UNDERSTANDING REPEATERS IN AN ESL WRITING STUDENTS …

UNDERSTANDING REPEATERS IN AN ESL WRITING

COURSE: A CASE STUDY AMONG PRE-SESSIONAL

STUDENTS

BY

ROSNANI KASSIM

A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education

Kulliyyah of Education

International Islamic University Malaysia

JUNE 2016

ii

ABSTRACT

Learning how to write in a second language (ESL) is one of the most challenging

aspects of second language learning (Hyland, 2003). In ESL writing classes or

courses, we often observe students struggling to learn the writing skills. Some students

even fail the same writing course repeatedly. Why do these students fail? This study

sought to explore the experience of these students who were referred to as repeaters in

learning writing in a pre-sessional English course at the International Islamic

University Malaysia (IIUM). In doing so, the study intended to elicit the perceptions

of the repeaters in learning writing as well as to understand their difficulties, coping

mechanisms and needs in learning ESL writing. This is a case study involving 5

international undergraduate students studying in the English Level 6 course at a

language centre in IIUM. These students had failed the same writing course at least

twice. The main data collection technique was semi-structured interviews with the

repeaters and triangulated with the data from the students’ diary entries and also

information gathered from semi-structured interviews with their writing instructors.

The data were transcribed, analysed and the emerging themes were categorised and

discussed. The findings revealed that the repeaters generally had negative perceptions

and unpleasant experience towards learning writing. Their problems, coping

mechanisms and needs were also highlighted. These finding led to the

conceptualization of a model on the main Dimensions in Learning ESL Writing for

Repeaters which can be a valuable guide to understanding the repeaters in order to

provide more conducive and successful learning and teaching environment for them to

learn writing. This study has crucial implications for writing instructors and

curriculum developer to create more effective and successful writing courses

especially for repeaters. Moreover, it would also provide input for the IIUM policy

makers especially in reviewing existing policies or formulating new policies so that

the predicament of the repeaters are addressed.

iii

البحث ملخصABSTRACT IN ARABIC

كثيراما(.2003انية)هايلاند،غةالث مالل تعل تحد يات(منأصعبESLتابةبلغةثانية)مالكتعل اتممهارتعل الط لبةيكافحونمنأجل-انيةغةالث فيفصولأومساقاتالكتابةبالل -نلاحظإلىماالأسبابالتيأد تبهم.مر اتعديدةنفسهفيمساقالكتابةهمبعضبليرسبالكتابة.

ال ذينيطلق–بةلالط هؤلاءراسةإلىاستكشافتجربةسعتهذهالد قدف؟هذاالر سوبالمتكر رمساقاللغةالإنجليزيةماتحتمالكتابةفيتعل -فيهذهالد راسةاسبينالمعيدينالر عليهممصطلح

الكل الإسلامي قبل بالجامعة العالمي ية ة بماليزيا. هذا،ة من الد هانطلاقا استثارةدفت إلى راسةكماأنهاهدفتإلىفهمصعوباتهاسبينالمعيدينفيتعل راتالر تصو إضافةإلىفهمممالكتابة،

الةالحراسةهيدراسةانية.هذهالد غةالث مالكتابةبالل فيتعل الاحتياجاتعندهموآلياتالت لاؤمطلا خمسة فيها ال يشترك الأجانب البكالوريوس الل ب مساق درسوا الإنجليزي ذين للمستوىغة ة

الل الس الإسلامي ادسفيمركز العالمي غاتبالجامعة ة بماليزيا. الط وقدرسبة هذالابفيهؤلاءلجمعالبياناتهيالمقابلاتشبهالمستخدمةئيسةالر الط ريقةكانتوتين.مر -علىالأقل-ساقالم

الر المنظ مع مة واسبين يومياتهم، بيانات مع وتثليثها المعيدين ت مع التي منالمعلومات جمعهاالمنظ المقابلاتشبه معمدرسيالكتابة. امة أنه كما تلكالبياناتوحل لتها وقددو نتالباحثة

وناقشتها.وأظهرت الن اشئة تصو لر لتائجأن الن صن فتالأفكار ةراتسلبي اسبينالمعيدينعموماالت لاؤمآلياتفضلاعنعوائق،كذلكمابهممنراسةالد برزتمالكتابة.وأنحوتعل مؤلمةبراتوخكلغةئيسةفيتعل لأبعادالر لتائجإلىتوليدنموذجهذهالن وقادتحتياجات.الاو ماللغةالإنجليزية

منأجلتهيئةبيئةاسبينالمعيدينذييمكنأنيكوندليلاقي مالفهمالر ال ،لابالمعيدينثانيةللط رميالكتابةومطو راسةلهاآثارحاسمةعلىمعل مالكتابة.هذهالد لتعل لهمالملاءمةالت عليموالت علم

الد راسيةالمناهج الملإنشاء فعاليةأكثر خاص ونجاحساقات للط ا علىة وعلاوة المعيدين. لابةبماليزياةالعالمي ياساتفيالجامعةالإسلامي لاتلصانعيالس راسةأيضامدخرهذهالد ذلك،توف

الس مراجعة في الس خصوصا وصياغة الموجودة يتم ياسات بحيث الجديدة ياسات صعوبةذكرIN ARABI لابالراسبينالط

iv

APPROVAL PAGE

The dissertation of Rosnani Kassim has been approved by the following:

___________________________________

Ismail Sheikh Ahmad

Supervisor

___________________________________

Ainol Madziah Zubairi

Co-Supervisor

___________________________________

Zainurin Abd Rahman

Co-Supervisor

___________________________________

Ratnawati Mohd Ashraf

Internal Examiner

___________________________________

Imran Ho Bin Abdullah @ Ho Yee Beng

External Examiner

___________________________________

Radwan Jamal Yousef Elatrash

Chairman

v

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own investigation, except

where otherwise stated. I also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently

submitted as a whole for any other degrees at IIUM or other institutions.

Rosnani Kassim

Signature…………………....………. Date …….……………….

vi

COPYRIGHT

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT AND AFFIRMATION OF

FAIR USE OF UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH

UNDERSTANDING REPEATERS IN AN ESL WRITING

COURSE: A CASE STUDY AMONG PRE-SESSIONAL

STUDENTS

I declare that the copyright holder of this dissertation are jointly owned by the

student and IIUM.

Copyright © 2016 Rosnani Kassim and International Islamic University Malaysia. All rights reserved.

No part of this unpublished research may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,

recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the copyright holder

except as provided below

1. Any material contained in or derived from this unpublished research may

be used by others in their writing with due acknowledgement.

2. IIUM or its library will have the right to make and transmit copies (print

or electronic) for institutional and academic purposes.

3. The IIUM library will have the right to make, store in a retrieved system

and supply copies of this unpublished research if requested by other

universities and research libraries.

By signing this form, I acknowledged that I have read and understand the IIUM

Intellectual Property Right and Commercialization policy.

Affirmed by Rosnani Kassim

……..…………………….. ………………………..

Signature Date

vii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my beloved husband, parents, children, Angah and

my other siblings

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, it is my utmost pleasure to dedicate this work to my dear family, who granted

me the gift of their unwavering belief in my ability to accomplish this goal: thank you

for your love, support and patience.

I wish to express my appreciation and thanks to those who provided their time,

effort and support for this project. To the members of my dissertation committee,

thank you for guiding me.

Finally, a special thanks to Associate Professor Dr Ismail Sheikh Ahmad for

his continuous support, encouragement and trust, and for that, I will be forever

grateful.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ........................................................................................................................ ii Abstract in Arabic ........................................................................................................ iii Approval Page .............................................................................................................. iv

Declaration ................................................................................................................... v Copyright ..................................................................................................................... vi Dedication .................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ............................................................................................................... xii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................. xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Background of the Study ............................................................................ 2

1.2.1 A Brief Overview of Research in ESL/EFL Writing ........................ 2 1.2.2 ESL writing at university .................................................................. 5

1.2.3 The current study .............................................................................. 10 1.3 Statement of the Problem............................................................................ 13

1.4 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................... 15 1.5 Central Research Questions and Sub-Questions......................................... 16 1.6 Significance of the Study ............................................................................ 17

1.7 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................... 19 1.8 Delimitations of the Study .......................................................................... 21

1.9 Definitions of Terms ................................................................................... 21 1.10 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................... 222

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 24 2.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 24 2.2 Second Language Learning Theories ......................................................... 24

2.2.1 Socio-educational model of second language acquisition ................ 24 2.2.2 The affective filter hypothesis........................................................... 26 2.2.3 Main components of second language acquisition ........................... 26

2.2.4 Vygotsky’s learning theory ............................................................... 27 2.3 Theories of Second Language Writing ....................................................... 27

2.3.1 Flower and Hayes writing model (1980) .......................................... 28 2.3.2 Knowledge telling model and knowledge transforming model

by Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) ................................................. 29 2.3.3 Hayes writing model (1996) ............................................................. 32

2.4 Related Studies on Foreign Language/ Second Language Writing ............ 34 2.4.1 Perceptions and attitudes towards learning writing .......................... 34 2.4.2 Problems in learning writing ............................................................. 38

2.5 Related Studies on Unsuccessful Learners ................................................. 42 2.5.1 Unsuccessful learners’ attitudes towards writing.............................. 43 2.5.2 Unsuccessful learners’ strategies in writing ...................................... 44 2.5.3 Unsuccessful learners’ difficulties in learning writing ..................... 51

2.6 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................... 54

x

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 56 3.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 56 3.2 Rationale for Qualitative Research Design................................................. 56

3.3 Case Study .................................................................................................. 60 3.4 The Setting .................................................................................................. 61 3.5 Procedures for Selecting Informants for the Study..................................... 63

3.5.1 Students ............................................................................................. 63 3.5.2 Writing instructors ............................................................................ 64

3.5.3 The procedure for selecting student informants ................................ 65 3.5.4 The procedure for selecting writing instructors as informants ......... 67

3.6 Data Collection Techniques ........................................................................ 68 3.6.1 Data triangulation .............................................................................. 68

3.6.1.1 Semi-structured interview..................................................... 69

3.6.1.2 Diary ..................................................................................... 72

3.7 Research Procedures ................................................................................... 75

3.7.1 Piloting the Interview ........................................................................ 75 3.7.1.1 Students ................................................................................ 75 3.7.1.2 Writing instructors ................................................................ 77

3.7.2 Conducting the actual interviews (students and writing

instructors) ........................................................................................ 77 3.8 Data Analysis Framework .......................................................................... 79

3.8.1 Step 1: Managing Data ...................................................................... 81 3.8.2 Step 2: Reading and memoing .......................................................... 82 3.8.3 Step 3: Initial coding ......................................................................... 82

3.8.4 Step 4: Identifying main ideas .......................................................... 83 3.8.5 Step 5: Developing sub-themes......................................................... 84

3.8.6 Step 6: Generating themes ................................................................ 85

3.9 Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................. 85

3.10 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................... 88

CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................... 89 4.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 89

4.2 The Experience of the Repeaters in Learning ESL Writing in a Pre-

Sessional English Language Course in IIUM. ........................................... 90 4.2.1 Experience at school vs. experience at university ............................. 91 4.2.2 Students’ general perceptions about writing ..................................... 99 4.2.3 The effects of failing on the repeaters. .............................................. 102

4.2.4 The repeaters’ feelings about learning writing ................................. 107 4.2.5 Discussion on students’ perceptions towards learning writing ......... 112 4.2.6 The repeaters’ problems in learning writing ..................................... 119

4.2.7 Discussion on problems .................................................................... 141 4.3 How Do the Repeaters in a Pre-Sessional English Language Course

in IIUM Cope with the Challenges they Face in Learning ESL

Writing? ...................................................................................................... 151

4.3.1 Discussion on coping mechanisms ................................................... 154 4.3.2 Discussion on the repeaters’ needs ................................................... 163

4.4 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................... 168

xi

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................... 169 5.1 Introduction................................................................................................. 169 5.2 Summary of the Study ................................................................................ 169

5.3 Summary of the Major Findings ................................................................. 172 5.3.1 Perceptions towards learning writing ................................................ 173 5.3.2 Problems in learning ESL writing ..................................................... 174 5.3.3 Coping strategies ............................................................................... 178 5.3.4 Needs ................................................................................................. 178

5.4 Contributions of the Research .................................................................... 180 5.5 Pedagogical Implications ............................................................................ 184 5.6 Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................... 188 5.7 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................... 189

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 190

APPENDIX I: TASK 2 WRITING BAND DESCRIPTORS FOR EPT ......... 202 APPENDIX II: LETTER SEEKING PERMISSION TO CONDUCT

RESEARCH ................................................................................. 206

APPENDIX III: CONSENT FORM (STUDENT) ................................................ 207 APPENDIX IV: CONSENT FORM ...................................................................... 208 APPENDIX V: AUDIT TRAIL ............................................................................ 209

APPENDIX VI: INTERVIEW GUIDE (STUDENT) .......................................... 214 APPENDIX VII: SAMPLES OF DIARY ENTRIES AND

INSTRUCTIONS ....................................................................... 217 APPENDIX VIII: INTERVIEW 1: MAS ................................................................ 234 APPENDIX IX: CODING TEMPLATE ............................................................... 304

APPENDIX X: PRESENTATION OF THEMES AND SUB-THEMES .......... 329

APPENDIX XI: GENERATING THEMES ......................................................... 341 APPENDIX XII: INTER-RATER RELIABILITY FORM (SAMPLE) ............. 351

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Pre-sessional courses offered in regular semesters 11

Table 3.1 Colour-coding of main interview questions 83

Table 4.1 Students’ experience at school 91

Table 4.2 Students’ experience at university 91

Table 4.3 Perceptions towards writing 99

Table 4.4 Themes and sub-themes that emerged from students’ and writing

instructors’ semi-structured interview 119

Table 4.5 Coping mechanisms 151

Table 4.6 Repeaters’ needs 157

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Assessment criteria for Level 6 12

Figure 1.2 Theoretical framework 19

Figure 2.1 Gardner’s (1985) Schematic representation of the socio-

educational model of second language acquisition (Gardner &

MacIntyre, 1993, p. 212). 25

Figure 2.2 The Flower and Hayes writing model (1980) 28

Figure 2.3 Knowledge-telling model (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987) 30

Figure 2.4 Knowledge-transforming model (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1987) 31

Figure 2.5 Hayes (1996) Model 32

Figure 3.1 Qualitative analysis as an iterative spiral by Dey (1993, p. 53). 79

Figure 3.2 The data analysis spiral by Creswell (2007, p.151). 80

Figure 3.3 Framework for data analysis 81

Figure 3.4 A model of the main dimensions in learning ESL writing for

repeaters (The DEAR Model) 181

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Writing is undeniably one of the most challenging language skills not just for learners

of English as a second language but also for learners whose first language is English

(Hyland, 2003). The field of writing has received a lot of attention and as a result

there has been a proliferation in the number of studies on writing and the processes of

learning writing in recent years. Nevertheless, learners’ introspective points of view

on their learning experience, particularly in learning writing remain underexplored.

Furthermore, among the handful of studies which focused on learners’ perspective,

those that investigate unsuccessful second language learners (particularly those who

have failed repeatedly) are still scarce. Hence, the present study is an attempt to

explore repeaters’ views and experience in learning writing as a subject and it

specifically investigates these repeaters’ perceptions towards learning writing, their

problems and needs in a pre-sessional writing course.

The aim of this introductory chapter is to establish the contextual background

for the present study. The chapter begins with a brief review of research on English as

a second/foreign language ESL/EFL writing followed by a discussion on the

significance of writing in higher education context with special emphasis on the

problems in learning writing faced by learners. It is most apt to review the existing

literature and discuss the challenges experienced by language learners in writing

courses in order to frame the current study. It will also describe the English language

courses at a language centre at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM),

with the aim to elucidate the problem that is being studied. It then moves on to the

2

statement of the problem, purpose and research questions for this study. The chapter

ends with the discussion on the significance and the delimitations of the study and the

operational definitions of the terms used.

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

As mentioned in the introductory section, the discussion in this section will provide

the relevant contexts that will frame the current study.

1.2.1 A Brief Overview of Research in ESL/EFL Writing

Studies on ESL writing have been growing over the years and insights from these

studies have been instrumental in helping language researchers and practitioners to

understand the issues in ESL teaching and learning (Matsuda, 1999; Matsuda,

Saenkhum & Accardi, 2013). The research on composition studies dates back to 1900

(Haynes, 1978 as cited in Krapels 1990) but research focusing on ESL writing did not

appear until the middle of the twentieth century. At the onset, the early composition

research in L1 was mainly on the pedagogical aspect and on students’ written texts

(products).

Text oriented research on writing emerged as a result of the ideas of Noam

Chomsky, a proponent of Transformational Grammar (Hyland, 2002). It is based on a

paradigm that views writing as a fixed activity/process where a written text is deemed

as good if it follows a pre-determined organizational structure and certain linguistic

structures. In other words, writing is an extension of grammar and good grammar

represents good writing. The focus of this approach is the product of writing and

written texts are analysed independently without considering the context or the writer.

3

Various research have been conducted based on this paradigm and a common

research focus is on the influence of L1 discourse strategies and rhetorical patterns on

the written narratives of ESL/EFL learners (Kang, 2005; Uysal, 2008). The results

yielded from both studies show that L1 discourse strategies do have an impact on L2

learners’ writing. In Kang’s study for instance, he has found that “Korean linguistic

strategies were evident in the Korean English learners’ English narrative discourse

rather than the preferred discourse style of the target language (English)” (2005, p. 1).

The linguistic strategies mentioned by Kang were the use of demonstrative referents

and repetitions. Hence, the writing produced by the learners often did not follow the

English linguistic rules that led to grammatical and semantic errors. Meanwhile,

Ghabool, Mariadass and Kasheff (2012) studied ESL learners’ essays to elicit the

problems they faced in their writing. They reported that the types of errors committed

by the students were punctuations, language use and other writing conventions.

Another study conducted by McCarthey, Guo & Cummins (2005) produced similar

result. They also found that the students they were studying committed language use

and punctuation errors. Another strand of research examines the effects of revisions

on students’ written products. For example, Min (2006) and Berg (1999) examined the

written work of college students to find out the impact of peer review on the students’

revision while Paulus (1999) conducted a similar research but extended it to peer and

teacher revision. All the studies show that peer or teacher revision impacted the

students’ writing quality positively. However, in Paulus’s study, the researcher

observed that the revisions made by the students after peer review were mainly

surface level while the teacher’s feedback resulted in meaning level changes in the

students’ subsequent drafts.

4

Nonetheless, the text oriented research is not free from criticism. Critics

claimed that this paradigm is an island by itself in the sense that writing is isolated

from its contexts (Hyland, 2003). Scrutinizing students’ written texts alone is argued

as a superficial way of looking at writing and the complexity of writing as a whole.

Subsequently, a new wave of research emerged and based on the theory that views

writing as a process, research on composition has begun to explore the process of

writing and students’ writing behavior. The first major work that explored the writing

process in L1 was Emig’s work in 1971 (Krapels, 1990). Similarly, research on

writing in ESL and EFL also experienced the same paradigm shift due to the

development of the composition research on writing in L1. In the ESL context, early

works investigating the process of writing were carried out by Zamel (1983) and

Raimes (1985).

Zamel (1987) has argued that it is important to study the writing process since

it sheds some light on what the students do as they write as well as the variables that

affect students in learning, for instance the teachers, learners’ strategies and

instructions. To illustrate, there are quite a number of research carried out to

investigate the revision strategies of ESL students in composing such as the ones

conducted by Sze (2002), Wong (2012), Zamel (1982), Zamel (1983), Hall (1990) and

Lai (1986). The study carried out by Sze (2002) and Wong (2012) reported that the

students they studied did not see revision as important in their writing process and

Wong’s study revealed that those who revised did their revision at different points of

their writing process. Zamel’s (1982) findings further indicated that students mostly

revised the content of their essay as they write as compared to revisions on grammar

and writing conventions which were done at the end of their writing process. In

addition, researchers also have examined the composing process and behavior of ESL

5

writers such as in the research done by Lay (1982), Raimes (1987), Albrechtsen

(1997), Victori (1999), Bosher (1998) and Ferenz (2005).

Research on the process of writing has managed to unearth several dimensions

that influence the learning of writing among learners. To illustrate, Reid (1993) has

concluded that between native and non-native learners, non-native learners differ

significantly from native students in terms of their needs, backgrounds, learning styles

and writing strategies. She further emphasised that even among ESL learners they

vary greatly according to several factors such as language ability, culture, gender, age

and prior education. Consequently, writing instructors need to be sensitive to this.

1.2.2 ESL Writing at University

For learners studying at universities where English is the medium of instruction and

communication, a good command of listening, speaking, reading and writing skills in

English is vital. Among these language skills, writing seems to be the most significant

skill. Hence, it is not uncommon for most universities including those in the United

States that make it mandatory for newly registered or first year students to take and

pass a composition course (Coffin et al., 2003).

The role of writing in higher education has been underscored by the extensive

discussion on the topic in the literature. Leki and Carson (1994) and Lee (1987) for

instance, mentioned that university students cannot be separated from written

assignments and as such their writing ability plays a significant role in determining

their success in their academic pursuit. In the same vein, Coffin et al. (2003)

highlighted three major purposes for writing in higher education: assessment, learning

and writing for academic purposes. In terms of assessment, writing has been a

popular assessment mode at university. Although assessments take a variety of forms

6

at the tertiary level, a considerable number of the evaluation method relies on learners’

writing ability. By way of example, quizzes are answered in the written mode,

projects carried out by students are often accompanied by a written report, take home

assignments usually are in the form of essays of different length or word limit, final

examinations are mostly written examinations and a project paper or a thesis is often a

part of graduation requirement (Yah Awang Nik, Badariah Sani, Muhmad Noor Wan

Chik, Kamaruzaman Jusoff & Hasif Rafidee Hasbollah, 2010).

Meanwhile, as for learning, writing is needed for learners to reflect on their

learning and respond critically to the knowledge they acquire through activities like

summarizing or synthesizing important ideas. Finally, learners are expected to

function well in their chosen disciplines at university, so they are required to display

their disciplinary knowledge through writing reports, research papers and short texts.

In other words, writing skills are crucial for learners to become good academic writers

(Spack, 1988) because having a good ability in writing enables a learner to

communicate ideas and messages effectively and accurately (Yah Awang Nik et al.,

2010; Reichlt, 2005). In addition, being successful in a writing course for many

university students determines whether they can proceed in their study and writing

aids them in the process of discovery and personal expression (Khoii, 2011). This

view is further supported by Tan, Emerson and White (2006) who expounded that for

learners to succeed in university, it is imperative that they master the writing skills.

However, they also asserted that many university students are still lacking in their

writing skills and that could be the reason for their failure in their academic pursuit

and career prospect.

It is important to note that undergoing a writing course at university is not only

essential for learners in their academic endeavor but it also prepares them for their

7

future undertakings. Thus, while in academia, writing is needed for researching and

sharing new knowledge, at occupational level, good writing is required for

communication and business dealings (Reichlt, 2005; Spence & Liu, 2013; Isarji

Sarudin, Ainol Madziah, Mohamad Sahari & Tunku Badariah, 2011; Mohamed

Ismail, Yusof Ismail, Zaleha Esa & Ainon Jariah, 2013). Nevertheless, as stressed by

Silva (2001), despite the huge role writing plays, the lack of writing skills among ESL

learners at university and their struggle in writing courses have been a long and

enduring issue. This predicament can be accorded to the common claim that among

the four language skills, writing has been regarded as the most difficult language skills

(MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989; Nor Shidrah Md. Daud, Nuraihan Md. Daud & Noor

LideAbu Kassim, 2005; Abu Shawish & Atea, 2010; Evans & Morrison, 2011).

Gunning (1998) and Emmons (2003) also added that many ESL learners view writing

as more difficult and complicated than speaking. To further emphasize this condition,

Yah Awang Nik et al. (2010, p. 9) reiterated that “…it is a skill that is difficult to

master. It is believed that writing demands a great deal of skills and conventions such

as writing readiness and grammatical rules for the students to become proficient and

effective writers.”

Indeed, learning writing in a writing class is an arduous task for ESL/EFL

learners everywhere even at university. Their main challenge seems to be their

general level of proficiency and this is further aggravated by cultural and linguistic

difficulties (Ghabool, Mariadass& Kashef, 2012). Learners’ language ability is of

essence and so is their readiness to embrace a new learning culture and environment

that might be different from the ones that they are used to when they were in schools.

This is further supported by Reid (1993) who asserted that when a learner learns a

new language, he is already saddled with his own previous experience and knowledge.

8

The disparities between their previous experience and knowledge with their

new learning experience might lead to several complications in the learners’ quest to

adjust to their new learning context. One such challenge is for the learners to cope

with the demand of independence in learning. In schools, it is common that lessons

are teacher centered and teachers are the main provider of input and information. At

the university, on the other hand, learners are expected to have certain level of

knowledge and skills fit for an undergraduate. These knowledge and skills include

study skills and the capability to rely on themselves as active information seekers and

learners. Anderson, Isensee, Martin, Godfrey, and O’Brien (2012) explored the

general problems faced by some undergraduates and reported that they struggled with

the English language and often did not get the attention from their lecturers and

instructors that they often received from their teachers in schools. The different

teaching approaches and modes of assessment were also reported as a source of

difficulty for the students.

The next challenge is, the tasks they are expected to complete at university

vary substantially from school. In universities, learners are expected to produce

essays, whereas, in school they are mostly asked to write sentences, write guided

paragraphs or shorter essays than the essays that they have to compose at university.

Another challenge is learners need to adapt to having classmates from different

countries with differing background which can be tough for new students at

university. This is supported by Crème and Lea (1997) who mentioned that, each

student brings with him/her their own learning culture, beliefs, learning styles,

background and identity which could be a hindrance for them to achieve success in

their learning to write. Likewise, Chan and Ain Nadzimah Abdullah (2004, pp. 3-4)

also shared similar point of view when they wrote, “in the ESL classroom, learners

9

encounter a new language system in which they have to learn a whole new set of

beliefs and practices. The learning may be accompanied by the frustration of having

to meet new and unfamiliar demands.”

Some evidence of the difficulties faced by learners in an English writing course

are revealed in a study conducted among undergraduates at Al-Azhar University,

Egypt. Among their difficulties were vocabulary, grammar and punctuations. The

participants were also reported to be anxious when asked to write on certain topics and

had problems to begin writing and once they began writing, they had problems with

development of ideas and coherence (Salem, 2007 in Huwari & Al-Khasawneh,

2013). Similar problems are highlighted by Huwari and Al-Khasawneh (2013) in their

own study on pre-university students writing in English when they reported that the

participants also had problems with content and grammar. The students rendered these

problems to lack of writing practice and the fact that they were not exposed to writing

at school level. This is also confirmed by the outcome of a research conducted by

Petric (2002) which found that students at university often complained of trouble with

language, the types of writing they were required to produce, the teaching approaches

and the topics assigned to them.

Similarly, it is interesting to note that even native speakers of English struggle

in learning writing due to social and cognitive factors (Raimes, 1987) and for second

language learners, social and affective factors are indeed instrumental in the

development of their writing since they have to learn a new language in many

different contexts (Silva, 2001). In addition, according to Sabariah Md. Rashid and

Melor Md. Yunus (2003), on top of the linguistic problem commonly faced by second

language learners, they also struggle with the development of content of their writing.

They further added that even though the students are able to come up with ideas, most

10

of the time their ideas are not well supported and well developed. Hence, it cannot be

denied that although linguistic aspect plays a crucial role in learning a second

language, many ESL experts agree that it is not the only problems inhibiting second

language learners’ learning (Matsuda, 1999).

1.2.3 The Current Study

The study was conducted at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). At

the IIUM, English is the medium of instruction and communication. As such, each

kulliyyah or faculty has determined its own minimum language requirement for the

students to obtain before they are allowed to embark on their courses in the

kulliyyah/faculty. Generally, students are required to achieve an average band 6.0 in

the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), 550 in the Test of

English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or band 6.0 in its own English Placement

Test (EPT). Should the students fail to attain the required band, they would have to

undergo the pre-sessional English Language courses for a minimum of one semester

or a maximum of two years. These pre-sessional courses are conducted by the Centre

for Languages.

The English Language proficiency courses offered by the language centre are

divided into six levels. The levels are illustrated in the following table:

11

Table 1.1 Pre-sessional courses offered in regular semesters

LEVEL HOURS PER WEEK DURATION OF

INSTRUCTION

1 Level 1 (Zero English/ true

beginner)

20 1 semester (14 weeks)

2 Level 2 (Beginner) 20 1 semester (14 weeks)

3 Level 3 (Very low

intermediate)

20 1 semester (14 weeks)

4 Level 4 (Low intermediate) 20 1 semester (14 weeks)

5 Level 5 (Intermediate) 20 1 semester (14 weeks)

6 Level 6 (High intermediate) 20 1 semester (14 weeks)

As illustrated, level 1 (zero English) is for students who have no knowledge of

English at all upon registering at the university. In the EPT, these students are those

who scored Band “0” according to the EPT writing band descriptor (Appendix I)

which is equivalent to not attempting to answer the question at all or writing a totally

memorized answer which are related to the question. Meanwhile, students placed at

level 2 or the beginner’s level are those who scored Band “1” in the EPT. Students

who are placed at this level may know some words in English but have no ability to

string sentences. The other four consecutive levels are for very low intermediate, low

intermediate, high intermediate and intermediate. The detailed descriptions of the

writing skills that should be possessed by the students in these levels are elaborated in

the EPT band descriptors (Appendix I). The task based language teaching (TBLT) is

being practiced in these pre-sessional courses and the instructors will teach according

to themes. Different themes are dealt with on a weekly basis and the instructors

teaching the writing, reading and speaking components will teach using the same