VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES TRAN THI THUY HANG TEACHING WRITING COMMUNICATIVELY TO ENGLISH LEARNERS AT THE NONG LAM UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR FOREIGN STUDIES: AN EXPERIMENT Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (TESOL) Supervisor DOAN HUE DUNG, Ph. HO CHI MINH CITY, 2008 1 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I hereby certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled: TEACHING WRITING COMMUNICATIVELY TO ENGLISH LEARNERS AT THE NONG LAM UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR FOREIGN STUDIES: AN EXPERIMENT In terms of the Statement of Requirements for Theses in Master’s Programs issued by the Higher Degree Committee. Ho Chi Minh City, June 2008 TRAN THI THUY HANG 2 RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS I hereby state that I, Tran Thi Thuy Hang, being the candidate for the degree of Master of TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library. In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Library for care, loan, or reproduction of theses.
Ho Chi Minh City, June 2008 Tran Thi Thuy Hang 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Ms. Đoaøn Hueä Dung, Ph., for her explicit guidance in the completion of my thesis, and for her valuable support and care during the struggle against my sickness. Special thanks are also expressed to all my colleagues for their care and encouragement which make me feel warmed and shared. And to all the teachers and learners who have responded to the questionnaire survey to provide me a trustworthy source of data for the research.
And to my close friend, Ms. Nguyeãn Thò Minh Thoa, for her cooperation in teaching the two experimental classes. My heartfelt thanks and love are also meant towards all the members in my family who are always by my side and help me overcome the most difficult time in my life so that I can continue and finish up this research. And last but wholeheartedly, this thesis is dedicated to the memory of my Mom and Dad.
4 ABSTRACT This thesis investigates aspects associated with the current practice of teaching and learning writing in general English classes at the NLU CFS: factors demotivating learners in studying writing, what teaching methods or techniques had usually been employed by the teachers, and how the communicative approach worked in a writing class in order to gain an insight into an effective teaching method to make students like studying writing. The study is carried out by means of an experimental teaching, which adopts the C. and process writing techniques, conducted on 160 elementary and low-intermediate learners from four classes at Nguyen Huu Huan and Thu Duc evening Divisions. Four experimental lessons are observed in each class.
In addition, two sets of questionnaire were delivered parallel to these learners and 16 writing teachers to fill out. The findings drawn from the data analysis reveal that although most of the teachers have applied the C. in teaching writing, the learners have low motivation in this subject resulting from (1) the big class size and restricted time frame allotted to writing, and (2) some repercussions in classroom application of the C. a poorly motivating classroom atmosphere, insufficient opportunities for collaborative work, improper and ineffective practice in the pre-writing and post-writing stages, and lack of real contexts for writing.
The results gained from the classroom observations show that the experimental teaching is quite successful in stimulating the students, and that the C. and process writing techniques can be applied even to low levels to make a writing class more motivating and communicative. Based on the findings, suggestions were made to provide the teachers with possible adjustments in their teaching practice in order to overcome these repercussions. The study is expected to help not only the teachers at Nguyen Huu Huan and Thu Duc evening Divisions but also those teaching at other divisions of the NLU CFS better the current practice of teaching writing.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Certificate of originality. i Retention and use of the thesis. iv Table of contents. v List of charts.
ix List of tables. x Abbreviations and symbols. xi Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1. Background to the study.
Writing teaching and learning at the NLU CFS. Purposes of the study. Procedure of the study. Significance of the study.
Scope of the study. The organization of the thesis. 7 Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2. The nature of writing.
What is writing?. Spoken language vs Written language. Why is writing difficult?. The significance of writing teaching and learning.
Types of writing performance. Types of writing activities. Controlled writing activities. Guided writing activities.
Approaches in teaching writing in ESL classes. Teaching writing traditionally: A product-oriented approach. The controlled-to-free approach. The paragraph-pattern approach.
The grammar-syntax-organization approach. Teaching writing communicatively: A process-oriented approach. The free writing approach. The communicative approach.
Difficulties in applying the communicative approach in teaching English in Vietnam. Composition marking and error correction. Mistakes and Errors. Causes of errors.
Interference of the first language. Other affective variables. Traditional attitude towards error correction. CLT attitude towards error correction.
Research goals and method. The experimental teaching. The experimental teaching outline. 48 Chapter 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 4.
Concerning the teachers. Concerning teacher/students interaction. Concerning the lesson’s success. Learners’ views on the study of writing.
Learners’ purposes in studying writing. Learners’ attitude towards the study of writing. Learners’ difficulties in studying writing. Learners’ strategies in getting prepared for writing.
Factors satisfying learners in a writing class. Favorite activities and topics. Learners’ awareness of the readership. Learners’ favorable approaches of error correction.
Learners’ views on grammar learning and. 63 the time allotted to writing 4. Teachers’ views on students’ attitude. 65 towards learning writing 4.
Teachers’ problems in teaching writing. Teachers’ ways of conducting writing lessons. Motivational factors in a writing class. Ways of conducting writing activities.
Difficulties with a CLT writing class. Ways of correcting students’ written work. Teachers’ views on the schedule and materials for writing. Teachers’ recommendations on how to better.
75 the teaching of writing 4. Teachers’ and learners’ negative views. 75 on the study of writing 4. Factors causing learners’ lack of motivation.
Factors relating to the NLU CFS’s academic administration. Repercussions in applying. 77 the communicative approach 4. Learners’ active performance in the experimental classes.
80 Chapter 5: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5. Increasing the time for writing in the course syllabus. Stimulating in students a desire to communicate. Creating a motivating setting for learners to write in.
Conducting more group work. Making the planning stage effective and systematic. Providing real contexts for writing. Giving more attention to the revision stage.
Discussing the marking criteria and correction codes with the students. Peer/group correction. Limitations of the study. Suggestion for further research.
98 9 LIST OF CHARTS Chart 4.1: Learners’ attitude towards the study of writing Chart 4.2: Learners’ difficulties in studying writing Chart 4.3: Learners’ attitude towards cooperative learning Chart 4.4: Teachers’ views on learners’ attitude towards learning writing Chart 4.5: Teachers’ ways of conducting writing activities 10 LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Learners’ characteristics Table 4.2: Learners’ purposes in studying writing Table 4.3: Learners’ strategies in getting prepared for writing Table 4.4: Learners’ satisfaction with the teacher Table 4.5: Favorite activities in a writing lesson Table 4.6: Learners’ favorable ways of error correction Table 4.7: Teachers’ characteristics Table 4.8: Teachers’ ways of conducting writing lessons Table 4.9: Major causes of students’ low motivation in studying writing Table 4.10: Techniques often applied in a writing lesson Table 4.11: Difficulties with a CLT writing classes Table 4.12: Ways of correcting students’ written work Table 5.1: Possible correction codes 11 ABBREVIATIONS CA : Communicative Approach CLT : Communicative Language Teaching EFL : English as a Foreign Language ESL : English as a Second Language FL : Foreign Langguage HCMC : Ho Chi Minh City M. : Master of Arts NLU CFS: The Nong Lam University Center for Foreign Studies TESOL : Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages USSH : The University of Social Sciences and Humanities VNU : Vietnam National University 12 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Background to the study When I was an EFL student, I was extremely demotivated whenever being asked to write in English. And now as a teacher, I have noticed the similar problem in my students.
I believe this is what many other teachers have experienced in teaching writing. This acknowledges the fact that writing remains one of the most difficult areas for the teacher and leaner of English although there has been a dramatic revolution in the way that writing is being approached in the English language classroom, with the aim of making writing a more personal and satisfying experience for the learner, asserts Simpson (2004). In the past, writing has been treated poorly and usually left to the last stage of learning. Hedge (1988, cited in Simpson, 2004) notes that this skill was often relegated to the status of “homework” due to pressure of time and syllabus requirements, thus nullifying the possibility of teacher guidance.
As structuralists and audiolinguists emphasized oral forms of communication and reading, according to Tribble (1996, cited in Simpson, 2004), writing was viewed as a tool for the practice and reinforcement of specific grammatical and lexical patterns; accuracy being all important whereas content and self expression given little if any priority. In other words, students were expected to produce an error-free coherent text without giving any prior thought to the meaning of the finished product. Tribble (1996) also claims that students were basically “writing to learn” and not “learning to write” as instructed by this traditional product-oriented approach. This trend, however, has changed greatly in accordance with the development of the communicative language teaching in the 1980s as there is 13 a widespread recognition that writing is a process which involves several steps in creating a piece of work.
According to Silva (1990:15), this trend, namely the process-oriented approach, calls for providing a positive, encouraging, and collaborative workshop environment within which learners are guided to develop viable strategies for getting started, for drafting, for revising, and for editing. Zamel (1983, cited in Silva, 1990:15), thus, views this process as a “non-linear, exploratory, and generative process whereby writers discover and reformulate their ideas as they attempt to approximate meaning”. Since content, not form, is the focus of this approach, students are required to consider the audience, purpose and tone of the writing in order to achieve the communicative purpose of the finished products. Although process writing offers a more positive, motivating and collaborative atmosphere for students to write in, it is not always satisfactorily applied due to either a lack of teacher’s awareness of this process or their familiarity to the traditional product approach, which Silva (1990:13) believes “still alive and well in many ESL composition classrooms and textbooks nowadays”.
Consequently, repercussions in classroom application of the process approach are obviously unavoidable. As a result, learners still find writing a difficult and boring subject, and teachers keep on complaining about their students’ passive attitude towards the study of writing. Writing teaching and learning at the NLU CFS The Nong Lam University Center for Foreign Studies (NLU CFS) consists of seven divisions. The study is conducted at its Nguyen Huu Huan and Thu Duc evening Divisions.