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


A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF

PHILOSOPHY IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

(INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM)

LANGUAGE INSTITUTE


ACADEMIC YEAR 2017

COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSIY

Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX


LANGUAGE INSTITUTE

DISSERTATION

BY


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


4.3 Genre 2: Data interpretation 152



4.4 Genre 3: Report writing 166



4.5 Genre 4: Argumentative essay writing 182



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


Data Interpretation


Data Interpretation


Report Writing


Report Writing


Argumentative Essay


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


in the area of using multiple-draft approach


in the area of peer evaluation


in the area of perceptions towards giving feedback


in the area of perceptions towards teacher feedback


in the area student reflective journal


in the area of perceptions towards student portfolio


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



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



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



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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


• 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


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


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


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


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



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.


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



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


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


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



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


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


- 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.


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



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.


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



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


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



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


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.


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



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


- 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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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)


55 Writing multiple drafts, peer feedback and teacher feedback are suitable ways to learn report writing (chapter 5)


56 Writing with multiple drafts, peer feedback and teacher feedback are suitable ways to learn argumentative essay (chapter 6)



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.


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


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


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


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:


- 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


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


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



- 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



- 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


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



- continuation of the last lesson

Objectives:

- to make the students improve their text through editing and revising for

content and language

Task/

Assignment


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



- 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


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



- 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


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



- 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


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


- 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



- 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


Process

Assessment

Used

- Discussing

with the class

- Preparing to

write draft 1


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



- 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


Process

Assessment

Used

- evaluating

the sample

text

- composing

be able to evaluate the text



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



- 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



- Peer evaluation of draft 1 (Checklist and oral) - Revision of text based on peer evaluation - Submission of draft 2 for teacher feedback

Objectives:



Task/

Assignment


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.


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



- 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


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


- practice on sample exam paper

Objectives:

- to review academic writing and data interpretation for midterm examination

Task/

Assignment


Process

Assessment

Used

Week 9 Class 17

Unit Topic: Report Writing

D/M/Y

Duration 3 hrs


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


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


D/M/Y

Duration 1.5


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


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


D/M/Y

Duration 3 hrs



- 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


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



- to provide feedback to their

peer’s text


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



- 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


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


D/M/Y

Duration 3 hrs



- 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


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


D/M/Y

Duration 1.5 hr



- Evaluate peer’s reports

- Revise the report

Objectives:



Task/

Assignment


Used

Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX

402

-Evaluating

peer’s text

-Revising the

report to

prepare draft 2



- to learn to provide

feedback to their peer’s

report

- to learn to accommodate

the feedback from their

peers.


their peer’s text to improve

their report

- Revise and Edit

- Write Draft 2

-Peer

evaluation

(checklist and

oral)

Week 12 Class 23


D/M/Y

Duration 3 hrs



- writing the final draft of the report

Objectives:

- To let the students improve the quality of the report on the final draft

Task/

Assignment


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



- Using the sample Quiz II paper to prepare the students

Objectives:

- to familiarize the students with the test format

Task/

Assignment


Used

Week 13 Class 25

Unit Topic: Argumentative Essay

D/M/Y

Duration 3 hrs


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


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


D/M/Y

Duration 1.5 hr


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


process

Assessment

Used

Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX

405

-Evaluating

peer’s essay

(assignment1)

- Submitting for

teacher

feedback

- Preparing draft

2




peer’s text


feedback from their peers.


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


D/M/Y

Duration 3 hrs



- 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


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


D/M/Y

Duration 1.5


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


Used

- Peer

evaluation

- Revising and

editing the

essay for draft

2




peer’s text

- accommodate the feedback

from their peers.


their peer’s essay

- Revising and

editing the text

- Write draft 2

- Peer

evaluation

(checklist and

oral)

Week 15 Class 29


D/M/Y

Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX

407

Duration 3 hr



- 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


- 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


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 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).


Organization

Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX

415



• 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.)





• 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


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 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






• 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



• 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


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



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



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


5. Asst. Prof. Dr. Mihail Sorin Popovici


6. Dr. Teresita Juan Bunyakarte


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


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


Scholarship 2014: Ph.D. Scholarship, Assumption University

Work Experiences

- Lecturer

Institute for English Language Education,


- Technology Transfer Officer

Software Park Thailand

Ref. code: 25605721320124ODX

language institute thammasat university...

Documents