give the answer to show reading
comprehension and I think it is easier than I did it before because I
know some tricks.” (Tarn)
B. Finding the lesson difficult
On the other hand, the students also expressed their concerns about the
lessons that they found difficult. From the analysis, the students mentioned difficulties
in 3 areas, which were the vocabulary, the content of the lesson, and the problem with
reading skill.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
235
Vocabulary
“I learn how to explain the graph today. It would be hard for me
because I don’t know much vocabulary.” (Bank)
“The data interpretation is not easy to do because the specific
vocabulary and the additional adverbs and adjectives are being used
to describe the trend or the changing of the graphs. Today’s class is all
about writing reports which is the most complex so far in my all
English course.” (Pear).
Content
“I think that the data interpretation topic is very hard for me
especially the third paragraph. I need to find reasons to explain the
graph” (Pook).
“Everything was fine with my report until I start thinking about the
recommendations in the water tunnel assignment. I feel like I’m
chewing a big stone in my mouth. I think the recommendation is the
hardest part for me and I have to try very hard to make it better in
draft 2.” (Nut)
“In the recommendation part is difficult because sometimes I did not
know what to solve that problem. I worry that what I think would be
wrong. So, I spend much time in this part.” (Sata)
“I found that the passage is not hard but the recommendation is very
hard.” (Boat)
Reading skill
“The hardest part in memo report is findings and analyses because I
can’t see information in the passage sometimes.” (Moodang)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
236
The comments from the students were consistent with what the teacher
reflected in the teacher journal. Most students found that the genre of data
interpretation and report writing, specifically the recommendation writing, were the
most challenging parts of the course. This shows that the students had to struggle with
writing the texts that require extensive critical and analytical thinking skill.
Theme 1, subtheme 3: The overall impression of the course
The last subtheme drawn from the analytical coding was the overall
impression towards the course that the students had. In general, though they found the
academic writing part demanding and challenging, they expressed positive attitude
towards the course.
The affective factor for them to develop such perspective was the
perceived usefulness. Four students clearly stated that the course both help them to
improve their writing ability, which they found useful for their future career.
A: Help improve their writing ability
“All the works and practice writings that you give me can improve my
writing skill very much. I can write the essay more smoothly. Also the
content and structure are better than before. I have changed from
remembering the words and structure in the example to writing with
my words and style.” (Pete)
“I think studying this course with you makes me better at writing. It is
not much but it is better than before. Thank you teacher.” (Dew)
B. Useful for future career
“This course taught me many things about how should I write in the
correct way and all the assignments which I have done are very useful
for my future.” (Mark)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
237
“I feel that this course challenges ne to improve my writing to make it
understandable and professional work.” (Pear)
5.3.2 Theme 2: Opinions towards the instructional methods
The next theme was the perceptions of the students towards the
different instructional methods used in the teaching of academic writing. Under this,
there are four subthemes, which are the use of a model text in the course book, the
model texts created by the class, the use of multiple-draft writing, and the prewriting
activities. From the analysis, the students generally commented on these instructional
methods on both ends, which were the perceived usefulness and the problems with the
methods. Such insiders’ views were useful for evaluating the effectiveness of the
methods and could help in selecting an appropriate instructional approach for the
teaching of academic writing.
Theme 2, subtheme 1: The use of model texts in the course book.
Looking at the students’ comments, the use of the model texts in the course
book had the merit of providing the students convenience in seeing the structure and
composition of the texts and picking up the language style.
A. Usefulness of the textbook’s models
Five students mentioned in their journal that they made use of the
model texts presented in the course book such as consulting it on points they did not
understand or as a revision of what they had learned in class. One remark made by a
student suggested that they were useful in preparation for examinations.
“I still need to depend on the model answers in the textbook because I
don’t think that I’m having a clear explanation on the report writing
yet especially when it comes to the introduction and the conclusion
part.” (Pook)
“I was really confused in part of conclusion because I don’t know how
to write it correctly but I try to follow in class and reread the model
texts from textbook again.” (Shi)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
238
“If we talk about the test or exam, the model essay is useful because
we know what sentence we should use. It is like a model that it easier
to copy and easy to understand too.” (Bell)
B. Drawbacks of using the textbook’s models
In contrast, the students admitted that the use of the model text had
several drawbacks as well. Five students clearly asserted that the major problem was
that they could be overly dependent on the texts provided. Many students asserted
that, despite the aforementioned benefits, they found that following the model texts
restricted their thinking ability and prevented them from finding their writing style.
The reason was that they could not resist the temptation to copy the text. The
following statements display the arguments.
“I don’t like the model in the book because although I can adapt it to
my writing, at the end I still didn’t use my brain to think because I just
copy from the book.” (Bank)
“Sometimes the model essay makes me copy some sentences because I
have no idea how to write.” (Oil)
“We have to use the sentences in the model essay to answer the
question. It can prove that student understand the essay but I felt that I
have to copy almost the whole answer from essay.” (Chin)
The findings were consistent with my reflection. The model texts
provided in the course’s textbook were helpful in the instruction in displaying the
format of the texts to the students. Nonetheless, the students who referred to the
model texts in the course book mostly picked up the language and used it in their
texts, which resulted in the lack of progress in the development of writing style.
Theme 2, subtheme 2: The use of collaboratively constructed models
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
239
As defined previously, the collaboratively constructed models referred
to the process of creating model texts by the class members with me mediating the
discussion and helping with the language input. In this subtheme, the students
reflected the usefulness of this type of model, how it helped them obtain ideas, and its
drawback.
A. Usefulness of collaboratively constructed models
From the analysis of the students’ journals, 18 students stated that this
method was useful for them in developing the academic writing skill. To be specific,
the students mentioned that the utmost benefit of collaboratively modeling the texts
was that it exhibited the actual writing process. Also, it provided them opportunities
to see the use of the language style in each genre.
Showing the writing process
“I think that teachers should teach by modeling the essay together to
show the actual process of writing. So the students will learn and
adapt the new knowledge in their own writing, not from the book’s
model essay.” (Mark)
“It is obvious that the examples we do in class are very useful.
Modeling the essay together is good for learning the new knowledge or
new step to do the question.” (Pear)
“I like class modeling essays because they helped me to scope my
thoughts and ideas to write each essay.” (Toy)
“Today I we worked on the model answer with the teacher. The ideas
were gathered from the whole class. I feel good that the teacher helps
us to do the model answer because I can know the trend and style of
writing to get good marks in the incoming quiz. This will also help me
to write my draft better.” (Boong)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
240
“When teacher models the essay, we can learn how to write like a
professional.” (Bell).
Showing the language use
“Creating model with you seems to be effective for me after I have
done my own memo report. I get the great different aspects of each
important points as well as the language that you expected.” (Pear)
“We see what the suitable words that teacher chooses to use and
important sentence that we should have.” (Bell)
B. Getting new ideas from classmates
The students also pointed out that the process of the text
collaboratively helped them see and develop ideas from their classmates, which were
useful for the composition of their own text.
“I like modeling (the text) with class. I think it has many good points
that we can share what we are going to write.” (Dew)
“Today, teacher creates model in the class, so I can get good example
and ideas. Friends also are helpful to do the good job.” (Fern)
“I do like modeling the essay with friends because we can share our
ideas to get more ways to write the essay without copying from
textbook and it helps us to think a lot. So, when we are in exam room,
we can think of how we should write or what details we should put in
more than people who didn’t practice modeling in class” (Luck)
C. The drawbacks of collaboratively constructed models
The students also mentioned the downside of collaboratively
constructed models. In the same vein with the textbook models, the students stated
that they might only copy it. Moreover, some students found it frustrating that not all
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
241
the class members would contribute their ideas in the construction of the model. Some
students admitted that they found it difficult for them to come up with ideas to
propose.
Tendency to copy
“Meanwhile, some students would only depend on the model essays.
They could easily copy everything and think nothing.” (Toy)
“I’m sorry that my work is similar to your model. I misunderstand
about the work because some of my friends said I could follow your
work but I followed your every word or we can call that copying.”
(Chin)
“It would be better if you do not write the whole sentences to answer
the graph in the second assignment because it sometimes limit my
language like I want to copy all of your sentences.” (Bew)
“The bad point (of modeling the texts) is that I don’t always try think
of something else, and I always copy some sentences from modeling.”
(Chompoo)
Lack of cooperation
“There is only one bad point of class modeling. When the students
don’t know what to add to the model, teachers may have to write the
whole essay in order to keep the class moving on.” (Pete)
“However, I think that we don’t always have an idea to share and
some people just waiting for us to give them an idea.” (Bank)
D. Comparison between the two types of models
In addition to expressing the benefits of this technique, the students
also compared the use of the course book models and the ones collaboratively
constructed by the two types of the models. It was unanimous that the students
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
242
preferred the collaboratively constructed models to the model texts in the book.
Evidence could be found in the following excerpts from their journals.
“I prefer creating model in class to the model in the book since when
something is in the books, it seems like I have to exactly follow it and it
somehow limits my sentence style/pattern.” (Pear)
“I like the modeling essay together more than the essay from the book,
because it is easier to understand more than the essay from the book.”
(Chompoo)
“I think it is good for student that they will model the essay together
with teacher. So they will have the chance to do the good one with
teacher rather than just copy from the model in the book.” (Pete).
From the students’ reflections, it can be seen that the application of the
collaboratively constructed models came with tremendous benefits. Using it as a
prewriting activity, the input from the students could provide the class with ideas to
be included in their texts. Moreover, it was an effective way to show them both the
language features of the genres and to demonstrate to them the process of composing
the text. However, some challenges remain, especially among the students who are
taciturn in expressing their ideas and those who still perceive that they could
conveniently use the modeled texts in their writing. A proper classroom management,
such as a strategy to engage the students, and administration of modeling are
necessary.
Theme 2, subtheme 3: opinions on the use of multiple-draft method in
writing
A major part of the intervention was the use of multiple-draft writing,
which is a shared feature between the process and process-genre approach of writing
instructions. From the analysis, 12 students clearly expressed positive attitude towards
this method, claiming that it helped them improve their writing ability.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
243
A. Improving writing skill
Generally, the students claimed that writing with many drafts was
beneficial for them in terms of improving the quality of the content of the texts. They
also stated that they became more aware of the mistakes they made.
Perceived improvement
“I like the idea of writing paragraph and rewrite with the
improvement. It actually helped a lot on each time.” (Bew)
“So, I think giving the writing work as an assignment as you did is
great because the quality work takes time. I also agree with the 3
drafts work because they are the important factors helping me to
develop my writing especially in the opinion part.” (Pear)
“I always change the content of my writing but I think I can do be
better and better.” (Toy)
Knowing their mistakes
“It was my first time in life to write in 3 drafts and it was so useful. It
also helped me a lot and reminded me of my mistakes in English.”
(Titi)
“It is very useful that the teacher orders us to write with 3 drafts
because we can know what is wrong in the previous draft and can do it
better and better in next draft.” (Boat)
B. Gaining confidence in writing
In addition, the students claimed that writing with multiple drafts gave
them confidence in the quality of their texts as well as their writing ability.
“I wrote draft 3 in the class. I’m quite confident that this draft is my
best draft which I could do as I try to put my best ideas in the paper.”
(Pat)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
244
“I feel more confident when the teacher assigns me to do draft again.”
(Thon)
“In draft2, I have more confidence to write and clearly understand the
important part that I have to write.” (Chompoo)
“When I do draft two, it makes me confident to write because I get
your advice and my friend. So I try to think and more detail.” (Dew)
C. Limitation of multiple-draft method
Despite its perceived benefits, some students pointed out their dislike
of the multiple-draft writing. They found working repeatedly on the same topic
tedious. Besides, they preferred to work on a variety of topics.
“We have 3 drafts to write in one topic. I just want to write many
essays with different styles, not only write three time in one or two
essays and go the next topic.” (Bell)
“The only one thing that I dislike is I have to write the same essay for
three times.” (Pete)
“The teacher asked me to write another draft, which is quite boring.”
(Tee)
Reflecting on my practice, their comments were legitimate. It can be
inferred that the students might believe reading and writing on different topics would
help them expand their knowledge on different issues, hence preparing them for the
unseen passage in the exam.
Theme 2, subtheme 4: The benefits of the writing portfolio
In relations to the multiple-draft writing, the students were asked to
keep a writing portfolio, a collection of every draft of their writing assignments. The
objective of the portfolio as an alternative assessment tool was for the students to
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
245
monitor their progress. To strengthen the use of the portfolio, I allocated a proportion
of the score on the improvement between drafts as part of marking the work.
A. Helpful in monitoring their progress
In their journals, two students mentioned that they found that the portfolio was
helpful for them in evaluating their performance.
“…portfolio collection is the great way to do self evaluation.” (Bew)
“When I saw my portfolio, I realized that my writing was getting better
and better. Each draft helped me to understand the language structure
better.” (Pat)
Although there were only two entries from the students that mentioned
the benefits of using the portfolio system, I believe that they were still important for
the findings in this study. Therefore, the students’ perception on the benefits of the
portfolio was further investigated with the questionnaire and semi-structured
interviews.
Theme 2, subtheme 5: Prewriting activities
There were a number of prewriting activities employed in the
intervention, namely guided discussions, group discussions, pair works, and free
writing. These themes were drawn from the students’ reflection on each activity,
which most of them found supportive to their learning of writing.
Activity 1. Setting the communicative context: objectives and the
target audience of the text
To incorporate the principle of genre approach to the writing
assignment, the students would discuss the objectives and target reader of the text
they were composing. The following excerpts demonstrated that the students realized
the importance of directing the text to the reader to reach the objective.
“(I understand that) it is better to make readers see the overall picture
clearly, and understand the main point (of the text).” (Bew)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
246
“After I know my target audience, I can adapt it in my draft 2 and use
my writing ability to reach them and meet the objective of writing.”
(Pat)
Activity 2. Class discussion
Regarding the class discussion as a prewriting activity, the students did
not provide a lot of comments in their journal entries. This came as no surprise. The
fact that the students felt neutral about this activity could be because they might
perceive it as a lecture and elicitation from the teacher, which was a very common
method of instructions for them. Thus, they did not see it as something novel in their
learning.
However, three students stated that the class discussion was a useful
activity and said that it helped them see different perspectives on the topic being
discussed with their classmates. The following excerpts display their arguments.
“We share ideas for data interpretation, line graph. Instead of doing
assignment alone, discussion with friends in the class is more fun.
Moreover, we get many ideas and can work faster.” (Fern)
“The teacher discussed the cyberbullying and showed us some ideas. I
listen to friends’ answers and found that they were more logical than
my answer. I still think differently from the others.” (Nuna)
“The topic today is quite hard for me because I never try Uber service.
So, I have to listen to the ideas from the discussion in my essay.”
(Mark)
Activity 3. Group brainstorm
Another activity in the prewriting state was the use of group
brainstorm. The students were assigned in a group of 4 to discuss a reading passage or
a graph, to share their viewpoints, and generate ideas for writing.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
247
A. Appreciating the group work
From analyzing their journal entries, I found that the students
perceived this method as effective in many ways. Seventeen students claimed that
group brainstorm helped them see one another’s ideas, which was useful for them to
compose their texts. Besides, the activity also fostered interpersonal relationships
among the students. Additionally, a student stated that working with classmates in a
group also helped with language issues, particularly the knowledge of vocabulary.
One student, in addition, mentioned that group work also helped her with
understanding the reading prompt.
Sharing ideas
“I think the brainstorming part is the most important part because it
deals with the main contents in the essay. I find it easier to brainstorm
with friends since some of them always have a good idea and we could
discuss contradicting ideas.” (Pear)
“I like the way students get to work in groups. It helped students
improve their various skills. We can discuss and see one another’s
interests or opinion.” (Bew)
“Then you assign us to work in groups. I love this method because I
can talk with friends and share what they think and what they will
write on the assignment, especially when the topic is still hard.” (Fern)
“The feedback on the first draft that I got from my friend is quite good.
I think it is because I worked on it (the ideas) with my friends in a
group. We work together, so our first draft came out good.” (Cartoon)
“The group discussion in today’s class is very interesting for me cause
I can see many perspectives from different people and it helps me
understand the passage more clearly.” (Pook)
Help with language issue
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
248
“When you ask us to do the work in groups, it is good because when I
see some word I don't know, I can ask my friends.” (Tarn)
“When we work together, we can see some mistakes and help solving
them.” (Bew)
Improving reading comprehension
“I like to brainstorm. For the reading, they share what they found in
each paragraph.” (Tarn)
B. Unpleasant experiences working in groups
Despite the benefits, three students mentioned unpleasant experiences
they had in participating in a group brainstorm.
“Although I liked working as a team so much because we can give
some information and discuss together, I choose to work by myself. It’s
because I can write about the thing that I am interested in and I do not
have to wait for the decision from anyone.” (Bank)
“I think working in groups would be good for sharing an idea, but
some people do not work at all.” (Sata)
“I think brainstorming is a good way to develop team works but it just
does not work for some Thai students. Members who have their friends
in groups will only take to each other’s idea and they don’t care other
members’ ideas at all.” (Shi)
The rebuttal to the use of the group brainstorm claiming that not all of
the group members contributed to the work was consistent with my observation.
Activity 4. Pair work
In addition to the aforementioned activities, the prewriting stage also
included the use of pair work. The objective was to create an opportunity for all
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
249
students to contribute ideas and show some insights to prepare for the composition of
the text. However, from their journals, the students did not highlight any difference
they found compared with the group brainstorm. The benefits mentioned were also
similar with those they found using group brainstorm. I then assumed that they
perceived pair work as another form of group work.
“I think working in pairs on writing a report good for the planning of
the report writing because more ideas gathered especially in the
recommendations which require a lot of critical thinking.” (Mook)
“I think I had more confidence when I did brainstorming with my
mate. We could know each other’s idea and that would help us
improve our writing.” (Toy)
“Working in pair is useful for report writing because we can share
ideas especially in recommendation part. I can get awesome ideas that
I didn’t expect to write recommendation from my friends.” (Fern)
Compared to group brainstorm, a student stated that pair work was
more preferable as they students could reach a decision more quickly.
“I think working with a pair is better than a group of 4 because we can
reach a decision quickly.” (Chompoo)
Activity 5: Free Writing
In the genre of argumentative essay, free writing was introduced. The
students were given broad topics to write freely without concerns for format or
organization. The reason was that it was a measure that helped the students gather
ideas for their essays since this was the only genre in the course that did not provide a
reading passage for the students to analyze. Looking at the student reflective journals,
it was clear that this activity served its purpose. The students found that it helped
them generate and recall ideas related to the topics. Besides, they also found that it
made them feel a sense of freedom.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
250
“Free writing is very useful. Creating an idea without concerning can
guide us how to start the essay and the advantages/disadvantage of the
topic.” (Nut)
“When I write it in free essay, I could write a lot. Unlike when have to
think about the content, I have to think about it a lot. And it is not a
good answer too.” (Sata)
“I really like free style writing because I just think and write on the
paper and I can finish it fast.” (Mook)
Theme 2, subtheme 6: post writing- positive feelings towards the
publication of work
The last step in the writing process was the publication of work. In a
classroom setting, this step refers to the final product that students submit to the
teacher. However, in this study, I selected outstanding works to display on the class’
Facebook page. The idea was to have all of the class members see examples of the
texts composed by their classmates. Four of the students whose works had been
posted on the page expressed their positive feelings as stated in the following
excerpts.
“It is the day that I feel very happy that the teacher asked if he could
publish my work online.” (Mark)
“I feel pleased that Ajarn prefers my work and I have a good score. I
never think that my writing will be in your post on Facebook because I
know that I am not good in writing enough, but I always tell you that I
always try my best.” (Tarn)
“I was quite surprised that the teacher chose my work to show it to the
friends. I am not sure if my work is that good but I feel really proud.”
(Bank)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
251
“I am happy that the teacher wants to show my work on Facebook. It
is the first time that I show my work to everyone.” (Fern)
5.3.3 Theme 3: Opinions towards the writing assignment
Writing assignments were at the core of developing the students’
ability. In their journals, the students stated their perceptions on the writing tasks.
From the analysis, there are two spectrums, which were students finding the tasks
challenging and, in contrast, finding them manageable.
Theme 3: subtheme 1: the assignments were challenging
Thirteen students stated that they found the writing assignment
challenging for them. With a close look at their arguments, I found that there were
two factors: the language issue and the lack of content knowledge.
A. The language issue
“Today, it is my first time writing in reading comprehension. It is not
easy to write because I have to think about what way I will use to write
in my essay and when I write I always write by using the same word in
each sentence most of the time, so it will make my essay looks boring”
(Cartoon)
“It’s my first time writing about chart. I think it is a little hard when I
have to find the words to explain the chart and how to use many
different words to make my writing looks more different.” (Titi)
“The writing part has begun. Writing part is the most difficult part for
me because my grammar and knowledge of using transitions are
terrible.” (Fern)
B. The lack of content knowledge
“In this week I have to do draft 1 for the new assignment, which is
quite hard because we have to think of own recommendations. For the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
252
recommendations part, I think it’s very hard and I have to think lot.”
(Boat)
“I have write draft 3 about e-cigarettes. I think reading and
understanding the passage is not hard but the difficulty is that I have to
write the reasons and they must support my idea and I have to make
people understand my answer too. This is very hard for me but it
challenges and makes me improve my English skill.” (Sasi)
“Today we all write our second assignment about E-cigarettes. I take
a long time to write the essay because I don’t know much about it.”
(Cartoon)
“Today, I do a new assignment for an argumentative essay. It is hard
to write because I have to argue with myself. I cannot write in class
because I need to take time to understand the topic.” (Dew)
Theme 3: subtheme 2: the assignments were manageable
For the students who found the writing assignments manageable, the
reasons, according to them, was that they had some knowledge schemata on the topic.
Thus, they developed confidence that they would perform the task well.
“For the new topic, the teacher let us choose between street food or
casino. I chose the street food because it is related to the reality and it
matched my style. I think that street food essay will make me feel
confident because I love it already.” (Mook)
“The class discusses the topic of e-cigarettes as the topic we got to do.
I found it quite easy and understandable as I’m an e-cigarettes user
the word is quite familiar and i think i can write a good draft 1 out of
the assignment.” (Mark)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
253
“In the morning, you let us start writing about the online shopping.
I’m the one who spends a lot on that. Then, I can describe its
advantages and disadvantages very well.” (New)
From their journals, it was clear that knowledge schemata were pivotal
for the students to develop the text. The findings on the students’ perception could be
derived into an informed practice for teachers in assigning works to the students.
Since the students might have different background knowledge on certain issues, it is
then important to focus on building more schemata for them.
5.3.4 Theme 4: Opinions towards peer evaluation and teacher feedback
Another major part of the intervention in this study was the use of
feedback as an alternative forms of assessment. The analytical coding on the students
reflective journals revealed that the students perceived feedback as a vital part in the
development of their academic writing ability. The sources of feedback were the peer
evaluation and the teacher feedback. This section presents the findings from the
analysis of the students’ journals and their perceptions towards the benefits and
problems with each type of feedback.
Starting with peer evaluation, the information derived from the
analysis of the student reflective journals found two major subthemes. The first was
the perceived usefulness of and problems with the peer feedback and the second was
the perceptions towards being the evaluators of their peers’ texts.
Theme 4, subtheme 1: The benefits and problems of receiving peer
evaluation
A. The benefits of receiving peer evaluation
From the data, the students found that having their works evaluated by
classmates encouraged them to strive to improve their works. Moreover, peer
evaluation also contributed to pointing out the mistakes in their language use.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
254
Striving to improve
“It is my first time letting friends judging my works and I find out that
the more I am being judged the more I am inspired to improve my
works.” (Pear)
“When we sent our draft1 and let our friend checked my draft, I got
good comment and advise that help me so much.” (Dew)
Pointing out the mistakes
“I bring draft 1 about reasons preventing online purchase in Bangkok.
When I got the draft 1 back from my peer, she told me that my work
lacked conjunction.” (Pat)
“I was really happy about the peer evaluation thing cause I got to
know more about the mistakes that I made from other people's
opinions.” (Pook)
“I found out that my second checker for the new exercise wrote a lot
on checklist so I think I should really pay attention on my weakness.”
(Bank)
B. Following suggestions from peer evaluators
Another interesting aspect of feedback that the students received from
their peers was that, in the later part of the course, six students stated that they tried to
accommodate what their evaluators had suggested into the revision of texts.
“I try to rewrite my writing following the evaluation from my friend. I
think it is helpful because they have shown me the point that I do it
wrong and I forgot to fix it. For example like grammar, so I will be
more careful about it next time.” (Sata)
“I have read everything that my friend commented on my work. His
comment helped me a lot to improve my work. Some words that I used
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
255
in my essay made my essay looks weak. So, I tried to find new words to
make my essay look better.” (Cartoon)
“I found that peer evaluation helps a lot as different people have
different ideas so I have to fix it again for the next draft.” (Mark)
C. Finding peer evaluation ineffective
In contrast, some students mentioned the ineffectiveness of the peer
evaluation. They contended that it was because the evaluators failed to provide
sufficient amount of feedback to the work.
“For the pie chart, I feel that the peer evaluation did not help me much
about improving. All I see is I should capitalize the names of the social
media.” (Mark)
“I want more comments from my friends. If my friends gave only a few
comments, I cannot improve in draft2.” (Thon)
“In this assignment, my friend did not give me any suggestions.
However, I know myself that I still have many mistakes in writing, but I
don't know what I should do and where I should edit the work. I hope
my friend to give me more suggestions next time.” (Tarn)
D. Doubt in the validity of the feedback
In addition, seven students questioned the validity of the feedback that
they received from their peer evaluators.
“Since the feedback was all about good things, so I had no idea what I
had to rewrite. It made me write with my understanding and I didn't
know that it was accurate or not but I didn't agree at all.” (Toy)
“When I receive my work back, it turns out that I made only a few
mistakes. So, I'm not sure whether the checker could not find more or I
really didn’t make more mistakes.” (Bank).
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
256
E. Counting on teacher feedback
As a consequence, when the students found that the feedback from
their peers was not helpful, they turned to the teacher for feedback, believing that it
could provide more solid suggestions for the revision.
“In my opinion, the peer evaluation is not effective for me because I
can only rely on Ajarn’s [the teacher’s] comments.” (Pat)
“Sometime it’s a little bit hard for me to write draft 2 because my
friends didn’t write comment as clear as the teacher.” (Cartoon)
“For the feedback that I got, I think that it was not that useful for me.
Someone who gave me feedback wrote only a few sentences. So, I had
to ask the teacher to recheck mine again so that I could truly know
what were my mistakes.” (Chompoo)
The students’ comments, both on the positive and negative sides of
peer evaluation, were consistent with my reflection on the matter. The payoff of this
alternative assessment method would take place only when the checkers put effort
into the evaluation process. In general, receiving peer feedback was not an effective
means to help improve the students’ compositions as they claimed that they had not
received very useful suggestions from their peer checkers.
Theme 4, subtheme 2: Evaluating peers’ texts
The second subtheme for this part is the students’ self-perception on
evaluating their peers’ texts. The analytical coding showed that the students found
great benefits from assessing their peers’ works. On the other hand, they also
expressed some concerns in taking the role of the evaluator.
A. The benefits gained from giving evaluation
An interesting point about the peer evaluation was that, despite the fact
that they did not find receiving feedback from their peers very effective, the students
claimed that they benefited a lot from seeing and evaluating their peers’ works. To
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
257
elaborate on this, the students claimed that being an evaluator of the text provided
them opportunities to compare their texts with those of their classmates. Moreover,
they also saw good examples of language use, ideas, and composition. Most
importantly, many evaluators stated that they would use the ideas that they saw in
their classmates’ works in the revision of their texts too.
Comparing their works
“When I compare between my paper with my friend’s paper, I think my
paper have many mistakes and not specific the detail. Mark paper's is
better that me.” (Nuna)
Seeing good examples
“What I saw in my friend’s work is that he/she wrote with confidence
which was easy and clear to read, and hardly to find grammatical
mistakes.... I have seen a lot of different opinions, which were good.”
(Bew)
“I learn both strengths and weakness from the others, which could
benefit my writing in the better way.” (Pear)
“Today, I check friends’ assignments. I think they are very good in
writing. They have some small grammar mistake but I like it because
they explain the reasons clearly.” (Mook)
Using the ideas from classmates’ texts
“When I read my friend’s report writing, I got a lot of ideas to write
especially recommendations part.” (Tarn)
“Some of them got very good ideas, which I could actually bring back
to my work and adjust it to match with my work.” (Bew)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
258
“Evaluating my friend's work when, I really like how she describes
and gives her opinion. It makes me have more ideas to improve my
work. She writes it very clearly and it’s easy to understand.”
(Chompoo)
B. Self-perception as evaluator
Nevertheless, while the benefits of evaluating the others’ texts were
perceptible, six students expressed their concerns about being the evaluator. From
their journal entries, the students admitted that they did not provide good feedback to
their friends because of several issues, such as simply not having many suggestions to
give and the lack of confidence in themselves as evaluators. Most importantly, the
students seemed to have misunderstood that peer evaluation meant only to find points
for improvement in the text, without realizing that praise was considered as feedback
too.
Having no comment
“This is the first time that I checked. I did not know what I should
complain to my friend because her hand writing work is very good.”
(Mook)
“My friend’s work is very good, so I have nothing to comment. It's a
bit sad. However, I will try to give good feedback and comment on my
friend's work.” (Fern)
“I felt like I was not sure I suggested the right suggestions to him
because we both did not know what the correct answer was” (Bew)
Not confident about the quality of feedback given to classmates
“I think my classmates would not get any useful information from my
work.” (Toy)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
259
“For the comment, I don't have many suggestions to her work, but next
time I will improve. I hope what I suggested to her is useful.”
(Chompoo)
“For peer evaluation, I am not sure that I can give good comments
because I am still not good at writing too.” (Sata)
It is worth noting, however, that most of these concerns were found in
the early entries at the beginning of the course. Thus, my conclusion was that the
students could gradually develop a clearer understanding of how to perform peer
evaluation. Additionally, in the later part of the study, the students were also
encouraged to exchange oral feedback, which they might find more effective than
giving written feedback via the checklist.
To summarize, it was clear that the students did not see the use of peer
evaluation as very effective. The problem was particular when the students had their
works evaluated by their peers. They either did not get very useful feedback that
could help improve their texts or did not receive it at all. In addition, the doubt in the
validity of the peers’ suggestions remained an issue. Nevertheless, the use of peer
evaluation had proven worthy in this study when the students performed the role of
the evaluators. The evaluation process helped them reflect on their works in
comparison with the peer’s text being assessed. They claimed to have seen good
examples of works and ideas from their peers’ texts and stated that they would make
use of what they learned from them in the revision of their own texts.
Theme 4, subtheme 3: Opinions on the teacher feedback
Feedback from teachers has pivotal roles in the development of writing
ability for students, as suggested by the literature in this area. In this study, I provided
both encouragement and constructive criticisms to the students’ works. Moreover,
both direct and direct corrective feedback on language accuracy were given. This
section then presents the findings on how the students perceived the feedback from
the teacher.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
260
A. Helpful in improving their writing
The analysis revealed two important aspects of the students’ perception
of the teacher feedback. To start with, the students found that the feedback they
received helped them improve their writing ability in general. Secondly, the students
stated in their journal that the feedback from the teacher helped them realize certain
points that they need to improve.
In the first aspect, the students found that the teacher feedback helped
them improve their writing ability. Besides, the students also said that the feedback
from the teacher made them know how to improve their text. They also asserted that
the feedback also made them gain confidence in composing a new draft.
Seeing their mistakes
“After teacher’s correction, the final destination seemed to be better. I
could see my mistakes more clearly.” (Bew)
“I revised my work and the teacher told me about my mistakes. So, I
know more about my mistakes and I will improve my writing skill.”
(Thon)
“From the assignment, I can see the mistakes that I made. And the big
problem is the incomplete sentences. I feel a bit worried about it. But it
is good to know my problems from you.” (Dew)
Knowing how to write better
“I’m surprised why I got so many red marks. It made me feel bad at
first. But later, when I got the paper back from the teacher, I was very
happy with the red marks that showed me how to improve.” (Mark)
“I got a lot of suggestions from Ajarn. The suggestions make me have
more ideas to write it better than first draft.” (New)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
261
Gaining confidence in writing the next draft
“When I received the feedback from Ajarn [the teacher], I had known
many things that I need to focus on. I had more confidence in writing
the third draft because I gathered all of the feedback and put it into my
writing.” (Toy)
“I am happy when I got draft 3. I think I can enhance my skill when I
receive comments from the teacher. This is the first time that I got a
good comment. “Thank you for your comment. It makes me know my
ability to correct my mistake.” (Pat)
“After I have seen Ajarn’s comment, I know better about what is
wrong and what I did well in my essay. It makes me able write the
essay with more confidence.” (Cartoon)
“I think students have more confidence to write a better
paragraph...The draft would not be better without the teacher’s
comments.” (Bew)
B. Helpful in identifying individual problems in writing
In addition to improving their writing ability, the students also
mentioned that the feedback, comments, and suggestions from the teacher helped
them identify individual problems in their writing. The detailed analysis showed that
there were 2 areas of problems that the teacher feedback helped identify namely the
students’ ideas and the composition. It was also apparent that the students appreciated
the feedback and took them seriously in the revision of the text.
Idea
“Ajarn [the teacher] checked my assignment on draft3 and I got new
ideas to solve the problem. It is about my opinion. I will change the
way to write my opinion and it should be my own idea.” (Pat)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
262
“I found very good suggestions from the teacher that my idea was not
quite clear. It’s about clarifying ideas in logical way because 1 of my
idea doesn’t support my opinion. This makes me think that I should
improve my ideas and the logic in the next draft.” (Mark)
“I can understand what my weaknesses in the writing are because you
give me reasons why my ideas aren’t good enough and why I have to
put more ideas in the writing point by point. So, I can understand my
problems and rewrite the essay more effectively.” (Nut)
“The teacher gives me the feedback on the work and I know that I have
to improve my writing by changing the way I think about the content. I
should write more relevant ideas to the topic.” (Thon)
Composition
“Ajarn [the teacher] suggested me to change the topic sentence style,
so I actually change the style of the topic sentence in writing part in
quiz 1. Thank you for the recommendation.” (Pook)
“I can see your feedback and it is very helpful for me. You suggested
me to develop my work by re-organizing the sentences and use more
accurate words. So when I write the drafts, I could be more carefully
on the assignments.” (New)
“I received feedback from the teacher. It is very useful for correcting
many points such as the use of transitions. There are also many words
that I use in the wrong way. Teacher explained very clearly. So, next
time will be better because of teacher's suggestion. Thank you.” (Fern)
It is appropriate to summarize that the students clearly accepted and
valued the feedback and suggestions they received, which was not uncommon.
However, what I learned from the findings was that the corrective feedback was still
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
263
necessary, as the students would always seek it. Furthermore, comments from the
teacher should be nonjudgmental. Additionally, apart from the general comments on
the overall picture of the text, the teacher should address the students’ individual
needs to point out the points of improvement for them as well as to offer suggestions
that are useful for each text. Based on this study, the students, with specific
suggestions from the teacher, will be more aware of their weaknesses and make
effective use of the feedback in revision of their text.
5.3.5 Theme 5: The reaction and opinion on class materials
The next theme that emerged from the analysis of the student reflective
journals was their perceptions towards the learning materials employed in the
classroom. In addition to the prescribed course book, this study integrated the use of
authentic texts of the genres taught in the course. Moreover, the students also
reflected their attitudes towards the reading passages and writing assignments they
were asked to do.
Theme 5, subtheme 1: reflection on the authentic texts provided
To expose the students to the language features and linguistic
conventions of the writing genre taught, I provided supplementary texts of each genre
in parallel with the model texts in the course book. This practice followed the
principle of process-genre of writing instructions that learners should be provided
with the language input of the genre being learnt. Then, the students expressed their
perceptions towards the use of the authentic texts.
A. Perceived usefulness of authentic texts
The students asserted that those supplementary materials were useful
in terms of guiding them to see the composition and direction of the text. They also
learned lexical items beyond what were provided in the textbook. Furthermore, it was
an effective way to show the students the way that professional writers expressed their
ideas, which they said could be applied to their work. Most importantly, a student
stated that the authentic texts were inspirational for her to become better at writing.
Seeing examples of writing style
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
264
“I appreciate the fact that you give us the extra examples (the work
from the real writers), which help me to see a clearer direction of my
writing. (Bew)
“I like the additional text provided to us. It helps us see how the
writers write and express the ideas under the same topic of ours. I
could use it as a model and apply to my work to be more attractive and
useful for the target readers.” (Boat)
“I would like to tell you that the students could learn a lot from seeing
the example from expert works (real-world texts). I think that if I can
see the expert work and word without student idea, it will be great.”
(Bell)
“I think I got a lot of things that are useful for me such as how to use
words to make it more beautiful paragraph, by reading some passages
did that not came from the book.” (Chompoo)
Feeling inspired
“I have learned the interesting examples from the real written work
and I now think that I am passionate in the art of writing.” (Pear)
The findings provide insightful ideas on the use of authentic texts in
the academic writing classroom. It can be seen clearly that exposure to the authentic
professional written works can encourage the students to improve their writing ability.
The benefits of seeing the authentic texts range from learning new lexical items,
organization of text to genre-specific linguistic conventions.
5.3.6 Theme 6: The opinion towards the teacher’s roles
As it was suggested by literature on process and process-genre
approaches of writing instructions, I changed the role in the instructional process from
the provider of knowledge to the facilitator of learning. Hence, the teaching styles
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
265
needed to be adjusted accordingly. My attempts included, for example, focusing the
students on their individual needs in improving their writing ability as well as
engaging them in the process of teaching and learning. Nineteen students revealed
their perception towards my teaching style in different dimensions. In general, the
students were satisfied with my teaching. It is inarguable that insights from the
students on many aspects were valuable for the teacher to improve professionally.
Theme 6, subtheme 1: opinions towards the teaching style
The first subtheme found from the analysis of the entries concerning
the teaching style.
A. Clear and interesting
The students stated they like the teaching style of the teacher which
was interesting and clear, especially on the topic that they found challenging.
“I like the way you explain the topic that you were teaching today, it is
very clear and easy to understand especially the guessing the word by
the sentence's environment.” (Pat)
“I like how Ajarn [teacher] teaches. When Ajarn [the teacher]
explains something to me it’s easy for me to follow because Ajarn
explains it step by step and not too fast or too slow” (Chompoo)
“I think I like your teaching style. You start to teach us from the
beginning of the lesson which I think it is good for all students.” (Pete)
“It is very interesting because the teacher has a different style of
teaching and I think this is a good way to improve my English skills.”
(Mook)
Teacher separates the point step by step, so it makes the content easy
to understand (Nut)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
266
B. Encouraging them to learn
In addition, a number of students also stated that the teacher’s teaching
style encouraged them to learn.
“I like the way teacher teaches because it makes me feel confident
when I do the exercises by myself even though I still make some
mistakes.” (Cartoon)
“Teacher separates the point step by step, so it makes the content easy
to understand and it motivated me to want to know what is the next
step to improve my writing skill.”(Nut)
“I have never thought that I could write a one-page essay until you
trained and pushed me forward.” (Pear)
“… and it (separating the content into points) motivated me to want to
know what is the next step to improve my writing skill.” (Nut)
C. Involving the students in the teaching and learning process
The next part of the appreciation that the students had was that the
teacher tried to involve the students in the learning process.
“I like your teaching style, which is not too serious, and you try to get
all the students involved in the learning. Also, walking around the
class to talk to each student is a nice way to directly fix the writing
problems of each individual.” (Pear)
“Your way to teach was cool for me because you always make the gap
between teacher and students become closer and you give us the
freedom too.” (Titi)
“I like the way you discuss (the topic) with us by letting everyone give
ideas, although sometimes my idea is similar to my friend’s.” (Toy)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
267
D. Creating a supportive learning atmosphere
The students also stated that the teacher had an important role in
making the learning atmosphere pleasant and facilitative to their learning.
“You are a very kind. I really enjoy your class.” (Fluke)
“I have more confident when I’m writing and I can control my stress
better because teacher make me feel relax when I’m studying or there
is a mistake in my essay.” (Nut)
“You are a good teacher. You walk around the room and check on the
students. It is much greater than sitting and using mobile phone.”
(Pete).
“You always make the gap between teacher and students become
closer and you give us the freedom too.” (Titi)
“The teacher always understands the students. I like it that he talks to
each student in a friendly manner.” (Nut)
“You respect your students a lot and it also encourages the students
including me to respect you more.” (Mark)
“I like your teaching style, which is not too serious…walking around
the class to talk to each student is a nice way to directly fix the writing
problems of each individual.” (Pear)
From their statements, it is appropriate to conclude that the students
preferred the teacher to explain the concept to them in details, especially at the
beginning of each genre. In the meantime, they needed to feel that the teacher
provided them individual support as well. The atmosphere of the class was also very
important. The students believed that if the teacher was friendly and the class was not
intimidating, they would be more motivated to learn.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
268
Theme 6, subtheme 2: Complaints on the teaching
In contrast with the first subtheme, six students complained about my
teaching methods. Apparently, the students did not prefer the lecture part, especially
during the 3-hour session. They found it discouraging and boring.
A. Boring lecture and hard to concentrate
“This morning was full of sleepiness. The teacher starts teaching the
lesson, which is a little boring”. (Bank)
“The course guideline explanation in today's class was too much for
me to receive in 3 hours class with 5 minutes break, but I do like how
Ajarn explain it with a little funny conversation included” (Pook).
“Today the teacher gives a lot of information and I feel so sleepy. So, I
yawn many times” (Sasi)
The students also stated that, in contrast with listening to the long
lecture, they preferred to work on hands-on tasks.
“However, the lecture for 3 hours it is so much for me. I like to write
or do some activity such as writing an essay like last week.” (Bell)
“The teacher still didn't give work to do in class that why it was a little
boring for me.” (Toy)
“I think teacher teach me a lot but I want to practice more. Every draft
makes me increase more confident before doing midterm exam. I want
to do other topics for comprehensive because I use a lot of time to find
key word of the questions.” (Pat)
This finding shed light on ways to effectively plan the lessons.
Although it was understood that the class had to rush under a strict timeframe, I could
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
269
not ignore the fact that the students had limited attention spans. Providing too much
information through lecturing on the concepts and theories would only be
counterproductive to their learning. Heeding the students’ needs, I adjusted the lesson
plans by switching between the lectures and exercises as well as using a variety of
instructional materials such as social media and video clips. Evidence of its
effectiventss could be found in the students’ journal entries.
“I was sleepy but the teacher knows what to do with us. He made us
participate with his lesson and use other sources like social media to
teach us not just teaching what is in the book.” (Bank)
“I like the video clip about writing graph that you show in class. It’s
very interesting.” (Nut)
Theme 6, subtheme 3: Questions, requests, and suggestions to the
teacher
The student reflective journal was not perceived only as an assignment
but also a channel of communication between the students and teacher. They also
used the journal to pose questions, make requests, and give suggestions to me.
A. Questions
The students used the journal to post questions about the lesson and
writing techniques for their assignments such as for the content and organization.
Some questions, on the other hand, were not related to the course content.
“I have one thing that I want to ask you. If I don’t have any
background knowledge, how can I write the finding and analyses?”
(Mook)
“Can you tell me how to write good recommendations? It is a big
problem for me now (Chi)”
“Teacher, how do I know the meaning of the sentence if I don’t
understand the word?” (Cartoon)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
270
“Most of the comment I got from classmates said I should add new
ideas. Is it possible to make the old ideas stronger with better word?
Can I do that?” (New)
“My friend’s report didn’t have the headings. So, should I put it (the
heading) in my report?” (Bew)
B. Requests
As for the requests, the students stated that they wanted me to assign
more writing exercises to them, especially to prepare them for examinations.
“I want you to explain more about the thesis of writing a beautiful
topic sentence and main idea to attract points in the exam.” (Pat)
“I think Ajarn should provide more writing practices in class and show
us how to describe the graph in many ways.” (Boat)
“Ajarn, I want to do exercise before final I want to practice I know
that I am still very weak.” (Nuna)
“I would like you to give more exercise like we did last week” (Bell)
C. Suggestions to the teacher
Finally, in this subtheme about the teaching style, the students also
made some suggestions on different aspects concerning the teacher. They included the
assignment of peer evaluators and the lesson planning.
“I prefer you to write on the board to Power Point presentation
because it goes step by step and I can easily follow your teaching.”
(Pear)
“I think that teacher should order a student to write draft one at home
to save the time.” (Bell)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
271
D. Disagreement with the teacher
One student, however, deliberately stated his disagreement with how I
adjusted the method of assigning evaluators randomly to letting the students choose
their evaluator. Opposite to the majority, he contended that he would get more honest
feedback if the evaluator was not someone of his choosing.
“I didn’t like it that the teacher let us chose our own checker. I prefer
random because I don’t have to know or care who checks my work (to
stay objective).” (Bank)
Theme 6, subtheme 4: Appreciation for the teacher
The last subtheme regarding the teacher was the expression of
appreciation that the students had for the teacher, which is crucial for me as well as
other teachers. The data revealed what the students would expect from their teachers.
The information provided insights on the role of the teacher.
“I have never been proud of my writing until I got the words “this is
beyond my expectation” from you. Thank you very much for being
open-minded to listen students’ feedback and your care to each and
everyone of us throughout the whole semester” (Pear)
“I think studying with you make me better in writing. It is not much but
it is better than before. Thank you teacher.” (Dew)
“The teacher cares about his students very much. Now I want to say
thank you from my heart that you teaches and suggests me both in
class and outside the class.” (Thon)
“I love how you put a lot of effort to checking the paper and really
want the students to improve their performance.” (Mark)
“I have to thank Ajarn for everything you gave and taught us. From
now on I will put my efforts on whatever coming towards me (Toy).
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
272
From the above statement, my duty as the facilitator of learning went
beyond providing knowledge of the subject matter to the students. I realized that I
needed to display an example of putting great effort into trying to improve the
students’ skills. Doing so would set an example for the students to follow.
Furthermore, it is crucial that the teacher should know and treat students as
individuals with their certain strengths, weakness, and needs. Therefore, it was clear
that in developing the writing ability for the students, the teacher should establish
trust and rapport with the students through close and nonthreatening interaction at the
individual level.
5.3.7 Theme 7: Perceptions on examinations
The next theme that emerged from the analysis was related to the
examinations that the students took. Both before and after the examinations, namely
the quizzes and midterm examination, the students expressed their concerns and they
also evaluated their performance.
Theme 7, subtheme 1: worry about the exam
Before the exam, seven students wrote in their journals their worries.
Many of them stated that they were neither confident nor ready to take the exam.
“It is the quiz 1 day, I feel very nervous because it is my first
quiz with this course.” (Mark)
“Before I walked in to the quiz room I felt very nervous. The
room was very quiet and cold but I felt there was the Trojan
War in my brain. The time and complex passage were like the
enemies that would destroy my score and I have to fight with
them with my little sword.” (Nut)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
273
“I am quite worried about the exam now because if something
goes wrong, it will affect my graduation and I don’t want it
happen to again (to repeat the course).” (Cartoon)
“Quiz 2!! This time, I'm not ready and worried about it. I'm not
sure that what I understand is correct.” (Fern)
Theme 7, subtheme 2: Self-assessment on the exam performance
After taking the examination, the students tried to evaluate their
performance. Five students stated that they were satisfied with how they did in the
exam. Most of the students who expressed their satisfaction stated that it was because
of the constant practice writing that helped them perform well in the exam.
A. Satisfied with exam performance
“This is the day that I had quiz. I felt very confident as I could finish
the exam as planned owing to the fact that I practiced on a mock-up
exam with my friend.” (Mark)
“Today is the Quiz 2 day. I have prepared well enough before taking
it. The practice writings you gave us help me get ready. In the
morning you reviewed us about the necessary things to do. Also, I did
it very carefully even though I took too much time to complete it.”
(New)
When I saw the passage in the quiz, I was very confused about which
method of analysis to use. But then I realized that in one of the
exercise, the word “plan” means advantages and disadvantages.
Thank god I remember what you trained me.” (Pook)
B. Unhappy with exam performance
On the other hand, many had expressed their concerns about their poor
performance after the exam. It is, however, worth noting that the students did not only
evaluate their performance as poor but they also reflected that the cause was the lack
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
274
of practice. Being aware of it, they planned measures to improve their performance in
future exams.
“Today is the second English quiz. I think you have trained us well
enough as you said but the lack of my consistent practice led me to the
time management problem. I hope I could do better in the final exam
and you usually said that you expected more from us so I will try
harder.” (Pear)
“We had quiz 2 and it was bad a examination for me. The topic was
about the railway of high-speed train in Southeast Asia. I understood
the content of the text but my organization was totally wrong. I think
that I lack practicing in report writing, and I have to improve and
manage time in the final exam.” (Titi)
Theme 7, subtheme 3: Reaction to the exam results
In their journals, a number of students had shown their feelings
towards the exam scores that they received. The students who were satisfied with the
scores expressed their appreciation and they could perceive their learning progress.
Moreover, they stated that such results could encourage them to improve further.
A. Seeing the progress
“I was surprised about my quiz I score. It was 80%. In the previous
course, I couldn’t get higher than 50% of the exam. Especially in error
part, I usually got only 1-3 marks in this part.” (Toy)
“I was also happy about my result of the exam as I got 66 marks (out
of 100) compared to 58 marks in the last semester.” (Pat)
B. Self-evaluation and realizing the causes of poor scores
On the other hand, the students who said that the score was lower than
they had anticipated tried to evaluate themselves and became aware of their mistakes.
Then, they claimed to try to find ways to improve their future exam scores.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
275
“Before I got my quiz back, I hoped that I would get more than 32. But
when I saw my score on the paper, I was shocked with it. So, the first
thing that I do is reading all comments from you. Then, I know how I
made a lot of mistakes. I will do my best in next time and check all the
answers more carefully before walk out from the examination room.”
(Pete)
“Yesterday I received my quiz score, I felt very sad but I will work
harder and try my best and I always accept my mistakes and accept the
teacher’s suggestions and teacher can advice me anytime.” (Sasi)
“Then, I got 35/50. What a surprise! I think I still need to improve
myself a lot because I know that I was so lazy and reckless for this
class.” (New)
“I got 65 in midterm exam which is not high so I need to try hard in final exam and the exercise that Ajarn gave us to do is very useful to practice and prepare for final exam.” (Boat)
Theme 7, subtheme 4: The complaint on the time allowed in the exam
The students voiced their dissatisfaction with the time allowed to them
in the exams, especially in the quizzes with 1.5 hours. Many of them claimed that
their performance was not at its best due to the insufficient amount of time given to
them. Furthermore, they claimed that if they had been given a longer exam time, they
would have performed better.
A. Affecting their performance
“I did not like that the time limits students’ ability (to write). I could
not completely finish my exam. I failed on how to manage time this
time...I did not have enough time to analytically think.” (Bew)
“In the quiz time I still can remember the report format. Unluckily, I
could not write a report because time limit.” (Sasi)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
276
“Our class had quiz 2. I think it is too hard because we have only 1
hour and 30 minutes to do the quiz. There are many friends who
cannot complete the exam.” (Mook)
B. Wishing for more allowed time
“I want to increase the exam time. I could not generate ideas in each
paragraph and I don’t want copy but I had no choice. In the last 5
minutes, I copied everything that I thought was correct.” (Pat)
“My answer is not really what I plan and I wish I could have 3 hours
for the exam to be more organized and accurate.” (Mark)
“I could do better if I had more time and could rewrite. When I reread
the answer, I would like to fix it but it I would take more time and I
could not. Maybe, I should learn to manage the time. (Bell)
To sum up, the findings suggested that the students perceived a
mismatch between the nature of writing, which requires time to generate ideas and to
refine their texts, and the assessment format, specifically the time allowed.
5.3.8 Theme 8: Students’ personal concerns
The last theme that emerged from the student reflective journals was
the personal concerns expressed by students. As I have reflected, the use of the
student journal was not limited to reflection on learning but it was also a means to
communication between the students and their teacher. Therefore, a number of the
students used their journal entries to express their personal concerns to me. From the
analysis, there were two major issues: the workload and the worry about failing the
course.
Theme 8, subtheme 1: the workload
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
277
Many students claimed that their workload and assignments in other
subjects that they were taking during the semester had an impact on their study in this
course. Some students were also involved in some extracurricular activities.
A. Getting distracted
The students stated that the workload distracted them from paying
attention in class.
“I also got presentation for listening and speaking class and
international business environment class. I didn’t learn a lot of things
today as I was nervous about those presentations.” (Mark)
“This semester is very tiring. I have to do a group project that has
eight people but there are only 3 of us who have been working on it.
And I always go to bed at 3 or 4 a.m. everyday. This is why I always
feel sleepy in your class.” (Pete)
“I felt like I had a lot of stuff to complete on this week so I had to rush
to do everything. It made me unable to concentrate enough on this
subject.” (Bank)
“I didn’t learn anything new in the class because I was also excited for
the listening and speaking class presentation.” (Pat)
“I started to read and review for the mid-term exam because I have a
lot of hard subject this semester and I still have a lot of works and
projects to do. I think that the week during exam is very busy for me.”
(Thon)
“I’m very tired now because I have been reading books for the whole
week and I also have a presentation today.” (New)
B. Apologizing
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
278
The students were aware of the drop in their concentration and
performance. They expressed their concerns in an apologetic manner and sought my
empathy.
“I’m sorry that I came to class late. Last night, I slept around 3 A.M.
because I had to fix the whole presentation for Reading Business in
English class.” (Bew)
“Last Thursday, I was sorry that I did not concentrate on your
teaching I was preparing the student camp and I had to finish it in
time.” (Tarn)
These concerns made me realize that, while the focus of the study was
on the academic writing part of this English course, students were also taking five to
six other courses in the same semester. The heavy workload was very common in
tertiary student lives. Hence, the teacher should try to understand the students when
things do not fall into place as planned and be more flexible with the students.
5.3.9 Conclusion on the findings from the student reflective
journals
It is my great expectation that the findings from the analysis of the
student reflective journals would provide informed guidance to practitioners of
academic writing in designing instructional methods.
From the analysis, it is possible to say that the students had developed
a positive attitude towards the pedagogical approaches of academic writing used in
this study and found them effective in developing their academic writing ability. The
product approach using the model texts and focusing on language accuracy was still
perceived as necessary by the students. However, the students stated greater
preference for the collaboratively constructed model as it showed them the actual
process of writing. Besides, this method also displayed to them more linguistic inputs
useful for their text. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, when it came to either of
the model texts, some students still could not resist directly imitating them.
With respect to the writing process, the students stated that each step
was helpful for them in composing the text. Starting with the prewriting activities, the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
279
most preferred activity was the group brainstorming, in which the students could
share ideas. However, some voices from the students suggested that the teacher
should be cautious in assigning members of the groups by considering the students’
level of proficiency and relationships among the members.
Multiple-draft writing was perceived as highly beneficial for the
development of academic writing ability. The students agreed that the approach gave
them opportunities to revise, refine, and improve their texts in terms of both the
content and language. It is then possible to state that the use of the multiple-draft
writing method has met its purposes in this study.
The major problem in the intervention was the use of peer evaluation.
It was obvious that most students found the result of using peer evaluation in
improving their texts less than satisfactory. There were many possible causes for such
results, ranging from the lack of confidence in one’s language ability to make
comments, to the absence of trust in the evaluators. However, this alternative
assessment tool was useful for the students as an evaluator of a text. Seeing and
evaluating a classmate’s work, according to the students, enabled them to see some
good ideas adaptable to the evaluator’s writing. Therefore, I strongly believe that the
use of peer evaluation should remain in the instructions of academic writing.
Nevertheless, to solve the problems with the peer evaluation as previously addressed,
more explicit trainings should be arranged for the students. The teacher should
demonstrate clearly the process of evaluation as well.
The type of feedback that was held in high regard by the students was
the teacher feedback. The constructive criticisms had been perceived as useful in
helping the students improve their texts and pointing out their individual linguistic
problems. Besides, praising the students was a means to motivate them to strive to
improve since the students held the comments from the teacher in high regard. Most
importantly, it is necessary that the teacher look into the individual work by each
student. The students will, in time, learn that they have personal weaknesses in
language, as pointed out by the teacher.
The students’ reflection also shed light on the role of the teacher.
Instead of being the traditional kind of teacher who only instructs, I shifted my role in
the classroom to being the facilitator of learning who provided assistance in every
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
280
step of learning. The responses from the students were highly positive. They had great
respect for the teacher and appreciated the teaching style that encouraged them to
improve their writing, as well as learning, as individuals. Moreover, it is also crucial
for teachers to establish good rapport with and among the students. Ensuring a good
classroom atmosphere will result in great student motivation and also an effective
collaborative learning environment.
5.4 Research Question 2: from post-intervention interviews
The last qualitative inquiry was the post-intervention semi-structured
interviews of selected students from the course. The objective was to find out in-depth
perspectives towards the intervention applied, mainly the adapted writing approach
and alternative assessment tools, to the academic writing instructions in the study.
The areas of investigation were derived from the participants’ comments in their
journal entries and outstanding scores in particular items on the post intervention
questionnaire. Initially, the predetermined questions were directed towards:
1. The participants’ perception and impression towards the pedagogical
approaches in the study
2. How they produced texts with the multiple draft approach
3. Their preferred prewriting activities
4. The roles of the textbook and the authentic texts in their writing
5. How they made use of the model text and the collaboratively constructed
models
6. Their opinion towards peer evaluation
7. How they made use of the teacher feedback
8. The use of the portfolio in their writing development
9. What made them become a better writer
10. Suggestions on what could be improved with the course
From the actual interviews, I found that one area that emerged from the
participants’ retrospective reflection of their learning experience was:
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
281
11. The perception towards the allocation of scores for improvement in their
writing assignment.
5.4.1. The participants’ perception and impression towards the
pedagogical approaches in the study
Participants were asked to state their perception and impression
towards the course. Their responses indicated the perceived usefulness of the course
for their future use of English, the teacher and teaching style, the use of student
journals, benefits from taking the course, and their dislikes in the course.
Useful for future career
Two participants claimed that they believed the course was a good
preparation for them to use the skills in their future careers.
“I think the course is useful my future career. Something like…train
me before I graduate from the university and be ready for the job so
that when I get a job, I don’t have to learn much from my supervisor,
something like that.” (Toy)
“ I like that when I studied this course 4, I learned… like… the real
report. I can use this knowledge for my real life. And, the report
like…because in the real life we have to write something like this.”
(Bell)
Impressed most with the teacher and teaching style
Moreover, some participants stated that what they were most
impressed with was the teacher and teaching styles.
“For the thing that I like is a the way that Ajarn [the teacher] teaches
us because I think it’s very effective. I like that Ajarn give us a lot of
practice homework because I think that…we can keep developing our
skills.” (Bank)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
282
“The thing that I like about this course is that teacher is very open
and…he tried to help us to share our idea in class. And he edited our
errors and…I could find new friend in class.” (Pear)
“For me, the most that I like in class is about writing. Teacher can
help us…rewrite to be the better” (Mook)
“The first that I like is the teacher. Teacher respects me and he can
improve my English skills such as the idea. I have freedom to express
my ideas in the writing. My teacher said it’s ok to have different
ideas.” (Pat)
Use of journals
One participant made an outstanding remark saying that what he liked
most about this course was the use of the journal as it helped him communicate with
the teacher at a personal level
“The thing I like is the journal because you can write it without asking
the teacher, outside the class and some of your friends might see it. So
you can express all your thoughts personally in the journal. Because
when I wrote my journal, the teacher always gave me some feedback
and sometimes he could calm me down such as don’t worry, you will
have more practice.” (Mark)
Benefits from taking the course
In addition to that, I also asked them the benefits that they received
from taking the course. Some participants claimed that learning this course helped
them improve their writing skills, ranging from the development of grammatical and
vocabulary knowledge to the ability to write. Also, they appreciated the many
opportunities for them to practice their writing.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
283
Language aspects
“I think my English is better. I know more about vocabulary. I know
how to write professionally. I can fix my minor grammatical errors.”
(Toy)
“I think so (he has improved) because my grammar is…I think my
grammar is better than before. I know how to organize idea first before
I…before I start writing essay. So it helped me a lot because I can
know that what should I write first and what should I write later.”
(Bank)
“I can change my behavior. For the... how to say… such as how to
write the main idea or use the conjunction. Some people can write so
well only because of the conjunction, make it smooth. And you can
switch the sentence order and organization. I can also think faster and
write faster too.” (Pat)
More opportunities to practice writing
They also mentioned that, with the multiple-draft technique,
they had opportunities to practice their writing and it could help them write
more effectively.
“(I) had more opportunities to practice writing because it was
rare in real life. I don’t have much time that we write a long
essay. Most people don’t write the essay whether in Thai
language or English language. Normally we read or listening
like that, right? So I think it has improved my writing more or
less.” (Bell)
“I think if we write a lot, we get used to how to start the
paragraph easily. For me the hardest part was the
introduction. But when I wrote a lot, I could condense my
ideas. I could use more of the technical terms to match the style
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
284
and make the sentences more beautiful. Also, if you practice a
lot, you won’t worry much in the exam.” (Mark)
Their dislikes in the course
In addition to the positive feedback, I asked the participant to express
what they disliked about the course. The responses varied. One participant stated that
he did not like it that the prewriting activities involved a lot of group brainstorm
because he was disappointed with the lack of contribution from some students.
“…but the thing that I don’t like is to work in group which is…I
understand that sometimes we have to do work in group but some
people are not helping the others.
One participant, moreover, stated that he did not agree with the
assessment system of the course. He contended that the allocation of scores was too
high.
“I think that giving score is not good for me because I think that
English should be practice-based and you cannot judge people only in
test only the 1 time and limit the exam time like that. (Bell)
Another participant stated that the scheduling of the class could be
better. She claimed that meeting twice a week, with 3 hours and 1.5 hour for the
reading and writing components, was not effective. She preferred having 1 day of the
week designated for English class, as she believed that she could manage her studies
more effectively.
“For me it’s the time for studying. It’s only 3 hours per class. The
teacher can teach only 1.5 hour and we can practice and give feedback
only 1.5 hours. Actually, there should be just one whole day to study
English. If we studied the whole day, I could get the feedback and write
draft two on the same day. If it’s the next day, we will get more
homework from other subjects. Like my friend, she was still in English
1 because she had a lot of homework.” (Pat)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
285
In line with the above comments regarding the assignments from the
other courses that the students were taking, one participant mentioned the same point.
He stated that, while he understood that it was necessary, the workload from this
course put more burdens on him.
“Just sometime, it’s (the assignment) a little bit too much because we
have homework from other courses too. But it’s ok because it makes us
feel more like…feel more comfortable with the writing essay.” (Bank)
5.4.2. How they produced texts with the multiple-draft writing
The second part of the interview inquired about the participants’
opinion towards using the multiple-draft writing technique. While it was supported by
the post-intervention questionnaire responses that most students agreed that this
method was useful for the development of their academic writing ability, I asked them
to explain in details how they perceived its usefulness. In the same vein, I also asked
them to elaborate on what they actually revised in their texts between drafts.
Perceive improvement and gain confidence
In general, the participants agreed that writing with multiple drafts
helped them improve their academic writing ability as it provided them opportunities
to practice a lot. Moreover, one participant claimed that it trained them to learn to
evaluate the text and plan the next draft. In addition, some participants claimed that it
was helpful in generating and evaluating their ideas, with the feedback from the
readers, as well as they could perceive the improvement between drafts, resulting in
gaining confidence in the content of their texts.
“…we can see our improvement from the first draft. I didn’t have any
idea how to write with the first draft so when…I got the correction, I
know that this was not suitable in this paragraph. So I changed some
word or something that made it better.” (Toy)
“I think multiple-drafts give me different ideas from each draft to each
draft. And, I can improve both of my grammar and also my contents
from each draft.” (Pear)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
286
“Doing multiple-drafts and doing lots of exercises really practice you.
Give you the practice so in the end you have more confidence.” (Bell)
Drawback of multiple-draft writing
However, one participant stated that the drawback of writing with
multiple drafts was that it required time.
“The disadvantage that I think is writing three drafts. Sometime it
takes time.” (Mook)
Suitable with other English courses
Finally, two participants suggested that multiple-draft writing should
be the approach used in the teaching of other levels of English. The first participant
said that it would be suitable with all levels while the second believed that it should
be applied with the more advanced courses.
“It's a very effective method. I think you should with all courses. One
of my friend he got stuck in English 2 for like 3 times because the key
is lack of practice. If you train the students from the students and make
it a little more challenging with this (multiple-draft approach), they
can improve and be ready for the last 2 courses.” (Mark)
“It's suitable with advanced courses like English 3 and English 4.”
(Pat)
How they revised the texts
In the next part, I asked the participant to elaborate on how they made
use of writing multiple drafts, particularly in the revision process. The question
concerned how they made changes between drafts. The responses suggested that most
of the participants depended mainly on the teacher’s comments in revising their
drafts. Moreover, in terms of adding new ideas to the text, most participants claimed
that the ideas came from themselves while only one participant stated that he
depended on both peers’ and the teacher’s comments.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
287
Based on the teacher’s comments
“I mostly depend on teacher’s comments and teacher’s feedback.”
(Toy)
“For me, it’s based on teacher and sometimes I got new ideas from the
Internet.” (Mook)
Relying on themselves
“I always made changes in the new draft. But if between the drafts that
our friend check for us, I didn’t make a lot of changes because some of
friends have… the same weakness of in the grammar like me.” (Bank)
“I think my idea is better than my friend’s. Sometimes, the ideas were
from them but sometimes I didn’t agree with my friend or the teacher
so I kept my own idea.” (Bell)
Based on peer’s suggestions
“Actually, it’s mostly come from my friend suggestion because we
write the same thing and we have…we share the idea so we can
improve it together.” (Pear)
Rely on both peers and teacher
“Both (friends and teacher). I kept making changes. I remember the
first draft of one of my works was so bad, so I changed it to the new
one. I found that if we keep doing the same stuff, we would get only the
same idea.” (Mark)
5.4.3 Their preferred prewriting activities
The next area was the prewriting activities. To be specific, I asked the
participants to state their most preferred prewriting activities. I reminded them of the
activities that they did in class: group brainstorm, class discussion, and free writing.
The answers varied, however.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
288
Group brainstorm
Most participants stated that they preferred the group brainstorm, as it
was useful for them to see different perspectives and ideas from the group members.
Additionally, they could help one another with the language, such as accuracy and
vocabulary.
Help with idea generation
“I also like group work because you know different ideas from many
people can improve our work.” (Pear)
“For me, I like group work because we can help or they can give me
an idea and sometimes I think my vocabulary is not good. She (her
classmate) can help me” (Mook)
Problems with group work
However, the participants remarked on the way the group
should be arranged. For examples, the teacher should be careful when assigning
students into groups and make sure that each group is composed of students with
different levels, which was in line with my reflection on the matter. Furthermore, as
stated earlier, one participant found that not all members like to participate and,
consequently, it impacted the group performance.
“I love group work but if you get into a good group that everyone
likes to work, it’s good. But if you team up with a group that no one
likes to works, you have to work alone. But I think to solve this
problem is you can assigned a good students among the weak students,
so the whole class would be equal.” (Mark)
“If for the improvement of ideas, I think the group is better.
But…sometimes it’s not good too. It’s because sometimes some people
don’t…don’t write or don’t create any idea. So…there are some people
who don’t do anything.” (Bell)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
289
“(Working) in groups, I think it’s not…it’s not working. Because some
students come with friends and when we get in a group, they just talk
with their friend and don’t discuss a lot.” (Bank)
Class discussion Only one participant said the most preferred activity was class
discussion. The reason was that it helped him that many students had shown good
ideas, which were applicable to his own writing.
“I think that would be the class discussion. Yeah, because there’re
many people who have a good idea and when they raise it, I know
that…oh this is good and maybe I can apply it to my writing.” (Toy)
Free writing
Another prewriting activity that some participants found helpful in
generating ideas for the composition of their essays was the free writing. In
argumentative essay genre, I asked them to write texts about given topics without
concerns for format and grammatical accuracy. Furthermore, there was no time limit
on the free writing. From the interviews, the participants claimed that this activity
helped them focus on generating ideas for their essays. One participant mentioned that
free writing also gave them freedom to write in her own way. In addition, another
participant suggested that this activity should be used in data interpretation genre as
well.
“I think it's good for essay. It’s like we…we create our new idea for
the…topic. So we didn't have to worry much about the grammar. We can
concentrate on ideas.” (Bank)
“I like free writing. It's fun because I got to write in my own way not really
have to worry about the format. I also found it useful in for the essay
writing.”
“I think the teacher should use free writing with data interpretation too, but
not with the report writing.” (Pear)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
290
5.4.4 The roles of the authentic texts in their writing
For this study, I employed the use of authentic texts of particular
genres to display linguistic features and language conventions to the students. Hence,
the next part of the interview queried the participants on the impact of such real-world
texts on the development of academic writing ability. The participants stated their
opinion towards the authentic texts used as a learning material in the following
aspects.
Providing more language input
In their response, the utmost benefit of the authentic texts was that they
provided language inputs to the students. Besides, they claimed that they learned new
vocabulary items and expressions from the texts as well. The participants accepted
that using the authentic texts provided them opportunities to see how the texts were
composed and constructed. The benefits also extended to providing the participants
ideas to include in their writing.
“From the authentic texts, I can know that how they write the articles
and passages in the real situation, real stuff that exists in the world.
So, I know that how they use the language, how they use the
vocabulary that sometimes I don’t even know that. I found it new…I
don’t know it before so I have to use it so I can remember.” (Toy)
“I found it useful because there’s a lot of new vocabulary and also the
structure. I think it’s challenging. I aimed to write like that.” (Mark)
“I think I can learn the language from the real work and I can apply to
my work; for example, the phrases and the conjunction.” (Pear)
“For me, I think we can know more information what I would like to
write on the draft.” (Mook)
Useful but not used
One participant, however, accepted that authentic texts were helpful in
terms of showing him some ideas but he did not try to write in that style.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
291
“I can’t say that I use it in my own writing but I can say that I…after I
see it I…it’s made me like it’s let me think about my writing. They gave
me some ideas but I didn't try to make my writing look like that.”
(Bank)
Too difficult to follow
Another participant remarked that, while he found the authentic texts
useful in terms of exposing him to what the real texts looked like, he could not seize
the benefit for his composition because the texts were too difficult for him to follow.
“It is useful for because it is the real-word writing but it was too
difficult. Some words we don’t know, so we don’t understand and don’t
know how to write that. Sometimes it like we just read and try to
understand the essay but we cannot use that style or that idea in our
own writing. Because we don’t understand and we just write the thing
that we understand.” (Bell)
Helping with reading skill
Finally, from the interview, a participant stated that the use of
authentic texts benefited her beyond improved writing ability. It also helped her
practice her reading skills as well as familiarize her with the use of technical terms.
“I think I can read real article with difficult and specific words.” (Pat)
5.4.5 How they made use of the model text and the collaboratively
constructed models
In the next part of the interview, I investigated their perception on the
usefulness of the two types of the model texts employed in class, namely the models
in the textbook and the models created by the class, the collaboratively constructed
models. I started with asking them which type of model texts they preferred and the
responses could be categorized in two groups. The first group of the participants
stated that they found both types of models were useful for their writing. The other
group stated that they preferred the collaboratively constructed models.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
292
Leaning towards the textbook’s models
A close look at the first group’s responses showed that, while they
asserted that both types of the models were useful for them, their reasons hinted that
they actually like the models provided in the textbook better as they could help them
see and understand the structure of the texts. A participant also stated that she
depended on the model texts in the book when she did her writing assignments and
prepared for exams.
“I found both of them useful. It depended on how I used it. I used the
model in the textbook to see the structure… I depended more on the
textbook’s (models). ” (Toy)
“They both benefit me but I think if it’s the first time that I have to
write or learn about the topic, I think the book is better because it has
the pattern. And before I can discuss with the teacher, it would be
better to know pattern the basic of the pattern.” (Pear)
“I think both. The (textbook’s) model is very useful when we do the
homework or drafting. The book can give me the structure or
examples, which I can use in the exam.” (Pat)
Prefer the collaboratively constructed models
In contrast, those participants who preferred the collaboratively
constructed models claimed that they could see ideas that could be used in their own
texts and it eventually encouraged them to think about the ideas. Besides, the
language level was suitable for them as it came from the students, with the help from
the teacher in polishing it. Finally, a participant said that he compared the sentences
shown on the screen to what he was planning in his mind.
“I like that everyone…helped make a model because…because I can
know see their ideas.” (Bank)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
293
“I think I like the class model more than (the models from) the textbook
because we could share many ideas with teacher and friends. I think it
can make us improve our thinking.” (Mook)
“Creating the model (together). I think the ones in the book didn’t help
a lot. Gathering the ideas from the whole class helped a lot because
it’s our own student language. And we can learn when the teacher
paraphrased our sentences and we can learn to adapt it.” (Mark)
“ (I prefer) Modeling because I learn better from modeling.
When…when the teacher wrote the sentences on the screen, at that
time the student will write their sentences in their mind. So, and we can
compare that the sentence in our head and the sentence that teacher
writes on the screen it…which one is better and you will see. I see a lot
that…I can improve my sentence in my head when after I looked at the
screen.” (Bell)
Problem with the collaboratively constructed models
Despite the benefits of collaboratively constructing the model texts in
class, two participants pointed out that the lack of participation from the students
sometimes hinders the merits that this type of modeling could offer.
“But sometimes student don’t want to speak up so we don’t have a lot
of good ideas in class.” (Bank)
“…but in the classroom, it’s really silent when we do the modeling
together. So, the class model was sometimes not that useful.” (Pat)
5.4.6 The opinion towards peer evaluation
This part of the interview was derived from my own reflection on the
use of peer evaluation that I found not delivering the expected outcomes, as well as
from the students’ response in the questionnaire regarding the matter. I then asked the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
294
participants to explain why they perceived peer evaluation as ineffective and rated it
low in the questionnaire.
No suggestions provided
The majority of the participants confirmed that they found the use of
peer evaluation ineffective in helping them develop their texts. The major problem
was the evaluators did not provide them any feedback or, even when they did, the
feedback was not very useful. Also, many participants stated that they demanded
more than superficial feedback from their peer evaluators.
“For most of them (the evaluators), they just checked it to only
complete the checklist. And they didn’t correct the errors or
something; so, I think I didn’t make a lot of change.” (Bank)
No. The first time, the girl in the back did not give me comment. Maybe
friend, she wrote only 1 or 2 sentences and I could not rewrite draft
enough too. So sometimes my draft 1 and draft 2, it is like the same
because I don’t know what I should do. There’s no recommendation
(from my classmates). (Mark)
No substantive suggestions
Two participants, furthermore, stated that they were aware of their
weaknesses through self-evaluation. However, the feedback they received did not
address those points, resulting in frustration for them.
“No, not effective. Sometimes they…gave me that…they wrote that the
work is good, perfect work so…I think in my opinion, there should be
some mistakes that I didn’t see because I know that my work was not
perfect. They didn’t suggest any useful feedbacks for me so that I don’t
know what I have to improve to my second draft.” (Toy)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
295
“I trust them but they gave very little feedback. I know my weaknesses
but I wanted more ideas from my friends to improve my work. Not only
just “Ok, you need more conjunction”. (Bank)
Getting good suggestions
In contrast with the dissatisfaction that most of the participants in the
interview stated, two participants claimed that they found using peer evaluation as a
useful learning mechanism. The reasons were that they could receive good
suggestions from their evaluators, both of content and language.
“Yes. I like receiving feedback to get the ideas from my
friends.” (Pear)
“Yes. I actually love it (ranked quite high). I learn people’s
opinion and how carefully they checked my grammar.”
(Mark)
What made peer evaluation ineffective
Then the participants were requested to state what they thought were
the causes of ineffective peer evaluation. Their responses indicated that there were
three factors. The first was the lack of confidence in giving suggestions to the writers.
Lack of confidence in giving suggestions
“They were not confident in themselves. Sometimes, some people
think that…their English is not good enough to recommend the
others.” (Bell)
“For me, I think my friends, if they are at the same level with me,
they didn’t know what was wrong or right when they evaluated my
work.” (Pat)
The second factor, as stated by three participants, was the fear of
hurting the writer’s feelings if straightforward comments were given.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
296
Fear of hurting feelings
“Sometimes, from my observation my friends…they…they were not
that brave to speak frankly to me. Me too.” (Toy)
“I think it would have hurt me if my friend had given me very strong
and direct comments such as ‘your work is not good,’ I would not say
that to my friends.” (Mook)
“A classmate evaluated my work. At first I didn’t like it because he
only told me only to capitalize. But in the next work, he did the same
and I asked him honestly if I had more mistakes. He said actually I did
but he didn’t want to make me upset. So, I asked him and he told me
that I had problems with run-on sentences.” (Mark)
The third factor that the participants stated, as the receivers of
feedback, was the lack of interest and efforts to provide good recommendations from
the evaluators. Therefore, they took it lightly and evaluated their peers’ text just to
finish the assignment.
Not interested in giving evaluation
“And yes, sometimes I think that they just write whatever they like to
write.” (Toy)
“For most of them they just like they just checked it and only
completed the checklist. And they didn’t correct the error or
something or they didn’t…I think some of them didn’t read it (the
participant’s text) clearly. So they didn’t give a lot of feedback.”
(Bank)
“Some could be lazy and just get it over with so they could go have a
break. ‘Good job; Great, nothing to fix.’” (Mark)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
297
Not see the importance of peer evaluation
“They did not see how important it was to provide evaluation. They
just write and don’t care because it…it was just recommendation.
Some people don’t think it’s important to improve their friends.” (Bell
Good suggestions were scarce
Nevertheless, during the interviews, interesting comments from some
participants regarding this matter had emerged. While in general, most participants
were dissatisfied with the peer evaluation they received, they admitted that there were
times that they received useful suggestions. However, such occasions were rare.
“Yes... Only some gave me good suggestions but it’s only one out of
five friends.” (Pat)
“Receiving is feedback is good but it depends on who evaluates the
work.” (Pear)
“Yes, I got some good comments but we have to depend on the luck
that whether we get good students to evaluate our works.” (Bank)
Their role as evaluators
For the next question, I turned to asking the participants about what
they received being the evaluators. All of them agreed that evaluating their peers’
texts was useful for them because it provided opportunities for them to see good
examples of ideas and language use from their classmates and they borrowed the
ideas for their own texts or adapted what they saw to their writing styles.
See good ideas
“Sometimes, I see a lot of good examples from peer. I borrowed them
to put in my works.” (Toy)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
298
“Some of them have a good idea because…for some topic I didn’t think
that oh I can write about this one.”
“The thing that I learned from friends was that… when I read my
friends’ drafts I saw the point that they presented in their essays. So I
learn from that. Like this sentence is so good for something. Also, I
used their ideas.”
“Yes, because I could see it from my friends. I saw that the styles were
different and I can use it and improve my drafts. Yes. Some of my
friends had good language and some had good ideas. I can mix it into
my style.”
A participant stated that evaluating peers’ texts gave him the
opportunities to practice his grammatical error correction skill. Also, he claimed that
when he saw a good text, he would study it and analyze how it was composed.
“… it’s like seeing their mistakes and fixing them. It is good to
see how people write and I love to see other people’s works.
Sometimes I even took photo of their works and study them
with another friend how they worked.”
Suggestions on how to make peer evaluation more effective
In the last part of this area, the peer evaluation, I asked the participants
for suggestions on the techniques they believed could improve the practice. The
comments varied, covering providing more trainings, the timing of the evaluation,
being more concrete with specific points to evaluate, and using more oral feedback.
“Maybe more trainings are needed. Sometimes, they did not know
what to do with the evaluation.” (Bank)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
299
“The timing for peer evaluation is also important. Normally, we did
it after we just finished the writing, close to a break time. So we just
finished it and went out.” (Mark)
“I think we have to state the feedback specifically. Like if we don’t
write the specific feedback so people can write anything they want.”
(Toy)
“I think when doing peer feedback, if we sit together and talk about
the work to give feedback, it’s very good. We can talk with new
partners but we should do oral feedback because I don’t know how
to write the feedback.” (Pat)
Finally, one interesting suggestion was that the students should take a
proactive role in getting effective feedback from the evaluator.
“I think my friends' feedback was useful but you had to ask for
it. Sometimes when I didn’t agree with their feedback, I just took my
paper and walked to them and ask. Because if I tried to be friendly
with them, the next time they would know that I would not get angry
with them.” (Mark)
5.4.7. How they made use of the teacher feedback
From the responses, some participants addressed their appreciation of
the feedback from the teacher as a pivotal part in their development of writing ability.
“I love that! For me, getting a lot of teacher suggestions means I can
improve a lot too. It like that, so I like it when the teacher
recommended me something.” (Bell)
“I think I was very happy to see the draft with your red marks. I think I
love this part because before I saw the red ink, I thought my work was
very good. What I saw it, I knew I could improve more and more. The
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
300
positive comments also gave me confidence like it was ok to write like
that.” (Pat)
“I see that the teacher made a lot of comments and each comment
helped me a lot. So, I kept looking forward to seeing the red marks. It
meant I could still improve.” (Mark)
Areas that the teacher feedback helped
I asked the participants, then, to explain with what aspect of writing
they found the teacher feedback helpful. Their responses indicated a wide array. The
most glaring area that the students found the feedback useful for was language
accuracy.
Help with accuracy
“I think it helps me to like correct my work and I know that what the
teachers want us to write; also about grammar, about the vocabulary,
about the organization; and sometimes it helped my express the idea.”
(Toy)
“After getting back the draft that Ajarn [the teacher] check for us, I
think I can …correct my grammatical errors better.” (Bank)
“Receiving the teacher feedback is the part where I could improve my
English, knowing your grammatical mistakes and not doing it again.”
(Mark)
I found that…I made a lot of (grammatical) mistakes when you gave
me recommendations. So, it improved my writing. (Bell)
One participant said that it was actually the only thing she usually
followed in the teacher’s feedback.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
301
“Mainly grammar. Other than that I did not always follow the
teacher's comment. -When I finish writing my first draft. I know that my
second draft will be like this, this. I have the future picture that how I
write it all.” (Pear)
Help with word choice
In addition, the participants found that the teacher feedback helped
them in improving their choice of words, particularly for correct use in both meaning
and context, as well as to make their texts look more professional.
Correct use of words
“For sure, the teacher can check our work with correctness, such as
the use of the words correctly to make the meaning clear.” (Bank)
Professional use
“It’s like when I write I have my own style I don’t have knowledge for
the professional (writing). I thought what I wrote was OK. But
after you suggested, I learned that “oh! This is wrong you can…I
should use this word or this vocabulary to better explain.” (Bell)
Help with generation ideas and organization of paragraphs
The participants mentioned that the feedback they received from the
teacher was helpful in the generation of ideas and how they organize paragraphs.
“I also learned about the vocabulary, the organization; and sometimes
about the idea and the way to express it. (Toy)”
“I think I can generate better ideas or I can use words correctly, as
well as the order of ideas.” (Pat)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
302
“The important part is that the teacher told us like how to organize
ideas. Mostly, I organized the paragraphs as suggested by the
teacher.” (Bank)
“The teacher didn’t only correct the mistake but he told me that the
focus could be switched to another point. And also the suggestions are
very important in generating new ideas.” (Mark)
5.4.8 The use of the portfolio in their writing development
In this action research, one of the alternative assessment tools used was
the student portfolio. To encourage them to keep the collection of their works, there
would be scores on the course work for the portfolio. I inquired whether the
participants perceived that it was useful in their writing development and how. Then I
asked them to elaborate on the use of their writing portfolio.
Used for exam revision
The first area that the participants found the portfolio could help was
for the exam preparation. They stated that they reviewed the texts in the portfolio in
preparing for the exam, particularly to remind themselves of their mistakes.
“I also used my portfolio for the revision of my exam.” (Mook)
“It is good when before the exam because we will see the portfolio and
we see that what the points that I mistake.” (Bell)
“Portfolio is so helpful what it came to exams because if someone
threw away the work, they cannot remember the things that the
teacher suggested they should do.” (Mark)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
303
Used as reference In explaining how they utilized their portfolio, in addition to using it
for exam preparation, the participants explained that they would use it as a reference
for the grammatical errors they usually made, the vocabulary learnt, the organization
of the text, their ideas, and development between drafts.
“I looked at the vocabulary, something like grammar, and the way I
organized my work.” (Toy)
“I kept looking at the red marks to remind myself “mistakes, mistakes,
don’t do it, don’t do it.” And also the evolution of the drafts, I like to
see draft 1 and draft 3 because draft 2 is mostly the correction of
grammar and it was not yet very organized.” (Mark)
“I normally looked at my works to see the improvement of ideas.
Actually, I did not go back to the first draft. But…I…suppose I’m going
to write the third draft, I only go and look second draft. I didn’t go way
back to the start.” (Pear)
“I mostly look at the last draft for grammar and the final ideas to see
whether they made sense.” (Mook)
“Yes, it (the portfolio) helped me lot. When I write the graph and I
don’t have any idea what I should write, I go back to the old work and
start getting more ideas and see the sentence structure that I should
write. (Bank)
Used in monitoring their progress
One participant deliberately stated that she used the portfolio as a tool to monitor her learning progress.
“I see much improvement. I saw all the drafts. When I reread, it was
fun. I can see like “oh. I could write better”. (Pat)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
304
Suggestions on the portfolio systems
I also asked the participants to give some comments on the use of the
portfolio system in this study. One participant suggested that the use of the portfolio
should prevail in the teaching and learning of academic writing.
“Teachers should ask the students to keep their portfolio.” (Bank)
Two participants commented that it was a good idea to assign scores to
the students’ portfolio and the mark allocation was suitable.
“I think 10 marks for portfolio is appropriate. Giving more marks
would inflate the total score.” (Mark)
Lastly, two participants disagreed with the portfolio system and
suggested that they should have the right to select their best works to present to the
teacher instead of submitting the whole collection.
“ I really wanted the teacher to focus on my best works such as the
report on cyberbullying. I put my best effort in it” (Mark)
“I think we should have the right to choose the works to show the
teacher. Some of them were not that good because we were just
learning how to write (each text type).” (Pear)
5.4.9. What made them become a better writer
Based on the results of the post-intervention questionnaire, most
students agreed that they had become a better writer, particularly at academic texts.
Hence, I investigated their perceptions on what made them perceive that they had
improved and became a better writer.
More organized writing process
The first participant said that he had improved in various aspects.
Starting with the process of writing, the participant learned to plan the text, unlike
what he used to do. He also learned to organize his work and make the text attractive
to the readers.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
305
Before (this course), I just wrote without any format or something
like…organization, just write and write. And, when I study this course,
I know how to organize my work. I know how I can express my ideas to
let the readers know about the writing and make it more interesting.
(Toy)
Better use of vocabulary, sentence structure, and organization
Other participants stated different features of writing that they think
improved, whether it was vocabulary use, sentence construction, or organization.
However, it is worth mentioning that for many participants, what they felt in common
was that they had more confidence in writing after taking this course.
“I think in the use of vocabulary and the organizing the idea that I can
feel a lot of improve but for grammar I still have to improve because
it’s my personal problem.” (Bank)
“After I have written for many times I think I can improve a lot about
the sentence construction. I also have more confidence in writing.”
(Mook)
“I think, after taking the course, I learned how to generate ideas and I
have confident to write the essays.” (Bell)
Apply the writing skill in their other academic courses
Three participants mentioned that what they found as part of their
improved writing ability was that they could apply the knowledge learnt in this course
to writing assignments or doing written exams in the other courses they were enrolled
in. Besides, a student asserted that the knowledge of writing gained from taking this
course could be transferred to his English speaking skill.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
306
Applying the knowledge to other courses
“It’s how the subject is related to other subjects. In my major,
marketing, we have a lot of written exams, we can write by not making
the teacher confused. I can make it clear and organized so it is
understandable. If we know our aim, like how to organize sentences,
and make the environment in the paragraph clear, it is the best way to
get a good grade. I know that I can write short but meaningful.”
(Mark)
“For me, I think it’s the same with my friend. I can apply it (what I
learn in this course) in other subjects.” (Pat)
“I think I can organize the work better because, from the multiple-draft
I could do it in other subjects too.” (Pear)
Transferring the knowledge to speaking skill
“I know which kind of language I have to use, even the spoken
language. So, I apply that to the other courses.” (Toy)
5.4.10. Suggestions on what could be improved
At the end of the interview, I asked the participant if they have any
suggestions on the way to improve the teaching and learning of this course, especially
with the academic writing component. The answers could be categorized into 2 areas:
the pedagogical and assessment approach , and the teacher.
Use the multiple-drafts writing method
Starting with the responses concerning the pedagogy, the participants
suggested that multiple-draft writing should be used in the teaching and learning of
academic writing in this course.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
307
“Just keep teaching like this it’s better. Like the multiple-draft, it can
help students to like to practice writing in the same time. With doing
one writing and it’s done, I cannot correct my mistake a lot. So,
multiple-draft is better than only one. Just keep teaching like this it’s
better.” (Bank)
“This is the first time that I learned with multiple-draft writing. I think
this is better than studying the first and second time. In the past, I
wrote only one draft and submitted it to the teacher. I didn’t get much
feedback.” (Mook)
Use the portfolio system
A participant also mentioned that the portfolio should also be used in
this course.
“I think that teacher should use portfolio in the next semester or
next teaching because it can help student to keep their work. And
when they don’t have any idea or get trouble with the writing they can
look at the past work.” (Mark)
Have a different assessment system
Another participant made a suggestion on the assessment system of the
course contending that there should be more smaller tests rather than 2 quizzes and 2
major exams. He also mentioned that a term project, such as conducting a survey
could be included in the course.
“I think …you should get the score in many times like not only in the
in Midterm and Final. And the final and midterm score is so very high.
I think doing some project is ok too. We do that in other subjects. If we
do that in the English class, we can practice our English in the real
world too.” (Bell)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
308
Provide more feedback to the students
The other area that the participants gave suggestions about was the
teacher. Two of them suggested that the teacher should provide them with more and
more thorough feedback, both corrective and content related, as it had an important
role in the improvement of their writing.
“I need the teacher to correct grammar more carefully. From my
experience…when I revised my work, I found some grammatical
mistakes and sometimes teacher didn’t correct it. It’s not only in this
course but in my previous courses too.” (Toy)
The other suggestion displayed the expectation from the students that
the feedback from the teacher was a significant factor for their improvement.
“If the teacher can give more feedback, the students can improve
more.” (Pat)
Be open-minded
The last area of suggestions was that the participants believed that all
teachers should be more open to students’ ideas and show respect to the students, like
they had experienced in this course, because it could help motivate them to learn more
effectively.
“I think every English teacher should respect their students, reduce the
distance with the students, and let them express their ideas. If they act
tough or superior and if the teachers don’t agree with the students’
ideas and thinks that he’s the person who’s always right, it would not
work for the students.” (Mark)
“I think when we are familiar with the teacher, we want to ask a lot
because we want to improve.” (Pat)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
309
5.4.11 The benefits of giving scores for improvement in the writing
assignment
In addition to the predetermined areas of investigation, another category
emerged from the interview. While discussing the multiple-draft approach, some
participants mentioned the mark allocation for improvement between drafts in the
writing assignments. Therefore, I seized on this opportunity to investigate their
opinion towards it in depth. I inquired as to whether they thought the improvement
score given was useful in their learning. Their responses were positive.
A. Motivated to do better
Most of the participants agreed that seeing the improvement score motivated
them to strive to perform better with the writing.
“Yes. It’s encouraging us to…make it better, to improve our score.”
(Toy)
“Seeing the (improvement) score makes me want to do better.
Sometimes, I was not happy because the score was lower than I
expected. But it indicated that I must work harder.” (Mark)
“I think it could help me try to work harder. It was good to know that I
was improving, fast or slow.” (Pat)
One participant made an interesting remark. In addition to motivating
him to improve, he also saw the improvement score as the way the teacher monitors
the students individually.
B. Focused on individual students
A participant also expressed his appreciation on the teaching and
learning system, that it looked at the students’ individual development.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
310
“I like this system because it accommodates different students'
levels. From my experience having learnt English courses many
times, most teachers would gave score based on whether the work was
good or not, and that’s it. They never saw how much a student had
improved and was reaching the passing standard or not.” (Bell)
5.5 Conclusion
The semi-structured interview with the selected participants provided a clearer
and in-depth picture of the students’ perceptions towards different important areas in
this action research. The findings help me, as both the researcher and a practitioner,
reflect, gain insights, and see a comprehensive view of the intervention from the
perspectives of the students.
From the responses, the participants had positive attitudes towards the
intervention in different aspects. The most important point that I learned from this
interview was that the participants perceived that they had become better writers. The
major factor was that the intervention gave them more confidence in writing as they
had been improving throughout the course. To be specific, they perceived the use of
the multiple-draft writing approach as a new experience that fostered improvement in
their academic writing ability. In the practice, they appreciated the opportunity to
revise and refine their texts.
In terms of my role as their teacher, the participants had a very positive
attitude towards my teaching and the facilitation of their learning that I provided. This
has shed light for me that the students would prefer their teachers to be open-minded
and treat them with respect. Moreover, as they were aware of their weaknesses, they
needed individual attention from the teacher too.
Another important role that they expect from the teacher is the provision of
feedback. In line with the findings from other data collection instruments, the teacher
feedback was critical in the development of the students’ texts.
As for the peer evaluation that I found unsatisfying, the participants had
provided good ideas on why they found it ineffective. I then realized that I needed to
prepare them better in performing the task. Additionally, their suggestions on ways to
improve the practice of the alternative form of writing assessment were valuable for
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
311
me in designing a more effective peer evaluation system, such as incorporating oral
feedback and training the students to take a more proactive approach in getting the
feedback, in order for it to yield better results.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
312
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION
This chapter discusses the main findings of this action research, which
synthesize the information from the analysis of the data collected, my reflections, and
insights the students in this study. The discussion is based upon the research questions
of this action research. In the later part, a model of academic writing instructions
derived from the findings of this study is proposed.
6.1 The improvement in students' academic writing ability
This section provides the answer to research question 1- to what extent can the
adapted writing approaches and alternative assessment improve students’ academic
writing ability?
As presented in the previous chapter, this research question has been
answered. Statistical analysis of the mean scores between the pre- and post-tests
provided empirical evidence showing a significant improvement in the students’
scores. Hence, it can be concluded that the combination of adapted writing
approaches, namely the product, process, genre, and process-genre, together with the
multiple alternative assessment methods, significantly and positively affected the
students’ academic writing ability.
The quantitative finding of the students’ improvement in writing ability was
consistent with several previous studies that employed similar instructional
approaches. To cite a few examples, Eliwarti and Maarof (2016) found that students
who were instructed with the lessons designed under the genre philosophy and
process approach, as well as process-genre approach, improved significantly between
their pre and post writing tests. Additionally, findings from the works by Ming
(2006); Cheng (2008); and Bababola; (2012) point to the same direction. In those
studies students who were instructed with multiple teaching techniques significantly
outperformed those who went through a single approach of instruction, particularly
the traditional product approach, in the post-intervention writing test.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
313
The findings from the quantitative analysis, therefore, draw the conclusion
that it is appropriate to state that multiple teaching, learning, and assessment methods
are necessary in improving students’ writing ability. This idea is supported by Al-
Khasawneh (2009) and Morgan et, al (2007), in Eliwarti and Maarof (2016), who
claim that effective writing pedagogy should include multiple teaching techniques in
order to improve students’ writing ability.
The abovementioned studies, nevertheless, employ only one main
instructional approach of writing instructions such as the process, product-process,
and process-genre to compare with the traditional product approach. This study, on
the other hand, integrated the strengths of each approach, selected and adapted to the
situation, and investigated their impact on the development of academic writing
ability.
Parallel with that, most of the previous studies on alternative assessment focus
on only the effects of the alternative assessment in an idiosyncratic way, without
integrating them as part of the writing process. Some examples of those studies are by
Saito and Fujita (2004) who investigated the use of self- and teacher assessment,
Cheng & Warren (2005), in Matsuno (2009), on peer assessment, Lee (2008b), on
teacher feedback, and Hashemi & Mirzaei (2015) on the impact of student journals.
For this study, on the other hand, alternative assessment was an integral part of the
writing.
6.2 The students’ opinion towards the teaching and learning approaches and
alternative assessment used in the study
This part addresses research question 2- what are students’ opinions towards
using the adapted writing approaches and alternative assessment in improving their
writing ability?
In answering this research question, I looked at the results of the analysis of
the questionnaire responses together with the findings from the coding of the
students’ reflective journals and semi-structured interviews. The main areas discussed
in this part are, first, the overall perception towards the course. The next area concerns
the opinion towards the writing approaches focusing on prewriting activities, the use
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
314
of the model texts and collaboratively constructed models, and the use of the
multiple-draft writing method. The last area discusses the students’ opinion on the
alternative assessment tools in this study.
6.2.1 Perceiving the course useful
From their questionnaire responses, the students indicated that they
found the course useful in terms of helping them develop their academic writing
skills. The students perceived that they had improved their writing proficiency by
taking the course.
After scrutinizing the students’ sample works, a certain degree of
development of syntactic complexity in their texts was evident (see appendix K).
According to the model proposed by Skehan (1998) in Marlow, 2016, the three
constructs of language production include complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Defined
by Ortega (2003), in Marlow (2016), syntactic complexity refers to “the range of
forms that surface in language production and the degree of sophistication of such
forms” (p. 492). Syntactic complexity is an indicator of L2 writing proficiency
(Larsen-Freeman, 1978 and Lu, 2011, in Kyle & Crossley, 2018), and is usually
measured by T-unit. Essentially, a T-unit is an independent clause with any dependent
clauses that are embedded in or attached to it. T-units increase within a sentence when
one independent clause is conjoined with another to achieve syntactic maturity
(Marlow, 2016). Based on such definition, it can be concluded that the students’
perceived improvement in their writing ability was displayed in the increased
syntactic complexity in their texts.
Further investigation on the students’ texts also showed that the
students had improved in terms of grammatical accuracy. As for the fluency, the texts
were greater in lengths, with more supporting details provided. Finally, it was found
that the students improved in their choice of words, employed better use of cohesive
devices, as well as had more uses of genre-specific expressions.
One of the key factors for this self-perceived improvement was the fact
that the students learned and overcame the weaknesses they had in writing. Also,
writng practices through the multiple-draft method foster the genre knowledge.
Moreover, findings from the students’ reflective journals and the post-intervention
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
315
interviews confirmed that the students also developed more confidence in their
writing skills.
Most importantly, the students also stated that the course was useful
for their future use of writing academic English, both short-term and long-term. The
students indicated that they could transfer the knowledge of academic writing
acquired from the course to the learning of other subjects, whether for assignments or
examinations. They claimed that they planned, organized, and revised the texts in the
same manner with what they did in the course of this study. As for the long-term use,
the students indicated that the course was useful for their future careers. They claimed
that the course content and the text types taught could help prepare them for the real-
world writing that they expected to do in their future professions.
The findings suggested that using this adapted approach and alternative
assessment could drive the students to meet the objectives of English for Academic
Purposes (EAP); it enabled them to develop the present and future capacity of using
the language for studying (Widdowson (1983) and Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001). For
academic writing in particular, students need to possess the knowledge of academic
English conventions and its sets of rules to perform in other courses of study and
show their academic competency in the learning and assessment systems of those
disciplines in which academic writing is required, as suggested by Paltridge (2004)
and Ivanic & Lea (2006).
6.2.2 Positive opinion towards the adapted approach of writing
instructions
The findings from the multiple sources suggested that the students
developed positive attitude towards the writing instruction approaches adapted in this
study. To discuss this, I divided the process of writing instructions into 3 stages
namely the prewriting, the actual writing, and the post-writing stage.
The prewriting stage
In the adapted approaches of writing instructions in this study, the
prewriting stage included the discussion of the writing topic and setting the objective
and target reader of the text. Another essential part of this stage was the use of model
texts and collaboratively modeling the text.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
316
The discussion of the writing topics included several activities. They
included class discussions moderated by the teacher and other collaborative learning
activities, which were group brainstorm and pair discussion. From the investigation,
the activity that the students preferred most was the group brainstorm. From the
findings, the students claimed that they had benefited greatly from this activity, both
in formulating ideas and receiving language input for their composition. Detailed
inquiries also found that this activity helped with comprehension when a reading
prompt was involved. The findings from this study were congruent with previous
studies by Dowse & van Rensburg (2015) and Suzuki et. al (2009). Those studies
found that the use of collaborative learning benefited the students in improved
English, gaining new idea and perspectives, and organizing their texts more
effectively. In addition, researchers such as Johnson et al. (1998) affirm that learning
in groups leads to the promotion of student learning and academic achievement
derived from the cognitive learning process.
The next pre-writing activity to discuss is the students’ opinion
towards the practice of setting communicative context, meaning the objective and
target reader, of texts. This activity was based on the principle of genre approach,
which suggested that the central aspect of the prewriting stage should involve the
communicative events, the purposes of the text, and the relationship between the
writer and the reader (Badger and White, 2000).
From the investigation, the students strongly agreed that it was
essential for them to identify the objective of writing a text as it enabled them to
construct the text more effectively with clear direction. Additionally, knowing the
target reader had the same effect on their composition. The findings were similar to
the study on the effectiveness of promoting communicative context in writing by Li
(2016). Li’s study found that, from the contrastive analysis and survey on its involved
parties, the instructions of writing that includes the contexts such as the purposes of
texts and awareness of the audience is more effective than the traditional teaching
approach. The study also explains that focusing on the authentic context of the text
provides the experience of a diversification sensation of the audience to the students
and eventually enhances their comprehension of how to compose the texts.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
317
The next prewriting activity was the use of the two types of model
texts: the textbook’s models and the collaboratively constructed model. The students
found them helpful in different aspects. For the model texts that the textbook
provided, they were perceived as useful by the students in seeing the structure and
format of text types. The students elaborated that these types of models helped them
understand what they were supposed to compose. They also claimed that the models
were also beneficial for them when it came to exam preparation.
The students’ comments were relevant to what literature and previous
studies suggest. At the center of the product approach, the students are exposed to the
model texts in order that they would see the structure, features, and convention of the
text (Nunan, 1999; Khansir, 2012; and Saeidi & Sahebkheir, 2011, in Pasand &
Zibakenar, 2012). Moreover, after being exposed to the text type and analyzing the
text, the students produce their own texts that display the language convention of
particular genres as part of product-process approach (Pasand & Zibakenar, 2012).
In line with that, the students stated their preference on the
collaboratively constructed model texts. The perceived benefits of this practice
included the fact that modeling the text with the class, with the teacher’s guidance,
helped them see and understand the process of writing a particular text type.
Furthermore, the merits also stretched to letting the students realize the language
conventions of the texts. Based on the questionnaire results, this model is particularly
helpful in report writing. The perceived usefulness of this collaborative modeling is
supported by a study by Wette (2015). The author conducted an investigation on the
use of collaborative construction of a model by the students, with assistance from the
teacher. The results show that practitioners of this method find a number of benefits
of this instructional strategy, which include opportunities to provide support and
respond immediately to contributions from the students. Besides, the feedback
provided to the students gives the students confidence and improves their writing
ability too.
Nevertheless, from the students’ comments, as well as my observation,
verbatim copying was still a great challenge in the use of model texts. A number of
students were found to directly copy the model texts for vocabulary and expressions.
The repercussion was that it prevented them from developing a clear understanding to
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
318
specific academic language features in writing, which consequently affected their
writing ability.
The reasons for the verbatim copying could be due to, first, the
students were familiar with the product approach, in which they were supposed to
strictly follow the appropriate use of vocabulary, syntactic features, and other
mechanics (Pincas, 1982a). Next, a number of students admitted that they decided to
depend on the language input from the model texts in doing graded assignments and
exams to secure what they believed as the correct answers. As Lam (2013) points out,
this phenomenon is common in an exam-driven educational culture, especially when
the students perceive the assignments as part of their coursework that involved
evaluation scores or test-like conditions (Lee, 2014).
To improve the situation, I depended on my intuition and experience. I
switched from displaying the complete model to presenting the text at sentence level,
with only the language features highlighted. In the process, the students contributed
their ideas for construction of the model. I facilitated them in the process by
constructing segments of the texts based on their ideas. The students then, instead of
imitating the whole text or paragraph, learned to interweave the pieces of ideas into
their own construction. The outcome was quite satisfactory. The students put more
emphasis on trying to apply specific language input they saw and ideas to be included
in their text instead of imitating the model word by word.
While copying the format of the text, such as in report writing, was
considered imitative learning, constructing and showing the model at the sentence
level was a matter of information transfer rather than exposition of the answer. A
study by Jones and Freeman (2003) finds that with this kind of facilitation, students
can be encouraged to imitate only the structure and function of texts and learn to
apply the structure of the phrases rather than copying whole chunks of the phrases
intact.
The writing stage
In the actual writing process, this study employed the multiple-draft
approach, which was a shared feature of the two approaches of writing instructions:
process approach and process-genre approach. From the analysis of data from
different instruments, the students’ opinion towards this approach was positive. They
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
319
stated that writing with the multiple-draft approach, which was new to most of them,
had a pivotal role in the development of their academic writing ability. Besides, they
claimed that they prefer writing with this method of writing to one-draft writing as it
helped them learn better. To elaborate on this, they could perceive the improvement
between each draft as they had the opportunities to revise the language used and
refine their ideas. The findings from this action research were in line with studies by
Platt & Platt (2000) in Zhao (2015); Nordin & Mohammad (2006); and Grufon (2016)
that the process of writing through the multiple-draft method ensures the benefits of
prewriting, drafting, receiving feedback, and revising to the students. Additionally, a
number of experimental studies show that using the multiple-draft method, as part of
process approach and process-genre approach, is a powerful instructional tool in
enhancing EFL writing skills, especially in the tertiary level (Zhao, 2015; Eriwati &
Nooeiny, 2016; and Tuyen et al. (2016).
The post-writing stage
In this study, the post-writing stage referred to the publishing of work
not only for the teacher to evaluate but it also included posting selected outstanding
works of each assignment on the class’s Facebook group page for the class members
to see and study. In this regard, the students whose works were chosen expressed their
positive feelings in their journals. They claimed that having their works displayed as
good examples of texts made them feel happy, proud of their effort, and encouraged
to improve further.
This finding sheds light on the practice for me as the teacher. In the
traditional practice, the process of writing usually ends when the students submit their
texts to the teacher for evaluation. In this study, however, having their works viewed
by the whole class acting as the readers could complete the whole process of writing.
The students could develop a sense of achievement with their texts reaching the eyes
of readers other than the teacher. Furthermore, the publishing of their works could
contribute to the students’ confidence in proposing their ideas and making arguments
in their text, as stated in their reflective journals. Such findings were supported by
Putnam (200, and Dollieslager (1993), in Ensio & Boxeth (2000) that students would
feel pride in their finished texts knowing that their works will be viewed by their
peers. These researchers claims that data from the studies indicate that publishing the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
320
students’ works increases not only their writing ability but it also develop positive
attitudes towards writing and confidence in their works. In line with this, Bae (2011)
contends that when students have a real audience, it enables them to increase their
confidence as authors. Therefore, it is advisable that the teacher should consider
publishing the students’ works even though there are obstacles like the class size and
rigid time constraints, such as in the classroom where this study took place.
On the other hand, while publishing the students’ works had positive
reinforcement on the writers’ motivation and confidence, there was no finding on the
benefits on the reader’s side in this study. This was due to the lack of a clear direction
for the students on how they should react to the published work. Hence, it is highly
recommended that teachers planning to integrate publishing into the process of
writing provide guidance on how the students should participate as readers.
6.2.3 Preference for the teacher feedback over peer evaluation
The alternative assessment tools used in this study included the use of
peer evaluation, the teacher feedback, the student reflective journal, and the writing
portfolio. Findings from different sources provided consistent information concerning
the use of peer feedback that the students did not perceive the use of peer evaluation
as useful. For one reason, the students did not receive sufficient useful feedback,
especially at the beginning of the course. Also, the evaluation they received from their
peer evaluators was mostly on the surface level without revision suggestions. The
same ineffectiveness of peer evaluation is documented in a study by Meihami &
Razmjoo (2016). The researchers found that the underlying cause was the lack of
assessment literacy among the students.
When investigated further, the students commented that even when
they received feedback or a suggestion from their peers, they still questioned its
validity. Based on the findings, the students perceived that the peers were equal to
them in terms of language proficiency. Consequently, they students expressed a lack
of trust in the qualification of the peer evaluators. This is supported by the works from
Kaufman & Schunn (2011); Davies (2000); and Smith et. al. (2002) who investigated
students’ perceptions on peer evaluation. The findings indicate that students have
doubts on the expertise of their peers and believe that their peer evaluators are
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
321
unqualified to review and assess their works. As a result, the students are reluctant to
incorporate their feedback in the revision of their texts.
This phenomenon is understandable. Despite the tremendous benefits
that using peer feedback could bring, some research works have found students
reluctant to incorporate peer feedback into their writing. According to Nelson and
Murphy (1993), cited in Zhao (2014), students do not trust the peer response as they
see that, like themselves, English is not their first language. Hence, the level of
confidence in their peers’ suggestions is low, especially when compared with the trust
that they have in teacher feedback. Besides, Matsuno (2009) points out that
educational culture played a vital role in the students’ reluctance to offer revision to
their peer learners.
To improve the situation, I made several adjustments in the peer
evaluation in different cycles. The most important change was the introduction of oral
feedback to the evaluation process. Also, from randomly assigning the evaluators, I
switched to giving freedom to the writers to choose their own evaluators. These
changes resulted in a marked improvement to the peer evaluation process, according
to the findings. The positive impact caused by letting the students have the liberty to
choose their group was similar to the study by Challob et. al. (2016) on EFL students’
writing apprehension and writing performance. The results conclude that giving
freedom to the students to work in the group that they choose contributes to the
reduction of anxiety and at the same time results in a great improvement in their
writing performance.
However, it should be noted here that a student had strongly disliked
these changes, claiming that it was more preferable to have his texts evaluated by a
random classmate in order to reduce interaction and to receive a fair evaluation.
Nevertheless, the peer evaluation system in this study still had
significant benefit on the students’ text development. While receiving peer feedback
was less than useful in the eyes of the students, evaluating the texts from their peers
yielded opposite results. The students strongly agreed that they found evaluating their
peers’ texts a fruitful experience as it provided them opportunities to learn how others
composed their texts. Moreover, they also saw good examples of language use in
different type of texts. Most importantly, what was found most useful in evaluating
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
322
the texts was that the students could borrow the ideas from their friends to apply them
in their own compositions.
The findings on the students’ opinions towards the use of peer
evaluation were in line with a study by Lundstorm and Baker (2009) in which the
researchers investigate the benefits of peer review to the students providing feedback
to their peers’ texts. The study divides the students into 2 groups: the providers of
feedback and the receivers of feedback. The findings from an analysis of the pre-test
and post-test writing show that the providers obtained more gains in their writing test
scores . In the meantime, the receivers of the feedback, without having had to evaluate
their peers’ texts, did not have any significant gains in their scores. Therefore, it is
possible to say that, in this study, the peer review method was more beneficial for the
students as evaluators of their peers’ works.
In contrast with the peer evaluation, the students stated their opinion
towards the teacher feedback as highly valuable. They strongly suggested that the
teacher feedback had an essential role in the development of their academic writing
ability and that they depended most on the teacher feedback in the development and
revision of their texts. The students commented that the feedback from the teacher
empowered them to understand their mistakes in terms of language accuracy, text
conventions, and fallacy of ideas. It also showed them ways to improve their text
through suggested revision strategies, and helped them gain confidence, especially
when praise was given. As indicated in a study by Lee (2007), praise from teachers in
the form of positive feedback creates greater motivation among students who receive
it. The finding was also supported by Hedgcock & Lefkowitz (1994). Their study
found that, with the multiple-draft technique, students find teacher feedback helpful in
improving their writing
From such findings, the dependency on teacher feedback is common in
EFL teaching and learning context. Cheng (2000) asserts that it is due to the fact that
students, particularly Asians, have been exposed to classes that are teacher-centered.
Furthermore, students view their teachers as the agent with legitimate power to
provide them feedback. For this study, even though I tried to shift my status from
being the authoritative figure in the classroom to the facilitator of learning, especially
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
323
during the text composition process, results from the questionnaire show that the need
to depend upon the teacher to instruct them on what to do still prevails.
The findings also suggested that the students prefer the teacher’s
feedback to peer evaluation in the revision of their text. This phenomenon was in line
with Ferris (2003) who states that it is natural across cultures for students to trust their
teachers over their peers. Also, another study from Yang, Badger, and Yu (2006)
explains that the preference for teacher assessment and feedback over peer assessment
among students is due to the perceived low proficiency level of the peer and
prolonged English learning experience of teachers. The same study also found that
EFL students make more use of feedback from teachers than from peers (90 percent
to 76 percent). Other studies found that the students would discard what their peers
recommended and prevailingly incorporated teacher feedback in their revisions
(Mangeksdorf, 1992 and Nelson & Murphy, 1993 in Paulus, 1999). Consequently, the
findings contradict Pope’s (2005) and Matsuno’s (2009) claims that peer evaluation
can complement the assessment from the teacher. In this study, although the findings
revealed that the peer evaluation process was beneficial to the students’ development
of writing ability to a certain degree, especially in the later research cycles, the
students still had more trust in the quality and validity of the feedback they received
from the teacher.
6.2.4 The formative power of the student reflective journal
Another alternative assessment tool used in this study was the student
reflective journal. From my observation, the very first few entries were not very
satisfying for me as the students merely recorded the day’s lesson without much
reflection. Then I realized that most of them might not have much experience with
keeping a learning journal. Besides, they might not have a clear idea of what I
expected from them, especially with regard to reflection. In tackling this problem, I
had repeatedly reminded them what to do with some examples given. After a few
weeks in, the quality of the reflective journal improved.
A post-intervention inquiry on the efficacy of journal writing showed
that the students agreed that keeping a journal was useful for them in the development
of their writing since it provided them opportunities to keep track of what they had
learned and reflect what they thought of a lesson or particular experience in class.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
324
Moreover, while, initially, the implementation of the reflective journal was to serve as
a data collection instrument and for the students to reflect their learning experience,
they mentioned that keeping their reflective journals was another measure to practice
their writing ability. This discovery confirmed the efficacy of student journaling as
suggested by literature such as those of Chanderansegaran (2002) and Tuan (2010)
which suggest that journal writing provides opportunities for students to write outside
the classroom; hence, enforcing their writing skills.
Finally, as I designed this online journal to be interactive between the
students and me, I found that the students used it as a way to express their feelings
and concerns with me. The post-intervention inquiry confirmed my observation. This
follows the idea proposed by Mlynarczyk (2013) and Hashemi & Merzaei (2015). The
authors claim that, in addition to giving students opportunities to practice their writing
skill and to express their attitude towards writing, journal writing gives chances for
students to develop a personal relationship with the teacher. On the teacher’s side,
seeing concerns from students could help the teacher prepare lessons or provide
special care for students to overcome their problems in learning as well.
6.2.5 The role of writing portfolio
The last alternative assessment instrument that this study included was
the writing portfolio. From the investigation on the students’ opinion toward this type
of assessment tool, the students mentioned that the portfolio was useful for them in
displaying the improvement of their writing performance. The contributing factor for
such usefulness, from my reflection, was the teacher feedback that constantly pointed
out both the strengths and weaknesses of individual students. This claim is supported
by Brown (2003), in Matinez-Lirola & Rubio (2009), who argues that portfolio
evaluation creates feedback so the students can learn from their errors. Moreover, the
allocation of an improvement score between sequential drafts also helped the students
visualize their progress. From further investigation, the students articulated their
portfolios served as revision and exam preparation material. Finally, what was more
important was the fact that after they could see that they had been improving, the
students developed a sense of confidence in their writing ability resulting in more
motivation.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
325
These findings on the power of the portfolio in developing the students
writing ability were consistent with a study on the efficacy of using portfolio
assessment in a writing course by Ghoorchaei, Tavakoli, and Ansari (2010). The
study finds that the experimental group that received the treatment of using a portfolio
as an assessment tool significantly outperformed the control group in the overall
writing ability and other sub-skills such as focus and elaboration of ideas,
organization, and vocabulary use. Additionally, a study by Lirola & Rubio (2009)
found that the students found the use of the portfolio helps display their efforts in
learning. Such positive opinion consequently heightens their motivation level.
It should be noted that, despite the benefits and usefulness perceived,
some students had criticized the portfolio system, saying it should be improved. They
said that presenting the collection of the whole semester’s work was relatively
ineffective. In fact, they preferred the freedom to submit the works that they believed
could reflect their true ability in writing to the teacher for evaluation.
6.3 Research question 3: the roles of the adapted approaches of writing
instructions and alternative assessment in developing the students’
academicwritingability
The findings in relation with the previous studies, the impact of and students’
opinion towards the adapted approaches of writing instructions and alternative
assessment, and my own reflections, constitute the answer to research question 3. This
section addresses research question 3- how can students’ academic writing ability be
improved through adapted writing approaches and alternative assessment. In this
research question, there are 5 sub-questions regarding different aspects of the
implementation of the adapted approaches of writing instructions and alternative
assessment designed for this study. The information derived from the findings from
multiple sources would draw the answers to each sub-question.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
326
6.3.1 The teaching methods of writing that effectively improved the
students’ academic writing skill
Multiple-draft writing
Findings from different sources revealed that the most beneficial
method to develop the students writing ability was the multiple-draft writing.
Findings from the students’ journals, the interview, and the post-intervention
questionnaire agreed that this approach could effectively improve the students’
writing ability. In particular, the students strongly agreed that this method was
suitable for learning all academic genres in this course. The students found that the
process of writing and rewriting was helpful for them in learning from their mistakes,
which included both language and idea issues. Then, revising and refining texts
helped them gain confidence in the quality of their works, and eventually fostered the
development of their academic writing ability. This approach, moreover, was
especially helpful with highly technical academic texts such as data interpretation and
report. As they required extensive knowledge schemata of the topics and the language
convention was specific, writing with the multiple-draft approach gave the
opportunity to think and rethink for better content, reorganize the information, and
explore the language features of the text types.
Parallel with the students perception, my reflection on the practice also
pointed in the same direction. While at the beginning of the course I was not quite
satisfied with the result of students adopting the multiple-draft method, the students
had improved over time. For the majority of the students, they learned to utilize the
opportunity to lift the quality of their works, both in linguistic features and content.
Hence, it is appropriate to say that, from the findings, the multiple-draft writing has
proved itself an effective method of writing instructions. The findings were largely
consistent with Ho (2006); Tong (2007); Gonzalez (2010); Puengpipattrakul (2013);
and Zhao (2014), in their studies of the effectiveness of using the multiple-draft
method in the process-based approach of instructions of writing. These researchers
conclude that multiple-draft writing is powerful in positively influencing and
heightening the writing ability of the students.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
327
Model texts and collaboratively constructed models
The use of text modeling was also essential in the teaching of
academic writing, as the finding suggested. Although the students indicated that they
preferred collaboratively constructed models, with assistance from the teacher the
models provided in the textbook was still necessary. In other words, each type of
model was useful in its own right.
According to the students, the model texts offered by the textbook was
an effective tool for the students to see the text structure. It was also a useful source of
language input. These beliefs support the ideas proposed by Badger and White
(2000); Pasand & Haghi, (2013); and Ghufron (2016) which state that using model
texts is a mechanism to familiarize the students with the text structure, vocabulary,
syntax and cohesive devices from which the students would attempt to write similar
texts.
For the collaboratively constructed model, as Wette (2014) points out,
such kinds of model texts are valuable in terms of helping the students to present and
discuss their ideas. The students claimed that they could see good ideas from their
classmates during the construction of their texts. Another important point in modeling
the text was that, during the construction, the teacher would assist with the genre-
specific language input and show the actual process of writing (Badger & White,
2000).
Nevertheless, the use of either type of models comes with restrictions.
Admitted by the students, they could be overly dependent on the models of either
type. Their concern was consistent with my examination of their texts during the
study. I found that a probable solution to the problem of students’ over dependency on
the model is to model the text after they had written the first draft. With this strategy,
the students can try to analyze their texts in comparison with the text they modeled
together in class. Then, the class modeling will come into play. With the first draft in
their hands, the students can contribute ideas to the construction of the model and the
teacher can facilitate the use of language.
To sum up the answer to research question 3, sub-question a- what are
the teaching methods that can effectively improve the students’ academic writing
ability. The findings of this study strongly suggest the use of the multiple-draft
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
328
approach. In addition, the use of model texts should be brought into play to strengthen
its effectiveness. The main type of model should be the one constructed by the class
with the teacher guidance. At the same time, the models in the textbook would help
strengthen the students’ understanding of the text structure and language features.
6.3.2 The roles of the teacher
This section discusses research question 3, sub-question b- what are
the roles of the teacher? In this action research, my initial intention was to shift my
role from the traditional type of teacher who mainly imparted knowledge to be the
facilitator of learning by providing learning aids and scaffolding the students.
Consistently reflecting on my practice helped direct my teaching. More importantly,
students’ voices and feedback were crucial in improving my teaching practice and
sheds light on the ideal roles of the teacher. In a traditional sense, there were two
main roles of the teacher, according to Tudor (1993). The first is the role of ‘the
knower’, which means the teacher is the source of knowledge of both the language
and teaching methodology. This reflects the fact that the teacher is the person with the
authority to decide what should be learned and how to learn it. The second role is ‘the
activity organizer’ as the one who sets up and directs learning activities to the desired
direction. It also includes the duties to motivate the students and provide authoritative
feedback on their performance.
While labeled traditional, these two roles persist in today’s classroom,
including this particular study. However, in actual practice, my duties as the teacher
went further than simply imparting knowledge. In implementing the adapted
approach, I was required to place myself in many roles along the continuum of being
the provider of knowledge and facilitator of learning. Those roles included being the
manager of the lesson, a learner, a facilitator, an assessor, and the evaluator of
learning. According to Ashana & Rani (2016), these roles are described as:
(1) A manager
A teacher has significant duties in managing the class, starting from
planning lessons to fit within the stipulated time. The teacher also needs to employ
suitable learning techniques to enhance the students’ academic and interpersonal
skills. Most importantly, the teacher needs to have classroom management skill in
order for the class to succeed in the teaching and learning process.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
329
In this study, my role as the manager covered a wide range of
responsibility. It started with gathering information about the students such as their
learning experience, their disciplines, and their general English proficiency, in order
to find appropriate teaching and learning techniques for them. Besides, the roles also
included motivating them learn effectively. To cite an example, when I found that the
students were passive in the discussion, I tried to encourage them to participate with
more enthusiasm by being open to them about the expectations and respect I had for
them. Finally, as the manager of the class, it was my duty to preserve disciplinary
rules as stated by the university policy.
(2) A learner
Teaching and learning is a dynamic process that is affected by
generational changes. While the major roles of the teacher remain mostly the same,
changes in some aspects are inevitable. The teacher needs to understand the students
and learn to view learning from their perspective. Doing so will enable the teacher to
interact with the students with understanding.
The most important thing for me to learn, as a teacher, was about my
students. I realized that it was important for the teacher to understand the students’
individual differences. Having a clear understanding of the students’ differences, for
example their linguistic background, competence, and learning style, was crucial in
planning the lesson and setting achievable goals for them. Additionally, in the case of
an international institution where this study was situated, an awareness of the
students’ different cultural backgrounds was of utmost importance in keeping the
classroom atmosphere pleasant.
(3) A facilitator
As discussed earlier, the role of the teacher is not exclusively the
provider of knowledge. It is imperative that the teacher facilitates the students to
achieve their learning goal. It also includes encouraging the students to become
autonomous learners. Furthermore, the teacher, as a facilitator, needs to create the
environment that is supportive to the students’ development in intellectual and
linguistic domains.
In this study, to establish a supportive learning environment for the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
330
students, I took the role of the facilitator in many aspects. To cite some example, I
helped the students break down difficult lessons into smaller and manageable parts to
keep them motivated. Several supplementary handouts were provided to them to
enhance their understanding of language conventions. Furthermore, I came to realize
the characteristics of an effective facilitator. I was always available for providing
consultation on learning to the students. Besides, at the personal level, I displayed my
respect to the students and remained open-minded to gain their trust.
(4) An assessor
Being the teacher of the class entails the duty of assessing the students’
knowledge of the subject they are learning. This can be achieved through continuous
provision of feedback. Also, the teacher needs to decide on the assessment methods
that are suitable for getting information that can help plan future lessons to help the
students reach their linguistic goal.
As the assessor, I closely monitored the students’ progress in their
academic writing development. An on-going assessment of their development of their
writing performance, particularly regarding their linguistic and content knowledge,
played a vital role for me to provide feedback to help them overcome their
weaknesses. Besides, it enabled me to appropriately and positively challenge them to
improve to their potentials. In a larger picture, being the assessor was a mechanism to
ensure that the students were on the path to meeting the learning objectives.
(5) An evaluator
Evaluation is prominent in determining a student’s success. Although
it can be subjective, the teacher must ensure that, to be an effective evaluator, the
evaluation process is conducted fairly and truly. Moreover, it should not only focus on
the students’ weakness but it should as well emphasize their competence.
Being the evaluator in this study, however, went further than
conducting evaluations of the students’ performance in terms of grades as perceived
in the traditional assessment sense. It also concerned evaluating the students’
development, through their writing portfolios for example. Furthermore, it
encompassed evaluating the effectiveness of the materials used, the feedback I
provided, and my teaching in order to reflect the outcomes of the actions. The
evaluation led to changes in the plan of the instructions to improve the situation.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
331
Other responsibilities that I took included, to begin with, analyzing the
students’ linguistic needs. This duty refers to knowing both the students’ potentials
and weaknesses in order for me to plan activities and select methodologies to foster
their learning. The next was to involve the students in the process of learning and
transfer the learning responsibility to them. As a measure to increase learning
autonomy to the students, I tried to encourage the students to take part in the learning
process. For instance, they had the freedom to choose the topic they preferred to work
on. Furthermore, using student reflective journals was a display of the attempt to let
the students take responsibility for their learning since they had to reflect their
experience with learning and find ways to improve their learning process. According
to Tudor (1993), all these responsibilities are essential features to create a learner-
centered classroom environment that drives the students to become autonomous
learners.
Lastly, to ascertain that I performed these roles successfully, I learned
to become a reflective teacher. As stated by Zeichner and Liston (1996), reflective
teaching refers to the process of questioning the philosophy, values, and the
assumption about the practice. Reflective teaching helped me to develop a deep
understanding of my teaching and it also promoted informed practice through self-
imposed questions that I raised concerning my teaching. The same development,
which was derived from reflective teaching, is found in the studies by Crandall (2000)
and Ferris (2007), in Afshar & Farahani (2018). In reflecting on the practice, I
constantly observed the phenomena in class, particularly how the students’ reacted to
the pedagogical methods and how they interacted to the activities prepared. Then, I
considered strategies to respond to the needs of the students, and found measures to
improve the practice. These roles were also relevant to what Lee (2008); Thompson &
Pascal, (2012); Toom, Husu, & Patrikainen, 2015, cited in Zulfikar and
Mujiburrahman (2018), suggest.
Need for explicit instructions
As previously pointed out, the teacher cannot completely ignore the
role of provider of knowledge. It was evident that the students still needed explicit
instructions from the teacher, particularly in introducing them to a new writing genre
and its linguistic conventions. According to Badger and White (2000), the teacher has
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
332
the duty of introducing the students to the purposes of genres and the steps in the
writing process.
From the findings, the students claimed that they felt comfortable with
the teacher’s teaching style in this study and that it did not put pressure on them. Also,
since the content of the course could be challenging to the students, it is important for
the teacher to instruct the process of writing step by step. For example, instead of
showing and discussing the whole essay at once, the students found it more effective
when I highlighted the essay part by part, focusing on each main feature.
The last point of concern about explicit teaching is, based on the
students’ voices, the lecture should not be long or they would lose their concentration.
Hence the teacher should fine-tune the lesson with an appropriate mixture of
information and hands-on tasks.
Supportive learning atmosphere through trust, respect, and flexibility
In order to establish an effective learning environment, the rapport
between the teacher and students and among the students is paramount. Culturally,
students view their teachers as the legitimate figure and center of teaching and
learning. In this study, as mentioned, the role of the teacher leaned towards facilitator
of learning. Hence, the form of the teacher-student relationships was different. Instead
of being the center of knowledge, I tried to make the students responsible for their
learning. To elaborate on this, I tried to engage the students in the classroom activities
ranging from the discussion and elicitation, to requesting comments. Although it was
quite difficult at the beginning because the students were used to being passive in the
classroom, my attempts were later well received. From the findings, the students
stated that they felt like a major part of the learning because the teacher involved them
in the process. Furthermore, they claimed that the teacher had an important role in
encouraging them to improve.
Another point that I learned from the students’ insights was that the
teacher should respect the students. This means that the teacher should always listen
to students’ voices and opinions without being critical. Doing so would enable the
students to trust the teacher and foster a good rapport between them.
My reflection on the role of the teachers in establishing rapport with
the students is supported by an investigation by Žunić-Rizvić & Dubravac (2017).
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
333
The researchers, in their investigation in EFL classrooms, found that, in addition to
the teaching aspect, positive relations between teachers and students are essential for
the success in language learning.
Lastly, flexibility is also critical in encouraging the students to learn.
From the findings, the students had voiced that they had experienced a heavy
workload from this course and other courses they were taking. It consequently
affected their performance in class through tardiness, loss of concentration, and late
submission of assignments. It helped me realize that the students were working with
their utmost ability to cope with the demanding tertiary education. Hence, displaying
understanding and being flexible with deadlines, for example, could help encourage
the students to maintain their motivation to learn. Nonetheless, a certain degree of
discipline had to be reserved as one of the objectives of this course was to instill
professionalism to the students.
Facilitating students individually
Derived from my reflection and the students’ opinion, it is very
important that the teacher focus on the students as individuals since each of them has
different strengths and weaknesses. This reflection is in line with Yan’s (2005) idea
that teachers are expected to pay attention to individual differences during the writing
process. The practice could be as simple as knowing the students by names. Also,
knowing students individually would assist the teacher in facilitating what the
students need in order to improve their writing ability more effectively. In the same
study by Yan (2005), it is argued that teachers play roles as consultants and assistants
to the students’ writing by acting as guiders and facilitators. Another aspect of the
teacher’s role highly appreciated by the students was a close monitoring of individual
students during their practice writing. The students claimed that they could benefit
greatly when I looked at their writing progress and provided suggestions to them. This
is in accordance with Hyland and Hyland’s (2006b) study, which states that students
will find the teacher feedback useful when it addresses their individual needs.
6.3.3 The roles of the students
This part examines research question 3, sub-question c- what are the
roles of the students?
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
334
Learning collaboratively
The findings from my reflection on the practice and the information
from the students helped draw the conclusion that one of the most effective ways to
empower the academic writing ability of students was the use of collaborative
learning. Collaborative learning refers to an educational approach to teaching that
involves groups of learners working together to solve a problem (Laal & Laal, 2012).
It is a set of methods which enables students to work together to achieve a learning
goal (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). In this study, the students were engaged in
collaborative learning throughout the process of writing. In the prewriting stage, the
students would participate in group discussions to brainstorm, generate, examine, and
share ideas for composing their texts.
Next, during the writing process, they performed peer evaluation,
which was also considered as a collaborative learning strategy (Brandly and
Thouësny, 2017). While the quality of the feedback was still in question, the students
strongly agreed that they could learn a lot about making sensible arguments,
providing strong support to the argument, organization, and good use of language
from seeing their peers’ text. This is in line with the Sociocultural Theory (SCT) by
Vygotsky (1978), which argues that the human learning takes place through
participation in social interaction with knowledgeable others (Raymond, 2000, in
Rambritich, 2016).
From the post-intervention investigation, the students also specified
that the payoff of collaborative learning was clearest in report writing genre. Since the
text type was complex and it required a lot of critical thinking ability, the students
contended that discussions with their peers helped them understand the composition
of the complex and highly structured report.
Knowing such benefits, it is sufficient to say that the students should
partake in collaborative learning activities. However, successful implementation of
such method comes with challenges. Based on the findings, there were two major
factors that the teacher needs to consider. The first point to consider is the distance-
relations among the students. At the beginning of this study, I did not use much
collaborative learning because the students were not yet familiar with one another.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
335
After they became more acquainted, the dynamics of the class improved. Then, I
started to assign them to work collaboratively.
The next point concerns the method of assigning groups. I usually
assigned groups based on their seating arrangement for convenience. While it was
convenient to let the students form their groups by themselves, the teacher should
consider factors such as the group members’ personality, ability, their relationships
with one another, and, in this research setting, their cultural background. Letting some
students dominate the discussion could be counterproductive and create frustration to
some students, as they had reported. Moreover, some students commented that it was
not a very effective method. They suggested that I assign groups by selecting students
with different proficiencies to work together. That way, they could learn from those
who were better than them. In the meantime, the more proficient students could
provide assistance to those who were less proficient. Effective collaborative learning
can be, therefore, a carefully structured interaction among students in a group by
assigning specific roles for them to perform in the group: the leader, the facilitator,
the reporter, and the time-keeper for instance (Kegan & Kegan, 2009). It is also
crucial that the teacher ensures that the students take responsibility to actively
participate and take responsibility in planning, monitoring, assessing, and evaluating
their work (Contreras León & Chapetón Castro, 2016).
Being in charge of their own learning
In this study, the findings suggested that most students applied
metacognitive learning strategies in the composition and revision of their texts. As
suggested by Lv and Chen (2010), metacognitive writing refers to the cognitive and
emotional experiences that occur during the writing process. Entries in the student
reflective journals showed that they used several strategies to manage, monitor, and
evaluate their learning of academic writing. For example, the students compared the
drafts of their texts and evaluated their performance. Then they came up with plans to
improve their texts. These findings reflect the work of O’Malley and Chamot (1990)
which defines metacognitive strategies as the process of learners thinking about their
learning, planning for learning, and evaluating the outcomes of it after a certain
learning activity. In the same manner, Wu (2004) indicates that metacognitive
strategies involve planning, organizing, and evaluating one’s own learning process.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
336
Based on these findings, it is appropriate to say that the use of the
adapted approaches of writing instructions, with the focus on the multiple-draft
writing, offers an opportunity for students to practice their metacognitive skills, which
are higher order executive skills. Hence, students should take this opportunity to
enrich their metacognitive learning experience. As noted in a study by Wang (2017),
more successful students adopted planning, monitoring, evaluating, and cognitive
control in their writing compared to those who are less successful. With the help of
the teacher, students should possess more autonomy in their learning. Holec, (1981)
and Benson (2006), in Alonazi (2017) state that learner autonomy is an ability to take
charge of one’s own learning and autonomous learners have the responsibility to
make all the decisions concerning their own learning process.
A challenge I found in the attempt to instill the sense of autonomy to
the students was their reticence. It was found that they were not very willing to
engage in class discussion, especially during the beginning of the course. As I had
reflected, the students were familiar with the traditional style of the teacher being the
center of the class. Moreover, reticence is common among Asian students (Lee and
Ng, 2009). In addition, as elaborated by some students, the reason for them not to try
to engage or propose ideas in a discussion was the fear of losing face and having their
ideas being negatively judged. Theses findings were consistent with previous studies
by Macintyre, Clement, Dörnyei, & Noels (1998) and Liu (2005). The writers
articulate that the reasons for silence in the classroom involve learner factors such as
motivation, confidence, and anxiety. Other studies on the issue point to the teacher’s
side. They found that the factors such as uneven allocation of turns, incomprehensible
input, and intolerance of silence, contribute to classroom reticence (Tsui, 1996 and
Clifton, 2006).
A probable measure that could help improve the situation would be to
create a better relationship between the students and teacher and among the students
themselves. Thus, it is vital that the teacher establish social relationships with the
students in order to reduce the reticence in the classroom as it results in more
participation (Clifton, 2006). From my reflection and the findings from investigating
the students’ opinions, the teacher must be open to students’ ideas, give non-
judgmental comments to them, and praise them for their efforts.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
337
6.3.4 The benefits of the authentic texts in writing development
This part concerns the roles of the materials in the teaching and
learning of academic writing. The two major teaching materials used in this study
were the prescribed textbook and authentic texts provided in the form of
supplementary handouts.
Using authentic texts for more variety of linguistic input and
motivation
From the inquiries, the textbooks was useful in terms of displaying the
reading passages and model texts for the students to learn the text structure, lexical
items used in each genre, and some formulas they could use in their texts. As for the
additional authentic texts that I provided to them, the students claimed that the texts
provided them more and interesting language input, including a greater range of
vocabulary and expressions, which could make their texts more attractive. Besides,
the students could also see examples of writing styles that were different from the
textbook, which some of them tried to use as a model in developing their writing
style. In addition to the language aspects, the authentic texts had contributed in
motivating the students to learn to write. The students also asserted that seeing the
real-world writing inspired them to write better too. This finding was supported by
Charles and Pacarori (2016) who urge the provision of authentic materials in class as
they could escalate intrinsic motivation among students.
The students’ reflection was similar to what was found by the work by
Losada, Insuastry, and Osario (2016) and Al Azri and Al-Rashdi (2014). The findings
from their investigation on the impact of authentic materials on EFL students’
communicative competence, including writing ability, show that the students who
received the instructions that incorporated the use of authentic texts significantly
outperformed those who were taught with non-authentic materials. As for motivation,
it was in line with the study by Peacock (1997) who claims that the level of classroom
motivation increased significantly when authentic materials were used.
Regarding the perceived benefits, it is clear that teachers of academic
writing should incorporate the use of such authentic texts in their instructions.
However, the use should be with caution. Based on my reflection, while many
students tried to incorporate the language input they observed from the authentic texts
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
338
into their compositions, many students, especially those with slightly lower
proficiency, still found that those samples were beyond their ability to comprehend.
Therefore, they decided not to try to learn to make use of the additional language
input and remained restricted to the materials in the textbook. In the same vein, some
students argued that they found the authentic texts interesting but they did not try to
make use of the language because they were not clear about its application to their
texts.
This implies that, in order for the teacher to use authentic texts
successfully in developing the students’ academic writing ability, the readability level
of the text and the level of proficiency of the students should align. As Charles and
Pecorari (2016) asserted, in circumstances in which the authentic materials are too
difficult, they will become uninteresting and demotivating for students. The aspects of
the authentic text exemplifying the language features such as lexical items, formulas,
and expressions important to the convention of academic genre should be explicitly
highlighted so that the teacher can discuss them with the students. This suggestion is
in line with Swales (2009b) who postulates the idea of using authentic input to focus
on the linguistic structures in terms of genre. Additionally, Charles and Pecorari
(2016) assert that, even though, authentic text could be regarded challenging, it can be
highly motivating for the students with adequate teacher scaffolding.
6.3.5 Integrating alternative assessment in the process
In this section, the roles of assessment are described in order to answer
research question 3, sub-question e.
In this study, the assessment methods involved both assessment of
learning and assessment for learning. The former entailed the formal, prescribed
summative assessment in the form of quizzes and examinations and the latter
concerned the formative, alternative forms of assessing the students writing ability.
Starting with the first type, since this action research was situated in the actual
classroom setting, the main assessment system followed the course policy of the
university. From the investigation, the students expressed serious concerns about the
exams including their performance and the consequence of the poor performance.
Those concerns included the lack of readiness before the exam, their anxiety during
the exam, and their responses to the results.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
339
They also commented on the exam as well. The findings from the
student reflective journals and post-intervention interview showed that the student
found the examination too challenging from them, especially the practicality of the
exam. Many commented that the time allowed to them was not enough for them to
complete the tasks as well as they believed they could. This fact implied that the
students saw that the examination did not reflect the nature of writing, as in the real
world, there are rarely such strict time limitations. In addition to that, the mark
allocation in each exam was high, putting tension on the students, as they perceived it
as a high-stakes exam. In this regard, some students suggested a revision in the exam
policy.
The student’s concern about the formal examination was a
confirmation that the students were still highly influenced by the exam-driven
educational culture. One of the first things the students learned about this course was
the mark allocation and grading system presented in the course syllabus. Hence, it
came as no surprise that each examination would have a strong impact on them.
This has shed light on the methods suitable for assessing the students’
academic writing ability. While it is necessary that the assessment of learning should
prevail, the course should embrace more use of assessment of learning that fosters the
students’ learning development, such as the writing portfolio. According to Lam
(2016), such assessment for learning methods could empower the students’ learning
and development of language awareness, self-assessment skills and self-reflection,
especially in the classroom wherein the learner-centered pedagogy and socio-
constructivist are employed.
Characteristics of teacher feedback
The second form of assessment, which was a focus of this study, was
the use of alternative assessment. Based on the analysis of students’ responses and
opinions towards the alternative assessment types used in this study, teacher
constructive feedback was one of the major factors with a vital role in the
development of the students’ academic writing ability. In this study, the provision of
feedback was suitably integrated with multiple-draft writing. The practice was
relevant to Myles (2002) who states that provision of feedback would maximize the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
340
benefit of the process approach as individual students would be able to reflect and
seek input as they revise their text based on the feedback they received.
The findings also revealed that the students had high expectations of
the teacher feedback. They believed that the feedback should address points of
improvement in all aspects of the text namely the accuracy, content, vocabulary use,
and organization. Corrections and revision strategies should also be provided.
Nevertheless, due to the time limitation and the workload that the teacher already
bears, meeting such anticipation would be impractical and make the process
unnecessarily more herculean (McCord, 2012). Hence, the priority of teacher
feedback should be on the important features of each genre. As stated by Badger and
White (2000) and Hyland (2006), different genres entail different sets of rules and
linguistic features. For example, in the data interpretation genre, the importance was
on the use of lexical items to describe the movement of numbers, while for report
writing, the emphasis was on the construction of plausible and effective
recommendations.
To empower the students’ ability to write academically, the teacher
feedback should hold the following characteristics. First, it needs to address
individual students’ needs. As Hyland & Hyland (2006) suggest, students tend to find
the teacher feedback useful when it is contextualized to individual students, giving
consideration to their individual needs. Second, a combination of constructive
criticism and corrective feedback on accuracy is necessary. Next, the function of
feedback should not be exclusive to pointing out the weakness in the students’ texts
and asking them to correct it. As a matter of fact, teacher feedback was essential in
encouraging the students to improve their writing performance. In line with that, the
teacher feedback in this study was formative in nature. It focused on strengthening the
students’ competency and helping them overcome their weaknesses in writing. Thus,
it had positive effects on the improvement of the subsequent drafts, according to the
findings. The same findings were also reported in a study by Ellery (2008) on the
positive impact of formative feedback on the students’ writings.
Praising the students’ efforts should come in line with criticisms.
Likewise, suggestions on specific points were always given because each student had
individual strengths and weaknesses. This implies that the feedback should be
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
341
thorough. Lastly, the teacher feedback always ended with a message encouraging
them to uplift their performance. This argument is supported by Gee, 1972 and
Hyland & Hyland (2006b), in Lee (2008), that it is essential that effective teacher
feedback comprise both praise and constructive criticism.
Learning from one another through peer evaluation
The next alternative assessment type that had a major role in this study
was the peer evaluation. Even though the students’ voices and my reflection agreed
that this type of assessment posed quite a number of problems in achieving
effectiveness, evidence still showed that it could still influence the students’
improvement in their academic writing. To be exact, the students agreed that they had
learned to improve their writing by seeing and evaluating their peers’ works, as
triangulated by the findings of different sets of data. The students claimed that they
witnessed examples of good ideas and effective use of language when they read the
texts composed by their classmates. It is therefore reasonable to propose that the use
of peer evaluation should remain as an alternative form of assessment of writing.
A strengthening measure is needed to overcome the problematic issues
regarding the ineffectiveness of peer evaluation. To be specific, trainings on the peer
evaluation system are required. As suggested by Coffin et al. (2003) and Saito
(2008), trainings on peer-review can help students, both as the provider and receiver
of feedback, effectively develop their critical ideas and understand how their peers
and other readers respond to their writing. Another possible way to improve the
effectiveness of peer evaluation is to train the evaluators on one separate point at a
time. For example, the first training should focus on criticizing the ideas while
another task is to evaluate the coherence of the text. For this study, however, due to
the constraints of time in which the class had to cover a large content, the opportunity
to provide more training sessions was scarce.
Finally, based on the findings, the provision of peer evaluation should
also include the use of oral feedback. It was evident in this study that most students
perceived that combining the oral feedback with the use of the peer evaluation
checklist was more helpful than using the checklist alone. The combination of written
and oral feedback was proven effective by Van den Berg et. al. (2006). The
researchers concluded that using both modes of feedback provision together provided
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
342
the evaluators opportunities to orally explain their views, leading to more revisions on
the meaning level of the text. Therefore, the peer evaluation system should foster two-
way communication among students in order for it to be effective. This entails the
students taking more proactive roles in seeking feedback or explanations of it from
their peer evaluators.
Tracking learning development with the portfolio
The last form of alternative assessment to be discussed was the use of
the portfolio. In this study, the portfolio was the process type that served as the
collection of the students’ writing assignments with all drafts kept for the students to
monitor their improvement. To encourage the use of the portfolio, a portion of the
coursework score was allocated. At the end of the course, all students submitted their
portfolio for marks. The scoring was based on the completeness of all works and the
improvement perceived by the teacher throughout the semester. In this regard, looking
through their portfolios, it is appropriate to say that it was a powerful assessment
learning tool in developing the students’ academic writing ability.
However, reflecting on the practice, I found that the portfolio system in
the present study could be improved. To start with, the students stated that it would be
better if they were given the freedom to select their best works to present to the
teacher to see their improvement. This suggestion was in line with Park (2004) and
Hyland (2016) who argue that students should have the right to decide which pieces
of work they would like to present to the teacher in the showcase portfolio, as it will
let them experience a sense of ownership of the texts.
6.4 Conclusion of the discussion
From the discussion of research findings, it was clear that the intervention using the
adapted approaches of writing instructions with the integration of alternative
assessment methods significantly improved the students’ academic writing ability.
For the students’ opinion towards the intervention, they found that the writing
instructional methods of the multiple draft approach was helpful for them to develop
their academic writing ability as they had the opportunities to revise the content,
refine the language, realize their strengths and weakness, and eventually gain
confidence as a writer.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
343
The alternative assessment methods used in this study had proven useful in the
students’ point of view. The most important type of assessment, according to the
students, was the feedback from the teacher. Other alternative assessment methods
were also well perceived by the students. Meanwhile, while the peer evaluation had
been problematic, the students still perceived it as having positive impact on their
development of academic writing ability, especially as the provider of evaluation.
The last section attempted to answer research question 3 and its sub-questions.
In addition to the discussion on the roles of different elements in the teaching and
learning of academic writing, issues regarding the setbacks from the implementation
and probable solutions were presented. Therefore, the next section proposes the
implications determined from the findings from this study on the pedagogy of
academic writing.
6.5 Implications for academic writing instructions
Students’ academic success in higher education entails the ability to display
their knowledge of and competency in their discipline. In most cases, their
competency is assessed on the basis of their written assignments (Ivanic & Lea,
2006). This requires the curriculum developers and teachers of academic writing to
search for effective ways that support the students to develop academic abilities to
cope with the requirements in their education. This study, then, attempts to formulate
an informed knowledge to the academic writing pedagogy.
It is my firm belief that this action research study has pushed the edge of
knowledge of academic writing instructions. Consequently, the findings can provide
information that embodies an informed practice on the instructions of academic
writing in the tertiary education level. As discussed in the previous sections in this
chapter, this study employed and adapted several approaches of writing instructions
and integrated them with the use of alternative assessment in order to improve the
students’ academic writing ability. The results of the study have proven to be valuable
and effective in improving my practice as an academic writing instructor. Following
the principles of action research, the knowledge should be transferred to other
practitioners of the same discipline. Therefore, the following section proposes a
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
344
possible model for academic writing instructions theorized from the findings of this
study. Then, the implications of the model are presented for teaching practitioners of
similar contexts of EFL academic writing classes.
6.6 Proposed model of academic writing instructions
Informed by my reflection and discovery in the actual classroom setting as an
action researcher, together with findings from other sources, my reflexivity was then
transformed into the introspection of the model of academic writing instructions. This
model was generated from the refinement of my direct experience teaching and
conducting an investigation on the approaches of academic writing instructions that
synthesized alternative assessment of writing. To be exact, this model does not put all
theories of writing instructions into practice but it is a result of the informed data from
this action research materialized into a substantive theory. This proposed model
utilizes the principle of product approach in using model texts to expose students to
the structure, format, and linguistic features in the text types. In addition to that, it
employs the collaborative modeling in showing and engaging students in the creation
of model texts with a purpose to show them the composition process. Moreover,
based on the key idea of genre and process-genre, setting communicative context for
the texts is involved. Finally, the main feature of this model is the process writing
with the use of multiple-drafting methods.
The other integral part of this model is the adoption of different alternative
assessment methods. Derived from the findings, the alternative assessment used in
this action research proved itself with formative power beneficial to the students’
development of academic writing ability. Henceforth, they are included in the model.
Figure 6.1 presents the proposed model of academic writing instructions
grounded from the findings of this action research. The model is comprised of 4 major
phases which are:
1. The instructions phase
2. The prewriting phase
3. The composition phase
4. The post-writing phase
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
345
Phase 2: Prewriting Step 1: Selection of topic
Step 2: Set communicative context (Genre approach) Step 3: Brainstorm- class discussion, group
brainstorm, pair work, free writing, or researching
Step 4: Provision of authentic texts
Phase 3: Composition (Process/ Process-genre approach)
Collaboratively constructed model
Draft 1: structure and language feature
Peer Evaluation
Draft 2: revise based on peer evaluation
Teacher Feedback
Final draft: revise based on teacher feedback; edit for accuracy
Phase 4: Post-writing Publishing: online or
class magazine Portfolio: process portfolio
and showcase portfolio
Peer evaluation training
Final comments/ grading
OR
Phase 1: Instruction
Inductive approach Deductive approach
- Clear instructions on the structure, purpose of text, and language
Model text (Product approach)
Supplementary material:
vocabulary sheet, exercises
OR
Figure 6.1: The model of adapted approaches of writing instruction
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
346
Phase 1 Instructions
Clear instructions on the purpose of text, structure, and language feature Deductive Approach use when:
-studentsarenewtothegenre;textsarehighlytechnical
Inductive Approach use when: -studentsarefamiliarwiththetexttype;relearning in the second assignment. Use of model texts
- provide guidance in identifying/ deconstructing the structure, language features, cohesive sequencing, and objectives of the text, highlighting key points
Supplementary material. - used for facilitating learning by providing supplementary handout: vocabulary list or exercises
Phase 2
Prewriting
Step 1: Selection of topic - let the students select and vote for the passage/ graph from the textbook based on their interest. - for argumentative essay, let the students propose some topics; then, help formulate the topic for writing in a debatable statement.
Step 3: Brainstorming - teacher-guided class discussion: used at the beginning of the course - group brainstorm or pair work: used when the students are familiar with one another. - individual free writing: used with argumentative essay writing.
Controlling measures - address students individually to reduce reticence - welcome students ideas without judgment - assign groups comprising students with different levels of competence and motivation
Collaboratively constructed modeling - use when the students compose the text of the genre for the first time. - elicits ideas from the students, asking them to construct the model, providing assistance with language.
Step 4: Provision of authentic text - used in providing more language input; discourse convention and writing style highlighted - relevant to the topic being discussed, comprehensible to the students
Step 2: Setting the communicative context - lead a discussion on identifying the objective, the target reader, and where the text will appear - set realistic and achievable objectives - provide samples of texts from the real-world sources- websites or magazines
To Phase 3
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
347
Figure 6.2: The model of adapted approaches of writing instructions with details
Phase 3
Composition
Writing draft 1 - let the students prepare draft 1 in a correct format and language convention; - monitor the process and provide language support.
Peer Evaluation - let the students choose their evaluator - the evaluator reads the text and provide feedback using the checklist and orally. - monitor the process and provide close supervision on the use of the checklist, intervening when the feedback lacks solid suggestions at the meaning level
Training on peer evaluation - present the evaluation criteria and the checklists. - teach how to provide constructive criticism and language associated with the provision of feedback - demonstrate the process of using the checklist with the sample text; then let students practice evaluation of the sample text
Writing draft 2 - let the students revise the text based on peer evaluation: adding or removing ideas, providing supporting arguments, making the text coherent. - monitor the revision and provide language support
Teacher feedback - give written feedback on the texts, with constructive criticism and praise on the efforts and outstanding features; provide corrective feedback, direct and indirect. - add oral feedback to the students whose works need clear explanation
Writing final draft - let the students revise the text based on the teacher feedback, focusing on the content, organization, and accuracy; encourage them to include additional ideas, warrants and data
Teacher’s comments and grading - provide written comments on the overall quality and perceived improvement between drafts - assign scores with marks for improvement - any works need more revision to reach an acceptable point, return to the previous stage
Collaboratively constructed modeling - let students propose their planned revision; use the ideas in modeling with assistance on language and organization
Phase 4
Post-writing
Publishing - select outstanding work to display in the class’ online platform; encourage other students to post their works - assign the students to visit and provide comments to the published work - assign all students to submit one piece of writing to publish in class magazine
Portfolio evaluation - assign students to keep their work in the process portfolio - Portfolio showcase: the students select their best works to present to the teacher or the class with their reflection on writing development.
To Phase 1 of a new
assignment/ cycle
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
348
The following part of this section discusses each phase of the model with
explanations on possible pedagogical activities in the process.
6.6.1 The Instructions phase
Development of students’ writing ability is essential in the academic
discourse community. Teachers need to find the appropriate method of teaching the
writing skills. In the EAP context of this study, the writing skill is taught both as its
own separate skill and in conjunction with reading. Regardless of the approach,
writing strategies need to be taught explicitly in order for the students to develop their
knowledge of discourse, discursive, and critical competence as a basis for academic
writing at the tertiary level (Bruce, 2016 and Bathia, 2004).
In this model of instructions, the process of writing instructions starts
with introducing the students to a particular text genre. It is the stage in which
students are informed of the text type and function of the text. The approach of
instructions could be either deductive or inductive depending on the characteristics of
the students and their pre-existing knowledge of a particular genre. In a case in which
students are new to the genre, the choice of instructional approach could be deductive.
The reason is that most of the academic genres are highly technical with specific sets
of lexical items and bundles, as well as different expressions and formulas. In this
study, the genres that specifically required this approach were the data interpretation
and report writing.
On the other hand, the inductive approach could be suitable with a
genre that students have some experience with. For example, in this study, the
students had learnt to write about their comprehension of a reading text from the
previous course. It means they possessed some discourse knowledge of the genre. The
second scenario is when the students have become more familiar with the discourse
convention of the genre in the later cycles. Also, if the students are independent, then,
the inductive approach could work more effectively with their learning nature.
Model texts
An instructional tool that plays an important role at this point is the
model text, which is the essence of the product approach. With the model text, the
teacher can guide students in examining and deconstructing the language features and
genre convention. In so doing, the teacher will have to facilitate their learning by
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
349
having the structure laid out, highlighting the language features, and addressing other
cohesive sequencing of the ideas in the text. The teacher can exhibit the key ideas of
the text type and show examples of what is being discussed with the model text.
Besides, to strengthen the knowledge of genre, the teacher could prepare
supplementary learning material or exercises on linguistic features of the genre being
taught. For instance, a worksheet on the vocabulary used in describing a graph in data
interpretation or phrases used in forming a counter argument in an argumentative
essay can assist the students in grasping the essence of the genre.
6.6.2 The prewriting phase
After the students realize the type and the purposes of text they are
going to write, the writing process starts with the prewriting phase. This phase
involves a number of steps and activities adapted from the genre approach.
Step1: Selection of topic
The prewriting phrase starts with letting the students select a passage
for writing in response to a reading passage/ opinion writing and report writing from
the reading passages provided in the textbook. As for the topic for argumentative
essay writing, the teacher can ask the students to propose some broad ideas of the
topics they think interesting and guide them in formulating the essay topic. For the
data interpretation genre, the students also have the freedom to choose the graph with
the topic they prefer to work on. However, the teacher needs to ensure that they have
the opportunities to interpret different types of graphs: bar chart, line graph, and pie
chart, in different assignments.
Step 2: Setting the communicative context
After the topic is selected, the next step is to set the communicative
context for the text. In this stage, the teacher conducts the discussion with the students
in identifying the objectives of the text and target reader and determining in which
form or media the texts will appear. However, it is highly recommended that the
teacher be cautious of the students’ existing ability. From the present study, setting up
an unrealistic goal for the students’ text to achieve could be counterproductive since
the students, as mentioned, might not have had enough exposure to the text type.
Therefore, the teacher should discuss with the students whether the objective is
achievable to them. In order to ensure that the students understand the idea of the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
350
communicative context of the text, the teacher can provide examples of the texts from
the real-world sources such as websites or magazine articles.
Step 3: Brainstorming
The next step in the process of writing is brainstorming. This step is
crucial for students to produce texts with quality content. The main purpose of the
prewriting activity is to activate the students’ existing topical knowledge or establish
contextual knowledge of the topic. There are several activities that can be used
ranging from the teacher-guided class discussion, group brainstorm, pair discussion,
to individual work.
It is advised that the teacher-guided class discussion be used in the first
few assignments in the course. The rationale is that the students mostly are not yet
familiar with one another. Collaborative learning activities may not yield productive
results at this stage. Then, it is the duty of the teacher to lead the class by being the
moderator of the discussion. Nonetheless, student reticence can be expected. In such
case, the teacher needs to involve the students in the discussion by requesting ideas
from them individually. Another important point to keep in mind is that the teacher
should not reject or judge the quality of the ideas contributed by the students in order
to establish rapport and class morale.
When the students become acquainted with their classmates, group
brainstorm or pair discussion is a powerful collaborative learning activity. In grouping
the students, especially at the beginning of the course, the teacher should ascertain
that a group is comprised of students with different levels of competence and
motivation to foster effective collaborative learning. Once the students develop their
rapport and reduce their personal social distance, they can choose their group freely.
Another activity that the students in this study suggested was the use of
free writing. This activity was found particularly useful in argumentative essay
writing. Informed by the findings, the students felt that free writing was suitable with
argumentative essay because the task did not bind them with information from
reading passages. When using free writing as a prewriting activity, moreover, the
students can generate ideas regarding the topic and put them down on paper without
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
351
concern for linguistic accuracy or text format. Their free-writing text can be used in
the actual composition of the essay later.
Step 4: Provision of authentic text
In addition to displaying the communicative context in the earlier
stage, authentic texts are the material that should be provided at the end of this
prewriting phase. The reason for using the authentic texts at this point lies upon the
fact that they aim to provide language input without trying to interfere with the
students’ ideas for writing. In other words, it was a measure preventing the students
from imitating the content from the authentic texts. Nevertheless, it is advised that
the topic of the authentic material should be relevant to the defined communicative
context of the text that the students are working on. However, based on the findings of
this study, the teacher should consider the difficulty of the texts, particularly the
length and the vocabulary level. The teacher should highlight the specific features of
the genre through the use of the authentic text instead of using it for reading
comprehension. For example, the teacher may note the collocations used in
comparing variables in the data interpretation genre or expressions used in stating the
writer’s stance in the opinion writing and argumentative essay writing.
Collaboratively constructed models
The other type of model is the collaboratively constructed modeling,
which is created by the students with the guidance from teacher. This type of model
is helpful for the students to learn to reconstruct the texts of the genre. Moreover,
based on the findings, the collaboratively constructed models have the merit of
displaying more language input in addition to what the students see in the textbook’s
models. Furthermore, the students can seize this opportunity to see the actual process
of composition and transforming their ideas into arguments. In this proposed model of
academic writing instructions, the collaboratively constructed modeling can be
implemented either before composing draft 1 or draft 2.
The collaboratively constructed model is beneficial when the students
compose their text for the first time in the genre. After reading the prompt, seeing the
graph, or generating ideas for their essay, and having brainstorming activities, the
students can now contribute their ideas to the construction of the model for the
assignment. The teacher is responsible for guiding the composition, refining the ideas,
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
352
and constructing arguments that are linguistically compliant with the genre. However,
as with the teacher-guided class discussion, the students may stay reserved and not
contribute much. The counterstrategy is to address them individually and ask for
ideas.
The other point in the writing process that the collaboratively
constructed modeling can be implemented is in the preparation of draft 2. Before
students revise their texts based on the evaluation and feedback from their peers, the
teacher leads the class to collaboratively construct a model text of the assignment
being undertaken. The reason for constructing the model here is that the students
already have some ideas from their first draft to share. The students can also, with the
teacher’s facilitation, learn to provide warrants and data to support their claims, and
incorporate the linguistic features of the genre into text, which can be included into
their draft 2.
6.6.3 The composition phase
This phase adapts the principle of process approach. It is where
students start their composition after they have gathered all the ideas for the text
through the prewriting activity. The essential part of the writing process in this phase
is the use of the multiple-draft writing approach that nurtures the recursive nature of
writing. Ideally, the students should write 3 drafts of the text. Between drafts, the
alternative assessment methods, which are the peer evaluation and teacher feedback,
come into play.
Writing draft1
The idea of writing the first draft is for the students to learn to write the
text in the correct format with genre-specific language convention. Hence, a certain
degree of imitation for text structure is to be expected. In this step, it is advisable that
the students compose their first draft in class in order for the teacher to monitor that
the students write according to the text’s format. More importantly, the teacher will
provide language support and consultation to them in the drafting process.
After the students finish their draft 1 composition, the texts will be
evaluated by their peers. Prior to the implementation of peer evaluation, training them
to properly handle the process is necessary to ensure the usefulness of this alternative
assessment method.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
353
Training on peer evaluation
Before the students start evaluating their peers’ texts, it is vital that
they receive proper training. The objectives are to familiarize the students with the
evaluation process and to foster the knowledge of assessment literacy. The training
should start with the teacher explaining the criteria in the evaluation as presented on
the checklist. Then, the teacher should also instruct the students to provide honest but
constructive criticism with sound language, especially in the learning contexts where
students may not be familiar with having their works evaluated by their equals. The
materials to use in the peer evaluation training can come from a mock text or a sample
of actual student text. Then, the teacher should demonstrate the evaluation process by
using the checklist to evaluate the sample text. After that, the students will practice
the evaluation with another sample text, with the teacher closely monitoring the
process.
It should be noted here that more than one peer evaluation session is
needed, especially when the students have not been familiarized with this kind of
alternative assessment from their previous learning experience. Besides, since each
genre has its own focus, the peer evaluation training for different genres might be
necessary. To cite an example, in the report-writing genre, the students should be
trained to evaluate the recommendations and offer revision strategies.
Peer evaluation
When the students finish their first draft, the text is to be evaluated by
their peer. The students can have the freedom to choose their evaluator. The type of
evaluation and feedback from the peer evaluator should be in both forms; written on
the checklist and oral feedback. Based on this study’s findings, effective peer
evaluation should be in the form of 2-way communication between the receiver and
the evaluators. Thus, the teacher needs to promote effective communication among
the students.
The checklist is designed based on the criteria of the text of a particular
genre set by the curriculum. Nevertheless, it should cover the basic requirements of
the text at the surface level such as the spelling, accuracy, structure, and organization.
Also, the checklist should also include an open comment part for the evaluator to
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
354
evaluate the text at the meaning level, explain certain points, reflect on their overall
impression of the text, and offer possible revision techniques.
In the peer evaluation process, the teacher also has the duty to monitor
the process. The students, especially during the first times of giving evaluations, will
request assistance from the teacher. Thus, close supervision on how the students make
use of the checklist is necessary. Besides, the validation of the comments will help the
evaluator gain their confidence in giving feedback. At the same time, the receivers of
feedback will develop trust in their peer evaluator too. In case of students’ being
unable to perform the evaluation effectively, for example they provide only
superficial feedback on the local level, the teacher should intervene and assist them to
focus more on the global level, meaning content, meaning, organization and revision.
Writing Draft 2
In this stage, students revise the texts based on the evaluation and
feedback they received from their peer evaluators. They can also add or remove ideas,
provide more supporting arguments to their claims as suggested, and reorganize the
order of ideas. The teacher may conduct the collaborative modeling, as mentioned
earlier, to let the students see how they can approach the revision. They can propose
their planned revision ideas at this point. These will eventually help the students to
engage in the discussion. Then, they plan their revision accordingly.
Teacher feedback
The teacher has the duty to provide feedback to the students’ revised
text. The form of feedback is written on the students’ works. The feedback should be
formative in nature with constructive criticism. It should focus on the relevancy and
validity of ideas and arguments, the use of language that is compliant with the genre,
and the organization. Also, the teacher can help the students to adjust the language
style to suit the readers and meet the determined objective of the text. It is also crucial
that the feedback addresses specific points in details so that the students can see the
direction of revision.
The students need more than just feedback on points to improve. This
study found that compliments and recognition of efforts from the teacher worked very
effectively in motivating the students to strive to perform better. It is therefore
necessary that the feedback from the teachers feature these aspects as well.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
355
As for the language accuracy, students are very much concerned with
their grammatical knowledge and perceive it as one of the major parts in their
development of English. In response to this, the teacher should provide corrective
feedback, either direct or indirect, as well. Furthermore, in some cases, such as when
a student did not make significant improvement in draft 2, the teacher should find the
opportunities to provide oral feedback to the students whose works need clear and
thorough explanation on ways for them to improve.
Writing draft 3
After the students receive the work back, they now must revise their
text for the final draft. They can have another opportunity to find more information to
add to the final draft. Then, based on the teacher’s feedback, the students revise the
content and organization, and edit for accuracy.
The final stage of this phase is the grading of the text by the teacher,
with some comments on the overall picture of the final draft together with the
improvement of work. The rubric and whether it should be part of the course work
score are based on the assessment policy of the course. However, the teacher still
needs to provide further feedback in case some previous issues have not been resolved
or the text has not reached the acceptable standard. This can be achieved through oral
feedback with individual students. More importantly, the students’ efforts in writing
and improving all drafts needs to be addressed before the works are returned to them.
6.6.4. The post-writing phase
To complete the writing process, the last phase is for the students to
publish their works and file their works in the portfolio. The selection of texts to be
displayed depends upon the teacher’s consideration. However, it is highly suggested
that all students should have equal opportunities to have their work published.
Publishing of work
There are several options in the publishing of works. The most
common and convenient way to publish the students’ work is using the online
platform. Several applications and websites are available for teachers to create a space
exclusively for the class members to display their work. The objective of publishing
their works online is that it is an easily accessible platform, from which all students
can visit, see, and learn from their peers’ works. The displayed works are selected by
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
356
the teacher. Besides, any students who would like to have their work published online
are given the freedom and encouraged to do so. The students should be encouraged to
visit the published works and comment on them.
Another possible form of publishing includes a class magazine in
which the teacher duplicates the works of all students, compiles them in a magazine
format, and distributes it to the class.
Portfolio evaluation
In this part, the student’s writing portfolio is used as another
alternative assessment tool. The objective is for the students to have records of their
learning and improvement in their writing ability. In the implementation, the students
should be assigned to keep all their texts in form of a progress portfolio. However, as
informed by the finding of this action research, the students should be able to select
the works that they want to present to the teacher through the showcase portfolio.
Another option is that the students might be assigned to use the portfolio to reflect
their development of academic writing ability, for instance, the area of improvement
the perceive and the weaknesses they have overcome, and present it to the teacher or
the class.
Whether the students’ portfolio should be part of the evaluation
depends on the assessment policy of the course. Nevertheless, the findings from this
study suggested that the students would be more encouraged to utilize their portfolio
if a certain score was assigned.
6.7 Conclusion
This chapter discussed the main research findings from this study, which were
used in answering the research questions. The results showed that the use of the
adapted approaches of writing instructions with alternative assessment could
significantly improve the students’ academic writing ability. As for their opinion, the
students developed positive perceptions towards the teaching and learning approaches
in the intervention. After that, the roles of the teacher, students, and other pedagogical
mechanisms in writing instructions were discussed.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
357
After the discussion, the implication of the research findings was offered in
the model of academic writing instructions. The model was grounded on the
knowledge informed by the results of this action research. It adapted the philosophy
and principles of different approaches of writing instructions with the integration of
alternative forms of assessment that were proven effective in improving the students’
academic writing ability by this study. In addition, my reflection as the teacher and
the students’ opinions and insights provided insiders’ views in the creation of this
model. In sum, this model of adapted approaches to academic writing instructions was
substantively theorized. It, therefore, can be transferred to the developers and other
practitioners of academic writing courses.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
358
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter summarizes this action research study in different aspects. It
starts with revisiting the starting point. Then, it presents a brief picture of the
implementation of the intervention. The next part discusses my reflection on
conducting this action research in terms of professional development. After that, the
limitations of this study are pointed out, leading to suggestions for further studies.
7.1 Summary of the action research
This study was established upon the reflection of my practice as an academic
writing teacher from which I found that students struggled in mastering their
academic writing ability. In the attempt to improve the situation, I conducted a
primary investigation on the parties involved, namely the teachers of academic
writing and the students who had experience in learning it. Then, from the
information I obtained, I reached a conclusion that instructional approaches and
assessment system were the critical factors that defined whether students could
achieve the leaning goal- to be competent at academic writing for their educational
and future career purposes.
From an extensive review of literature on writing instructions, I integrated
different writing approaches into the design of the instructions as each approach has
its core strength. After seeing their formative power on developing students’ writing
ability, several alternative forms of assessment were embedded in the process of the
pedagogy. As for the research methodology, I chose action research owing to the fact
that it was a method of systematic inquiry that enabled me to gather authentic data
from the actual classroom setting. Hence, the data were reliable and valid and
eventually helped reflect the true picture of the outcomes of the study. To sum up, the
intervention of this action research was designed with the adaptation of different
approaches of writing instructions interfacing with alternative forms of assessment.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
359
From the implementation of the planned intervention, it was clear that in order
for the students to effectively learn and improve their academic writing ability, a
single approach to instruction was not enough. Writing is a complex process that
involves many factors. Therefore, employing multiple approaches and finding a
balance point for them would yield a better outcome of the teaching and learning.
Besides, this study had shown that assessment was intertwined with the
teaching and learning and had vital roles in the development of the students’ ability.
While it is generally believed that assessment is a matter of reflecting how the
students progress and whether they met the objectives of learning or not, this study
proved that it also had the power to promote learning of writing alongside the
teaching, particularly the alternative forms of assessment. All of the insights I had
discovered from conducting this action research were translated into the proposed
model of writing instructions presented in the previous chapter.
7.2 Professional development through reflective practice
Conducting this action research was a pathway for my professional
development. The empowerment that working on this research provided me is
multifaceted and manifested in both the roles of teacher and researcher that I took. To
put it simply, as a teacher, I gained tremendously valuable insights in order to become
a competent teacher of academic writing. At the same time, as a researcher, it gave
me opportunities to widen my experience in conducting a classroom-based research.
One of the key elements in this action research was the reflection on the
phenomena of the classroom and the occurrences resulting from the implementation
of plans. As a teacher, I came to realize that reflection is a fundamental part of
teaching and learning. I became aware of my professional practice and action. In other
words, I had engaged in the reflective practice that raised my awareness of my
practice situation. As defined by Finlay (2002), reflective practice is the process of
learning through and from experience in order to gain new insights on one’s practice.
According to Schön (1983), reflection lies in two aspects: reflection-in-action
and reflection-on-action. Reflection-in-action refers to the reflection during the act
stage. In the classroom setting, it is carried out during the lesson and it allows the
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
360
practitioner to consider why a particular situation happens and respond to it at the
time it happens. Reflection-on-action, on the other hand, is the process of considering
the situation again with deeper thoughts. It involves the process of reflecting on the
causes and exploring the options that the practitioner has to improve the situation
based on the existing knowledge.
Being engaged in this action research study provided me ample opportunities
to practice both types of reflection. Starting with reflection-in-action, the
implementation of the intervention sometimes deviated from the plan and required
changes to fit the classroom and students’ nature. A clear example was the teaching
approach. When I employed the inductive approach in the teaching of report writing, I
observed that the students were not able to analyze the focus and language features of
different parts of the report. With the reflection-in-practice, I improved the situation
by changing the teaching method to the counterpart deductive approach.
As well, I was engaged with the reflection-on-action. An example was the use
of model texts, which was derived from the product approach of writing. From my
previous experience, letting students follow the models did not prove very effective in
fostering their writing ability. Hence, I refrained from showing the model texts and
only provided some key ideas, such as the lexical items necessary for the text, to the
students. Then, I assigned the students to compose the text by themselves. With
careful observation, I found that the students did not possess enough competence to
construct the text on their own because they had not had adequate exposure to
academic texts. Moreover, they were not aware of the language convention of
different academic genre. Thus, I improved the situation by bringing back the use of
model texts in the instructions with careful planning, close observation and reflection
on how the model could be used effectively. Eventually, using model texts had proven
to have merits for the students. I then learned that, with clear guidance and
appropriate facilitation, the students could learn about the structure, linguistic
features, and convention of the text, which could be a takeoff point for them in their
own compositions.
Another example of the adjustment of the plan resulting from reflection-on-
action was the brainstorm activity. I discovered that the majority of students were
quite reserved when it came to the class discussion, particularly at the beginning of
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
361
the semester. Then, I had to reflect on what the causes of such phenomenon were and
find measures to improve the situation. I hypothesized that such reservation was
culturally influenced. The students might have an impression that that the teacher held
the legitimate power and was superior in terms of knowledge. Acutely aware of such
possibility, I adjusted the plan in the next research cycle by assigning the students
group discussion. This led me to a new discovery that the students put more efforts in
the discussion with their classmates and it made me aware of the efficacy of students’
collaborative learning and, therefore, it was emphasized more in the later research
cycles. All of the information regarding the effectiveness and shortcomings of the
intervention were taken into account in coming up with a practical and effective
pedagogical method that helps improve the students’ academic writing ability.
Adopting reflective practice, both as the teacher and researcher, had greatly
influenced a change in my epistemology in the teaching of academic writing. Prior to
this study, my experience as a learner of academic English writing had shaped my
belief that the instructions of academic writing required one single approach whether
it was the product, process, genre, or process-genre. It depended upon the teacher’s
discretion and belief to decide which to employ. I once believed that I was a
subscriber to the process approach. However, through persistent reflective practice,
which involved retrospection, self-evaluation, and reorganization of knowledge,
together with the findings from this action research, my view on academic writing
pedagogy had changed. I learned that in the repertoire of academic writing, there was
no one best method of instructions and none of them was superior to the others. An
effective instructional approach is, in fact, eclectic and synthesizes the strengths of
different approaches and methods.
The same was true about my roles as the teacher. With the current paradigm of
learner-centeredness, I believed that the students had to take full responsibilities in
managing their learning. Such belief was heightened by the fact that this course of
investigation was regarded as an advanced course. Nevertheless, I discovered that my
responsibility as the teacher did not diminish. As a matter of fact, I became aware that
I needed to find a balance between being the center of knowledge and facilitator of
learning. More importantly, I realized that the students perceived me as a model
learner with experience that I could pass on to them. Being the model of a non-native
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
362
English teacher for the students involved not only being a language learner but it also
encompassed the display of a responsible, devoted professional.
7.2.1 The impact on the role of teacher
Having the opportunity to conduct and complete this action research
has positively influenced me to improve as a teaching practitioner of English
academic writing. Since the study was situated in the actual classroom, action
research helped me explore my teaching systematically and become observant about
the students’ responses. Then, I learned to analyze and reflect to improve the practice
that leads to a better learning experience for students.
Although there were many challenges and unanticipated issues that
emerged during the studies, they trained me to become more adaptive and flexible
with my teaching as I realized that those encounters were natural in the teaching and
learning process and they could become a valuable input for me to reflect on the
practice. Thus, every adjustment in the plan was based on informed knowledge
reflected in this action research. When I could improve the situation, the confidence
about my qualifications as an effective teacher rose.
The next influence that this study had on my practice was that I
became more connected to my students. From constantly making observations on how
they performed in class and reflecting it, as well as knowing their reflections on
learning through their journals and the interview, and receiving feedback on my
teaching performance, I gained more insights into the students’ needs and understand
more clearly about their perspectives. This consequently enabled me to be sensitive to
their learning needs. Consequently, I could adjust the lesson and methods of
instructions and assessment correspondingly to foster better learning. Second, I could
facilitate individual students’ learning to help them solve learning issues. When I saw
that the students improved, my confidence as a professional increased.
The last benefit on me as a teacher that action research brought was
that I learned to be an open-minded teacher. The students’ comments and feedback
reflected the quality of the instructions and assessment methods that I designed for
this research. They were also the means to improve the practice. Listening to and
accommodating their comments and feedback helped me gain respect from the
students. At the personal level, it reassured me that my teaching was helpful for them.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
363
More importantly, it helped improve the class atmosphere in which the students
would put greater effort in their learning.
To sum up, this action research was an eye-opening experience for me
as a teacher. It made me feel that I have become a better teacher of academic writing.
I gained more confidence knowing that my practice was improved by evidence-based
practice and decisions.
7.2.2 The impact on the role of researcher
The other point relates to my professional development experience as a
researcher. To begin with, it was an opportunity for me to explore the current issues in
the field of English language teaching (ELT). It motivated me to extensively read and
evaluate literature and theories of different fields in my context such as writing
instructions, assessment, learning approaches, and classroom management. They
could help me form a body of knowledge to help design the framework of my study.
Secondly, being engaged in this action research trained me to inquire,
investigate, analyze, and interpret data in a systematic way. These are the necessary
skills that researchers need to possess. Furthermore, with the nature of action
research, I learned to develop a reflective mindset in evaluating the outcomes of my
actions and use the research skills to cope with unexpected events in the research
process. In other words, doing this action research equipped me with the problem-
solving skill that was knowledge based. This has given me a sense of professional
achievement. Finally, it is with utmost confidence that I can write that this study will
be a valuable contribution to research work on writing instructions, added to the
limited number of works in this field, especially in the educational arena of Thailand.
7.3 Action research and academic writing instructions
This study has proved that action research could offer a tremendous
contribution to the understanding to the pedagogy of academic writing. The steps in
action research are well fitted with the multiple-aspect nature of writing as they
provide a holistic picture of the reality in the classroom. To elaborate on this, through
the observation process, I could see the impact of the plan on the students’ learning of
writing. With ongoing monitoring, I could also observe their development as well as
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
364
their problems in progressing. Being responsive to those facts, the reflective state
enabled me to find means to improve the situations, whether it was an individual
student’s problem or for the whole class. All information was vital in the adjustment
of the plan in the sequential lesson and research cycle to match with the classroom
reality. The source of knowledge was not exclusive to my interpretation. The
feedback and reflection from the students on the instructions and assessment method
were the key informants that helped me understand more deeply and clearly how the
students develop their writing ability. Such knowledge on how the students perceived
and interacted with the instructions was valuable for a comprehensive understanding
on their learning, which as a consequence contributed to adjustments of the plan in the
next cycle.
Furthermore, engaging the students in the process of reflective learning was
beneficial to their development of writing ability. Reflecting their own learning
through the use of student journals in this study empowered them with the ability to
analyze their learning progress and to find measures to improve it. In addition,
through the use of the multiple-draft writing method, the students were provided with
opportunities to evaluate their performance and reflect on measures to improve their
writing. This reflection process instilled them with a sense of achievement.
To summarize, with all the informed knowledge driven by the data obtained
through action research, a model of academic writing instructions was proposed. This
model is a declaration that action research could contribute beyond a particular
writing classroom practice to the level of theory substantively grounded on findings.
It is therefore appropriate to state that this study has uplifted the power of action
research to the theoretical level.
7.4 Limitation of this study
This action research is considered successful as it had met the objectives of the
study and provided answers to the research questions. Nevertheless, there were some
limitations in the process. First of all, although the study was thoroughly planned, its
implementation faced many challenges due to the large class size of more than 30
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
365
students. Moreover, as the study took place in the real teaching and learning
environment during the semester, it had to follow the set schedule, resulting in
working under time pressure and constraint. As a consequence, the students
sometimes found the workload quite burdensome for them.
In addition, the intervention of using the adapted approaches of writing
instructions was new to the students who had been trained with only the product
approach. It took some time for them to adjust to the new ways of learning, which
required them to be more autonomous. The same challenge was on the assessment
methods as well. From their learning experience, most of the assessment was
exclusively authorized to their teachers. The problem was clear with the peer
evaluation system in which the students had struggled in performing the role of
evaluators. Nonetheless, probable solutions have been given in the previous chapters
of this study.
The last limitation I found was the cultural factor that had impacts on several
areas, making the study rather challenging. To start with, the majority of the students
were reticent and not willing to cooperate in many activities. This calls for other
researchers’ attention when conducting a study in a similar context.
7.5 Recommendations for further studies
While teaching and research are generally viewed as two separated entities,
action research proves otherwise. This study is a proof that action research can go
hand in hand with teaching. In fact, it is the most practical way for teaching
practitioners to improve their teaching with systematic enquiries into their own
teaching context. Hence, it is highly advised that EFL teachers take up action research
as a means for their professional and classroom development.
Regarding the sustainability of this action research, future studies may use the
findings from this action research as baseline information to plan for another
proposed action research project investigating the impact of the model of academic
writing instructions. Findings from further action research will help refine and
improve the model of instructions. This will contribute to the sustainability of the
benefit of this action research as well. Moreover, from the data, the students claimed
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
366
that the intervention of this study was useful for them in transferring the knowledge
about academic writing to the learning of other courses. A follow-up investigation on
such claims is a possibility for further research. In line with that, another interesting
area is a longitudinal research on the retention of knowledge of academic writing
among students taking this course.
The present study was conducted on one class of students and it yielded
positive results. To strengthen the benefits of this intervention, further research could
be in the form of collaborative works among teachers of academic writing on multiple
groups of students. With more researchers and participants involved in the study, it
would provide different insights useful to the development of this model of writing
instructions.
As the findings from this study show that the adapted approach of writing with
alternative forms of assessment could significantly improve the students’ ability in
writing academically, further research can study its impact on other writing genres
and levels such as an essay composition class with intermediate-level students.
Lastly, since this study was constrained by time as it was conducted during
real classroom teaching, thus having to follow the university’s tight schedule, it could
not include all of the alternative assessment methods. Therefore, further research may
include other alternative assessment tools, such as writing conferences, in the study.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
367
REFERENCE
Abraham, A. (2015). Action researching power in an ESL and academic writing
classroom. Qualitative Research Journal, 15(2), 155-165.
Afshar, H.S., & Farahani, M (2018) Inhibitors to EFL teachers’ reflective teaching
and EFL learners’ reflective thinking and the role of teaching experience and
academic degree in reflection perception. Reflective Practice, (19)1, 46-67.
Ahn, H. (2012). Teaching writing skills based on a genre approach to L2 primary
school students: an action research. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 2-11.
Al Azri, R. H., & Al-Rashdi, M. H. (2014). The effect of using authentic materials in
teaching. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 3(10), 249-
254.
Amnuai, W., & Wannaruk, A. (2013). Investigating move structure of English applied
linguistics research article discussions published in international and Thai
journals. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 1-13.
Andrusyszyn, M. A., & Davie, L. (2007). Facilitating reflection through interactive
journal writing in an online graduate course: A qualitative study. International
Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 12, 103-126.
Babalola, H.A.L. (2012). Effects of process-genre based approach in the written
English performance of computer science students in a Nigerian polytechnic.
Journal of Education and Practice, 3(6), 1-6.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Bae, J. (2011). Teaching Process Writing for Intermediate/Advanced Learners in
South Korea. (Unpublished master thesis), University of Wisconsin-River Falls,
Wisconsin, USA.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT
Journal, 54(2), 153-160.
Berg, V. D., et al (2006). Peer assessment in university teaching: evaluating seven
course designs, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 19-36.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
368
Bhatia, A.K. (2004). Worlds of Written Discourse. New York: Continuum.
Birjandi, P., & Tamjid, N.H. (2011). The role of self-, peer and teacher assessment in
promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education, 37(5), 513–533.
Bradley, L., & Thouësny, S. (2017) Students' collaborative peer reviewing in an
online writing environment. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 10(2),
69-83.
Brown, H.D. (2004). Language assessment: principles and classroom practices.
White Plains, NY: Pearson Education
Brown, H.D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment principles and
classroom practices. New York: Pearson Longman.
Brown, J.D., & Hudson, T. (1998) The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(4), 635-675.
Bruce, I. (2015). Theory and concepts of English for academic purposes. New York:
Pelgrave Macmillan.
Bruton, A. (2005). Process writing and communicative-task-based instruction: Many
common features, but more common limitations?. The Electronic Journal for
English as a Second Language, 9(3), 1-31.
Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers.
Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for
practitioner. New York: Routledge.
Burns, A. (2013). Action research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning (pp. 241-256). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd edition). Oxford. Oxford University
Press.
Byrnes, H. (2007). "Beyond writing as language learning or content learning:
Construing foreign language writing as meaning-making." Learning-to-write and
writing-to-learn in an additional language. Ed. Rosa M. Manchon.
Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011: 133-157.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
369
Çakir, C. (2013). Standard assessment and alternative assessment in English language
teaching program. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 33(3),
531-548.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second language writing: Dilemmas and
decisions in research and instruction. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
Press.
Chabeli, M.M. (2001). A model to facilitate reflective thinking in clinical nursing
education, Rand Afrikans University.
Chanderasegaran, A. (2002). Intervening to help in the writing process. RELC
Portfolio Series 7.
Chansiri, T. (2010), An investigation of the teaching of writing with a specific focus
on the concept of genre. International Journal of Learning, 17(2), 195-205
Chalapati, S. (2007) The internationalisation of higher education in Thailand: case
studies of two English-medium business graduate programs. RMIT University.
Challob, A. I, Bakar, N.A., & Latif, H. (2016). Collaborative blended learning writing
environment: Effects of EFL students’ writing apprehension and writing
performance. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 229-241.
Charles, M., & Pecorari, D. (2016) Introducing English for Academic. TESOL
Quarterly, 50(4), 999-1001.
Cheng, F., (2008). Scaffolding language, scaffolding writing: A genre approach to
teaching narrative writing. Asian EFL Journal, 10(1), 8.
Cheng, L., et al., (2004). ESL/EFL instructors’ classroom assessment practices:
purposes, methods, and procedures. Language Testing, 21(3), 360-389.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Student perceptions
before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2),
233–240.
Chuenchaichon, Y. (2014). A review of EFL writing research in Thailand in the past
10 years. Journal of Humanities Naresuan University, 11(1), 13-30.
Clifton, J. (2006). Facilitator Talk. ELT Journal. 60(2), 142-150.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
370
Coffin, C., Curry, M.J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T.H., & Swann, J. (2003).
Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London. Routledge:
Cohen,L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007) Research methods in education, 5th
edition, London and New York: Routledge.
Contreras León, J. J., & Chapetón Castro, C. M. (2017). Transforming EFL classroom
practices and promoting students’ empowerment: Collaborative learning from a
dialogical approach. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 19(2),
135-149.
Council of Europe. (2001). A Common European Framework of Reference for
language learning and teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cresswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design (3rd edition). CA.
Sage Publication.
Cresswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design (4th edition). CA. Sage Publication.
Cross, P, 1987. The adventures of education in wonderland: implementing
educational reform. Phi Delta Kappan.
Crossley, S.A., Roscoe,. R., & McNamara, D.S. (2014). What is successful writing?
An investigation into the multiple ways writers can write successful essays.
Written Communication, 31(2), 184–214.
Crossley, S. A., Weston, J., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The
development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic
analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282-311.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the
distinction. In B. Street & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and
education, 2, 71–83).
Davies, P. (2000). Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 37(4), 346-355.
Dejsiri, S. (2008). The effects of writing Process with weblog Presentation on English
writing Ability of Twelfth grade students at Nonthai Khuru Uppatham School.
Sarn Srima Journal, 2(1-2), 62-66.
De Silva, R. (2014). Writing strategy instruction: Its impact on writing in a second
language for academic purposes. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 1–24.
Dörnyei. Z. (2011). Research methods in applied linguistics- quantitative, qualitative,
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
371
and mixed methodologies. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Douglas, D. (2000). Specific purposes tests of reading and writing. Assessing
languages for specific purposes (pp. 189-245). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Dowse, C., & Van Rensberu, W. (2015). A hundred times we learned from one
another” Collaborative learning in an academic writing workshop. South African
Journal of Education, 35(1), 1-12.
Dueraman, B. (2012). Teaching EFL writing: understanding and rethinking the Thai
experience. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 4(1), 255-
275.
Duncan,N. (2007). Feed-forward’: Improving students’ use of tutors’ comments.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 271-283.
Du Plessis, K. (2012). Action Research on the implementation of Writing Approaches
to improve Academic Writing Skills of Namibian Foundation Programme
students. University of South Africa.
Edelenbos P., & Kubanek-German A. (2004). Teacher assessment: The concept of
‘diagnostic competence. Language Testing, 21(4), 259–283.
Edwards, E., & Burns, A. (2016). Language teacher action research: Achieving
sustainability. ELT Journal, 70(1), 6-52.
Eliwarti & Maarof, N. (2016). The effects of process-genre approach on EFL
students’ writing performance. Applied Science and Technology, 1(1), 47-52.
Ellery. K. (2008). Assessment for learning: A case study using feedback effectively in
and essay-style test. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 421-
429.
Ensio, T. C., & Boxeth, K. R. (2000). The Effects of Publishing on Student Attitude
toward Writing (ERIC Research Report). University of Virginia, Virginia, USA.
Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). The
Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement. New York.
Routledge Falmer.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
372
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to students writing: Implication for second language
students. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbum Associates.
Ferris, D., & Hedgecock, J.S. (2005) Teaching ESL Composition. London. Lawrence
Erlbuam.
Finlay, L. (2002) Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity
in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209-230.
Flowerdew, J. (1993). An educational, or process, approach to the teaching of
professional genres. ELT Journal, 47(4), 305-316.
Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001) The EAP curriculum: Issues, methods and
Challenges‟, in J Flowerdew and M Peacock (eds), Research Perspectives on
English for Academic Purposes (pp. 177-194). Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Furneaux, C., Paran, A,, & Fairfax B. (2007). Teacher Stance as Reflected in
Feedback on Student Writing: An Empirical Study of Secondary School Teachers
in Five Countries. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching (IRAL), 45(1), 69-94
Gaziano-King, J. (2007). Assessing student writing: the self-revised essay. Journal of
Basic Writing (CUNY), 26(2), 73-92.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta analysis of writing instruction for adolescent
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.Ghoorchaei, B., Tavakoli, M., & Ansari, D.M., (2010). The impact of portfolio
assessment on Iranian EFL students’ essay writing: a process-oriented approach.
Journal of Language Studies. GEMA Online.
Gonzalez, E. (2010). Improving EFL writing through the process approach.
University of Birmingham. Birmingham, UK.
Ghufron, M. A. (2016). Process-genre approach, product approach, and students’ self
esteem in teaching writing. Indonesian EFL Journal: Journal of ELT, Linguistics,
and Literature, (2)1, 37-54.
Hadley, A.O. (2001). Teaching Language in Context (3rd Edition). Boston. Thomson
Learning.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
373
Hamp-Lyons, L. & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for
practice, theory, and research. New Jersey: Hampton Press.
Hamp-Lyons, B., & Heasly, B. (2006). Study writing (2nd edition). Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press.
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Kroll, B. (1997). TOEFL 2000 - Writing: Composition,
Community, and Assessment (TOEFL Monograph Series 5). Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Harsch, C. (2014). General language proficiency revisited: current and future.
Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(2), 152–169
Harsch, C. (2017). Key Concepts in ELT. English Language Teaching Journal, 71(2):
250-253.
Hashemi, Z., & Mirzaei, T. (2015). Conversation of the mind: The impact of journal
writing on enhancing EFL medical students’ reflections, attitudes, and sense of
self. Procadia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 103-110.
Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S. (1980). Identifying the Organization of Writing Processes
in Cognitive Processes in Writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. Lee Gregg
and Erwin Steinberg (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1980), pp. 3-
30.
He, X. (2016). An action research on improving non-English majors’ English writing
by basic sentence pattern translation drills. English Language Teaching, 9(1). 142-
147.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in The Language Classroom. Oxford.
Oxford University Press.
Hedgecock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign
language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 255-276.
Herman, J. Geahart, M., & Aschbacher, P. R. (1996). Portfolios for classroom
assessment: Design and implementation issues. In R. Calfee & P. Perfumo
(Eds.), Writing portfolios in the classroom: Policy and practice, promise and peril
(pp. 27-59). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
374
Hiemstra, R. (2001). Uses and benefits of journal writing. In L. M. English & M. A.
Gillen, (Eds.), Promoting Journal Writing in Adult Education (New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education. 90, 19-26.
Ho, B. (2006), Effectiveness of using the process approach to teach writing in six
Hong Kong primary classrooms. Perspective: Working Papers in English and
Communication, 17(1), 1-52.
Hout. B, (2002). (Re)-Articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning.
Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language
Teaching Research, 9, 321-342.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: Quantitative and
qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal,
91(4), 663–667.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2011b). Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An
agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language
Assessment Quarterly, 8(3), 229–249.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 225-286.
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback.
System, 32, 217-230.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourses: social interactions in academic writing.
London, Longman.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. New York, USA: Cambridge University
Press.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: language, literacy and L2 writing instruction.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 148-164.
Hyland, K. (2009). Corpus informed discourse analysis: the case of academic
engagement. In M. Charles, S. Hunston & D. Pecorari (Eds.) Academic Writing:
at the Interface of Corpus and Discourse. London: Continuum. 110-128.
Hyland, K. (2016). Methods and methodologies in second language writing research.
System. 59, 116-125.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
375
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (2006). Feedback in second language writing: contexts and
issues. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1-19.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language student writing:
Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.
Ivanic, R., & Lea, M. R. (2006). New contexts, new challenges: The teaching of
writing in UK higher education. In: L. Ganobcsik- Williams (Ed.), Teaching
academic writing in UK higher education (pp. 6–15). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Jang, E.E. (2014). Focus on Assessment. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and group
skills (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, F., & Smith, K.A. (1998) Cooperative learning returns to
college: what evidence is there that it works?. Change, 30(4), 26-35.
Johnson, M. (2016). Feedback effectiveness in professional learning context. Review
of Education: An International Journal of Major Studies in Education, British
Educational Research Education.
Jones, A.A., & Freeman, J.T. (2003). Imitation, Copying, and the Use of Models:
Report Writing in an Introductory Physics Course. IEEE Transactions on
professional communication. 46(3), 168-184.
Kansopon, V. (2012). An Investigation of the writing test used at the Institute of
International Studies, Ramkhamhaeng University (IIS-RU), Thailand. Language
Testing in Asia, 2(4), 86 - 100.
Kaufman, J.H., & Schunn, C.D. (2011). Students’ perception about peer assessment
for writing: their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39,
387-406.
Kearey, S., Perkins, T., & Kennedy-Clark, S. (2016). Using self- and peer-
assessments for summative purposes: Analysing the relative validity of the AASL
(Authentic Assessment for Sustainable Learning) model. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 840-853.
Kagan, S., & Kagan, M. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA. Kellogg, R.T. (1999). Components of working memory in text production. In M.
Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing processing
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
376
capacity and working memory effects in text production (pp. 49–61). Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Kellogg, R., & Whiteford, A. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for
deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44, 250-266.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (eds.), 1988. The action research planner. Victoria,
Australia: Deakin University Press.
Kimolva, B. F. (2012). The teaching of foreign language. Procedia- Social and
Behaviour Sciences, 31(1). 201-206.
Kimolva, B. F. (2014a). Approaches to the teaching of writing skills. Procedia- Social
and Behaviour Sciences, 112, 147-151.
Kimolva, B. F. (2014b). Constraints and Difficulties in The Process of Writing
Acquisition. Procedia- Social and Behaviour Sciences, 112, 433-437.
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S.A., (2018). Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 using fine-
grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 333-
349.
Laal, M., & Laal, M. (2012). Collaborative learning: what is it? Procedia-Social and
Behaviour Sciences, 31, 491-495.
Lam, R. (2016). Assessment as learning: examining a cycle of teaching, learning, and
assessment of writing in the portfolio-based classroom. Studies in Higher
Education, 41(11), 1900-1971.
Lam, R., & Lee, I. (2009). Balancing the Dual Functions of Portfolio Assessment.
ELT Journal, 64(1), 54-64
Lantolf, J. P., Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom:
Vygotskian praxis for L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 15, 11-33.
Lavankura, P. (2013). Internationalizing Higher Education in Thailand: Government
and University Responses. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(5),
663–676.
Lee, I. (2008a). Understanding teachers’written feedback practices in Hong Kong
secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85.
Lee, I. (2008b). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary
classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144-164.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
377
Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback
practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22.
Lee, I. (2014). Revising teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural
perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 201-123.
Lee, I. (2016). Teacher education on feedback in EFL writing: issues, challenges, and
future directions. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 518-527.
Leung, C., & Lewkowicz, J. (2006). Expanding horizons and unresolved conundrums:
Language testing and assessment. TESOL Quaterly, 40(1), 211-234.
Li, X. (2016). Promoting the audience awareness of EFL writing in Chinese
communicative context: A case study of “NOTICE”. English Language Teaching,
9(9), 64-73.
Lirola, M. M., & Rubio, F. (2009). Students’ beliefs about portfolio evaluation and its
influence on their learning outcomes to develop EFL in a Spanish context.
International Journal of English Studies, 9(1), 91-111.
Liu, M. (2005). Reticence in oral English language classroom: a case study in China.
TESL Reporter, 38(1), 1-16
Liu, N.F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer
assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290.
Losada, C. A., Insuasty, E. A., & Osorio, M. F. (2017). The impact of authentic
materials and tasks on students' communicative competence at a Colombian
language school. PROFILE Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 19(1),
89-104.
Low, P., (2017). E-learning implementation in foundation English class: learners’
perspectives and learning achievement. International Journal of Computer Theory
and Engineering, 9(4), 285-289.
Lundstorm, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefit of
peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
18, 30-43.
Luu, T.T. (2010). Enhancing EFL learners; writing skill via journal writing. English
Language Teaching, 3(3), 81-88.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
378
Lv, F., & Chen, H., (2010). A Study of Metacognitive-Strategies-Based Writing
Instruction for Vocational College Students. English Language Teaching, (3)3,
136-144.
Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in second and foreign language classrooms.
London: Continuum.
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising
the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320–337.
MacIntyre, P., Clement, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K.A. (1998). Conceptualizing
willingness to communicate in an L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and
affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
Marlowe, J. P. (2016). Developing syntactic complexity in L2 writing. In P.
Clements, A. Krause, & H. Brown (Eds.), Focus on the learner. Tokyo: JALT.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated
historical perspective. In Kroll (Ed.) Exploring the dynamics of second language
writing.
Matsuno, S. (2009). Self-, peer-, and teacher assessments in Japanese university EFL
writing classrooms. Language Testing, 26(1), 75-100.
May, T. (2001). Social research: issues, methods, and process, 3rd edition,
Buckingham. Open University Press.
McCord, M.B. (2012). Exploring effective feedback techniques in the ESL classroom.
Language Art Journal of Michigan, 27(2), 41-45.
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). The linguistic features
of quality writing. Written Communication, 27(1), 57-86.
McNiff, Jean. 1992. Action research: principles and practice. London: Routledge.
Mehami, H., & Razmjoo, S.A. (2016). An emic perspective toward challenges and
solutions of self- and peer-assessment in writing courses. Asian-Pacific Journal of
Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(9). 1-20.
Mendonça, C.O., & Johnson, K.E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision
activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-796.
Mermelstein, A.D. (2015). Improving EFL learners’ writing through enhanced
extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 182–198.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
379
Ming, L. (2006). Teaching writing to non-English majors in Cina with a balanced
approach. Sino-US English Teaching, 3(12), 36.
Mlynarczyk, R. W. (2013). Conversations of the mind: The uses of journal writing for
second-language learners. Routledge.
Murray, D.M. (1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning. In T.R.
Donovan and B.W. McClelland (eds), Eight approaches to teaching composition
(pp. 3-20). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Mutwarasibo, F. (2015). Promoting university students’ collaborative learning
through instructor’s guided writing group. International Journal of Higher
Education, 2(3), 1-11.
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: the writing process and error
analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2), 1-20.
Nasir, L., Naqvi, S.M., Bahami, S. (2013). Enhancing students’ creative writing skill:
an action research project. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 6(2), 27-32.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Talk and social
dimension. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171–193.
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006), Formative assessment and self-regulated
learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in
Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
Nordin, S.M. and Mohammad, N. (2006). The best two approaches: process/genre
based approach to teaching writing. The English Teacher, 35(1), 75-85.
Norris, J. M. (2006). The why (and how) of assessing student learning outcomes in
college foreign language programs. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 590-597.
Nunan, D. & Bailey, K.M. (2009). Exploring Second Language Classroom Research-
A Comprehensive Guide. MA. Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Nunes, A. (2004). Portfolios in The EFL Classroom: Disclosing An Informed
Practice. ELT Journal. (58)4.
Oller, J. (1979). Language tests at school: A pragmatic approach. London, UK:
Longman.
Olson, C. B. (2003). The Reading/Writing Connection: Strategies for teaching and
learning in the secondary classroom. Pearson Education: Boston. �
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
380
O’Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ongphet, K. (2013). Effects of different types of corrective feedback incorporating
with teacher-student conference on upper secondary school students’ writing
ability. Faculty of Education. Chulalongkorn University.
Paltridge, B. (2004). Academic Writing. Language Teaching, (37), 87-105. Retrieved
from doi: 10.1017/S0261444804002216.
Park, T. (2004). An overview of portfolio-based writing assessment. Columbia
University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-3.
Pasand, P.G., & Haghi, E.B. (2013). Process-product approach to writing: the effect
of model essays on EFL learners’ writing accuracy. International Journal of
Applied Linguistic and English Literature, 2(1), 75-79.
Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal
of second language writing, 8(3), 265-289.
Peacock, M., (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL
learners. ELT Journal, 51(2). 144-156.
Pincas, A. (1982)a. Teaching English Writing. London: Macmillan.
Poehner, M.E., (2007). Beyond the test: L2 dynamic assessment and the
transcendence of mediated learning. Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 323-340.
Pope, N.K.L. (2005). The impact of stress in self- and peer assessment. Studies in
Higher Education, 30(1), 51-63.
Pratama, A. (2016). Improving student writing skill using mind mapping technique (a
classroom action research on the seventh grade of SMP N2 Gondangrejo,
Karanganyar in the School Year of 2014/2015). E-Journal of Scientific Work
Program. Slamed Riyardi University.
Puengpipattrakul, W. (2013). Assessment of Thai EFL undergraduates’ writing
competence through integrated feedback. Journal of Institutional Research South
East Asia, 11(1), 6-27.
Puengpipattrakul, W. (2014). A Process Approach to Writing to Develop Thai EFL
Students’ Socio-Cognitive Skills. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching, 11(2), 270–284.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
381
Putnam, D. (2001). Authentic Writing Using Online Resources: Selling Our Words in
the Community. English Journal, 90(5), 102-106.
Pyrch T., & Castillo T. (2001). The sights and sounds of indigenous knowledge:
Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp. 379-385):
London. Sage.
Rambritich, A. (2016). Evaluating the effectiveness of a writing intervention for first-
year, ‘at-risk’ students. Language Matters, 47(1), 22-44.
Reichelt, M., Lefkowitz, N., Rinnert, C., & Schiltz, J.M. (2012). Key issues in foreign
language writing. Foreign Language Annal, 1(45), 22-41.
Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students’ text: the myths of appropriation. TESOL
Quarterly, 28, 273-292.
Richards, J.C., & Farrell, T.S.C., (2011). Practice Teaching: A Reflective Approach.
Cambridge University Press. New York.
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-
building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review
of Educational Research, 77(4), 534-574.
Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.
Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
Saito, H. (2008). EFL classroom peer assessment: Training effects on rating and
commenting. Language Testing, 25(4), 553-581.
Salehi, H., Asgari, M., & Amini, M. (2015). Impacts of the Extensive Reading Texts
on the Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Pre-university Students. Asian
Journal of Education and e-Learning, 3(4), 306-316.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioners: How Professionals Think in
Action. New York: Basic Books Inc.
Shresta, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic
writing development. Assessing Writing, 17, 55-70.
Smith, C. B. (Ed.). (1991). Alternative assessment of performance in the language
arts. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication
Skills.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
382
Smith, H., Copper, A., & Langcaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of
undergraduate peer assessment: A case for student and staff development.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39 (1), 71-81.
Spaventa, S. (2000). Essay writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suthiwartnarueput, T., & Wasanasomsithi, P. (2012b). Effects of using Facebook as a
medium for discussion of English grammar and writing of low-intermediate EFL
students. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(2), 194-214.
Suzuki, C., Watanabe, Y., Yoshihara, S., Jung, K., and Chang, K. (2009). Sustaining
Internet-Based Collaborative Learning in Process-Oriented Writing Classes:
Feasibility of an Action Research Approach. International Journal of Pedagogies
and Learning. 5(2): 20–33.
Swales, J.M. (2009b). When there is no perfect text: Approaches to the EAP
practitioner’s dilemma. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 5-13.
Throne, S. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and the object of innovation. In
St. John, O., Van Esch, K., and Schalkwijk, E. (Eds.), New Insights into Foreign
Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 51-70). Frankfurt, Germany. Peter Lang.
Torghabeh, R.A., Hashemi, M.R., and Ahmadi, H. S. (2010). Writing through
literature: a novel approach to EFL writing instructions. Iranian EFL Journal,
6(4), 7-23.
Tsui, A. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning in K. Bailey and
D. Nunan (eds.). Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tuan, L.T., (2010). Enhancing EFL learners’ writing skill via journal writing.
English Language Teaching, 3(3). 81-88.
Tuyen, K.T., Osman, S.B., Dan, T.C., & Ahmad, N.S.B. (2016), Developing research
paper writing programs for EFL/ESL undergraduate students using process genre
approach. Higher Education Studies, 6(2), 19-29.
Van den Berg, I, Admiraal, W. & Pilot, A. (2006). Designing student peer assessment
in higher education: analysis of written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in
Higher Education, 12(2), 135-147.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
383
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
Walker, M. (2009). An investigation into written comments on assignments: do
students find them usable?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1),
67-78.
Wang, W. (2016). Peer Feedback in Chinese College English Writing Class: Using
Action Research to Promote Students’ English Writing. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 7(5), 958-966.
Warawudhi, R., (2017) The evaluation of Edmodo in business reading class,
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4, 153-158.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weigle, S.C. (2011). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weigle, S.C. (2012). Assessing writing, The Cambridge Guide to Second Language
Assessment, edited by Coombe, C. et al. 9: Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press
Wette. R. (2014). Teachers' practices in EAP writing instruction: Use of models and
modeling. System, 42(1), 60-69.
Wette. R. (2015). Teacher-led collaborative modeling in academic L2 writing. ELT
Journal, 69(1), 71-80.
White, E. M. (1994). Portfolios as an assessment concept. In L. Black, D. A. Daiker,
J. Sommers, & G. Stygall (Eds.), New directions in portfolio assessment (pp. 25-
39). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Yan, G. (2005). A process genre model for teaching writing. Paper presented in the
English Teaching Forum.
Yang, L. (2010). Teaching English writing to develop creative thinking skills for high
school students. HRD Journal, 1(1), 99-107.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A Comparative Study of Peer and Teacher
Feedback in a Chinese EFL Writing Class. Journal of Second Language Writing,
15, 179–200.
Yi, J.Y. (2009). Defining writing ability for classroom writing assessment in high
school. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 53-69
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
384
Zhou, D. (2015). An empirical study on the application of process approach in non-
English major’s writing. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 89-96.
Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing.
ELT Journal, 68(2), 155-168.
Zhang, S. (1999). Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective
advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 321-326.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Žunić-Rizvić, L., & Dubravac, V, (2017). Building rapport with young EFL learners
and its impact on their achievement in an EFL learning context. Proceedings of
the Islamic Pedagogical Faculty of the University of Zenica, 15(15), 277-292.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
385
APPENDICES
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
386
APPENDIX A
LESSON PLAN
Lesson Plan Week 1 Class 1
Unit Topic: Introduction to BG 2001 English IV
D/M/Y
Duration: 3 hrs
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Introduction to the course
- Ice breaking activities
- Pre-lesson writing
Objectives:
- to provide an overview of the course and the learning objectives
- to introduce each leaning unit of the course
- to gather the background information of the students, their expectation, and
learning experience
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step writing in the
Process
Assessment
Used
- short self
introduction
- writing
assignment
- to learn about their new
classmates
- to reflect their past
learning experience and
their learning strategies
Week 1 Class 2
Unit Topic: Academic Reading
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5 hr
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
387
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Lecturing
- Discussion
- Reading sample passages
Objectives:
- to review the reading techniques previously learn in three different levels: word, sentence, and paragraph level
- to expose the students to the text types to be taught: Reading comprehension and Critical reading
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the Writing
Process
Assessment
Used
- Reading
passage and
discussion for
main idea:
exercise in unit
1 of the
textbook
- to understand the reading
skills required by this
academic course
- to apply the technique in
reading to help understand
the academic text type
- Pre-writing -Teacher
monitoring
Week 2 Class 3
Unit Topic: Reading academic texts and writing to respond a reading passage
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity - Lecture and PowerPoint Presentation - Reading passages selected from the course book by the students - Discussion on the passages: Group discussion
Objectives:
- to enhance the students’ reading skills - to review the knowledge of paragraph composition
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
388
- to introduce the students the writing process - to expose the students to academic writing text via the use of models
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the Writing
Approaches
Assessme
nt Used
-reading
passage and
discussion
- analyzing
model
paragraph
- to verbally express their
opinion towards the reading
text
- to see the language
convention and rhetorical
features of the academic text
- to create effective topic
sentences
- to use effectively the
cohesive devices
- Pre-writing:
deconstruct the target
writing genre
- teacher
monitorin
g
Week 2 Class 4
Unit Topic: Academic Writing
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5 hr
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Reading the passage for assignment 1, selected by the students from the
course book
- Prewriting activities: brainstorming for ideas, discussing the language features
- Setting the target audience, Objective of writing, Collaboratively constructing
models
- Preparing draft 1 (individual work)
Objectives:
- to let the students compose the paragraph using the language convention previously
discussed
Task/ Learning Goal Step in the Writing Assessment
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
389
Assignment Process Used
Reading
passage
Preparing
Draft 1
- be able to identify the
information to answer the
comprehension question
- be able to deconstruct and
reconstruct the text based on
the modeling and linguistic
input
-Pre-writing:
- Writing draft
1(individual)
- Teacher
monitoring
the
composition
of draft 1
Week 3 Class 5
Unit Topic: Academic writing
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Guided discussion on the criteria for peer evaluation using the checklist - Peer evaluation training - Writing draft 2 based on the peer evaluation and teacher feedback
Objectives:
- to create an understanding the criteria the students need to follow in evaluating their peer’s text
- to let the students improve their text in draft 2 Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the Writing
Process
Assessment
Used
- Evaluating
peer’s text
- Writing draft
2
- be able to evaluate another
student’s text based on the
criteria
- to learn to provide feedback
to their peer’s text
- to learn to accommodate the
Feedback from their peers.
- to see some example from
- Revising and
drafting
- Peer
evaluation
- Teacher
feedback
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
390
their peer’s text
Week 3 Class 6
Unit Topic: Academic Writing
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- continuation of the last lesson
Objectives:
- to make the students improve their text through editing and revising for
content and language
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the Writing
Process
Assessment
Used
- writing draft
2
- Revising for
the final draft
- be able to edit and revise
their text for content and
language
- be able to proofread the text
for grammatical mistakes
before submitting the final
draft
- Final draft
- Post writing
activity: Publishing
the outstanding
work on the class’s
Facebook page
- Peer
evaluation
- Teacher
feedback
- Writing
portfolio
Week 4 Class 7
Unit Topic: Error Recognition and Academic Writing (assignment 2)
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Lecture and exercises for Error Recognition
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
391
- Discussion on the background knowledge about the selected topic - Prewriting activities: Guided discussion on the language feature of the text;
Brainstorming -
Objectives: - to review the common grammatical errors learnt in the previous course - to let the students compose the paragraph using the language convention
discussed Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the Writing Process Assessme
nt Used
- Doing
exercises on
error
recognition
-Reading a
passage
- Preparing
draft 1
- be able to find the
grammatical errors in
the text
- be able to identify the
information to answer
the comprehension
question
- be able to reconstruct
the text based on the
modeling and linguistic
input
-Pre-writing
- Setting communicative
context
- Brainstorming
- Collaboratively modeling
text: reconstruct with
linguistic convention of the
target text)
- Writing
- Teacher
monitorin
g
Week 4 Class 8
Unit Topic: Error Recognition and Academic Writing (continued)
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Discussing to the error recognition exercises
- Continuing the writing assignment
Objectives:
- to let the students evaluate their peer’s text on the content and language
- to let the students revise their text in draft 2
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
392
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the Writing
Process
Assessment
Used
-Evaluating
peer’s text
with checklist
and oral
feedback
-Writing draft
2
- be able to evaluate the text
based on the criteria
- provide feedback to their
peer’s text
- accommodate the feedback
from their peers to improve
their text
- see some examples from
their peer’s text in terms of
ideas and language
- Revising and
writing draft 2
- Peer
evaluation
(written and
oral)
Week 5 Class 9
Unit Topic: Error Recognition and Academic Writing (assignment 2)
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Discussing answer keys to the error recognition exercises
- Continuing the writing assignment (final draft)
Objectives:
- to let the students revise the text based on the teacher feedback on both
language and content (written and oral feedback)
- to let the students edit and revise their text for grammatical errors before
submitting the final product
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in The
Writing Process
Assessment
Used
- Writing the
final draft
- be able to identify the
grammatical errors in the text
- proofreading for
- Composition
- Post-writing
- Teacher
feedback
- Writing
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
393
grammatical mistakes before
submitting the final draft
portfolio
Week 5 Class 10
Unit Topic: Revision for Quiz I
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Revision for Quiz I
- Discussing the grading criteria
Objectives:
- to review the key points for the quiz
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in Process Assessment
Used
Week 6 Class 11
Unit Topic: Data Interpretation
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Lecture on the concept of data interpretation; starting with asking students if they have some experience reading graphs
- Discuss model text for data interpretation: structure of the text -
Objectives: - to let the students see the language convention in describing graphical
information - to let the students learn essential vocabulary items for data interpretation
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
394
- to let the students practice on making logical sequencing of information Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the Writing
Process
Assessment
Used
- Discussing
with the class
- Preparing to
write draft 1
- be able to identify the
important features of
graphs
- be able to see the
language convention of
data interpretation text
- use the presented
language input to
construct draft 1
-Prewriting Activity
- Brainstorming
- Modeling text
- Writing draft 1
- Teacher
monitoring
Week 6 Class 11
Unit Topic: Data Interpretation
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5 hr
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Discussion on the criteria for peer evaluation using the checklist
- Display and discuss sample text to practice peer evaluation
- Practicing evaluating the peer’s text
Objectives:
- to create an understanding the criteria the students need to follow in
evaluating their peer’s data interpretation text
- to let the students improve their text in draft 2
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the Writing
Process
Assessment
Used
- evaluating
the sample
text
- composing
be able to evaluate the text
based on the criteria
- provide feedback to their
peer’s text
- Revising and
drafting 2
- Peer
evaluation
(checklist)
- Teacher
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
395
draft 2
- to be able to accommodate
the feedback from their peers
to improve their text
feedback
Week 7 Class 13
Unit Topic: Data Interpretation (continued)
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Revising text and prepare draft 2 based on peer evaluation and teacher feedback
- Discussing pie charts Objectives:
- to prepare the final draft of assignment 1
- to revise and edit the text for language and content
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the writing
Process
Assessment
Used
- Writing draft 2
of assignment 1
- Select pie
charts from the
course book
- Prepare
assignment 2
-to be able to edit the text
for content and language
- use the presented language
input to construct draft 1
Revising and editing
the text for the final
product
- Peer
evaluation
-Teacher
feedback
- Writing
portfolio
- Teacher
monitoring
Week 7 Class 14
Unit Topic: Data Interpretation (Assignment 2- pie charts)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
396
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5 hr
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Peer evaluation of draft 1 (Checklist and oral) - Revision of text based on peer evaluation - Submission of draft 2 for teacher feedback
Objectives:
- to let the students evaluate their peer’s text on the content and language
- to let the students improve their text in draft 2
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the writing
Process
Assessment
Used
-Evaluating
peer’s text
-Writing draft
2
- to be able to evaluate the
text based on the criteria
- to be able to provide
feedback to their peer’s text
- to accommodate the
feedback from their peers.
- to see some example from
their peer’s text
- Revising and
drafting 2
-Peer
evaluation
(checklist
and oral)
Week 8 Class 15
Unit Topic: Data Interpretation (Assignment 2)
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Revise the text for both language and content
Objectives:
- to let the students revise the text based on the teacher feedback on both
language and content
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
397
- to let the students edit and revise their text for grammatical errors before
submitting the final product
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the writing
Process
Assessment
Used
- Revise and
edit the text
for the final
draft
To be able to proofread the
text for grammatical mistakes
before submitting the final
draft
- Edit and revise
for the final
product
- Post-writing:
- Teacher
feedback
- Writing
portfolio
Week 8 Class 16
Unit Topic: Revision for Midterm Examination
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5 hr
Teaching and Learning Activity
- practice on sample exam paper
Objectives:
- to review academic writing and data interpretation for midterm examination
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the writing
Process
Assessment
Used
Week 9 Class 17
Unit Topic: Report Writing
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity - Inductive learning: functions of report, parts of reports, language convention
in report writing, methods of analysis - Analyze a model report through guided teacher discussion
Objectives:
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
398
- to show the student the 2 types of report to be taught in this unit namely the causes-effect and the advantages-disadvantages
- to present to the students the format and language convention in report writing Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the Writing
Process
Assessment
Used
Read the
passage to
prepare a
report
- to be able to find
essential information for
developing a report
- to be able to the
structure of different
parts of report
- to understand how ideas
are connected with
cohesive devices and
supporting facts
- to understand the
relationship between the
findings and
recommendations
-Prewriting Activity -Teacher
monitoring
Week 9 Class 18
Unit Topic: Report Writing
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity - Selection of topic, discussion, brainstorm - Setting target audience, objective of writing, - Collaborative modeling for language convention and technical terms
Objectives: - to teach the students the language convention in advantages-disadvantages
report writing - to guide the students to write with coherence throughout the report,
particularly the findings and recommendations
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
399
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in Process Assessment
Used
- Prepare the
report
- Collaboratively
modeling the
report
- to be able to use the
language convention in
the report in preparing
the draft 1
- Modeling text
(reconstruct with
linguistic convention
of the target text)
- Writing draft 1
- Teacher
monitoring
Week 10 Class 19
Unit Topic: Report Writing
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Guiding in writing draft 1 of the advantages-disadvantages report
- Training on peer evaluation with checklist
Objectives:
- to create an understanding in the criteria the students need to follow in
evaluating their peer’s report
- to let the students revise their text in draft 2
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in Process Assessment
Used
- Writing draft
1 of the report
- Submission
of draft 1 for
peer
evaluation
- evaluating
peer’s report
- submitting
- to use the language
convention discussed
- be able to evaluate the text
based on the criteria
- to provide feedback to their
peer’s text
- to accommodate the
feedback from their peer
- Writing draft 1 - Teacher
monitoring
- Peer
evaluation
(checklist)
- Teacher
feedback
(written)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
400
for teacher
feedback
Week 10 Class 20
Unit Topic: Report Writing (Advantages-Disadvantages)
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Guiding the revision of the report based on peer evaluation and teacher
feedback and prepare draft 2
Objectives:
- to let the students revise and edit their report on the content and language
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the Writing
Process
Assessment
Used
- Revising and
editing the text
based on peer
evaluation and
teacher
feedback
Writing draft 2
- to be able to improve the
quality of the report with
editing and revising for
content and language
- Composition of draft
2
- Peer
evaluation
-Teacher
feedback
- Writing
portfolio
Week 11 Class 21
Unit Topic: Report Writing
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Select the topic, discussion, brainstorm
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
401
- Discuss the passage for report writing
- Set target audience, objective of writing, modeling for language convention
and technical terms used in report writing through teacher’s guided discussion
Objectives:
- to teach the students the language convention in causes-effects report writing - to guide the students to write with coherence throughout the report,
particularly the findings and recommendations part Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in Process Assessment
Used
- Selecting and
discussing the
passage for
causes-effects
report
- Modeling the
report
- writing draft
1
- Use the language
convention in the report in
preparing the draft 1
- Prewriting:
- Modeling text
- Writing draft 1
- Teacher
monitoring
Week 11 Class 22
Unit Topic: Report Writing
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5 hr
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Evaluate peer’s reports
- Revise the report
Objectives:
- to let the students evaluate their peer’s text on the content and language
- to let the students improve their text in draft 2
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in Process Assessment
Used
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
402
-Evaluating
peer’s text
-Revising the
report to
prepare draft 2
- be able to evaluate the text
based on the criteria
- to learn to provide
feedback to their peer’s
report
- to learn to accommodate
the feedback from their
peers.
- to see some example from
their peer’s text to improve
their report
- Revise and Edit
- Write Draft 2
-Peer
evaluation
(checklist and
oral)
Week 12 Class 23
Unit Topic: Report Writing
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- writing the final draft of the report
Objectives:
- To let the students improve the quality of the report on the final draft
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in Process Assessment
Used
- Revising and
editing the
report for the
final draft
to revise and edit the report
proofread the text for
grammatical mistakes and
submitting the final draft
- Revising and
editing for the final
product
- Post-writing:
- Teacher
feedback
Week 12 Class 24
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
403
Unit Topic: Revision for Quiz II
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5 hr
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Using the sample Quiz II paper to prepare the students
Objectives:
- to familiarize the students with the test format
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in Process Assessment
Used
Week 13 Class 25
Unit Topic: Argumentative Essay
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity - Discussion and elicitation for ideas about argument and debate - Lecture: definition, purposes, and format of argumentative essays - Display a model essay and analyze its language convention and rhetorical
features Objectives:
- to let the students understand the purposes of writing argumentative essays - to let the students learn to use the language features for argumentative essays
in their text Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the Writing
Process
Assessment
Used
- Discussion
on argument
- be able to understand the
purpose of writing
argumentative essays
- be able to see the structure
Prewriting Activit
- Modeling text
(reconstruct with
linguistic
Teacher
Monitoring
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
404
- Analyzing a
model essay
- Selection of
topic, setting
objective and
audience, and
modeling text
- Preparing
Draft1
and parts of the essay and its
rhetorical features such as
phrases and expression
- be able to create the language
input to use in making
supporting arguments,
opposing arguments, and
counter arguments
- be able to use the language
convention discussed
convention of the
target text)
-Writing Draft 1
Week 13 Class 26
Unit Topic: Argumentative Essay
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5 hr
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity - Peer evaluation with checklist training - Evaluating peer’s essays
Objectives: - to let the students evaluate their peer’s text on the content and language - to let the students improve their text in draft 2
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the writing
process
Assessment
Used
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
405
-Evaluating
peer’s essay
(assignment1)
- Submitting for
teacher
feedback
- Preparing draft
2
- be able to evaluate the text
based on the criteria
- provide feedback to their
peer’s text
- to accommodate the
feedback from their peers.
- to see some example from
their peer’s essay to improve
their essays
- Revising and
editing for content
and language
- Writing draft 2
-Peer
evaluation
(checklist and
oral)
- Teacher
feedback
(written)
Week 14 Class 27
Unit Topic: Argumentative Essay
D/M/Y
Duration 3 hrs
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Discussion and generate idea with free writing method, and modeling text for language input
Objectives:
- to let the students revise their essay for content and language based on peer evaluation and teacher feedback
- to let the students independently generate ideas for revision - to practice the students practice using the language input in their essay
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the writing
process
Assessment
Used
- Revising and
editing
assignment 1,
preparing draft
2
- Preparing draft
1 of assignment
- Improve their essay using
peer evaluation and teacher
feedback
- Use their background
knowledge and generate
new ideas to use in the essay
- Use the language
- Revising and
Editing
- Prewriting:
Using free writing
- Peer
evaluation
- Teacher
feedback
- Writing
portfolio
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
406
2
- Selecting a
topic for
assignment 2
- Modeling the
report
- Writing draft 1
convention of the
argumentative essay
method to generate
knowledge schema
about the topic
- Writing draft 1
- Teacher
monitoring
Week 14 Class 28
Unit Topic: Argumentative Essay
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity - Revising and editing the essay based on peer evaluation
Objectives: - to let the students evaluate their peer’s text on the content and language - to let the students improve their text in draft 2
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in Process Assessment
Used
- Peer
evaluation
- Revising and
editing the
essay for draft
2
- be able to evaluate the text
based on the criteria
- provide feedback to their
peer’s text
- accommodate the feedback
from their peers.
- to see some example from
their peer’s essay
- Revising and
editing the text
- Write draft 2
- Peer
evaluation
(checklist and
oral)
Week 15 Class 29
Unit Topic: Argumentative Essay
D/M/Y
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
407
Duration 3 hr
Reflection from the previous class:
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Writing the final draft based on the teacher feedback
Objectives:
- to improve their essays based on the teacher feedback
- edit and revise for the final draft
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Steps in the Writing
Process
Assessment
Used
- Revise and
edit the text
for the final
draft
- to be able to proofread the
text for grammatical
mistakes before submitting
the final draft
- Composition
- Post-writing
-Teacher
feedback
- Writing
portfolio
Week 15 Class 30
Unit Topic: Revision for the final examination
D/M/Y
Duration 1.5 hr
Teaching and Learning Activity
- Practice on the sample final examination paper
Objectives:
- to prepare the students for the final exam
Task/
Assignment
Learning Goal Step in the writing process Assessment
Used
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
408
Item-objective congruence (IOC) Lesson Plans
Expert1 Expert2 Expert3 ScoreObjectives: 1. The objectives of the lessons are clear. -1 1 1 0.332. The objectives are relevant and consistent with topic of the unit. -1 1 1 0.333. The objectives of the lessons reflect the development of writing skills. -1 1 1 0.33
Teaching and learning activities:
4. The activities are practical. -1 1 1 0.335. The activities reflect the steps in the writing process. 0 1 1 0.676. The sequence of writing activities is appropriate. 0 1 1 0.67The process of writing 7. The prewriting activities provide an opportunity for the students to see the language convention of the target genre. 1 1 1 1.008. The prewriting activities are appropriate in helping the students gain knowledge schema for the writing tasks. 1 1 1 1.009. The writing activities (writing with multiple drafts) align with the principle of process writing. 0 1 1 0.67Assessment 10. The assessment methods reflect the principle of alternative assessment. 1 1 1 1.0011. The methods of alternative assessment are appropriate. 1 1 1 1.0012. The alternative forms of assessment: peer evaluation, teacher feedback, and portfolio are properly used. 0 1 1 0.67
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
409
APPENDIX B
RESEARCH PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
Research Title: Interface between Writing Approaches and Alternative Assessment: An Action Research in EFL Academic Context
Researcher: Mr. Vorakorn Tuvachit You are being asked to take part in a research study on the effects of using the process-approach of writing and alternative forms of assessment in developing undergraduate students’ English academic writing ability. You are being asked to take part as you are currently enrolled in the course BG 2001 English IV at Assumption University, which is the context of research. Please read this form carefully and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to take part in the study. This study is part of the doctoral thesis in Ph.D. Program in English Language Teaching at Language Institute, Thammasat University, in which the researcher is studying. The Institute for English Language Education has been informed and approved of this study. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of using the process-approach of writing and alternative forms of assessment on the development of English academic writing ability among undergraduate students. You must be working on different tasks assigned to you as part of the teaching and learning of the class BG 2001 English IV. If you agree to be in this study, you will provide data for the study. The data collection include 1) your classwork including your writing works, your peer feedback to your classmates’ works and your journal entries. 2) Your classroom behavior observed by the researcher. 3) You will be asked to take the pre and post tests whose scores will be part of the study. 4) You will response to a questionnaire eliciting your impression towards the teaching and learning at the end of the study period. 5) At a certain point of the study, you may be asked for an interview regarding your opinion on the teaching methods, the teaching and learning materials, and your perception towards yourself. With your permission, the researcher would also like to tape-record the interview. Please note that the aforementioned data collected from you will NOT affect your BG 2001 English IV grade. There are no risks anticipated to your participation in this study, especially ones concerning the course. The content of the course BG 2001 English IV will be maintained. You still have to go through the standardized examinations, mark allocation, and grading system as prescribed in the course outline. As well, there are no other benefits to you. Your answers will be confidential. The records of this study will be kept private. Any sort of report to be made public such as in the publication of the research will not include any information that will make it possible to identify you. Research records will be kept in a locked file; only the researchers will have access to the records. The record the interview will be destroyed after it has been transcribed, which we
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
410
anticipate will be within two to three months of its taping. Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You may skip any questions in the interview that you do not want to answer. If you decide not to take part or to skip some of the questions, it will not affect your current or future relationship with Assumption University. If you decide to take part, you are free to withdraw at any time. If you have questions: The researcher conducting this study is Mr. Vorakorn Tuvachit. Please ask any questions you have now. If you have questions later, you may contact the researcher at [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact Language Institute, Thammasat University at 02-613-3131 or access their website at http://www.litu.tu.ac.th. You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records. Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any questions I asked. I consent to take part in the study. Your Signature __________________________ Date ________________________ Your Name __________________________________________________________________ In addition to agreeing to participate, I also consent to having the interview tape-recorded if requested. Your Signature __________________________ Date ________________________ Signature of person obtaining consent __________________ Date ______________ P rinted name of person obtaining consent ______________________________ Date _____________________ This consent form will be kept by the researcher for at least three years beyond the end of the study.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
411
APPENDIX C
PEER EVALUATION CHECKLIST
WRITING TO RESPONSE TO A READING PASSAGE/ OPINION
WRITING
Peer Evaluation Form
Assignment CH _____________________ Exercise ___________________________ Date ____________________________ Writer’s Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________
Description Y
M N Example/ Suggestions
Overall impression
• The work appears to be a professional/ expert work.
• The work is clean and easy to read.
• The writer seems to write with confidence.
Content
• The writer tries to use own words or paraphrase more than copying from the text.
• The paragraph contains all details for the answer. If not, what is missing?
Quality of ideas in the argument
• The claim (writer’s standpoint) is clearly made in the topic sentence.
• There are enough supporting arguments for the writer’s standpoint.
• The writer’s opinion is well supported with specific details and/or examples.
• The writer provides his/her original ideas rather than getting them from the text.
• In overall, all the ideas are clear.
Quality of word choice
• The word choice is appropriate with the context (clear and accurate)
• The word choice is appropriate with the level.
Organization
• The ideas are well connected with cohesive devices (transition, conjunction.)
• The use of key nouns and pronouns are correct and consistent.
• The flow of information is logical with the most important idea highlighted.
Grammar (please read the work aloud to see where to stop or pause for periods, question marks, and commas.)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
412
• Proper nouns begin with capital letters.
• Sentences are complete thoughts and contain a noun and a verb.
• There are no run-on sentences/ fragments.
• The spelling is correct.
• The work contains a lot of grammatical mistakes.
Understandability
• This work is understandable.
Reflection
• I can see some good examples from this work (please specify).
Go to the next page Open Feedback: 1. Compliment (What you like about this work)
2. Correction (What you do not agree with the writer; what you think should be improved, and/or mistakes)
3. Suggestions (Ways for the writer to improve in the next draft)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
413
4. Encouragement
Evaluated by __________________________________________ For writer: I think the peer evaluation I receive is:
! very useful (which part _______________________________________________________)
! fairly useful (which part _______________________________________________________ )
! not quite useful (because ______________________________________________________)
! not useful at all (because ______________________________________________________)
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
414
APPENDIX D
PEER EVALUATION CHECKLIST
DATA INTERPRETATION
Data Interpretation Peer Evaluation Form
Assignment _________________________________________________ Date __________________________ Writer’s Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Evaluator’s Name: _________________________________________________________________________________
Description Y
M N Example/ Suggestions
Overall impression
• The work appears to be a professional/ expert work.
• The work is clean and easy to read.
Content
• The writer introduces the graph clearly with all variables mentioned.
• The subject of description is correct (The number of something, not the name of variables).
• The writers mentions all and only important features of the graph.
• The writer includes sufficient amount of numbers.
• The writer describes the movements of the variables.
• The writer puts too much unnecessary information.
Quality of ideas in the argument (explanation)
• The claim (writer’s standpoint) is clearly made in the topic sentence.
• The writer explains both the overall trend and movements (Why the numbers move in such ways).
• The reasons are logical.
• The reasons are based on fact.
• In overall, all the ideas are clear and convincing.
Quality of word choice
• The word choice is appropriate with the context (clear and accurate).
• The essential vocabulary items are used correctly (degree and speed of movement).
• The word choice is appropriate with the level.
Organization
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
415
• The ideas are well connected with cohesive devices (transition, conjunction.)
• The use of key nouns and pronouns are correct and consistent.
• The flow of information is logical.
• The writer describes the graph in the left-to-right structure.
• The writer appropriately groups similar information together.
Grammar (please read the work aloud to see where to stop or pause for periods, question marks, and commas.)
• Proper nouns begin with capital letters.
• Sentences are complete thoughts and contain a noun and a verb.
• There are no run-on sentences/ fragments.
• The spelling is correct.
• The tense used is correct and consistent.
• The words for movement are in active voice.
• The subject and verb use in wrong (e.g. The number is increase…)
• The work contains a lot of grammatical mistakes.
Understandability
• This work is a quality work.
Reflection
• I can see some good examples from this work (please specify).
Please provide some comments and suggestions for the writer to improve in Draft 2:
The positive points of this work The points that need improvement
Other comments:
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
416
APPENDIX E
SELF EVALUATION CHECKLIST
REPORT WRITING
Report Writing : SELF-EVALUATION Checklist Name:___________________________ Assignment ___________________
Overall Impression Yes No • The work appears to be a professional/ expert work. • The work correctly follows the report format. • Parts of the report are clearly separated with subheadings.
Language Use • Proper nouns begin with capital letters. • Sentences are complete thoughts and contain a noun and a verb. • There are no run-on sentences/ fragments. • The spelling is correct. • The word choice is appropriate with the level. • In overall, the grammar is good.
Introduction • The report starts with stating reasons for writing. • The introduction covers only background and general
information about the issue.
• The flow of information is logical (in good order). • The importance of the issue/problem is highlighted. • Sources of information are given. • I should use more of my own words.
Findings and Analyses • The writer applies correct method of analysis. • Both paragraphs include all necessary and correct information. • The ideas do not repeat what is already written in the
introduction part.
• There are enough supporting details and specific examples. • The second paragraph starts with a correct transition. • In terms of wordings, the writer seems to copy too much from
the passage.
Recommendations • The recommendations are logical and practical. • The recommendations are targeted at major issues in the
Findings and Analyses.
• Each recommendation gives clear direction on who, what to do, how to do it.
Conclusion • The conclusion reflects expected result of the recommendations • The expected outcomes aim at specific point. • There are no expected outcomes. It is only repeating the
recommendations in different words.
Organization • The ideas are well connected. • The use of key nouns and pronouns are correct and consistent. • Transitions are appropriately and sufficiently used and they
make the paragraphs and the whole report easy to follow and
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
417
APPENDIX F
PEER EVALUATION CHECKLIST
REPORT WRITING
Report Writing Evaluation Form Assignment _________________________________________________ Date ____________________________ Writer’s Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Evaluated by: _________________________________
Description Y
M N Example/ Suggestions/Re
marks Overall impression
• The work appears to be a professional/ expert work.
• The work correctly follows the report format.
• Parts of the report are clearly separated with subheadings.
• I can see some good examples from this work (Specify)
Language Use
• Proper nouns begin with capital letters.
• Sentences are complete thoughts and contain a noun and a verb.
• There are no run-on sentences/ fragments.
• The spelling is correct.
• The word choice is appropriate with the level.
• In overall, the grammar is good.
Content: Introduction
• The report starts with stating reasons for writing.
• The introduction covers only background and general information about the issue.
• The flow of information is logical (in good order).
• The importance of the issue/problem is highlighted.
• Sources of information are given. (If not all sources are given, mark M.)
• The writer should use more of own words.
Feedback/ Comments on Introduction
Content: Findings and Analyses
• The writer applies correct method of analysis.
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
418
• Both parts (Causes and Effects or Advantages and Disadvantages) include all necessary and correct information.
• The ideas do not repeat what is already written in the introduction part.
• There are enough warrants (supporting details) and data (specific examples) to support the main idea.
• The second paragraph starts with a correct transition.
• In terms of wordings, the writer seems to copy too much from the passage.
Feedback/Comment on the Findings and Analyses
Content: Recommendations
• The recommendations are logical and practical.
• The recommendations are targeted at major issues in the Findings and Analyses.
• Each recommendation gives clear direction on who, what to do, how to do it.
• All recommendations are creative and related to the issues discussed in the Findings and Analyses.
*Specify which one(s) is (are) not clear or ineffective.
Feedback/ Comments on Recommendations
Content: Conclusion
• The conclusion reflects expected result of the recommendations
• The expected outcomes aim at specific point (not only generally saying that things will get better).
• There are no expected outcomes. It is only repeating the recommendations in different words.
Feedback/ Comments on Conclusion
Organization
• The ideas are well connected with cohesive devices (transition, conjunction.)
• The use of key nouns and pronouns are correct and consistent.
• Transitions are appropriately and sufficiently used and they make the paragraphs and the whole report easy to follow and understand.
Understandability
• This work is a quality work.
Other comments:
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
419
APPENDIX G
PEER EVALUATION CHECKLIST
ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY
ArgumentativeEssayPeerevaluationchecklist
Writer____________________________________________Evaluator___________________________ Topic:___________________________________________________________________________________ Instructions:
• Answereveryiteminthelist.• Pleasemark✓afterthestatementthatyouagreewithandXafterthe
statementthatyoudisagreewith.• Ontheopencommentpart,pleaseanswerinfullsentences.• Yourcommentswillbevaluableforyourpeerandyourselftoimprove.
Title: Whatisthetitle?Isthetitleinterestingenough?Doesthewriterreflecthis/herstandpointinthetitle?Whatcanmakethetitlebetter?Introduction:Theflowofinformationgoesfromgeneralideastospecific:Theintroductionincludeonlyideasthatarerelevanttothetopic:Thegeneralideasaregeneralenough.Thewritercanmaketheintroductionbetterby:ThethesisstatementisclearBodySupportingideasThereareenoughsupportingideas.Howmanyideas?Theideathatshouldbeaddedis:Allideasarelogical.Therearesomespecificexamples.Theexamplesareuseful.WhatIlikeaboutthispartis
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
420
Thewritercanimprovethispartby:Theorderofimportanceis:_____ascending_______descendingOpposingArgumentsThewriterproperlyreferstheopposingideastothethirdpersonbyusingthirdpersonpronounsorphasessuchasthey,those,andthosewhosay.ThereareenoughdetailsTheopposingideassoundsstrongerthanthesupportingideas.TheideathatshouldbeaddedisRefutation/CounterargumentThewriterprovidessufficientcounterargument.Thecounterargumentsaredirectedtothemainideaoftheopposingarguments.Thewriterusesthesameideaswiththesupportingargumentsascounterarguments:WhatIlikeaboutthispartisThewritercanimprovethispartbyConclusionAllimportantpointsarehighlighted.Thethesisstatementisproperlyrepeated:OverallQualityoftheEssayIamconvincedbythisessaytoagreewiththewriter’sstandpoint.Yesbecause:Nobecause:WhatIlikeanddislikeaboutthisessayare:
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
421
APPENDIX H
PRE-AND POST-TEST AND SCORING RUBRIC
Instructions: Read the following article and answer the questions. From 2017 onward, about 1 million Thais will reach retirement age each year. But very few have hefty savings put aside for their dreams of comfortable golden years. In fact, statistics show that more than half of all elderly Thais have no savings at all. “This is on top of the fact that the elderly usually have significant expenses, particularly in regard to their medical needs,” Sukanya Paisanthum said in her capacity as director of the Labour Ministry’s Informal, Handicapped and Elderly Workers Division. Citing the Foundation of Thai Gerontology Research and Development Institute, she also suggested the elderly would be unable to depend as much on their children and grandchildren as in the past. Growing urban areas have spawned the explosion of nuclear families, while extended families living under the same roof are less prevalent. The birth rate has also fallen significantly in recent decades. In the face of such circumstances, it appears the elderly will need to rely more on themselves. Without savings of their own, they will badly need jobs. Under current regulations, civil servants must retire at the age of 60. Meanwhile, several private firms have agreed to keep employees on only until the age of 55 years. Employers are prone to choose younger candidates, too, even for |positions where age is not mentioned in the qualifications. “The year 2035 will mark the start of a ‘super ageing’ period. By then, the number of Thais reaching 60 years old will exceed the number of people jumping into the labour market,” Sukanya said.
Figure 1: The expected percentage of Thai people aged over 60 years
0
5
10
15
20
2018 2021 2035
ForecastedPercentageofThaiPopulationAgedOver60
MaleFemale
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
422
Recently, hundreds of people from elderly and workers’ groups submitted a petition to Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha to provide more comprehensive welfare assistance for the elderly. “Each elderly Thai should earn Bt 2,500 a month, the poverty line in Thailand, as a state-provided pension,” Nooken Intajan of the Four Regions Slum Network said. Presently, the government provides subsidies of between Bt600 and Bt1,000 a month to each elderly citizen in need. The amount provided grows according to age. Oranuch Lertdilokkul, a representative of an elderly network, said she was aware the government had already allocated a budget of Bt63 billion this year for the payment of subsidies. Still, she believed state subsidies for the elderly should increase even if the budget had to double. “A budget of more than Bt100 billion is well worth it if it can provide a guarantee that all elderly Thais will have enough money to subsist,” she said. Questions: 1. According to the passage, what are the reasons for the possible problems that the elderly may face? In your opinion, should the government raise the pension for the elderly? Why or Why not? (150-200 words) 40 marks 2. Suggest at least 4 measures/ strategies that you believe can help tackle the problems that the elderly will face. Include details to make sure that your ideas are clear and understandable. (100-120 words) 20 marks 3. Describe the information you observed from Figure 1. What are the reasons for the changes in the number of Thai elder population? (150 words) 40 mark NOTE: This pre-test is used for research purposes. The mark is not part of the grading of BG 2001 English IV
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
423
Grading Rubrics for Pre- and Post-test Task 1 Mark Allocation: Language Use = 10 Content= 20 Organization= 10 Total = 40 Language Use Description Scori
ng • No grammatical error and spelling mistake • Effective complex construction, use of tense, word order, pronouns,
prepositions
10-9
• Minimal grammatical errors and spelling mistakes • Effective but simple constructions, use of tense, word order,
pronouns, prepositions
8-7
• Some minor errors that do not affect reader’s understanding such as inconsistent use of pronouns and/or tenses
• Meaning only seldom obscured
6-5
• Many errors that make the answer difficult to understand, meaning confused or obscured
• Errors in negation, agreement, tense, number, word order, articles and pronouns
4-3
• No mastery of sentence construction rules • Incomprehensible because of serious grammatical mistakes such as
run on sentences, fragments, missing subjects, and/or missing main verbs or using wrong words
2-1
Content Description Scori
ng Part 1 Excellent: Clear comprehension, substantive, relevant to the question, thorough description; clear and relevant supporting details.
7-6
Good to average: some comprehension of the subject, mostly relevant to the topic, only one idea/plan missing
5-4
Fair to poor: some comprehension; major ideas missing, non-substantive 3-2 Very poor: no comprehension, irrelevant ideas and details 1-0 Use of own words: sophisticated range, effective word/idiom choice 3 - 0 Part 2 Excellent: Thesis statement clearly stated, clear and convincing warrants 7-6 Good to average: Thesis statement stated, some knowledge of the subject, mostly relevant to the topic but lacks details
5-4
Fair to poor: Thesis statement is stated, limited knowledge, no substance 3-2 Very poor: does not show knowledge, not pertinent, irrelevant ideas 1-0 Use of own words: sophisticated range, effective word/idiom choice 3 - 0
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
424
Organization Description Scoring
• Fluent Expression, ideas are well connected, logical sequencing, cohesive
5-4
• Loosely organized but main idea stands out, logical but incomplete sequencing
3-2
• Not fluent, ideas confused or disconnecting 1- 0 • Use of appropriate transition words to create coherence 3 - 0 • Word count 2 - 0
Task 2: Mark Allocation: Language Use = 5 Content = 10 Organization = 5 Total = 20 Grammar Description Scoring
• No spelling and grammatical mistakes (own words) • Effective complex construction, use of tense, word order, pronouns,
prepositions.
5-4
• Some minor errors that do not affect reader’s understanding such as inconsistent use of pronouns and/or tenses
• Meaning only seldom obscured
3-2
• No mastery of sentence construction rules • Incomprehensible because of serious grammatical mistakes such as
run on sentences, fragments, missing subjects, and/or missing main verbs or using wrong words
1-0
Content Excellent: at least 4 measures suggested, relevant and clear with details of who, what, how, directed at the major issues
8-7
Good to average: at least 4 measures suggested, mostly relevant and clear with fairly acceptable details, somewhat directed to the major issues
6-5
Fair to poor: fewer than 4 measures with limited knowledge, little substance, rather irrelevant and overlapping
4-3
Very poor: does not show knowledge of the subject, measures clearly not useful and irrelevant
2-1
Referring to various agents responsible for the proposed measures (who) 2 Organization Description Scoring Fluent Expression, ideas are well connected, logical sequencing, cohesive 5-4 Loosely organized but main idea stands out, logical but incomplete sequencing
3-2
Not fluent, ideas confused or disconnecting 1-0
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
425
Task 3: Mark Allocation: Language Use = 10 Content= 20 Organization = 10 Total = 40 mar Language Use Description Scoring
• No grammatical error and spelling mistake • Effective complex construction, use of tense, word order, pronouns, prepositions
10
• Minimal grammatical errors and spelling mistakes • Effective but simple constructions, use of tense, word order, pronouns,
prepositions
9-8
• Some minor errors that do not affect reader’s understanding such as inconsistent use of pronouns and/or tenses
• Meaning only seldom obscured
7-6
• Many errors that make the answer difficult to understand, meaning confused or obscured
• Errors in negation, agreement, tense, number, word order, articles and pronouns
5-4
• No mastery of sentence construction rules • Incomprehensible because of serious grammatical mistakes such as run on
sentences, fragments, missing subjects, and/or missing main verbs or using wrong words
3-1
Content Description Scoring Thorough description of the graph 2 - 0
• Mentioning the overall picture and grouping of variables with the same movement
3-0
• Interpretation and consistency in specifying what has increased or decreased with appropriate use of words to describe the movement (linguistic features used in data interpretation)
• Sufficient and appropriate use of numbers to indicate changes or movement
10 - 0
• Plausible/Sensible reasons for each observation; • Describing change in behaviors or conditions rather than movement of numbers
5 - 0
Organization Description Scoring
• Fluent Expression, ideas are well connected, logical sequencing, cohesive 5-4 • Loosely organized but main idea stands out, logical but incomplete sequencing 3-2 • Not fluent, ideas confused or disconnecting 1-0 • Use of appropriate transition words to create coherence 3 - 0 • Word count 2 - 0
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
426
APPENDIX I
ITEM-OBJECTIVE CONJRUENCE (IOC)
PRE-AND POST-TEST AND SCORING RUBRIC
Expert1 Expert2 Expert3 ScoreValidity of the test
1 The construct of the test represents the writing genres taught in the course.
1 1 1 1
2 The reading material is appropriate for testing the writing skills taught in the course.
1 1 1 1
3 The time allocated (2 hours) is appropriate for the test.
0 1 1 0.67
4 The sequence of the tasks is appropriate.
1 1 1 1
Language
4
The level of language of the passage is appropriate with the students’ level of proficiency.
1 1 1 1
5 The questions are understandable to the students.
1 1 1 1
6 The questions are properly phrased. 1 1 1 1
Mark allocation and Rubric
7
The domains of assessment (grammar, content, and organization) align with the writing skill taught in the course.
1 1 1 1
8 The mark allocation for each domain is appropriate.
1 1 1 1
9
The description of each domain assessed is appropriate with the objective of writing for each genre taught in the course.
1 1 1 1
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
427
APPENDIX J
ITEM-OBJECTIVE CONJRUENCE (IOC)
QUESTIONNAIRE
Expert1 Expert2 Expert3 ScorePart 1 The format of the questionnaire is appropriate for the participants. 1 1 1 1
The language used is appropriate for the participants. 1 1 1 1
The questionnaire uses appropriate rating scale (5-point Likert scale). 1 1 1 1
The explanation of the questionnaire is clear. 1 1 1 1
The questions are purposeful and support the study. 1 1 1 1
Part 2 Prewriting activities It is important to know the objective of writing. 1 1 1 1
Knowing the objective of writing helps me construct my texts more effectively.
1 1 1 1
It is important to know who the target reader is before writing. 1 1 1 1
Knowing the target reader helps me construct my text more effectively. 1 1 1 1
Knowing the target reader gives me a clear direction of how to write. 1 1 1 1
Modeling (creating a model text) with the teacher helps me understand how to write a particular type of text.
1 1 1 1
Modeling (creating a model text) helps me to understand the kind of language necessary for writing each type of text.
1 1 1 1
Writing with multiple drafts 0Writing multiple drafts for each assignment helps me improve my writing skill.
0 1 1 0.67
Writing multiple drafts for one assignment is better than one-shot writing.
1 1 1 1
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
428
I usually make changes when I revise my work for the next draft. 1 1 1 1.0
I see that my work keeps improving in each draft. 1 1 1 1.0
The ideas in my writing get better in each draft. 1 1 1 1.0
I can spot grammatical errors and correct them when I write a new draft. 1 1 1 1.0
I revise the sentences to make them better when I write a new draft. 1 1 1 1.0
I do not make any change in a sentence if my classmates and teacher do not comment on it.
1 1 1 1.0
I can see that my final draft is different from the first draft. 1 0 1 0.7
I think I can learn to write better with multiple-draft method. 1 1 1 1.0
Writing multiple drafts for one assignment is too much work. 1 1 1 1.0
I prefer to write on different topics with one piece for each topic. 0.5 1 1 0.8
I have to depend on the model writings/ answers in the textbook. 0.5 0 1 0.5
Writing multiple drafts helps me improve my thinking ability. 1 1 1 1.0
Receiving Peer Feedback 0.0Having a classmate read and evaluate my work is useful. 1 1 1 1.0
The feedback from classmates helps me improve the content of my work. 1 0 1 0.7
The feedback from classmates helps me improve the language in my work. 1 1 1 1.0
The feedback from classmates helps me improve my grammar. 1 1 1 1.0
I take always make changes according to my classmate’s comments. 1 1 1 1.0
I expect my classmates to correct grammatical errors for me. 1 1 1 1.0
The feedback from my classmates encourages me to write better. 1 1 1 1.0
My classmates are qualified to check my work. 1 1 1 1.0
Giving feedback to classmates I give good feedback to my 1 1 -1 0.3
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
429
classmates. I believe my classmates should follow my suggestions. 1 1 1 1.0
I compare my work with my classmates’ work. 1 1 1 1.0
I can see a good example language use in my classmates’ works. 1 1 1 1.0
I can see good ideas in my classmates’ works. 1 1 1 1.0
I prefer giving open comments to marking on a checklist. 1 1 1 1.0
Giving feedback to my classmates makes me think about my work. 1 1 1 1.0
I revise my work using my classmates’ idea that I see when I give them feedback.
0 1 1 0.7
I am qualified to give feedback to my classmates. 1 1 1 1.0
Teacher Feedback The feedback from my teacher helps me improve the content of my writing. 1 1 1 1.0
The feedback from my teacher helps me improve the language in my writing.
1 1 1 1.0
The feedback from my teacher helps me improve my grammar. 1 1 1 1.0
I make changes according to my teacher’s suggestions. 1 1 1 1.0
I recall what my teacher has suggested in the previous work when I start a new assignment.
1 1 1 1.0
The feedback from my teacher encourages me to write better. 1 1 1 1.0
I want my teacher to correct my grammar. 1 1 1 1.0
I need more written feedback from my teacher. 1 1 1 1.0
I need more verbal feedback from my teacher. 1 1 1 1.0
Journal Writing I keep my journal regularly. 1 1 1 1.0I reflect my learning in the journal. 1 1 1 1.0Keeping a journal is useful for me to improve my writing ability. 1 1 1 1.0
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
430
I express the concern about learning that I have in my journal. 1 1 1 1.0
Student Portfolio 1 1 1 1.0I monitor my learning progress using my portfolio. 1 1 1 1.0
I can see an improvement in my writing ability looking at my portfolio. 1 1 1 1.0
Teaching Methods Modeling texts is suitable for reflective / opinion writing (chapter 2)
1 1 1 1.0
Modeling texts is suitable for data interpretation (chapter 4) 1 1 1 1.0
Modeling texts is suitable for report writing (chapter 5) 1 1 1 1.0
Modeling texts is suitable for with argumentative essay (chapter 6) 1 1 1 1.0
Writing multiple drafts, peer feedback and teacher feedback are suitable for reflective / opinion writing (chapter 2)
0.5 1 1 0.8
Writing multiple drafts, peer feedback and teacher feedback are suitable for data interpretation (chapter 4)
0.5 1 0.5 0.7
Writing multiple drafts, peer feedback and teacher feedback are suitable for report writing (chapter 5)
0.5 1 0.5 0.7
Writing with multiple drafts, peer feedback and teacher feedback are suitable for with argumentative essay (chapter 6)
0.5 1 0.5 0.7
Self Perception I have more confidence in writing in English. -1 1 1 0.3
I think it is better for me to develop my own writing style than following examples.
1 1 1 1.0
I know what my writing style is. 1 1 1 1.0I know my strengths in writing English. 1 1 1 1.0
I know my weaknesses in writing English. 1 1 1 1.0
After taking this course, I have become a better writer. 1 1 1 1.0
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
431
APPENDIX K
SAMPLES OF STUDENTS COMPOSITION
Student A, draft 1
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
432
Student A, draft 2
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
433
Student A, draft 3
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
434
Student B, draft 1
Student B, draft 2
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
435
Student B, draft 3
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
436
Student C, draft 1
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
437
Student C, draft 2
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
438
Student C, draft 3
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
439
APPENDIX L
LIST OF EXPERTS
1. Assoc. Prof. Nopporn Sarobol
Language Institute, Thammasat University
2. Assoc. Prof. Edward Gearson
Language Institute, Thammasat University
3. Ajarn Daniel Merrillat
Institute for English Language Education, Assumption University
4. Dr. Raman Shashi Kumanr
Institute for English Language Education, Assumption University
5. Asst. Prof. Dr. Mihail Sorin Popovici
Institute for English Language Education, Assumption University
6. Dr. Teresita Juan Bunyakarte
Institute for English Language Education, Assumption University
7. Asst. Prof. Dr. Tanyaporn Arya
Chulalongkorn University Language Institute
8. Asst. Prof. Dr. Raveewan Wanchid
Faculty of Applied Arts, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North
Bangkok
9. Dr. Arlan Parreno
Institute for English Language Education, Assumption University
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX
440
BIOGRAPHY
Name Mr. Vorakorn Tuvachit
Date of Birth November 12, 1975
Educational Attainment
1999: Bachelor of Arts in Business English,
Assumption University
2000: Master of Science in Environmental
Economics, Chulalongkorn University
2001: Master of Arts in Language and
Communication, National Institute of
Development Administration
Work Position Lecturer
Assumption University
Scholarship 2014: Ph.D. Scholarship, Assumption University
Work Experiences
- Lecturer
Institute for English Language Education,
Assumption University
- Technology Transfer Officer
Software Park Thailand
Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX