Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITRATURE
TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS’
PERFORMANCES IN WRITING SKILLS
MA THESIS
ESATU YIGEZU ENJA
FEBRUARY, 2015
ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA
TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS’
PERFORMANCES IN WRITING SKILLS
ESATU YIGEZU ENJA
A THESIS PRESENTED TO SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES ARBA-MINCH
UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUARIMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS IN THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN
LANGUAGE (TEFL)
FEBRUARY, 2015
ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA
DECLARATION
I Esatu Yigezu hereby declare that the thesis entitled “Teachers’ and Students’ perceptions of
Students’ performances in writing” submitted by me for the award in Masters of Arts in
Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) at Arba-Minch University is my original
work and it has not been presented for the award of any degree, diploma, fellowship, or other
similar titles of any other university or institution and that all sources of materials used for
this thesis have been dully acknowledged.
Name: Esatu Yigezu Enja
Signature: _______________________
Submission date: _________________
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
EXAMINERS APPROVAL PAGE
We the examiners’ board approve the research thesis entitled “Teachers’ and students’
perceptions of students’ performances in writing skills” has been carried out by Esatu
Yigezu Enja Id. No RMA./014/05, has passed through the defense and review process.
___________ __________
Principal advisor Signature Date
___________ __________
Co-advisor Signature Date
___________ __________
Chairperson Signature Date
___________ __________
External Examiner Signature Date
___________ __________
Internal Examiner Signature Date
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am very much indebted to my M.A thesis principal advisor and “Captain of the
investigation”, Dr. Anto Arkato (Assistant Professor) for his diligent paternal and
professional assistance and dedication of precious time in reading and correcting this
research from commencement to the end. My appreciation also goes to my co-advisor and
“Co-Captain of the investigation”, Ato Tesfaye Alemu (PhD-Candidate) for his unreserved
guidance rendered from the very beginning to the completion of the study.
I have sincere appreciation for his invaluable support, constructive comments, suggestions,
feed-back, and tolerance. From their kindness, patience and warm-welcome they have shown
me in the course of the time, I learned from them what academic assistance, patience and
collegial relations mean. Their willingness to help and motivate me was beyond the ordinary.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my honorable friend and really truly younger
brother Amare Teshome (instructor at Arba-Minch College of teachers’ education) for his
material and moral support, his consistent encouragement has been with me from the
beginning to the end, and his endeavor and diligent work in time of data collection and
editing the overall research paper.
I am happy to give my special thanks to Grade Ten English Language teachers and students
from Arba-Minch town secondary schools (Arba-Minch secondary & preparatory, Chamo
secondary and preparatory, Abaya, and Limat) that scarified their precious time in filling
questionnaires and answered the interview questions for the main study. I also fully
acknowledge the perseverance of Ato Manguday Mercho (M.A), the current chairman of the
Department of English Language and Literature, for the hard work and the effort he put into
searching for the external examiner and making it possible for us to submit the work in time.
Moreover, I am aware that I have not named all the people from staff (DELL, AMU) who
have, in one way or other, made this possible for me. Thank you for caring so much,
everybody!
May the Almighty God richly reward all the acknowledged persons for their effort and
personal sacrifices abundantly?
ii
ACRONYMS
AUC Alpha University College
MoE Ministry of Education
SNNPRS Southern Nation Nationalities and People Regional State
TVET Technical and Vocational Education Training
iii
Table of Contents Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................................... i
ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................ ii
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….vi
List of tables ........................................................................................................................................ vii
Abstracts ............................................................................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................... 1
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 General objective ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Specific Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Research Questions ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.4.1 General research question ............................................................................................................ 4
1.4.2 Specific research questions .......................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Significance of the study .................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Scope of the Study ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.7 Limitations .......................................................................................................................................... 5
1.8. Organization of the paper ................................................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER-TWO .................................................................................................................................. 7
2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ............................................................................... 7
2.1The Concept of Perception ................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Writing ................................................................................................................................................ 8
2.3 Students’ writing planning ................................................................................................................. 8
2.4 Perception of Teachers’ and Students’ towards practice in Teaching and Learning of Writing Skills10
2.4.1 Perception of Teachers’ towards Practice in Teaching of Writing Skills .................................. 10
2.4.2 Perception of Students’ towards Practice in Learning of Writing Skills ................................. 11
2.5. The Influence of Feedback Types on Students’ Perceptions and Writing Performance................. 12
2.5.1 Ways of providing feed-back ..................................................................................................... 13
2.6 Factors Affecting Student’s Performances in Writing ...................................................................... 15
2.6.1 Factors Enhancing Students’ Performances in Writing ............................................................. 15
iv
2.6.2 Factors Hindering Students’ Performance in Writing................................................................ 16
CHAPTER-THREE ............................................................................................................................ 19
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 19
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 19
3.1. Research Design .............................................................................................................................. 19
3.2. Subjects and their sampling ............................................................................................................ 19
3.3. Strategies of Ensuring Data Quality/Pilot Study ............................................................................. 21
3.4. Data Collection Instruments ........................................................................................................... 21
3.4.1. Teacher’ Questionnaire ............................................................................................................. 21
3.4.2 Students’ Questionnaire ............................................................................................................. 21
3. 4.3. Teachers’ Interview ................................................................................................................. 22
3.4.4. Students’ Focus Group Discussion ........................................................................................... 22
3.5 .Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................................. 24
3.6 Data Analysis and Interpretation ..................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER-FOUR .............................................................................................................................. 26
4. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 26
4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents .......................................................................... 26
4.2. Teachers’ perceptions of students’ performance in writing ........................................................... 28
4.2.1 Teachers’ perception about students planning of writing .......................................................... 28
4.2.2 Teachers’ perceptions of students’ writing practice .................................................................. 29
4.2.3 Teachers’ perceptions of students’ writing feed-back ............................................................... 30
4.3. Students’ Perceptions about their Performance in Writing ........................................................... 31
4.3.1 Students’ Perceptions about their Writing Planning .................................................................. 31
4.3.2 Students Responses for their Writing practice ........................................................................... 33
4.3.3 Students Responses for their Dealing with Feed-Back .............................................................. 35
4.4. Factors enhancing or impending students’ performance in writing ............................................... 36
4.4.1 Factors enhancing students’ performance in writing ................................................................. 36
4.4.2 Factors impeding students’ performance in writing .................................................................. 38
4.4.3 Strategies to overcome/minimize the factors that hinder your performance in writing skills ... 40
4.5 Discussion of Results ........................................................................................................................ 41
4.5.1 Teachers’ perceptions of students’ performances in writing skills ............................................ 41
4.5.2. Students perceptions of their performances in writing skills .................................................... 43
4.6 Factors enhancing or hindering students’ performances in writing ................................................ 45
v
4.6.1 Factors enhancing students performances ................................................................................. 45
4.6.2. Factors hindering students’ performances ................................................................................ 47
4.6.3 Strategies Improving Students’ Writing Skills .......................................................................... 49
CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................................ 51
5. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................... 51
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 51
5.2 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 51
5.3. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 52
5.4 Implications of the Study ................................................................................................................. 52
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 53
vi
Appendices Page
APPENDIX: A Teacher Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 67
APPENDIX: B Students’ Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 69
APPENDIX: C Amharic Translation ........................................................................................................ 71
Appendix: D Response Rate on Questionnaire (Teachers’ and Students’) .............................................. 72
Appendix: E Cornbrash’s alpha result ...................................................................................................... 73
APPENDIX: F Teacher interview questions ............................................................................................ 74
APPENDIX: G Questions for students’ Focus group discussions ............................................................ 75
Appendix-H: Interview Questions for students in Focus Group Discussion in Amharic Translation ...... 75
vii
List of tables Table 1 Proportion and numbers of students and teachers participated in the study .................................. 20
Table 2 Relationship between research questions, data collection instruments, and sources .................... 24
Table 3 Characteristics of the respondents ................................................................................................. 27
Table 4 Teachers Perception about Students Planning of Writing ............................................................. 28
Table 5 Teachers’ perception of students’ writing practice........................................................................ 29
Table 6 Teachers Responses for the items on Students’ addressing feed-back ........................................ 30
Table 7 Students’ perceptions about writing .............................................................................................. 32
Table 8 Students Responses about Practice on Writing ............................................................................. 33
Table 9 Students Responses for their Dealing with Feed-Back ................................................................. 35
viii
Abstracts Writing well is not just an option for young people—it is a necessity. Along with reading
comprehension, writing skill is a predictor of academic success and a basic requirement for
participation in civic life and in the global economy. Writing skills are an important aspect of
academic performance as well as subsequent work-related performance. The objectives of
this study were to investigate teachers’ and students perceptions of students’ performance in
writing skills in secondary schools of Arba-Minch town. To guide the study four research
questions were posed. The questions examined the following three variables: (1) Planning;
(2) Practice; and (3) Addressing feed-back for writing skills. A descriptive design with mixed
approaches (quantitative and qualitative) was used for the study. A total of 291 secondary
school grade ten students and 15 secondary school English language teachers participated in
the study. A simple random sampling technique was used to select schools and students
participants. Questionnaire that contained items on planning, practicing and addressing
feed-back, variables was used by the researcher to collect information from both the students
and teachers. A necessary data from 15 teachers were collected through close ended and
open ended questionnaires and on the same issues data was collected from 252 students.
Interview with 4 teachers and FGD with 39 students were also conducted to collect data.
One sample t- test, and step wise multiple regression analysis were conducted to analyze the
data. The findings indicate that teacher’s perception show that students didn’t use planning,
practice, and giving /receiving feed-back for their writing performance. In the same way,
students themselves perceived as they didn’t plan, practice, and give/receive feed-back for
their better performance in writing. Findings from informants and discussants indicated as
learning grammar, capitalization, punctuation, orienting/listening about writing rules
enhance students’ performance in writing, whereas lake of interest, motivation, initiation,
absenteeism, failure to listen to their teachers and failure to do writing assignments, mother
tongue influence, pragmatic competence of learners material and unmanageable class size,
strategies use, cohesions, and coherence stated that hinder their (students) performance in
writing.
1
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
English is the most widely used international language. It has a variety of important
functions. First of all English has an important role in education. It is taught in the schools of
virtually every country in the world and , for a variety of reasons, many countries have
adopted English as the medium of instruction in their school and universities even
when English is foreign language (Hornby, 2011:504). Large numbers of good – quality
education textbooks are published in English providing up-to-date information on every
topic. Most scientific research works are published in English. In the world as a whole
English is the dominant language of the media (newspapers ,magazine radio TV and the
internet) and more books are printed in English than in any other language . English is
the most used language of diplomacy and at international conferences. It is widely used for
international business and banking transactions and is the main language of advertising.
English is the main language of the international tourism industry and is the official language
of the world’s airlines. Out of the entire world’s computerized data, 80 % is stored in
English. Three-quarters of the world’s mail is written in English. Finally , English is the
most used language of entertainment, including pop- music, and in international sport
(AUC, 2006:36-37).
AUC also claims that in the context of globalization and the increasing demand for
English all over the world, the language is often described as the “lingua
franca”, “the window to the world”, and “the language of opportunity”. The
technological revolution and the world wide use of computers and internet
have increased the demand for English. In the Ethiopian context there is also
an increasing demand for a good command of English. An individual with a
good command of the language is certainly at an advantage, and has many
more options to choose than someone who may not possess good competence
in English. The competences are the aggregate of competences in the
language skills and language features such as grammar and vocabulary. The
knowledge and skills of the language are cultivated in the course of time
formally at school. Some of the skills are considered as complex and time
taking to improve. For example, a skill such as writing needs practices and
patience from both teachers side as well as from the learners’ side.
When teaching the skills, teachers usually place writing skill at the end (arranged in the text
like: listening, speaking, reading, and writing) both in students’ text books and teacher’s
2
guides because it is thought to be highly complex and difficult to master even for native-
speakers (Hedge, 2000; Richards & Renandya, 2003). Grabe and Kaplan (1996:87) state that
“probably half of the world’s population does not know how to write adequately and
effectively”. Writing is not a very easy task to achieve since it requires hard work, lengthy
steps, enough time, and more practice (Nunan, 1989).
Writing is a fundamental or important skill for effective communication (Driscoll, 2012).
This is particularly so in the era in which e-mail and other word processed documents are
becoming usual means of communication. As to West (1988), various sectors such as
government, education, industry, commerce, healthcare etc. depend not only on oral
interaction but on written communication for their successful functioning. In order to meet
persistently, someone needs changing social demands and pursue personal interest, he/she
has to be able to communicate effectively through writing (Geremew, 1999).
John Atkins et.al, (1996:85) state that writing is one of the most important skills for students
learning English for academic purposes to develop, and yet for a range of reasons, notably
large class sizes, which deter teachers from setting and marking writing tasks, and the
reluctance of teachers to give students the freedom to express themselves in writing, the
overall intellectual and academic progress of many students become slowed down.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Writing is one of the most important skills for students learning English for academic purposes to
develop, and yet for a range of reasons, notably large class sizes, which deter teachers from setting
and marking writing skills, and the reluctance of teachers to give students the freedom to express
themselves in writing, the overall intellectual and academic progress of many students is slowed
down (John, Hailom, and Nuru, 1996:85). In this , therefore, we shall investigate teachers’ and
students’ perceptions of students’ performances in writing skills at high schools and grade ten in
particular.
The Ethiopian Government has taken quite a number of series measures, to enhance students’
academic achievement and realize the importance of quality education. However, in some
secondary schools though good attention is given to writing skill in English text-books, the
researcher has realized from experience that most students who complete secondary schools
and join preparatory schools seem to possess inadequate competencies in writing skills.
Some of the possible causes for the insufficient abilities in writing could be the teachers’
failure to properly teach the skill and students’ failure to successfully learn the skill as the
result of the teachers’ and students’ unfavorable perceptions about students’ writing.
A letter sent from the Ministry of Education MoE (2005 E.C still today) to secondary schools
of the country since 2005 E.C. is another proof that there is a serious problem of teaching and
learning writing skill in the schools. The letter indicated that many students of almost all the
schools had poor performances in writing skills and asked the schools specifically (English
3
Language Department) to make special arrangement to support the students with poor
performances in the specified area.
Parents are also frequently observed complaining about students’ inadequate performances of
writing skills. They say that most students are not able to write a few sentences free of
grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Even some elderly people compare writing
ability of students of these days with that of students of the previous regimes such as of Derg
and Haile Selassie regimes. They say that elementary school students of the previous regimes
were able to write acceptable applications and formal letters for different positions, but today
majority of grade 10 complete students have serious problem to write such applications and
letters.
Moreover, students’ failures in writing skills become a usual agenda of staff meetings. In
every school year, all teachers teaching different subjects regularly discuss the problem of the
quality of students’ writing either formally or informally. Solomon (2001) claims that one of
the major weaknesses of Ethiopian students at different levels is writing in English and the
situation is becoming worse in secondary schools
A study conducted by Alamrew (2005) indicates that writing is either not covered at all or
not taught effectively possibly because of the less importance that teachers give to writing
than they give to other language skills such as listening, speaking, reading, grammar and
vocabulary. The above author has still pointed that one of the plausible reasons for the
teachers to provide little attention to teach the skill is their unacceptable perceptions about
teaching the skill. Perceptions that teachers and students have about students’ language
learning (EL ) seems to affect teachers’ success in language teaching and students’
performance in language learning; hence, it seems important to understand teachers and
students’ perception about students’ performance in writing skills so that possible solutions
may be drawn.
A study by Tekle, Endalfer, and Ebabu (2011) show that due to teachers’ failure to put their
beliefs about the nature of writing and how it should be taught into classroom practice,
writing is given little attention and is taught inappropriately. These few researches have been
conducted on teachers’ perceptions about their teaching of the writing skill. However, the
studies did not address either teacher perception or student perception about students’
performance of the skill.
The purpose of this study, thus, is to examine teachers and students’ perceptions about
students’ performance in writing skill at four secondary schools (Arba-Minch Secondary and
Preparatory, Chamo Secondary and Preparatory, Abaya Secondary and Limat Melles Zenawi
Memorial Secondary School) of Arba -Minch town and to identify factors that enhance or
hinder students’ performance in writing skills. The study is guided by the following general
and specific research questions.
4
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The following general and specific objectives were the central aims of this study.
1.3.1 General objective
Generally, this study is aimed to assess teachers’ and students’ perceptions of students’
performance in writing.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
This study has the following four specific objectives.
To investigate the kinds of perceptions that grade 10 English language teachers’
have about their students’ performance in writing skills
To examine kinds of perceptions that grade 10 students’ have about their
performance in writing skills.
To identify the factors hindering or enhancing students’ performance in writing
skills.
1.4 Research Questions To achieve these objectives, the following general and specific research questions are
formulated to guide the study.
1.4.1 General research question
What perceptions do teachers and students have about students’ performance in writing?
1.4.2 Specific research questions
What perceptions do grade 10 English language teachers have about their students’
performance in writing skills?
What perceptions do grade 10 students have about their own performances in
writing skills?
What factors do hinder or enhance students’ performance of writing skills?
1.5 Significance of the study The New Educational and Training Policy give special attention to secondary school
education. This is because secondary school education is the place where students prepare
themselves for colleges and universities. In the secondary school, grade10 prepares students
for various training programs and due attention is given to the English language at this level
of education. The English language syllabus for grade 10 provides continued practice in the
four major language skills and basic study skills so that students could develop their ability to
communicate effectively in English at school, and in everyday situations (MoE, 2001). It has
been stated that by the end of Grade 10, students will be able to; listen to and respond to
specific information, use English effectively to ask questions and discuss topics during the
English lessons and in other subject lessons, use English for social interactions, read a wide
5
range of English texts for information and enjoyment, write compositions on a range of
topics, and complete given note and summarize outlines.
Thus, the results of the study are supposed to be useful for four secondary schools in Arba-
Minch town; namely (Arba-Minch Secondary & preparatory, Chamo Secondary &
preparatory, Abaya Secondary and Limat Melles Zenawi Memorial Secondary) to consider
whether it has used all the available opportunities for developing students' writing skills, the
English language department to realize how far it should go to promote cross-disciplinary
writing practice by raising the awareness of subject area teachers about the benefit of writing
for learning content and about the contributions they could do for the development of the
skill, subject area teachers to re-consider their knowledge of their help to the development of
the writing skills of their students, and Other researchers in the area to use it as a
springboard.
The findings from the study may assist the parents who invest heavily in education in that;
their resources are not wasted when the students are well adjusted at the secondary school
with regular follow-up on their performances.
It is of essence to mention that, the students will enormously benefit from this study by
understanding the determinants of their performance levels in writing skills particularly and
academic adjustment generally. Hence, the students may be able to do well in writing skill
performance and emerge as well adjusted citizens and personnel for professional competence
1.6 Scope of the Study The study is delimited to grade 10 students and their teachers of four secondary schools
(Arba-Minch Secondary & Preparatory, Abaya Secondary, Chamo Secondary & Preparatory
and Limat Melles Zenawi Memorial Secondary) in Arba -Minch town in 2014 academic
year. In terms of variables it is confined to perceptions of teachers’ and students’ regarding
the students’ learning performances of writing skills.
1.7 Limitations In the process of conducting this study, the researcher faced some difficulties. The first one is
the absence of personal computer and basic skill on it. Secondly, power (light) fluctuation
was the other challenge he faced during the write up process. Thirdly, self-sponsorship
together with working as par-timer under the serious control of officials had a big negative
influence on the work.
1.8. Organization of the paper The research thesis has been organized in to five chapters. The first chapter is introduction
that consists of background of the research, statement of the problem, objectives of the study,
significance, Scope of the Study, Definitions of operational Terms, limitations and
organization of the paper. The second is literature review. The third is dealing with the
6
research methodology. The fourth covers the results, discussion and interpretation of the
study and the last fifth chapter is about conclusions and recommendations while references
and appendices are included in the last part of the document.
7
CHAPTER-TWO
2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE This chapter tries to deals with literatures that are thought to be relevant to the research
problems under investigation. Thus, it begins with the concept (definition) of perceptions and
considers the following as its major point’s classification of teachers’ and students
perceptions of students’ performances in writing based on genre and values and its brief
history around the world and in Ethiopia. In addition, it deals with students planning in
writing, student’s actual writing practice, and students addressing feed-back and factors
affecting student’s performances in writing either by enhancing or hindering at a school level
are points given consideration in this chapter.
2.1The Concept of Perception Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (Horn by, 2010:1126) defines the
term perception as “ The way you notice things, especially with the senses: our perception of
reality,; the ability to understand the true nature of something,; an idea, a belief, or an image
you have as a result of how you see or understand something”.
Perception is defined by the Collins Dictionary (1991:1156) as “... the act or effect of
perceiving; insight or intuition gained by perceiving; awareness.” In this study, a perception
refers to how different teachers and students perceive and value the current performances on
writing skills improvement initiatives.
Perception is an integral part of both the sender’s and the receiver’s involvement in the
communication process. As a perceiver, each us is a product of all of our experiences. Our
attitude toward the surrounding environment also modifies our perception of what is being
communicated (Bante Workie & Yigremew Adal, 2008:24).
Perception is the process of assigning meaning to a message. Perception is a major cause of
communication breakdown. One underlying reason is that we are simply not careful when we
perceive other people and their messages (Bante Workie & Yigremew Adal, 2008:26).
Perception plays a great role to facilitate or hinder individual’s activity. According to
Morgan, et al (1986:1580) perception of an individual refers to the way any event in the
world and the world itself looks sounds, feels, tastes or smells to him. With regard to the
nature of perception, Hardy and Heyes (1979) explain that the perception system filters some
information that will be brought to conscious awareness, organizes and interprets this
information to build up the model of the world that is experienced. Perception refers to the
sorting out, interpretation, analysis and integration of stimuli involving our sense organs and
brain, and our behavior is essentially a reflection of how we react to and interpret stimuli
8
from the world around us (Richardson 1996; Smith 2001). This implies that our perception
shapes our belief system and determines our practice.
Thus, perception is all about the ability to understand the true nature of something; an idea,
belief, or image we have as a result of how we see or understand something around us.
The chapter focuses on the literature review related to teachers’ and students’ perceptions of
students’ performances in writing; in particular the chapter discusses three constructs:
teachers’ and students’ perception of students’ planning for writing , writing practice, and
addressing writing feedback and the way it is implemented and factors that may hinder or
enhance the implementation of writing.
2.2 Writing For Byrne (1996:3), 'writing' involves encoding of a message written through a sequence of
sentences ordered together in certain ways, and it requires some conscious mental effort
including making notes, drafting, and revising. Moreover, White and Arndt (1991) define
'writing' as "a form of problem-solving which involves such process as generating ideas,
discovering a voice with which to write, planning, goal setting, monitoring and evaluating
what is going to be written, and searching with language with which to express exact
meanings".
Therefore, 'writing' can be as a thinking process which involves generating ideas, composing
these ideas in sentences and paragraphs, and finally revising the ideas and paragraphs
composed. Good writing also requires knowledge of grammatical rules, lexical devices, and
logical ties.
2.3 Students’ writing planning Mastering writing is the most difficult for first and foreign language learners. It is a
complicated process since it involves a series of forward and backward movements between
the writer's ideas and the written text (Harris & Cunningham, 1994), and requires a high level
of language control (Murcia & Olshtain, 2000). Additionally, writing process is a form of
problem-solving which involves generating ideas, planning and goal setting, monitoring, and
evaluating what has been composed (White & Arndt, 1991). In fact, writing is still deemed to
be an arduous task for most first and foreign language learners (Ingels, 2006).
Understanding students' writing problems is crucial for improving the quality of FL/L2
(Foreign Language, Second Language) writing. Abdel Latif (2007) views that for FL/L2
writing to be developed, the factors (i.e. linguistic competence and writing strategies)
affecting its process and product should be examined. A number of previous studies
investigated FL/L2 writing problems and the factors influencing FL/L2 writing quality.
Examples of the research areas such previous studies investigated include linguistic
competence and its relation to EFL/ESL writing (e.g. Abdel Latif, 2007; Mojica, 2010);
EFL/ESL (English Second Language) students' problems with cohesion (e.g. Ahmed, 2010;
9
Al-Jarf, 2001; Dastjerdi & Samian, 2011); and EFL writing strategies and its relation to
writing performance (e.g. Alsamadani, 2010; Sadi& Othman, 2012; Wei, Shang, &Briody,
2012).
A considerable amount of literature (e.g. Abdel Latif, 2007; Abdel Latif, 2012; Alsamadani,
2010; Brisk, 2011; Dupont, 2004; Hammad, 2013; Murcia & Olshtain, 2000; Pilar & Liach,
2011) has recently been written on the factors influencing FL/L2 writing quality. According
to the literature review, such factors include strategy use, cohesion and coherence, linguistic
knowledge, writing apprehension, and L1 (First Language) transfer.
One important factor that can affect FL/L2 writing quality is strategy use. Processes for
writing differ from one writer to another and from one situation to the next (Reid, 1992).
However, some authors (e.g. Brown & Hood, 1989; Scholes & Comley, 1989) identify three
basic stages of writing process (i.e. Pre-writing stage, drafting stage, and post-writing stage)
through which writers practice a number of strategies. The first stage, pre-writing, includes
generating ideas relevant to the subject (Dupont, 2004). The second stage, drafting, involves
writing the first version and composing thoughts in sentences and paragraphs (Winterowd &
Murray, 1988). Finally in the post-writing stage, writers clean up all errors such as spelling
errors, omission, extra spaces, formatting errors, and punctuation errors (Dupont, 2004). It
may be argued that there is a close relationship between such strategies and FL students'
writing quality.
A second factor contributing to FL/L2 writing quality is linguistic competence. Linguistic
competence is closely interacted with FL/L2 writers' composing process (Manchon, 2009).
According to Murrcia (2002), the use of grammar is essential for improving language
learning. Additionally, Pilar and Liach (2011) viewed that vocabulary is central to L2/FL
writing quality. In this concern, Abdel Latif (2007) examined the relationship between
linguistic competence (i.e. grammar and vocabulary) and Egyptian EFL university students'
writing process and product, and the study indicated that linguistic competence was
positively related to text length aspects (i.e. word count and the number of sentences). In the
same vein, Mojica (2010) examined EFL students' problems with writing. The study revealed
that vocabulary and grammar were perceived by EFL students as the top most writing
difficulties.
A third factor is the ability to arrange ideas and sentences in a logical order which is called
cohesion and coherence. Coherence means arranging ideas in a logical sequence (Medve &
Takac, 2013), and cohesive ties including reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunctions, and
lexical ties affect text structure (Brisk, 2011). Among the previous studies that focused on the
organizational problems FL/L2 students encountered when they wrote English essays is
Ahmed (2010). Ahmed's study investigated Egyptian university students' cohesion and
coherence problems in EFL essay writing. The study concluded that the participants
encountered problems in the cohesion of EFL essay writing. Furthermore, Al-Jarf (2001)
10
examined the cohesive ties Saudi EFL students used in their writing. Al-Jarf's study found
that cohesion anomalies were caused by poor linguistic competence, specifically poor
syntactic and semantic awareness and poor knowledge of cohesion rules. Likewise, Dastjerdi
and Samian (2011) investigated Iranian EFL students' use of cohesive devices in
argumentative essays and the relationship between writing quality and the number of
cohesive devices. The study revealed that lexical devices had the largest percentage of the
total number of the cohesive devices followed by reference devices and conjunction devices.
2.4 Perception of Teachers’ and Students’ towards practice in Teaching and
Learning of Writing Skills
2.4.1 Perception of Teachers’ towards Practice in Teaching of Writing Skills Ahmad and Aziz (2009) note that some teachers believe that classes should be teacher - centered,
where the teacher is the expert and the authority in presenting information while other take a learner
centered approach viewing their role as more of student learning. Eken (2000) noted that in a student
centered class, teachers are more of facilitators and students take on the discussion role; students are
seen as being able to assume a more active and participatory role vise-a-visa traditional approaches.
This teaching method promotes active participation of students in classroom activities. However, in a
classroom setting a teacher should be well equipped with different methods of teaching English.
Ahmad and Aziz (2009) concurs that students generally have a poor grasp of a language and part of
the problem lies with the conventional teaching methods employed.
The role of the teacher is an investigator of the writing processes employed by the students,
using observation and discussion to identify successful methods to teach different aspects of
the writing process (Ambuko, 2008). Teachers play different roles in the classroom through
different ways. Richard (1990) presents a comprehensive list for teachers' role in a writing
programmer. The roles include: - keeping writing task clear, simple and straight forward,
teaching the writing process, developing meaningful assignments, outlining goals for each
writing assignment and teaching the principles - rules, convention, and guideline of writing
as a learner who has a good command of English language will effectively present his ideas
in an organized form, understandable to the examiner and this will logically translate into a
better examination scores (Ellis, 1991).
From research carried out by Ng'ong'a (2002) it was revealed that Kenyan school leavers
continue to perform poorly due to poor teaching methods. This is because as Alexander
(2000) noted instructors develop a teaching style based on their beliefs about what constitutes
good teaching, personal preferences, their abilities, and the names of their particular
discipline. This is done in disregard of the learners ’needs. Due to deteriorating of
performance in English subject, objectives of writing skills have not been achieved, yet
writing competence is one of the vital requirements outside the school and promoting
teaching and learning of English language skills. There has been persistent complains about
poor English language use in written expression .As reported by KNEC(2010,2011,2012) the
compositions candidates wrote for the last three years reveal serious weaknesses in writing
11
skills and this has greatly affected the mean scores which dropped from 7.66 in the year 2009
to 5.09 in 2011.
2.4.2 Perception of Students’ towards Practice in Learning of Writing Skills
Students usually bring their assumptions and beliefs about what a writing course should offer
them and in what way. When taking an academic writing course, students’ main purpose is to
learn to write effectively within their particular discipline and to succeed in their academic
studies. Hence, students’ needs, perceptions and present writing proficiency levels should be
sought first in order to offer them the required assistance. Research on students' perceptions
and beliefs has revealed that knowing students’ perceptions and beliefs can play a crucial role
in developing the right program to meet their needs. Mazdayasna and Tahririan (2008) found
that Iranian students were aware of their needs as they indicated that they were very much
interested in improving their general language proficiency to succeed in their learning.
Based on Perceptions of Teachers’ and Students’ towards practice in Teaching and Learning
of Writing Skills, teachers teaching style and students learning preferences have positive
effect on students’ performance.
2.4.2.1 Students’ learning preferences A good match between students’ learning preferences and instructor’s teaching style has been
demonstrated to have positive effect on student's performance (Harb& El-Shaarawi, 2006).
According to Reid (1995), learning preference refers to a person’s “natural, habitual and
preferred way” of assimilating new information. This implies that individuals differ in regard
to what mode of instruction or study is most effective for them. Scholars, who promote the
learning preferences approach to learning, agree that effective instruction can only be
undertaken if the learner’s learning preferences are diagnosed and the instruction is tailored
accordingly (Pashler, Mc Daniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008). “Indeed, Omrod (2008) reported
that some students seem to learn better when information is presented through words (verbal
learners), whereas others seem to learn better when it is presented in the form of pictures
(visual learners). Clearly in a class where only one instructional method is employed, there is
a strong possibility that a number of students will find the learning environment less optimal
and this could affect their academic performance. Felder (1993) established that alignment
between students’ learning preferences and an instructor’s teaching style leads to better recall
and understanding. The learning preferences approach has gained significant mileage despite
the lack of experimental evidence to support the utility of this approach.
There are a number of methods used to assess the learning preferences/styles of students but
they all typically ask students to evaluate the kind of information widely is the
Visual/Aural/Read and Write/Kina esthetic (VARKR) questionnaire, pioneered by Neil
Fleming in 1987, which categorizes learners into at least four major learning preferences
classes. Neil Flemming (2001-2011) described these four major learning preferences as
follows:
12
2.4.2.2 Visual learners
Students who prefer information to be presented on the whiteboard, flip charts, walls,
graphics, pictures, color. Probably creative and may use different colors and diagrams in their
notebooks.
2.4.2.3 Aural (or oral)/auditory learners
Prefer to sit back and listen. Do not make a lot of notes may find it useful to record lectures
for later playbacks and reference.
2.4.2.4 Read/write learners
Prefer to read the information for them and take a lot of notes. These learners benefit from
given access to additional relevant information through handouts and guided readings.
2.4.2.5 Kinesthetic (or tactile) learners
These learners cannot sit still for long and like to fiddle with things. Prefer to be actively
involved in their learning and thus would benefit from active learning strategies in class. A
number of learners are indeed, multimodal, with more than one preferred style of learning in
addition to using different learning styles for different components of the same subject. There
is a strong possibility that learning preferences would depend on the subject matter being
taught.
2.5. The Influence of Feedback Types on Students’ Perceptions and Writing
Performance Beyond developing prescriptions for writing effective feedback, researchers have also
examined the elements of feedback that students find helpful. In our study we wanted to
assess if these prescriptions for producing effective feedback are actually perceived by
students as effective.
Recent empirical work has investigated students’ reactions to feedback and identified
particular aspects of feedback that students find helpful. Lizzio and Wilson (2008) found
students value feedback that is fair, encouraging, and has a developmental focus. Students
perceived feedback to be fair when it was presented clearly and provided a consistent
message about the evaluation of one’s work. Encouraging feedback addressed the emotional
aspects of writing and enhanced motivation by acknowledging what the student did well or
the effort invested in the writing. Feedback with a developmental focus was most strongly
associated with perceptions of feedback effectiveness. Feedback that is developmental in
nature provides students with strategies and information to guide the writing of current
assignments but that is also transferable to other tasks.
More recent findings concerning students’ perceptions of feedback tend to agree with the
qualities outlined above (Ferguson, 2011). In this study, both undergraduate and graduate
students noted the importance of feedback that was clear, provided positive comments, and
was constructive. Specifically, participants appreciated feedback that provided information
13
on the overall structure and approach of their essays and that focused on the key points of
their work. Positive comments were recognized as motivating, and students reported being
receptive to a balance of positive and critical comments if the focus was improvement.
Most research on feedback on student writing has focused on the advantages and
disadvantages of self-directed, peer, and teacher feedback activities with regard to student
writer perspectives. Little emphasis has been directed to the study on teacher experiences and
perceptions regarding multiple interaction activities (self-directed, peer, and teacher feedback
carried out as a series of pedagogical activities) in a large multilevel EFL writing class. Since
Jacobs, Curtis, Braine, and Huang (1998:134) had proposed that feedback on student writing
should “take a middle way on the issues of types of feedback” (i.e. self-directed, peer, and
teacher feedback are all indispensible).
2.5.1 Ways of providing feed-back
Self-directed, peer, and teacher feedback are all important.
2.5.1.1 The Influence of Self-Directed Feed-back on Students’ Writing performance
It is generally acknowledged that one important function of feedback on L2 writing is to
provide learners with opportunities to help them notice the gap between their own
productions and the target language (Sachs & Polio, 2007, Van Beuningen, 2010). However,
the effectiveness of feedback when given in the form of error correction (EC) has been
subject to a number of criticisms that include (i) the theoretical arguments against grammar
correction proposed by Truscott (1996, but see counterarguments by Ferris, 1999, 2004); (ii)
the lack of clarity or accuracy that can sometimes be found in teachers’ corrections (Cohen
&Cavalcanti, 1990); (iii) the minimal processing EC is supposed to require from learners as
compared to other forms of feedback (Adams, 2003; Hedgcock and Lefkowitz, 1994); (iv)
the difficulties often experienced by writers in finding out what is non-target-like in their
output due to the often confusing quantity of written marks EC involves (Hyland, 1998); or
(vi) the unsettled nature of findings regarding particular types of EC (Ellis et al., 2008; van
Beuningen, 2010).
2.5.1.2 The Influence of Peer Feed-back on Students’ Writing Performance Studies of peer review in ESL and have been associated with its positive impacts on students'
writing ability in general and on students' feelings of writing apprehension. On the first hand,
the use of peer reviews in ESL writing classrooms has been generally supported in the
literature as having potentially valuable social, cognitive, affective, and methodological
benefits (Rollinson, 2005). Mittan (1989) argues that peer review gives students a sense of
audience; increases their motivation and confidence in their writing; and helps them learn to
evaluate their own writing better. Other benefits of peer review were proved by research (e.g.
Mangelsdorf, 1992; Caulk, 1994; Zhang, 1995; Lee, 1997; Tang & Tithecott, 1999; Topping,
Smith, Swanson & Elliot, 2000; Hyland, 2003; etc.).
14
Advocates of peer review have had both theory and research to support their beliefs. For
Hansen and Liu (2005), “Peer review is supported by several theoretical frameworks,
including process writing, collaborative learning theory, Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal
Development, and interaction and second language acquisition (SLA)” (p. 31). In accordance
withVygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), the cognitive development of
individuals results from the social interaction which extends their current competence
through the guidance of more experienced individuals (Hansen & Liu, 2005).
Related research has cited peer reviewing in writing as having the following merits:
a) Bringing a genuine of sense of audience into the writing classroom (Keh, 1990 &Mittan,
1989);
b) Facilitating the development of students' critical reading and analysis skills (e.g.
Chaudron, 1984 & Keh, 1990); and
c) Encouraging students to focus on their intended meaning by discussing alternative points
of view that can lead to the development of those ideas (DiPardo & Freedman, 1988,
Mangelsdorf, 1992 & Mendonca & Johnson, 1994). It improves students' academic writing
competence (e.g. Hu, 2005 and Hu &Tsui, 2010).
Research by Berg (1999) and Paulus (1999) suggests that feedback generated by peer review
can prompt L2 writers to make revisions that lead to better quality writing. Tsui and Ng’s
(2000) study with secondary school students in Hong Kong identified four distinct benefits of
peer review. First, writing for peers enhances learners’ sense of audience, encouraging them
to pay more attention to issues of clarity in their written work. Second, peer review makes
students more aware of general problems in their own writing. Third, peer review encourages
students' sense of ownership of their writing, helping to promote learner autonomy. Fourth, it
is easier for students to decide whether to accept or reject the reviewer’s suggestions.
Besides, a study by Hu and Tsui (2010) discovered some cultural appropriateness and
pedagogical efficacy benefits of peer reviews for Chinese postgraduate students. Min's
(2006) study showed that peer review feedback affected EFL students’ revision types and
quality of texts. Saito's (2008) study revealed that the peer review group participants were
superior in both quantity and quality of comments than the control group participants.
2.5.1.3 The Influence of Teachers’ Feed-back on Students’ Writing performance
Despite the important role students play in the feedback process, much of the feedback
research has put teachers at the center of the stage, focusing on the strategies teachers use in
giving feedback, their stances and perspectives, and the impact of teacher feedback on
student writing (e.g., Ferris, 1997; Ferris, Pezone, Tade, &Tinti, 1997; Hyland & Hyland,
2001; Stern &Solomon, 2006). Students tend to be viewed as mere recipients—when in fact
they can be and should be active and proactive agents in the feedback process (Hyland &
Hyland, 2006a). Without understanding how students feel about and respond to teacher
15
feedback, teachers may run the risk of continually using strategies that are counter-
productive. As teachers give feedback on student writing, it is crucial that student responses
to the feedback are fed back to teachers as a heuristic to help them develop reflective and
effective feedback practices.
2.6 Factors Affecting Student’s Performances in Writing To facilitate effective communication through writing, it looks important to understand
various factors that enhance or hinder the teaching and learning of writing skill. One of the
factors is teachers and students’ perceptions about students’ learning of writing skill.
Perception refers to the sorting out, interpretation, analysis and integration of stimuli
involving our sense organs and brain (Richardson, 1996; Smith, 2001). Our perception
shapes our belief system and determines our practice (Skiba, 2002). It follows that teachers’
beliefs influence their judgments and practices, thereby determine how they behave in the
classroom (Noe, 2004).
2.6.1 Factors Enhancing Students’ Performances in Writing
The ultimate purpose of feedback is to enhance students’ performance. For tasks concerning
factual knowledge, feedback can directly improve performance through stating the correct
answer (Smith & Ragan, 1993). With more complex knowledge or skills such as writing,
feedback is supposed to improve performance through its effect on motivation and/or
strategy use (Kluger&DeNisi, 1996; Vollmeyer&Rheinberg, 2005). The student needs to be
motivated and should learn how to approach the task and regulate the process. Just giving a
correct answer will not lead to improvement of future performance. As such, feedback is as
important for the “will and skill” to achieve as for the eventual achievement (Crooks, 1988;
Maehr, 1976).
Kluger and DeNisi (1996) have argued that the effect of feedback on performance depends
on the processes at which it directs attention. Central to their Feedback Intervention Theory
(FIT) are three hierarchically organized control levels: meta-task processes, task-motivation
processes, and task-learning processes. Meta-task processes involve the self and are at the top
of the hierarchy. Task-motivation processes involve the focal task and are located in the
middle of the hierarchy. Task-learning processes involve the task details and are at the
bottom of the hierarchy. Higher-level processes can influence lower-level processes. Meta
task processes have the potential to affect task processes through linking higher order goals
(e.g., investing in my career) to the task (e.g., writing a paper for this course). Task-
motivation processes will activate task-learning processes (e.g., checking and reformulating
sentences) when performance is insufficient, additional effort offers no solution and the
preferred strategy is to change behavior (rather than changing the goal or the standard)
(Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).
According to FIT, negative discrepancies between the performance and the standard will
generally direct attention to task-motivation processes, leading to more effort. When this
16
does not reduce the discrepancy, attention might shift to components of task execution (task-
learning processes) resulting in alternative attempts to execute the task, or attention might
shift away from the task to issues involving the self, such as self-esteem and impression
management (meta-task processes). In general, feedback cues that direct attention to task-
motivation processes or task-learning processes – coupled with corrective information on
erroneous ideas or hypotheses – are assumed to enhance feedback effects on performance.
Feedback cues that direct attention to meta-task processes are supposed to reduce the effect
of feedback on performance, because they divert attention from the task. More positive
effects of feedback on performance are expected for tasks that require fewer cognitive
resources, because when performance is heavily dependent on cognitive resources, extra
motivation does not per definition translate into better performance (Kluger&DeNisi, 1996).
Motivation is an essential element of successful language acquisition and is a dynamic
process subject to continuous flux (Do¨rnyei, 2001). Williams and Burden (1997) suggest
that each individual L2 learner’s motivation is influenced by both external factors related to
the socio-cultural and contextual background of the learner and internal factors related to the
individual learner. Internal factors include the learners’ attitudes towards the activity, its
intrinsic interest, and the perceived relevance and value of the activity.
Motivation is also influenced by learners’ sense of agency and feelings of mastery and
control over the learning activity and their interest in it. According to Noels (2001:54), three
psychological needs have to be met in order to enhance motivation: ‘‘(1) a sense of
competency achieved through seeking out and overcoming challenges; (2) autonomy; (3)
relatedness—being connected to an esteemed by others belonging to a larger social whole’’.
To increase intrinsic ESL motivation, Old father and West (1999:16-17) argue that ‘‘a sense
of self-worth’’ and ‘‘self-determination’’ are essential, and learners need to be given ‘‘ample
opportunities for social interaction and self-expression’’. Richards (1993) also mentions
‘‘personal causation,’’ ‘‘interest,’’ and ‘‘enjoyment’’ as indispensable factors.
2.6.2 Factors Hindering Students’ Performance in Writing
2.6.2.1 Challenges of Teaching Pragmatic Competence in EFL Setting
In foreign language context teachers are native and non-native speakers of English language
and they need to be well-prepared for teaching the pragmatic aspect of knowledge of
language. In addition to this fact there are no sufficient, or no course, is offered to teachers
either during pre-service or in-service education programs in the area of pragmatics. This
situation is what El- Okda (2010) calls as ‘paucity of pragmatic courses in both pre-service
teacher education programs and in-service professional development’ (169). If the student
teachers or those teachers that are handling the teaching of English language are provided
with the pragmatic courses, ‘[they] can help their students see the language in context, raise
consciousness of the role of pragmatics, and explain the function pragmatics plays in specific
communicative event’ (Brock and Nagasaka, 2005:20).
17
The second pillar in developing the pragmatic competence of learners is ELT material.
Language teaching materials need to frequently include pragmatic materials so as to help
learners develop pragmatic competence, because teachers in EFL settings, where there are
relatively few opportunities for students to use the language in communicative contexts’
(Brock and Nagasaka, 2005), will make use of textbooks as the major source of pragmatic
knowledge. However, the attempt of including very few mini-dialogues for certain speech
acts and that are contrived and de-contextualized does not help the learners develop their
pragmatic competence or does not represent the reality outside the classroom (El-Okda,
2010:180). Let alone the external environment, ‘many students do not know how to
make polite requests in English in the classroom’ (Brock and Nagasaka, 2005:21).
Teachers in most cases complain for the unmanageable class size. Large classes, limited
contact hours and little opportunity for intercultural communication are some of the features
of the EFL context that hinder pragmatic learning (Eslami-Rasekh et al., 2004; Rose,
1999).Understanding teachers' perceptions and beliefs is important because teachers, heavily
involved in various teaching and learning processes, are practitioners of educational
principles and theories (Jia, Eslami&Burlbaw, cited in Eslami and Fatahi, 2008). Teachers
have a primary role in determining what is needed or what would work best with their
students. Findings from research on teachers' perceptions and beliefs indicate that these
perceptions and beliefs not only have considerable influence on their instructional practices
and classroom behavior but also are related to their students' achievement. In most cases
teachers do not give attention to pragmatic/communicative functions in the classroom.
Omaggio (see in Uso-Juan, and Martinez-Flor, 2008:165) gives the following three reasons
for neglecting intercultural/pragmatic competence in the language class.
(1) Teachers usually have an overcrowded curriculum to cover and lack the time to spend on
teaching culture, which requires a lot of work; (2) Many teachers have a limited knowledge
of the target culture and, therefore, afraid to teach it; and (3) Teachers are often confused
about what cultural aspects to cover.
Generally, the literature review chapter began discussing the conceptual aspects of teachers’
and students’ perceptions of students’ performance in writing skills. The chapter also
attempted to emphasize the multifaceted nature of students’ writing planning, perception of
teachers’ and students’ towards practice in teaching and learning of writing with four major
learning preferences, and The Influence of feedback types on students’ perceptions and
writing performance were the main themes of the chapter. It was noted that there are different
factors affecting student’s performances in writing either by enhancing or hindering at a
school.
Some of the points of criticism included in general, feedback cues that direct attention to
task-motivation processes or task-learning processes – coupled with corrective information
on erroneous ideas or hypotheses – are assumed to enhance feedback effects on performance
18
while challenges of teaching pragmatic competence in EFL setting hindering students’
performance in writing.
Possibilities/Opportunities for Teaching Pragmatics in EFL Classroom described as;
opportunities for meaningful language use, opportunities to focus on meaning as well as
form. As discussed in the preceding pages, several studies have analyzed students’
performance in writing skill differently and that become a common practice in the local and
other parts of the world. Unfortunately, no such studies have yet been conducted at Ethiopian
secondary schools. The next chapter will present the research methodology.
19
CHAPTER-THREE
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION The main purpose of this study, as mentioned in chapter one, is to investigate teachers’ and
students’ perception of students performance in writing skill. This chapter describes the
research methods that employed to achieve the main objective of the study. It, therefore,
discusses research design, participants/subjects and their sampling of data collection
instruments, data collection procedures, data analysis and interpretation, validity and
reliability of data gathering instruments, and ethical considerations used in the entire study.
3.1. Research Design To undertake this study, descriptive research design applying both quantitative and
qualitative methods was used. Descriptive research describes relationships that exist, beliefs
that are held, effects that are evident, or trends that are developing; it is non-experimental
because it deals with the relationships among non-manipulated variables (Best &Kahn,
2003). Hence, in this research, the descriptive research design employed to make intensive
investigation on teachers’ and students’ perceptions of students’ performances on writing
skill.
3.2. Subjects and their sampling The populations of this study include grade 10 students and English language teachers of four
secondary schools: Arba-Minch Secondary and Preparatory School, Chamo Secondary and
Preparatory School, Abaya Secondary School, and Limat Melles Zenawi Memorial
Secondary School (See Table: 3.1 below).
20
Table 1 Proportion and numbers of students and teachers participated in the study
No Name of Secondary
Schools
Number of Students English Language
Teachers Teaching
Grade Ten
Number
of
sections
in the
schools Boys Girls Total
10% 0f students
Boys Girls Total Male Female Total
1
Arba-Minch
Secondary&
Preparatory School
332 281 613 33 28 61 4 1 5 14
2 Chamo Secondary &
Preparatory School 329 338 667 33 33 66 1 3 4 10
3 Abaya Secondary
school 475 486 961 47 49 96 4 - 4 17
4
Arba-Minch Limat
Melles Zenawi
Memorial Secondary
School
118 177 295 12 17 29 1 1 2 6
TOTAL 1254 1282 2536 125 127 252 10 5 15 47
All the four schools were purposefully selected for two important reasons. First, the
researcher has relatively a good acquaintance with the teachers of the schools and believes
that the teachers and students in the schools would co-operate him to provide necessary data
and the process of data collection becomes easy. Second, the schools are located nearby the
researcher’s residence and work place so that it is economic in terms of time, money and
energy.
All available English language teachers (N=15) teaching in grade 10 in the four schools
participated in the study by filling in the questionnaires. Four volunteer teachers, out of the
15 ones participated in the interviews. Moreover, ten percent (10%) of the students of the
specified grade at each school was chosen using simple random sampling for easy
management of the study. Totally, 252 students (60 from Arba Minch, 66 from Chamo, 96
from Abaya, and 28 from Limat Meles Zenawi Memorial schools) participated in the study
by filling questionnaire. Eight representative students (two from each school) who were
21
trusted to provide genuine information were selected by home room teachers and participated
in focus group discussion.
3.3. Strategies of Ensuring Data Quality/Pilot Study Before the actual data collection process, the questionnaire was developed primarily to meet
the objectives of the study, and the items were adapted by the researcher himself. The
questionnaire was given to both principal and co-advisor in Arba-Minich University to
evaluate the items critically in terms of content validity, clarity of the items and if they
correctly measure the objectives of the study. Then, the students’ questionnaire was
translated into Amharic with a researcher and revised with advisors since the students were
believed not to properly understand English. . The reliability of the instruments was tested by
Cronbach alpha method. The computed Cronbach alpha of the instrument on students’
questionnaire was 0.74, 0.79, and 0.77 for writing planning, practice, and feed-back
provision items respectively. Thus, the instruments were found to be reliable to collect data
for the main study (See Appendix: E)
.In order to estimate the reliability of the teachers' questionnaires Cronbach's alpha was also
calculated for the internal consistency of the items. The results were 0.76, 0.82, and 0.98 for
writing planning, practice, and feed-back provision items respectively. The numbers
indicated that the instruments were found to be reliable to collect data for the main study (See
Appendix: E).
3.4. Data Collection Instruments Teacher questionnaire, student questionnaire, teacher interview and, student focus group
discussion were employed to generate data from the subjects. Each of them is elaborated
next.
3.4.1. Teacher’ Questionnaire
Questionnaire was used to collect data from teachers’ on their perceptions about their
students’ performances in writing skills. It also gathered data on factors that foster or impede
students’ learning performance in writing skill. The instrument has both close-ended and
open-ended items. The Liker Scale with 5-points (1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-neutral,
4- agree & 5-strongly agree) was used to form close-ended items and asked teachers to rate
their perceptions about students’ performances in writing skills. Teachers’ perception about
students’ performance in writing skill have three constructs: teachers’ perception of students’
writing planning, writing practice and writing feedback provision. Open-ended items
collected data on factors that foster or hinder students’ performance in writing and possible
actions taken to overcome those factors that hinder performance.
3.4.2 Students’ Questionnaire
This instrument solicited information from students on their perceptions about their
performance in writing skills. It has open-ended items asking the students to rate their
22
agreement to different statements about students’ perception about their performance in
planning and practicing and dealing with feedback on their writing on five-points Liker Scale
(1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree).The instruments also contained open-ended items to
gather data on factors enhancing or hindering students’ performance in writing skills. Similar
issues assessed in the teacher questionnaire are addressed in this instrument. The use of
similar items and variables in both the teacher questionnaire and student questionnaire were
used to check validity of research findings and to compare the perceptions of the teachers and
students about students’ performance in writing skill. To minimize the potential of
misunderstanding, the questionnaire was translated into Amharic language (See Appendix:
C).
The last part of the questionnaire consisted of open-ended items which were prepared to let
teachers and students write freely what they felt and perceived about the teachers and
students perceptions of students performance in writing skills.
3. 4.3. Teachers’ Interview
The purpose of the interview was to gather information about teachers’ and students’
perceptions about students’ performance in writing skills. In order to come up with
reasonable explanation and to enrich the study, un- structured interview was conducted with
4 teachers (one from each school). Berg (1989: 17) notes that this type of interview is
conducted in “a systematic and consistent order, but it allows the interviewers to have
sufficient freedom; that is, the interviewers are permitted (in fact expected) to probe far
beyond the answers to their prepared and standardized questions”.
Interview was used to collect data from four teachers (one from each school) on their
perceptions about students’ performance in writing skills. The teachers provided on the
students’ performance in planning, practicing and offering feedback on students’ writing.
The instrument also gathered information on factors that foster or impede students’ writing
performance as perceived by the teachers. (See Appendix: H).
3.4.4. Students’ Focus Group Discussion
Interview was another instrument to gather information. It gathered data from students. It
was used to validate the information solicited via questionnaires. Besides, the researcher
believed that it allowed him flexibility to probe his respondents to explore things more
deeply. For the study, the researcher interviewed 39 students (Boys 20 and 19 girls). The
interview was conducted following the procedures that follow.
The researcher acted as the interviewer in the study. Before the interviews, the home room
and subject teachers invited each student to participate in the interview. With their
agreement, the interview was arranged after school. The participants were notified and
agreed to stay behind after school to take part in the interview. The participants of one school
were interviewed under tree shadow and the rests in a vacant classroom in the case schools.
23
The interview was audio-recorded with the participants’ consent. The names of the
participants were kept anonymous. The setting of each interview session was kept the same.
Before each interview session, a brief introduction was given. The researcher explained to
the participants the purpose of the research. They were allowed to talk freely and to explain
what they usually do and feel in real situations. It was explained that there were no right or
wrong answers to all the questions. They were also told that data from the interview
including the audio recordings would be kept confidential and no other people will have
access to them except the researcher. Moreover, to ensure communication between the
interviewer and the interviewees, interview was conducted in Amharic language in order to
let students feel more at ease in expressing themselves and then it was translated into English
for the analysis. Finally, all the data gathered were further structured and analyzed on the
basis of frequencies.
Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was held with 39 students (nine from three each school and
twelve from one school) selected from the sample schools. It secured data on similar issues
that students questionnaire collected (students’ perception about their performance in writing
and on factors that promote or restrict students’ performance in writing). The main purpose
of the instrument was to qualitatively verify the quantitative data obtained through the
student questionnaire (See Appendix: I for English version and Appendix: J for Amharic
version). Table 2 presents the relationship among research questions, data collection
instruments, and data sources.
24
Table 2 Relationship between research questions, data collection instruments, and sources
Specific research questions
Instruments
Teachers
‘question
naire
Students’
questionna
ire
Interview
Scheme
(Teachers)
Focus
group
discussion
(Students)
Sources
What perceptions do grade 10 English
language teachers’ have about their
students’ performance in writing
skills?
* * Teacher
s
What perceptions do grade 10
students’ have about their own
performances in writing Skills?
*
* Students
What factors do hinder or enhance
students’ performance of writing
skills?
* * * *
Teacher
s and
students
3.5 .Data Collection Procedures After the researcher has selected a specific design for the study which is consistent with the
objectives of the research, the next step was to collect the research data. In collecting the
data, it is important to use procedures which elicit high quality data, since the quality of any
research study depends largely on the quality of the data collected and the data collection
procedure. In collecting the data for this study, all necessary ethical procedures were
followed.
The researcher adopted three steps in collecting the data. First, relevant literature reviewed to
get adequate information on the topic. Second, research questions (general and specific)
formulated to show the direction of the study. Third, data gathering tools (questionnaire both
for teachers and students), interview for teachers, and focus group discussion for students
developed and piloted.
In order to administer data collection through questionnaire, the researcher selected English
teachers & students together with vice-directors and unit (shift) leaders & home room
teachers respectively in each school and gave them one day training with regard to the entire
purpose of the study. Then, the selection of student samples were carried out using
25
attendances lists of the students collected from homeroom teachers giving equal proportion
for each participant. Then, the questionnaire was administered in the selected schools during
working hours (Monday to Friday) through the researcher’s close supervision. This is
because the respondents were available only during working days in morning and afternoon.
The questionnaire was administered on-the-spot to avoid duplication of responses and to
maximize return rate of questionnaire copies.
After data were gathered using questionnaire, the interviews and focus group discussions
were conducted by the researcher with key informants and discussants. To this end, the
researcher has successfully completed the fieldwork.
3.6 Data Analysis and Interpretation After the completion of data collection, data processing was conducted through filtering
inaccuracy, inconsistency; incompleteness and illegibility of the raw data to make analysis
very easy. To solve such problems, manual editing, coding, data entry and consistency
checking were done. The data obtained from teachers and students through questionnaires, focus
group discussion and interview were analyzed using descriptive analysis method.
To analyze the data, both quantitative and qualitative techniques were employed. The data
collected from questionnaires were analyzed through quantitative descriptive statistical tools
such as percentages and frequencies, mean and standard deviations. The close-ended items of
the teacher and students questionnaires obtained from the numerical values assigned to the
degree of agreement were analyzed using a descriptive statistics such as mean and standard
deviations. Version 20.0 of SPSS software was used for the analyses. Mann-Whitney non-
parametric test used to check whether there is any statistical difference between teachers’ and
students’ perceptions about students’ performance in writing skills.
The data gathered through the open-ended items of the questionnaire, interviews and focus
group discussions were analyzed qualitatively. The audio recorded data obtained from the
interviewees were transcribed and translated from Amharic to English. By reading transcripts
as well as listening to the audio recorded data frequently, the researcher accumulated,
reviewed and identified the data and put them into different themes through systematic
search and arrangement of the themes. The themes were formed from the research questions,
explanations and summaries were made and briefly presented. Some of the themes were
supported by direct quotations from the explanation of some of the participants. The results
of emerged were summarized and compared between teachers and students. Finally, the
results were discussed and interpreted to draw important conclusions, recommendations and
implications
.
26
CHAPTER-FOUR
4. RESULTS This section presents the results of data collected through questionnaire (from teachers and students), teachers’ interview, and students’ focus group discussion. The data are presented under topics: respondents’ demographic data (4.1), teachers’ perceptions of students’
performance in writing (4.2), students’ perceptions of their performance in writing (4.3), comparisons of teachers and students’ perceptions of students performance in teaching (4.4.) and factors enhancing or impending students’ performance in writing (4.5). Under teachers (4.2) and students’ (4.3) perceptions about students’ performance in writing sub-topics including perception of writing planning, writing practice and feedback provision on writing are addressed. The teachers and students perceptions in terms of these three sub-variables are compared under section 4.4.
4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents The focus of this section is to present subjects' background information. These include
gender, age, qualification, service year, and students’ grade level. The following Table 4.1
shows characteristics of the respondents.
27
Table 3 Characteristics of the respondents
Demographic Variables
Teachers
Students Remarks
No % No % 1. Sex Male 10 66.6 145 49.6
Female 5 33.4 146 50.4
Total 15 100 291 100
2. Age
Below 16 --- --- 238 81.78
16-30 1 6.7 53 18.21
31-40 2 13.3
Above 40 12 80
Total
15 100
3. Qualification Diploma ---
Degree 15 100
MA ----
Total 15 100
4. Service year 1-5 1 6.7
6-10
11-15 3 20
Above 15 11 73.3
Total 15
5.
Students Grade Level
Grade 10
100
Total 15 100 291
Table 3 shows that 10 (67.6%) of the teachers are male and the rest 5 (32.4%) are females.
As to their age, only one (6.7%) of them is below 30. The other 2 (13.3%) are aged between
31-40 and the rest 12 (80%) are above 40. All the 15 (100%) teachers are bachelor degree
holders. Regarding their work experience, 11 (73.3%) of them have 15 years’ and above
teaching service; 3 (20%) of them have between 11-15 years and 1 (6.7%) them has 1-5 years
of teaching experience. The table also shows that among the students participated in the
study, 145 (49.6%) were males and 146 (50.4%) were females. The majority of them 238
(81.78%) are aged below 16 years and 53 (18.21%) of them aged above 16. Respectively, 73
28
(25.1%), 75 (25.8%), 105 (36.1%) and 35 (13%) of the students are from Arba-Minch,
Chamo, Abaya, and Limat secondary schools.
4.2. Teachers’ perceptions of students’ performance in writing Teachers’ perceptions of students’ performance in writing are split into teachers’ perception
of students’ planning of writing, practice of writing and feedback provision on writing tasks.
Accordingly Table 4, followed by data description, presents teachers’ perception about
students planning of writing.
4.2.1 Teachers’ perception about students planning of writing
Table 4 Teachers Perception about Students Planning of Writing
No
Items SA A ND D SD N Mean
St. Deviation 5 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % F %
1. My students usually look for important points before they do their writing.
- - - - 2 13.3 11 73.3 2 13.3 15 2.00 0.534
2. My students often organize their ideas before writing them.
- - - - - - 6 40 9 60 15 1.40 0.507
3. My students prepare outline of the writing before they do the actual writing.
- - - - - - 6 40 9 60 15 1.40 0.507
4. My students show their outline to their peers/teachers before they do the writing.
- - - - - - 6 40 9 60 15 1.4 0.507
Summary 1.55
As it can be seen from questionnaire above (Table 4) in items 2, 3 and 4 respondents showed
40% ‘disagreement’, 60% strong disagreement with mean value 1.40 and St. Deviation of
0.51 that is a total of 100% respondents indicated that their students didn’t appreciate the
principle of usually outlining, organizing and giving their writing for their peers for final
checkup in their writing. This means great majority of the teachers imply that almost all of
the teachers have weak (negative degree of) perception and unfavorable view of their
students’ planning for writing
All four interviewee teachers mentioned in the same manner as they evaluate their students’
performance in writing by giving them different activities like paragraph writing, vocabulary,
connectors, organizations of the ideas etc. However, these English teachers vary in their
responses regarding their students’ strengths they have with planning the writing. Only one
interviewee (T1) rose as only few students have their own initiation and brilliant that can
design writing in a university learning, but the remaining three teachers neglected (refused)
29
such idea. Again, in relation to weaknesses their students have with planning the writing,
they put as most of the time the student’ background in the English language; especially, in
writing become poor and become similar to result from open-ended questions under teachers’
questionnaire.
4.2.2 Teachers’ perceptions of students’ writing practice
Table 5 Teachers’ perception of students’ writing practice
No Items SA A ND D SD
N
Mean St. Deviation
5 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % F % 5. My students do their writing
based on their outline. - - - - - - 12 80 3 20 15 1.80 0.414
6. My students use logical arguments in their writing.
- - - - 1 6.7 7 46.7 7 46.7 15 1.60 0.632
7. My students use interrelated items in their writing.
- - - - 1 6.7 4 26.7 10 66.7 15 1.40 0.632
8. My students use easily understood sentences in their writing.
- - - - - - 5 33.3 10 66.7 15 1.33 0.487
9. My students use grammatically correct sentences in their writing.
- - - - 2 13.3 6 40 7 46.7 15 1.66 0.723
10. My students make good summaries of their writing.
- - - - 3 20 7 46.7 5 33.3 15 1.86 0.743
Summary 1.60
As seen in Table 5, the majority of the teachers showed disagreement/strong disagreement
with most of the statements talking about their students writing practice with overall mean
value of 1.6 out of 5. For instance, items 5 & 8 reveal that all the teachers (100%) showed
disagreement with the statements that their students’ use an outline to make their writing
M=1.80 & SD=0.414) and use easily understood sentences in their writing (M=1.33 &
SD=.0.49). As noticed in items 9 and 10, only 2 (13.3%) and 3 (20%) of the teachers
perceived that respectively their students use grammatically correct sentences and make good
summaries of their writing. In short, most of the teachers participated in the study have
negative perceptions of their students’ writing practice. Response from open-ended question
under teachers’ questionnaire confirmed the result strongly.
According to the result from teachers’ interview, T3 only, rose as evaluating her students by
giving them paragraph writing. Whereas, the rest three teachers agreed up on even to provide
their students for such activity, they forced to teach them capital with small English letters
30
those strengths weaknesses their students have didn’t doing the actual writing due to failure
to come to class regularly.
4.2.3 Teachers’ perceptions of students’ writing feed-back
Table 6 Teachers Responses for the items on Students’ addressing feed-back
No Items SA A ND D SD N
Mean St. Deviation
5 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % F %
11. My students are happy to receive feed-back on their Writing.
- - - - 9 60 4 26.7 2 13.3 15 3.13 1.355
12. My students often incorporate my feed-back in their Writing correctly.
1 6.7 6 40 3 20 3 20 2 13.3 15 3.06 1.222
13. My students receive feed-back from their peers on their Writing.
10 66.7 3 20 2 13.3 15 3.13 3.200
14. Based on the feed-back, my students improve my Writing.
1 6.7 7 46.7 3 20 2 13.3 2 13.3 15 1.30 1.207
Summary 2.65
As indicated above on the Table 6 in item 14, based on the feedback, students improve their
writing; accordingly most of the respondents 6.7% strongly agree and 46.7% agree altogether
53.7% indicates agreement. This implies that students are able to improve their writing based
on the feedback given from their teachers.
As we can see in item 12 above, the respondents 7=46.7% (1=6.7% strongly agree and
6=40% agreed) implies that almost students often incorporate teachers feed-back in their
writing correctly.
According to interview about feed-back, four teachers mentioned the same response at
different time as they evaluate their students with class and home works, individual, pair, and
small groups’ assignments and appreciated their students’ strengths they have with dealing
with the feed-back they receive on their writing tasks which are the same to result from open-
ended question under teachers’ questionnaire.
31
4.3. Students’ Perceptions about their Performance in Writing To make the analysis easier, the items of the students’ questionnaire, as teachers’
questionnaire mentioned in the previous part, are categorized in to three thematic constructs
students’ perception of writing planning, students’ perceptions of writing practice and
students’ perception of feedback reception.
4.3.1 Students’ Perceptions about their Writing Planning
Students’ planning items of the respondents towards writing was measured based on
questionnaire provided to them which comprise: looking for important points before doing
writing, organizing ideas in mind before writing, preparing outline of the writing before
doing the actual writing, and showing writing outline to peers/teachers before doing the
writing which are crucial for better performance of every student. It is possible to say that
students have planning of writing concepts if they recognize all sub-constructs indicated
below as part of writing. Having this lead, the statistical tools such as: percentages mean and
standard deviation were used to analyze the results for all sub-constructs stated in the
following Tables.
Table 7 shows us students’ responses on the extent to which they implement planning on
their writing.
32
Table 7 Students’ perceptions about writing
No
Items
SA A ND D SD N
M Std. D
5 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % F %
1. I usually look for important points before I do my writing.
24 9.5 45 17.9 47 18.7 77 30.6 59 23.4 252 2.59 1.282
2. I often organize my ideas in my mind before writing them.
22 8.7 24 9.5 52 20.6 106 42.1 47 18.7 252 2.47 1.160
3. I prepare outline of the writing before I do the actual writing.
17 6.7 23 9.1 65 25.8 84 33.3 63 25 252 2.39 1.153
4. I show my writing outline to my peers/teachers before I do the writing.
13 5.2 27 10.7 51 20.2 94 37.3 66 26.2 252 2.31 1.127
Summary 2
Mean
2.44
Source: Field survey (2015)
In the Table 7 above, items 2 and 4, 60.8% (42.1% disagree &18.7 strongly disagree) with
mean value 2.47 including its standard deviation was 1.160 and 63.5% (37.3% disagree &
26.2% strongly disagree) with mean value 2.31 with a standard deviation of 1.127
respectively show that that respondents of the schools were not aware of organizing ideas
before writing as a component of planning in writing. Also, they do not understand that
periodic evaluation of students’ performances showing their outline to peers/teachers as part
of planning; however, some haven’t still understood it well. Thus, high proportions of
students of the schools were unable to relate showing an outline to peers/teachers before
doing the actual writing system with the outcomes and objectives of planning to improve
writing skills. From this it is possible to deduce that the respondents have not very good
understanding and knowledge about organizing ideas and showing their outline to peers from
planning point of view that could result individual improvement. This has also an implication
to students to link their plans with organizing and outlining ideas before writing.
33
Except few students from each school rose their strength on making outline and trying their
best. Still others mentioned their poor background since primary school and they appreciated
private schools that they practices their students beginning from grade one.
Moreover, as the information obtained from interviewees and focus group participants
students have limitation in using grammatically correct sentences in their writing to build
planning for writing performance through learning. From this it is possible to deduce that
students were lagging behind in using grammatically correct sentences in their planning to
learn writing which is the most critical issue to develop the capacity of the students’ potential
and better performance of writing tasks.
4.3.2 Students Responses for their Writing practice
This section, presents the practice of writing from doing writing based on outline, using
logical arguments in writing, using interrelated items in writing, using easily understood
sentences in writing, using grammatically correct sentences in writing, and making good
summaries of writing.
With regard to the respondents’ reaction with the practice of writing the following statements
were given to indicate their degree of agreement in Table below. Thus, the following Table
4.13 shows us teachers’ responses on the extent to which students implement practice on
their writing
Table 8 Students Responses about Practice on Writing
No
Items
SA
A
ND
D
SD
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
5 4 3 2 1
F % F % F % F % F %
5. I do my writing based on my outline.
14 5.6 36 14.3 61 24.2 97 38.5 43 17.1 252 2.52 1.103
6. I use logical arguments in my writing.
11 4.4 37 14.7 57 22.6 100 39.7 47 18.7 252 2.46 1.087
7. I use interrelated items in my writing.
12 4.8 24 9.5 72 28.6 96 38.1 48 19 252 2.42 1.051
8. . I use easily understood sentences in my writing.
11 4.4 29 11.5 60 23.8 108 42.9 44 17.5 252 2.42 1.043
9. I use grammatically correct sentences in my writing.
13 5.2 22 8.7 63 25 88 34.9 65 25.8 252 2.31 1.115
10. I make good summaries of my writing.
13 5.2 25 9.9 66 26.2 97 38.5 51 20.2 252 2.41 1.076
Summary 2.42
34
As it can be seen from the Table 8 above, items 6, 58.4% (39.7% disagree & 18.7% strongly
disagree) with scored mean value of 2.46 and standard deviation of 1.087 signifies that the
respondents were dissatisfied using logical arguments in their writing. Thus, in the schools as
the finding implies that the existence of problems with respect to learning using logical
arguments in their writing which is a determining factor for improvement of writing
performance. This shows that much was not done from this perspective in order to realize
writing goals.
In item 8, 60.4% (42.9% disagree and 17.5% strongly disagree) points out that students were
disagreed with the scored mean value 2.242 and the standard deviation 1.043. This implies
that large number of the respondents was disagreed towards the students’ action in relation to
using easily understood sentences in their writing which play a paramount role to capacitate
the students’ potential. From this perspective the students are not courageous in good
planning using easily understood sentences in their writing. The implication is that unless the
students are designing smart planning using easily understood sentences in their writing that
it would be impossible to make writing successful.
When we come to the item 10 above, it is about making good summaries of their writing
efforts. Good summary is the final phase of the learning and improvement program. It is a
means to verify the success of the program, i.e. whether students in the program do the
activities for which they have been learned. 58.7% (38.5% disagree and 20.2 strongly
disagree) with scored mean value response of the respondents was 2.41 implies that the
overwhelming majority of the respondents were “disagree” with the case described and the
standard deviation was 1.076. The scored mean value displays that the respondents were
dissatisfied with the issue. Based on this finding one can deduce that students were very
reluctant in evaluating the worth, effectiveness and the efficiency of learning and making
good summary given to the learners helping them to get feedback for their improvement.
From this perspective it is possible to put an implication that, if students are ineffective in
taking good summary evaluation they could not identify whether they have good
performance or not and what to be taken if the problems occur in their overall tasks.
All discounts in each school evaluated as they didn’t practice and doing the actual writing.
One to two students from each school rose weaknesses bitterly as most of students didn’t
suppose themselves to write even for home taking assignments that caused complain with
subject teachers to score mark from exercises.
35
4.3.3 Students Responses for their Dealing with Feed-Back
Table 9 Students Responses for their Dealing with Feed-Back
No
Items
SA A ND D SD N
Mean
Std. Deviation
5
4
3
2 1
F % F % F % F % F %
11.
I am happy to receive feed-back on my writing.
16 6.3 25 9.9 53 21 100 39.7 58 23 252 2.36 1.130
12.
I often incorporate my teacher’s feed-back in my writing correctly.
18 7.1 22 8.7 52 20.6 109 43.3 51 20.2 252 2.39 1.118
13.
I receive feed-back from my peers on my writing.
12 4.8 25 9.9 51 20.2 108 42.9 56 22.2 252 2.32 1.072
14.
Based on the feed-back, I improve my writing.
18 7.1 19 7.5 51 20.2 97 38.5 67 26.6 252 2.30 1.151
2.34
As it is illustrated in the above table 9 item 12, in the second sub-construct i.e. often
incorporate my teacher’s feed-back in my writing correctly the respondents’ response is
63.5% (43.3% disagree & 20.2% strongly disagree) with mean value 2.39 and standard
deviation of 1.118 showed disagreement. This signifies that the respondents’ response rating
scale was dissatisfaction. From this sub-construct one can clearly infer that the students were
not in a position to consider often incorporating their teacher’s feed-back in their writing as
utmost importance for the growth and improvement of writing skills in accordance with the
education, training, job search and for work experience. Students should trace their learning
in light of their individual needs and capabilities. From this perspective the implication is
unless students are aware of their potentiality and capabilities in learning planning,
practicing, and receiving feed-back that could help them to exploit the available opportunities
they could not achieve their desired objectives.
In item 13 above indicated as 65.1% (108=42.9% disagree and 56=22.2% strongly disagree)
with mean value of 2.32 and a standard deviation of 1.072 that points out students
disagreement. From this, it can be deduced that the respondents were “disagree” with
receiving feed-back from peers on their writing objectives indicating that they are dissatisfied
with the case raised out. This result signifies that students are lagging behind in linking the
36
three things (planning, practice, and feed-back) for the betterment of their writing
performance.
Students’ discussion evaluation indicates as they receive feed-back positively; however, they
didn’t give attention and valued to put it in to implementation, which shows their weaknesses
clearly.
4.4. Factors enhancing or impending students’ performance in writing
4.4.1 Factors enhancing students’ performance in writing
Another set of data used in this study was the interview with four English teachers at Arba –
Minch town schools. This paragraph provides an analysis of the interviews with teachers in
teaching positions. Each interview focused on their experience of students’ performance in
writing skills at their respective schools and four group interviews for the four teachers were
conducted separately at each school. Each interview took between 1 to 1½ hours at each
school compound but one in his residence. Each response were organized and grouped for
analysis question-by-question. The recording of discussions started immediately after
permission was granted by the teachers/students.
In-depth Interview
This method was used to gather the data to address the third major question/objective:
The third question was” What factors do hinder or enhance students’ performance of
writing skills?” To answer this question, the researcher utilized two instruments: teachers’
interview, and students FGD. Thus, three open-ended questions forwarded to in-depth
interviews follows:
Teachers Interview
Taking the results of teachers’ questionnaire into consideration, the researcher prepared three
interview questions (see the Appendix). The contents of the interview questions were factors
enhance students’ performance in writing, factors hinder students’ performance in writing
skills, and strategies to improve students’ performance in writing skills.
What factors do you think enhance your students’ performance in writing?
T1: One of interview from Arba- Minch secondary and preparatory school stated as there
were types of students in the school. There were brilliant students that can design writing in
university learning. Again there were also some medium and poor students because of their
back ground.
37
T2: Another interview from Abaya secondary school rose as most of the student back ground
in the language become poor. Due to this it was very difficult to teach students writing;
however, teachers taught grammar, sometimes they gave students able to write property.
T3: The third interview from Chamo secondary and preparatory school mentioned as she
evaluated her students by giving different exercise; like paragraph writing. She added as
activities should be interesting unless most students do not become interested to write.
Majority of students lack confidence to write and they underestimate themselves as they
could not write. The teacher used free writing system regularly. More over the teacher gave
feed- back with necessary correction on grammar, spelling etc. but most of students were not
ready (volunteer) to receive feed- back .
T4: The last interview from Limit Melles Zenawi memorial school focused on giving
activities and evaluating students’ performance i.e. vocabulary, cohesion, connectors and
organization of the ideas.
The information gathered through teachers’ interview participants concerning their
understanding about what factors do they think enhance their students’ performance in
writing. Teaching grammar, paragraph writing, giving orientation about writing rules,
teaching mechanics, vocabulary, capitalization, and assignment for individual, pair and small
team were replied.
The information gathered through students’ focus group discussions with focus group
participants concerning their understanding about what factors do they think enhance their
performance in writing?
According to the information gathered with focus group participants in each selected
secondary schools they replied that as only few students do have reference materials for
reading, attending the lessons. Focusing on grammar areas, reading text books alternatively,
reading together with friends in order to create motivation and to enhance the capacity of
both present and future knowledge and skills, to increase the ability and productivity of
reflection in performance , increasing optimum relationship with English teacher to get some
advice was idea still some participants raised.
Taking the results of students’ ‘questionnaire into consideration the researcher prepared three
focus group discussion questions (see the Appendix). The contents of the interview questions
were factors enhance students’ performance in writing, factors hinder students’ performance
in writing skills, and strategies to improve students’ performance in writing skills.
This narration provides an analysis of the focus group interviews with student in groups of
four 10 -12 participants in each school. Each focus group interview took between 1 to 1½
hours. All appointments with interviewees (students) were honored and all the focus group
38
interviews were conducted in small vacant classes at each school except one under the tree
shadow at the times convenient for both the participants and the researcher.
A simple descriptive narration was used to facilitate the analysis and interpretation of data
which involves the transformation of ‘field notes’ to ‘research notes’. In addition, the focus
group responses were organized and grouped for analysis question-by-question. Responses
that are organized using the interview questions can facilitate the interpretation of the data
(Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003:2).
Trying g to express idea with writing, but it is not satisfactory. I can make a draft, but still
speed is my problem. Accept feed-back positively. I can carefully write and give to my
friends for checkup. Finally I receive feedback or comment given from friends and those
revising problems in spelling, grammar, capitalization. Some are writing like first grade;
even do not want to write. My writing performance is excellent. All said that they take feed-
back both from their friends and teachers. I understand even elements of writing and put my
idea on a paper sequentially then organize it. I referring and reading references and text
books in the library. Even though teachers do not write and give notes, writing for different
subjects enable to improve. Previous grades rank contribution, practicing regularly on what
out teacher orders to practice. Understanding and becoming interested. Talentless, non-
practicable comment from students and teachers could not develop language skills. The
qualities of notes; reference books, learning, taking comments, practicing regularly and
Writing, taking comment practice regular writing and revising beginning from first to final
draft keeping steps and sequences, collecting reference materials early, asking educated ones,
regularly reading about grammar books, reading a lot, practicing, revising and then receiving
feedback
4.4.2 Factors impeding students’ performance in writing
T1 : From Arba – Minch secondary and preparatory school raised as most of the students
didn’t follow the lessons regularly , student were late for the lesson and they did not
consistent for their duty, no exposure in their society, and home life for writing .
T2: From Abaya secondary school mentioned his idea as follows. At grade nine, students
even cannot write their names, cannot identify the letters properly. The students back ground
was not appropriate for teaching writing even in grade nine level as well. Because of their
poor back ground, it was too difficult for teachers to teach them writing. If students learn
writing appropriately in primary schools it would be ok to teach them in high schools, but
teachers forced to teach them writing from letters.
T3: From Chamo secondary and preparatory school tried to explain as she gave students
different writing activities from text books pump lets, magazines again and again even
though her students didn’t come to school regularly, didn’t attend the class, didn’t practice
writing home take assignments together with mother tongue influence from surrounding.
39
T4: On his part from Limat Melles Zenawi memorial secondary school explained as not
awarding about writing skill, couldn’t fulfilling the materials that could help for practicing
and writing.
The information gathered through teachers’ interview participants concerning their
understanding about what factors do they think hinder their students’ performance in writing.
In this regard, informants suggested the challenges that encountered their students writing
performance in their respective learning schools. Informants have suggested some challenges
or constraints that impede their students writing skills learning in the process of practicing
to better performance. Some of these major challenges suggested were lack of interest and
motivation to learn, failure to come with texts to the class regularly, failure to do home-
works or assignments, ignoring to enter the class, poor back-ground in the subject from
primary schools, etc. were surprising responses. Teachers bitterly rose about their students’
failure in writing their names properly, small and capital letters, and even teachers forced to
teach small and capita letters due to formal letter from education office in different levels to
identify and support these groups using tutorial classes.
Poorness of English language is based on our background. One student rose as the usage of
Amharic or translation by subject teacher that leads our understanding to be killed. Poor
English back ground and mother tongue influence. Less attention to the writing skill from
the very beginning made us poor in writing skills. Less exposure to writing (poor back
ground) e.g. from kindergarten, lack of English new words, stress or fear. Students back
grounds decides their writing performances i.e.no more in primary school. In private school
writing practice is better than public ones like ours. Because private schools students begin
practicing writing from kg and again strengthen it in primary school level as well. Lack of
new words understanding and mother tongue interference widen students’ problem in
writing.
In addition, as majority of discussants replied for question what factors do they think hinder
their performance in writing skills. In this regard, discussants suggested the challenges that
encountered their writing performance in their respective learning schools. Focus group
participants have suggested some challenges or constraints that impede their writing skills
learning in the process of practicing to better performance. Some of these major challenges
suggested were lack of educational opportunities and were very limited in the students
thought not only in writing skills but also learning in general. Because of this many students
didn’t attend their lesson consistently, absenteeism, failure to write assignments in all
subjects given in English language, mother tongue influence, moving outside the classrooms
rather entering in to the class and learning properly, didn’t bring text books with them to the
class. However, in practice explicit tasks were not done in relation to the issue described to
keep standard and strengthen writing performance in schools. This could limit the students to
40
cope up writing challenges and current access provided by government including the
technological changes and innovations as well.
4.4.3 Strategies to overcome/minimize the factors that hinder your performance in
writing skills
T1: The first interviewee from AMSPS raised as students should be motivated, students
should be supported by computer, and they must get books and other materials for writing
even though they doubt to write their names.
T2: The second interviewee from Abaya secondary and preparatory school explained as
students should come to school regularly first, then to make them sit in the classroom and try
to learn beginning from primary school, not vernacular language it needs practice. Whatever
mistake they made, they have to come to school and learn. School stalk holders are
responsible for their students learning. By one specific or single teacher it may not be
improved. What is running in the class room? Whether students learning and teacher teaching
writing properly, how many students are learning? And writing home take assignments?
Really, are English teachers teaching writing skills appropriately in the class? It needs
classroom observations and supervisions where necessary.
T3: The third from Chamo secondary and preparatory school said collecting proper materials
for teaching writing should be supported for students. Training (work- shop) related to
writing skills for teachers can direct the way how to overcome challenges in writing.
T4: The fourth and the last interviewee from Limit Melles Zenawi memorial school
motivating students to have interest in writing make them practice, participate and provide
the library with writing materials as much as possible.
Lastly regarding as it is possible to say all of discussants as replied for question what
strategies do they think will improve their (students’) performance in writing skills is in
order. After laughing for a while, all the participants made the following proposals:
First and for most, students need(s) to have his/her (their) interest that could motivate and
initiate them for learning in general. After that, if students can come to the class and make
them ready for learning that ranges the highest contribution for their learning. Attending the
lessons regularly, doing writing assignments, reading consistently, discussing together with
their friends, using or experiencing library, self or pair practicing, having self- awareness,
coming to the class with text books were important points participants raised.
After laughing for a while, all the participants made the following proposals:
Some participants raised their feeling as self-awareness and confidence with great attention
could bring change in writing due to practicing continuously. One student only stated his
own idea as self-practicing and putting pen and paper together regularly i.e. practice will
41
make perfect. Still some of participants shared their idea as writing activities and their
feedback regularly from subject teacher, reading a lot and practicing, practicing English all
in all and reading more, asking someone else who become advanced than students, and
using only English both in English lessons and other subject areas may contribute a lot. Most
of them agreed as everybody should make practice because improvement comes from one’s
individual effort, and giving care for our writing. Teacher’s commitment on providing
writing exercises /activities and feedback is very vital, knowing the meaning of new words
enables to write successfully, motivating writers by supporting with materials, improving
speaking and reading are improving writing, practice is very important, practicing English
communicating with teacher in English, receiving comments and feedback, asking teachers
for unclear areas raised by the majority of the participants. Teachers need to avoid translation
or Amharic usage in the class; in English lesson the whole period should be covered in
English still one of them focused.
4.5 Discussion of Results In this section, an attempt is made to explain the results of the study with reference to basic
questions formulated under the statement of the problem. The major ideas or themes of the
discussion are:
1. Teachers’ perceptions,
2. Students’ perceptions,
3. Factors (enhancing or hindering), and
4. Significance difference
4.5.1 Teachers’ perceptions of students’ performances in writing skills
This research question further classified in to three thematic areas (students planning for
writing, practice writing, and addressing feed-back). With this regard various research
findings confirmed that there is negative degree perception of students’ performance in
writing.
From all the points, result generalized that respondent and informant teachers have negative degree of
perceptions of students’ performances in line with planning items in writing.
The level of their agreement with the assumptions of students’ performance in writing shows us that
teachers have perceived students ‘performance in writing negatively. However, their positive
perception doesn’t let them to practice writing skills in the classrooms. This is also witnessed during
interview sessions.
42
4.5.1.1 Teachers ‘perceptions of students’ performances in planning for writing The result obtained both from teachers’ questionnaire open-ended once showed negative perception
which confirms the next researches.
Thus, the finding of this research question supported with a research carried out by Ng'ong'a
(2002) it was revealed that Kenyan school leavers continue to perform poorly due to poor
teaching methods. This is because as Alexander (2000) noted instructors develop a teaching
style based on their beliefs about what constitutes good teaching, personal preferences, their
abilities, and the names of their particular discipline. This is done in disregard of the learners
’needs. Due to deteriorating of performance in English subject, objectives of writing skills
have not been achieved, yet writing competence is one of the vital requirements outside the
school and promoting teaching and learning of English language skills. There has been
persistent complains about poor English language use in written expression .As reported by
KNEC(2010,2011,2012) the compositions candidates wrote for the last three years reveal
serious weaknesses in writing skills and this has greatly affected the mean scores which
dropped from 7.66 in the year 2009 to 5.09 in 2011.
Therefore, a teacher is an investigator of the writing processes employed by the students,
using observation and discussion to identify successful methods to teach different aspects of
the writing process (Ambuko, 2008). Teachers play different roles in the classroom through
different ways. Richard (1990) presents a comprehensive list for teachers' role in a writing
programmer. The roles include: - keeping writing task clear, simple and straight forward,
teaching the writing process, developing meaningful assignments, outlining goals for each
writing assignment and teaching the principles - rules, convention, and guideline of writing
as a learner who has a good command of English language will effectively present his ideas
in an organized form, understandable to the examiner and this will logically translate into a
better examination scores (Ellis, 1991).
4.5.1.2 Teachers’ perceptions of their students practice in writing The result obtained was negative perception as students’ didn’t practice due to failure to come to
school regularly. Hence, the role of the teacher is an investigator of the writing processes
employed by the students, using observation and discussion to identify successful methods to
teach different aspects of the writing process (Ambuko, 2008). Teachers play different roles
in the classroom through different ways. Richard (1990) presents a comprehensive list for
teachers' role in a writing programmer. The roles include: - keeping writing task clear, simple
and straight forward, teaching the writing process, developing meaningful assignments,
outlining goals for each writing assignment and teaching the principles - rules, convention,
and guideline of writing as a learner who has a good command of English language will
effectively present his ideas in an organized form, understandable to the examiner and this
will logically translate into a better examination scores (Ellis, 1991).
43
4.5.1.3 Teachers’ perceptions about their students feed-back The main users of the assessment information are certainly teachers themselves. They use them to
check the effectiveness of instruction and course materials. They also make decisions about students’
needs for the upcoming term. What is of great note to teachers is to know how well their students
could reach their stated goals. The process of writing comments can also be helpful to teachers.
Writing comments gives teachers opportunities to be reflective about the academic and social
progress of their students. This type of reflection may result in teachers gaining a deeper
understanding of each students’ strengthens, weakens, and needs. They, therefore, evaluate student
progress or achievement to use the information for careful planning to the next instructions.
Hence, the result that obtained both from teachers’ questionnaire and open-ended questions confirmed
with the following relevant researches conducted. Despite the important role students play in the
feedback process, much of the feedback research has put teachers at the centre of the stage,
focusing on the strategies teachers use in giving feedback, their stances and perspectives, and
the impact of teacher feedback on student writing (e.g., Ferris, 1997; Ferris, Pezone, Tade,
&Tinti, 1997; Hyland & Hyland, 2001; Stern &Solomon, 2006). Students tend to be viewed
as mere recipients—when in fact they can be and should be active and proactive agents in the
feedback process (Hyland & Hyland, 2006a). Without understanding how students feel about
and respond to teacher feedback, teachers may run the risk of continually using strategies that
are counter-productive. As teachers give feedback on student writing, it is crucial that student
responses to the feedback are fed back to teachers as a heuristic to help them develop
reflective and effective feedback practices.
4.5.2. Students perceptions of their performances in writing skills
Again, this research question further classified in to three thematic areas (students planning
for writing, practice writing, and addressing feed-back).
From all the points, result generalized that respondent and discussant students have negative
degree of perceptions of students’ performances in line with items in writing. The level of
their agreement with the assumptions of students’ performance in writing shows us that
students have perceived their performance in writing negatively. However, their positive
perception doesn’t let them to practice writing skills in the classrooms. This is also witnessed
during focus group discussion sessions
With this regard various research findings confirmed that there is negative degree perception
of students’ performance in writing.
4.5.2.1 Students’ perceptions of their performances in planning for writing
The result was negative perception and so mastering so mastering writing is the most difficult
for first and foreign language learners. It is a complicated process since it involves a series of
mastering writing is the most difficult for first and foreign language learners. It is a
complicated process since it involves a series of forward and backward movements between
the writer's ideas and the written text (Harris & Cunningham, 1994), and requires a high level
44
of language control (Murcia & Olshtain, 2000). Additionally, writing process is a form of
problem-solving which involves generating ideas, planning and goal setting, monitoring, and
evaluating what has been composed (White & Arndt, 1991). In fact, writing is still deemed to
be an arduous task for most first and foreign language learners (Ingels, 2006).
4.5.2.2 Students’ perceptions of their performances in writing practices
The finding of this question agreed as language is the most powerful tool where it is used to
understand people through listening, reading, speaking and writing. However, the ability to
write well is not a naturally acquired skills, it can be learnt or transmitted as a set of
practices. This is similar to what Reid (1993) and Langan (1987) cited in (Yah Awg Nikietal.
2010) advocate that writing is a craft and also a skill. It means that it can be taught and learnt.
Therefore, writing skills must be practiced and learned through experience. When a craft or
skill is learnt, students can use it especially for many purposes. However, it takes time to
become skillful and proficient writers. Writing teachers and lecturers should play vital roles
in preparing students and providing them ample time and more opportunities to practice
writing.
Mastering writing is the most difficult for first and foreign language learners. It is a
complicated process since it involves a series of forward and backward movements between
the writer's ideas and the written text (Harris & Cunningham, 1994), and requires a high level
of language control (Murcia & Olshtain, 2000). Additionally, writing process is a form of
problem-solving which involves generating ideas, planning and goal setting, monitoring, and
evaluating what has been composed (White & Arndt, 1991). In fact, writing is still deemed to
be an arduous task for most first and foreign language learners (Ingels, 2006).
Students generally tended to agree with the teachers about their low performance in writing.
Based on the position of the respondents and the interview made by the researcher, it is
possible to infer that the extents of the practice of the students’ performance in schools are
very low.
4.5.2.3 Students’ perceptions dealing there with feed-back
Even though the results from students’ indicate negative perception, it was positively stated
from their teachers. This may be interpreted as teachers hidden what is true in the ground to
stay keeping their status.
Research by Berg (1999) and Paulus (1999) suggests that feed -back generated by peer
review can prompt L2 writers to make revisions that lead to better quality writing. Tsui and
Ng’s (2000) study with secondary school students in Hong Kong identified four distinct
benefits of peer review. First, writing for peers enhances learners’ sense of audience,
encouraging them to pay more attention to issues of clarity in their written work. Second,
peer review makes students more aware of general problems in their own writing. Third, peer
45
review encourages students' sense of ownership of their writing, helping to promote learner
autonomy. Fourth, it is easier for students to decide whether to accept or reject the reviewer’s
suggestions
4.6 Factors enhancing or hindering students’ performances in writing Like any other educational issue in the teaching-learning process, it is also possible to think
that writing skills may have shortcomings or constraints during its implementation in the real
classroom situations.
A considerable amount of literature (e.g. Abdel Latif, 2007; Abdel Latif, 2012; Alsamadani,
2010; Brisk, 2011; Dupont, 2004; Hammad, 2013; Murcia & Olshtain, 2000; Pilar & Liach,
2011) has recently been written on the factors influencing FL/L2 writing quality. According
to the literature review, such factors include strategy use, cohesion and coherence, linguistic
knowledge, writing apprehension, and L1 (First Language) transfer.
4.6.1 Factors enhancing students performances
Findings from informants and discussants indicated as learning grammar, capitalization,
punctuation, orienting/listening about writing rules enhance students’ performance in writing.
The ultimate purpose of feedback is to enhance students’ performance. For tasks concerning
factual knowledge, feedback can directly improve performance through stating the correct
answer (Smith & Ragan, 1993). With more complex knowledge or skills such as writing,
feedback is supposed to improve performance through its effect on motivation and/or
strategy use (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Vollmeyer & Rheinberg, 2005). The student needs to
be motivated and should learn how to approach the task and regulate the process. Just giving
a correct answer will not lead to improvement of future performance. As such, feedback is as
important for the “will and skill” to achieve as for the eventual achievement (Crooks, 1988;
Maehr, 1976) potential to affect task processes through linking higher order goals (e.g.,
investing in my career) to the task (e.g., writing a paper for this course). Task-motivation
processes will activate task-learning processes (e.g., checking and reformulating sentences)
when performance is insufficient, additional effort offers no solution and the preferred
strategy is to change behavior (rather than changing the goal or the standard) (Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996).
According to FIT, negative discrepancies between the performance and the standard will
generally direct attention to task-motivation processes, leading to more effort. When this
does not reduce the discrepancy, attention might shift to components of task execution (task-
learning processes) resulting in alternative attempts to execute the task, or attention might
shift away from the task to issues involving the self, such as self-esteem and impression
management (meta-task processes). In general, feedback cues that direct attention to task-
motivation processes or task-learning processes – coupled with corrective information on
erroneous ideas or hypotheses – are assumed to enhance feedback effects on performance.
46
Motivation is an essential element of successful language acquisition and is a dynamic
process subject to continuous flux (Do¨rnyei, 2001). Williams and Burden (1997) suggest
that each individual L2 learner’s motivation is influenced by both external factors related to
the socio-cultural and contextual background of the learner and internal factors related to the
individual learner. Internal factors include the learners’ attitudes towards the activity, its
intrinsic interest, and the perceived relevance and value of the activity.
Motivation is also influenced by learners’ sense of agency and feelings of mastery and
control over the learning activity and their interest in it. According to Noels (2001:54), three
psychological needs have to be met in order to enhance motivation: ‘‘(1) a sense of
competency achieved through seeking out and overcoming challenges; (2) autonomy; (3)
relatedness-being connected to an esteemed by others belonging to a larger social whole’’.
To increase intrinsic ESL motivation, Old father and West (1999:16-17) argue that ‘‘a sense
of self-worth’’ and ‘‘self-determination’’ are essential, and learners need to be given ‘‘ample
opportunities for social interaction and self-expression’’. Richards (1993) also mentions
‘‘personal causation,’’ ‘‘interest,’’ and ‘‘enjoyment’’ as indispensable factors.
However, learning is enhanced if students are asked to do the following: Use their own words
to restate material they learned, generate their own examples, recognize it in different
contexts and formats, make connections between what they just learned and other facts or
ideas previously learned, apply it in different ways, anticipate some of its consequences, and
state it in its opposite or converse. Furthermore, strong writing skills may enhance students'
chances for success. Thus, writing requires careful thought, a great deal of planning, constant
review of your work-in-progress, and a great deal of skill, which can only be gained through
experience and practice. Moreover, the five components of writing which were content,
vocabulary, organization, grammar, and mechanics enhancing students’ performance in
writing skill
Both groups of focus group participants (teachers and students) were asked what factors they
think enhance students’ performance in writing skills. In all the FGD, the points raised were
similar and are summarized as follows.
Learning is enhanced if students are asked to do the following: Use their own words to
restate material they learned, generate their own examples, recognize it in different contexts
and formats, make connections between what they just learned and other facts or ideas
previously learned, apply it in different ways, anticipate some of its consequences, and state
it in its opposite or converse. Furthermore, strong writing skills may enhance students'
chances for success. Thus, writing requires careful thought, a great deal of planning, constant
review of your work-in-progress, and a great deal of skill, which can only be gained through
experience and practice. Moreover, the five components of writing which were content,
vocabulary, organization, grammar, and mechanics enhancing students’ performance in
writing skill.
47
4.6.2. Factors hindering students’ performances
Findings for this research question from informants and discussants indicated as lake of
interest, motivation, initiation, absenteeism, failure to listen to their teachers and failure to do
writing assignments, mother tongue influence, pragmatic competence of learners’ material
and unmanageable class size, strategies use, cohesions, and coherence stated that hinder their
(students) performance in writing.
Still the findings agreed as in foreign language context teachers are non-native speakers of
English language and they need to be well-prepared for teaching the pragmatic aspect of
knowledge of language. In addition to this fact there are no sufficient, or no course, is offered
to teachers either during pre-service or in-service education programs in the area of
pragmatics. This situation is what El- Okda (2010) calls as ‘paucity of pragmatic courses in
both pre-service teacher education programs and in-service professional development’ (169).
If the student teachers or those teachers that are handling the teaching of English language
are provided with the pragmatic courses, ‘[they] can help their students see the language in
context, raise consciousness of the role of pragmatics, and explain the function pragmatics
plays in specific communicative event’ (Brock and Nagasaka, 2005:20).
The second pillar in developing the pragmatic competence of learners is ELT material.
Language teaching materials need to frequently include pragmatic materials so as to help
learners develop pragmatic competence, because ‘ teachers in EFL settings, where there are
relatively few opportunities for students to use the language in communicative contexts’
(Brock and Nagasaka, 2005), will make use of textbooks as the major source of pragmatic
knowledge. However, the attempt of including very few mini-dialogues for certain speech
acts and that are contrived and de-contextualized does not help the learners develop their
pragmatic competence or does not represent the reality outside the classroom (El-Okda,
2010:180). Let alone the external environment, ‘many students do not know how to
make polite requests in English in the classroom’ (Brock and Nagasaka, 2005:21).
Teachers in most cases complain for the unmanageable class size. Large classes, limited
contact hours and little opportunity for intercultural communication are some of the features
of the EFL context that hinder pragmatic learning (Eslami-Rasekh et al., 2004; Rose,
1999).Understanding teachers' perceptions and beliefs is important because teachers, heavily
involved in various teaching and learning processes, are practitioners of educational
principles and theories (Jia, Eslami & Burlbaw, cited in Eslami and Fatahi, 2008). Teachers
have a primary role in determining what is needed or what would work best with their
students. Findings from research on teachers' perceptions and beliefs indicate that these
perceptions and beliefs not only have considerable influence on their instructional practices
and classroom behavior but also are related to their students' achievement. In most cases
teachers do not give attention to pragmatic/communicative functions in the classroom.
Omaggio (see in Uso-Juan, and Martinez-Flor, 2008:165) gives the following three reasons
for neglecting intercultural/pragmatic competence in the language class.
48
1. Teachers usually have an overcrowded curriculum to cover and lack the time to spend on
teaching culture, which requires a lot of work;
2. Many teachers have a limited knowledge of the target culture and, therefore, afraid to
teach it, and
3. Teachers are often confused about what cultural aspects to cover
One important factor that can affect FL/L2 writing quality is strategy use. Processes for
writing differ from one writer to another and from one situation to the next (Reid, 1992).
However, some authors (e.g. Brown & Hood, 1989; Scholes & Comley, 1989) identify three
basic stages of writing process (i.e. Pre-writing stage, drafting stage, and post-writing stage)
through which writers practice a number of strategies. The first stage, pre-writing, includes
generating ideas relevant to the subject (Dupont, 2004). The second stage, drafting, involves
writing the first version and composing thoughts in sentences and paragraphs (Winterowd &
Murray, 1988). Finally in the post-writing stage, writers clean up all errors such as spelling
errors, omission, extra spaces, formatting errors, and punctuation errors (Dupont, 2004). It
may be argued that there is a close relationship between such strategies and FL students'
writing quality.
A second factor contributing to FL/L2 writing quality is linguistic competence. Linguistic
competence is closely interacted with FL/L2 writers' composing process (Manchon, 2009).
According to Murrcia (2002), the use of grammar is essential for improving language
learning. Additionally, Pilar and Liach (2011) viewed that vocabulary is central to L2/FL
writing quality. In this concern, Abdel Latif (2007) examined the relationship between
linguistic competence (i.e. grammar and vocabulary) and Egyptian EFL university students'
writing process and product, and the study indicated that linguistic competence was
positively related to text length aspects (i.e. word count and the number of sentences). In the
same vein, Mojica (2010) examined EFL students' problems with writing. The study revealed
that vocabulary and grammar were perceived by EFL students as the top most writing
difficulties.
A third factor is the ability to arrange ideas and sentences in a logical order which is called
cohesion and coherence. Coherence means arranging ideas in a logical sequence (Medve
&Takac, 2013), and cohesive ties including reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunctions, and
lexical ties affect text structure (Brisk, 2011). Among the previous studies that focused on the
organizational problems FL/L2 students encountered when they wrote English essays is
Ahmed (2010). Ahmed's study investigated Egyptian university students' cohesion and
coherence problems in EFL essay writing. The study concluded that the participants
encountered problems in the cohesion of EFL essay writing. Furthermore, Al-Jarf (2001)
examined the cohesive ties Saudi EFL students used in their writing. Al-Jarf's study found
that cohesion anomalies were caused by poor linguistic competence, specifically poor
49
syntactic and semantic awareness and poor knowledge of cohesion rules. Likewise, Dastjerdi
and Samian (2011) investigated Iranian EFL students' use of cohesive devices in
argumentative essays and the relationship between writing quality and the number of
cohesive devices. The study revealed that lexical devices had the largest percentage of the
total number of the cohesive devices followed by reference devices and conjunction devices.
It is extremely important for high school teachers of English to give helpful, supportive feed-
back to students in order to support their learning. Yet often teachers are over critical of their
students’ performance, to the point where students are afraid to participate, for fear of failure
and even ridicule. This is de-motivating and harmful psychologically and hinders the
learning process (John Atkins, Hailom Banteyerga & Nuru Mohammed, 1996:123).
Still (John Atkins, Hailom Banteyerga & Nuru Mohammed, 1996:168) explains that it is very
important to know how to write good classroom tests, since badly written test questions can
have a negative effect on learning, For example too much use of multiple choice questions
may hinder many students’ progress rather than help it.
Yet, this comparative study between teachers and students investigates the writing
performance of tenth grade and the problems that hinder students' perception of good writing
skills. There are many factors affecting grade ten students writing performance in ESL, like
content, vocabulary, organization, language use and mechanics in writing. The most
significant component in writing that hinders their writing proficiency is language use as they
have to learn the grammar, syntactic structure, vocabulary, rhetorical structure and idioms of
a new language (ESL). Writing is a difficult task for them and the acquisition of grammar
and other language structures makes it more difficult and complicated. We believe that
students who do not read and write well in their first language need to work harder on the
new creative activity of forming ideas and thoughts in English for the readers to understand.
Both groups of informants and focus group participants (teachers and students) were asked
what factors they think hinder students’ performance in writing skills. In all the FGD, the
points raised were similar and are summarized as follows.
Generally, with the respect to this problem (both enhancing and hindering) the two groups of
respondents (teachers and students) again agreed that the tendency of teachers and students
writing skill was major problem and negatively influencing the students’ performance in
writing.
4.6.3 Strategies Improving Students’ Writing Skills
Both groups of focus group participants (teachers and students) were asked what strategies
they think would improve students’ performance in writing skills. In all the FGDs, the points
raised were similar and are summarized. At the end of the discussions the participants
recommended the following.
50
Academics can help students improve their writing skills by (a) increasing student motivation
to have good writing skills, (b) providing instruction in writing processes and rules, (c)
providing writing practice, and (d) providing constructive feedback about the students'
writing. With high motivation, students will find ways to improve their writing and will
persist in the effort. To write well, students need to apply appropriate processes, such as
starting early, and to apply the rules of writing, such as grammar rules. Writing practice helps
most when students receive clear, specific feedback about what to do the same and what to
do differently in the future.
In general, the focus group interviews led to the identification of a number of important
findings from the focus group interviews which supplement the findings derived from the
quantitative data. These findings all address the research questions formulated in chapter 1,
paragraph 1.4.
.
51
CHAPTER FIVE
5. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
5.1 Introduction In this chapter conclusions of the research findings that have been analyzed and discussed in
the previous chapter are briefly presented. Furthermore, based on the findings of the study
possible recommendations are made.
5.2 Conclusions Based on the critical analysis of the data, the following conclusions were drawn:
The findings showed that the students in the schools have had not good awareness about
writing skills concepts since they have not good understanding of the components of writing.
Accordingly, they were not familiar with planning (making an outline), practicing, and both
receiving and giving feed-back which are writing skills functions and they were unable to
relate them with writing. The majority of students still did not understand these writing
concepts.
With regard to teachers’ perceptions, attempts have been made to assess the performance of
the students writing. However, the learning situations (environment) were not conducive as
the findings revealed. The reasons for this were lack of student’s interest and motivation, lack
of awareness and confidence, poor back-ground on writing from primary schools. Moreover,
even failure to write their names beside small and capital letters, failure to do an assignment
attend the class and absenteeism shows loose attachment between teachers and students in
relation to teaching learning process due to inconsistent implementation and initiation.
As the findings indicated that the students’ perceptions were not good in doing/learning that
sharing findings from their teachers. This was through the determination of skill, knowledge
and the job requires and identifying job-related knowledge and skills that are needed to
support students in short-range and long-range goals that stated under the new educational
training and policy from Ministry of Education.
In general as findings from both informants and discussants, writing requires careful thought,
a great deal of planning, constant review of your work-in-progress, and a great deal of skill,
which can only be gained through experience and practice. Moreover, the five components of
writing which were content, vocabulary, organization, grammar, and mechanics enhancing
students’ performance in writing skill
Whereas, the most significant component in writing, that hinders their writing proficiency is
language use as they have to learn the grammar, syntactic structure, vocabulary, rhetorical
structure and idioms of a new language (ESL). Writing is a difficult task for them and the
52
acquisition of grammar and other language structures makes it more difficult and
complicated.
5.3. Recommendations Based on the findings of the study the following recommendations are forwarded:
The Ministry of Education should organize and arrange successive work-shops; seminars for
in-service teachers at least two times per year (September and February) at the beginning and
semester break so that teachers can get the chance to share experiences on how to cope with
the existing writing skills problems in secondary schools.
Education support especially for higher studies should not be limited to create high level
professionals with the required knowledge and skills. This is in turn important to satisfy and
retain talented students in writing in their secondary schools.
Counseling is also very essential to support students in improving their learning
performances
based on issues raised from informants and discussants impeding students writing. Besides, it
helps to identify individual student’s needs which helps student achieve maximum self-
development with better performance in writing areas. Students’ parents should also
communicate with stalk-holders in the school during at the beginning the academic year and
semester break on points mentioned above.
Personal analysis during learning need assessment is necessary, in view of the fact that it is
very important tool for incorporating individual needs into learning/writing practices.
5.4 Implications of the Study Based on the overall findings and specific conclusions made this study on Human Resource
Development in selected sector bureaus may have several implications:
The English language teachers, rather than just emphasizing on grammar and mechanics,
she/he should pay more attention to high-level language features like organization and
content too. The learners should also be encouraged to go accordingly.
In this study, an attempt was made to investigate if there is any significant relationship
between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of students’ performance in writing skills. And it
has been round that there is negligible amount of relationship (0.1) between the two
variables. But in the future it is recommendable if other researchers work on points jotted
down under the implication for further research below.
Finally, as this study is limited to one town and short period of time, it appears to be difficult
to draw generalizations about the findings of the study. Hence further research is highly
recommended to further investigate the area.
53
REFERENCES
Abdel Latif, M.(2007). The factors accounting for the Egyptian EFL University students’
negative writing affect Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language &Linguistics,
(9):57-82.
A S Hornby (2010). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. New
York.Oxford University Printing Press
Adams, R. (2003). “L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL
development”, in Language Teaching Research, 7, 3: 347-76.
Ahmed, A. (2010). Students' problems with cohesion and coherence in EFL essay
writing in Egypt: Different perspectives. Literary Information and Computer
Education Journal, 1(4)
Alamrew G/Mariam (2005). A Study on the Perceptions of Writing Instructions and
Students’ Writing Performances of Students: PhD dissertation. Addis Ababa:
Addis Ababa University, Unpublished
Al-Jarf, R. (2001). Processing Cohesive Thesis; by EFL Arab College students: Foreign
Language Annals, 34(2), 141-151.
Alsamadani, H. A. (2010). The Relationship between Saudi EFL Students' Writing
Competence, L1 writing proficiency, and self-regulation: European Journal of
Social Sciences, 16(1), 53-63.
Arega M.(2014).Classroom Assessment Manual for Primary and Secondary School
Teachers. National Educational Assessment and Examination Agency; Addis Ababa
AUC (2006), English 10+2 Technical and Vocational English Training: Addis Ababa. Alpha
University College Printing Press
Bailey, C. (2007). A guide to qualitative field research.(2nded.). London: Pine Forge Press.
BantieWorkie & YigremewAdal (2008). Business Communication. Addis Ababa. Addis
Ababa University Printing Press.
54
Berg, E. C. (1999).The effect of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types
and writing quality.Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3):215-241
Best, J. W. & Kahn, J. W. (2003). Research in Education; (7th Edition). New Delhi:
Prentice Hall of India Private Limited.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brisk, M. (2011).Learning to write in the second language K-5.In E. Hinkel
(Ed.).Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, volume 2 (pp
40-56.) New York, NY: Routledge
Brown, K., & Hood, S. (1989).Writing matters: Writing skills and strategies for students of
English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Byrne, D. (1996). Teaching Writing Skills; UK: Longman Group.
Caulk, N. (1994).Comparing Teachers’ and Students’ Responses to Written Work;
TESOL Quarterly, 28(1):181-188
Chaudron, C. (1984). The Effects of Feed-back on Students' Composition RevisionsRELC
Journal, 15(2):1-14.
Cohen, A.D. &Cavalcanti, M.C. (1990).“Feedback on written compositions: Teacher and
student verbal reports”, in B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research
insights for the classroom. Cambridge: CUP, 155-177.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2005).Research Methods in Education (5thed.).
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Collins English Dictionary (1991).S.v. (3rded.). Glasgow: Harper Collins
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: A qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Creswell, J. W. (2008). The Selection of the Research Design Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Cronbach, L. J. 1970. Essentials of Psychological Testing (3rd Ed.). New York: Harper &
Row
Crooks, T. J. (1988).The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices on Students. Review
of Educational Research, 58, 438-481.
Dastjerdi, V. H., &Samian, H. S. (2011). Quality of Iranian EFL learners' argumentative
essays: Cohesive devices in focus. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2),
65-76
55
DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S.W. (1988).Peer response groups in the writing classroom:
theoretic foundations and new directions.System, 58(2):119-149.
Doff, A. (1988). Teach English: A Training Course for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Driscoll, D. (2012). United States of America students lack writing skills. Retrieved from
Dupont, L. (2004). Writing Keys Stories: Essays and researches. New York: Pearson
Education
Edge, J.( 1989). Mistakes with their Corrections.London: Longman UK Ltd
Education and Training Policy (ETP) (1994). FDRE (Federal Democratic Republic
Government of Ethiopia) Addis Ababa: St. George Printing Press
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H., (2008).“The effects of focused and
unfocused written corrective feedback in English as a foreign language context”,
inSystem, 36, 3: 353-371.
Emmons(2003).AnEffectiveWritingFormulaforUnsureWriters.http://www.airpower.au.af.
mil/airchronicles/aureview/1975/septoct/ emmons.html. Retrieved on 15th May 2005.
Engin-Demir, C. (2009). Factors Affecting the Academic Achievement of Turkish Urban
Poor. International Journal of Educational Development.29 (1):17 – 29.
Felder, R. M. (1993). Reaching the Second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college
science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286 – 290.
Ferris, D. (2004). “The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and
where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?)”, in Journal
of Second Language Writing, 13, 1: 49-62.
Ferris, D. R. (1997).The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 315–339.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K.(2001).Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written
feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.
56
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback on Second Language students’ writing.
Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.
I. S. P. Nation (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing. UK. Taylor & Francis
e-Library
Ingels, M. (2006).Legal Communicative skills.Culemborg: ACCO
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S.-Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing:
taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307-317
John Atkins, Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., &Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary
on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 6, 155–182.
John Atkins, Hailom Banteyerga, and Nuru Mohammed (1996). Skills Development
Methodology-part 2. Addis Ababa. Addis Ababa University Printing Press.
Flemming, N. (2001-2011). Vark a guide to learning styles. Accessed on November 02,
2011 from http://www.vark-learn.com/english/page.asp?p=categories
GeremewLemmu (1999). A study on the academic requirements: Four departments in
focus in Addis Ababa University. PhD Dissertation.Addis Ababa University.
Unpublished
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, B. (1996).Theory and Practice of Writing. London &New York:
Longman.
Gunning TG (1998). Assessing and Correcting Reading and Writing Difficulties Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Hammad, A. E. (2013). Palestinian EFL University-Level Students’ Writing Strategies in
Relation to their EFL writing performance. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific
Research, 3(10) 214-223.
57
Hansen, J. and Liu, J. (2005).Guiding Principles for Effective Peer ResponsesELT
Journal, 59(1):31-38.
Harb, N., & El-Shaarawi, A. (2006).Factors Affecting Students’ Performance Munich
Personal RePEc Archive Paper No. 13621. Accessed on November 02, 2011 from
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/13621/
Hedgcock, J., &Lefkowitz, N. (1994). “Feedback on feedback: assessing learner
receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing”, in Journal of Second Language
Writing, 3, 2..
Hedge, T. (2005).Writing Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hedge,T.(2005) & Squire (1979). Writing Oxford: Oxford University Press
http://m.ocregester.dot.com.
Hu, G. (2005). Using Peer Review with Chinese ESL Student Writers. Language
Teaching Research, 9(3):321-342.
Hu, G. and Tsui E. L. S.(2010). Issues of Cultural Appropriateness and Pedagogical
Efficacy: exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional
Science, 38(4).
Hyland, F. (1998). “The impact of teacher-written feedback on individual writers”, in
Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 3: 255-288.
Hailom Banteyerga & Nuru Mohammed (1996).Skills Development Methodology. Addis
Ababa. Addis -Ababa University Printing Press.
Johnston, A. (2010). Sampling hard-to-reach populations with respondent driven
sampling: Methodological Innovations Online (2010) 5(2) 38-48
Keh, C.L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for
implementation. ELT Journal, 44 (4):294-304.
Ken Hyland. (2003).Second Language Writing United States of America New York. Cambridge
University Press,
58
Kluger, A. N., &DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on
performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques, Second Revised
Krueger & Richard, A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd
Ed.).
Krueger and Richard, A. (1994).Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd
ed.).
Langan J (1987). College Writing Skills. New York: McGraw Hill
Lee, I. (1997). Peer Reviews in a Hong Kong Tertiary Classroom. TESL Canada Journal,
15(1):58-69.
Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat (2010).Assessment for Learning: Video Series
Descriptive Feed-back Viewer’s Guide to support the implementation of GROWING
SUCCESS Assessment ,Evaluation
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacy/inspire/research/Teacher-
Moderation.pdf,retrieved on February,2013.
Maehr, M. L. (1976). Continuing motivation: An analysis of a seldom considered
educational outcome. Review of Educational Research, 46, 443-462
Malekela, George (2000) The Quality of Secondary Education in Tanzania. In: Galabawa,
J.C.J, Senkoro, F.E.K. and Lwaitama, A.F. (eds.) The Quality of Education in
Tanzania: Issues and Experiences. Dar-es-salaam: Institute of Kiswahili Research
Manchon, M. R. (2009). Broading the perspective L2 writing scholarship: The
contribution of research on foreign language writing. In R. Manchon
(Ed.).Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research
(pp.1-22). UK: Multilingual Matters
59
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: what do the
students think? ELT Journal, 46(3):274-284.
Marczyk, G. &DeMatteo, D. (2005).Essentialsinf Research Design and
Methodology.Published by John Wiley, New Jersey.
Mendonça, C. O, and Johnson, K. E. (1994).Peer review negotiations: Revision activities
in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4):745-769.
Miaoulis, G. and Michener, R. (1976).An Introduction for Sampling Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company
Miller, S. P. (2002). Validated practices for teaching students with diverse needs and abilities. Min, H. (2006).The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and
writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2):118-141. power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.).Richness in Writing: Empowering ESLStudents(pp.207-219). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Ministry of Education (2001).English language syllabi for grades 9-10. Addis Ababa:
Institute of Curriculum Development and Research
Ministry of Education (2005a).English Teacher’s Guide for Grade 10 Addis Ababa:
EMPDA.
Ministry of Education (2005b).English for Ethiopia grade 10 students’ book. Addis
Ababa: EMPDA.
Ministry of Education (2005c).Guidelines for English language enhancement in our
teacher education institutions: A set of practical guidelines to help promote the
use of English.The ELIP Cascade.
Ministry of Education (2005c).Guidelines for English language enhancement in our
teacher education institutions: A set of practical guidelines to help promote the
use of English. The ELIP Cascade
Ministry of Education [MoE] (2001).Indicators of the Ethiopian education system Addis
Ababa: Ministry of Education.
60
Ministry of Education [MoE] (2001).Indicators of the Ethiopian Education System Addis
Ababa: Ministry of Education.
MoE. (2005). Education Sector Development Program III (ESDP-III): Program Action Plan.
Addis Ababa: Ministry of Education.
Mojica, L. (2010). An investigation on Self-Reported Writing Problems and Actual Writing Deficiencies of EFL Learners in the beginners' levelTESOL Journal, 2, 24-38.
Montgomery, J., & Baker, W. (2007).Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions,
teacher Self-assessment and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 16(2), 82–99.
Montgomery, J., & Baker, W. (2007).Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions,
teacher Self-assessment and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 16(2), 82–99.
Morgan, L.D. (2007). Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological
Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, Journal of
Mixed Methods Research 2007 1: 48
Morgan, L.D. (2007). Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological
Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, Journal of
Mixed Methods Research 2007 1: 48
Morgan, T.C. et al (1986). Introduction to Psychology (7th ed). New York: McGraw. Hill.
Morgan, T.C. et al (1986). Introduction to Psychology (7th ed). New York: McGraw. Hill.
Morgan, T.C. et al (1986). Introduction to Psychology. (7th ed). New York: McGraw. Hill.
Muijs, D.( 2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London: Sage
Publications
Murcia M. (2002).On the use of selected grammatical features in academic writing.In M.
Schleppegrell& M. Colombi (Eds.).Developing advance literacy in first and second
61
languages: Meaning with power (pp.143-158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
associates Publishers.
Murcia M. (2002).On the use of selected grammatical features in academic writing.In M.
Schleppegrell& M. Colombi (Eds.).Developing advance literacy in first and second
languages: Meaning with power (pp.143-158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
associates Publishers.
Murcia, M., &Olshtain, E. (2000).Discourse and context in language teaching: A Guide for
language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murcia, M., &Olshtain, E. (2000).Discourse and context in language teaching: A Guide for
language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ngwenya, V. (2010).Managing parental involvement with education in Zimbabwe.Ph
dissertation education management, University of South Africa, November 2010.
Noe, A. (2004). Action in perception. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press Publishers, Ltd.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
O’Lary, Z. (2004). The Essential Guide to Doing Research. New Delhi: Sage Publications
India Pvt
Omrod, J. E. (2008). Educational psychology: developing learners. Sixth Edition. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education
Parker S (1993). The Craft of Writing London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Pashler, H. McDaniel M., Rohrer, D. Bjork, R. (2008).Learning styles: Concepts and
evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 106 – 119.
Patton, M. (1990).Qualitative Evaluations and Research Methods Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
62
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feed-Back on Students Writing
Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3):265-289.
Pearsall TE, Cunningham DH (1988). The Fundamentals of Good Writing New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company
Pilar, M., &Liach A. (2011).Lexical Errors in Foreign Language Writing.UK: Multilingual
matters
Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the Definition of Feed-back. Behavioral Science, 28, 4-13
Reid, J. (1993). Teaching ESL: Witting USA: Regents Prentic Hall.
Reid, J.M. (1995).Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston: Heinle&Heinle
Publishers.
Reid, S. (1992).The prentice Hall guide for college writers. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Richadson,H.(1996).The Role of Attitudes and Beliefs in Learning and
TeachingJ.Sikula,T.J.
Richards, J. C., &Renandya, W. A.(2003). Methodology in language teaching: An
anthology of current practice. (3rd ed.).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feed-back in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal,
59(1):23.
Rubagumya, Casmir (Ed.). (1990). Language in Education in Africa: A Tanzanian
Perspective. Clevedon: Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007).“Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2
writing revision task”, in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 1: 67-100.
Sadi, F., & Othman, J. (2012). An Investigation in Terms of Writing Strategies of
Iranian EFL undergraduate learners: World Applied Sciences Journal, 18(8),
1148-1157.
63
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.
Scholes, R., &Comley, N. R. (1989).The practice of writing; New York, NY: Martin's Press.
Senkoro, F.E.M.K. (2004) Research and approaches to the medium of instruction in
Tanzania: Perspectives, directions and challenges. In: In: Brock-Utne, Birgit,
Desai, Zubeida and Qorro, Martha (eds.) Researching the Language of Instruction in
Tanzania and South Africa. Cape Town: African Minds. pp. 42-56
Senkoro, F.E.M.K. (2004) Research and approaches to the medium of instruction in
Tanzania: Perspectives, directions and challenges. In: In: Brock-Utne, Birgit,
Desai, Zubeida and Qorro, Martha (eds.) Researching the Language of Instruction in
Tanzania and South Africa. Cape Town: African Minds. pp. 42-56
Shukla, P. (2008). Essentials of marketing research.[On line]. Available at:
http://www.Bookboon.com. (Accessed on 24 May 2010).
Shute, V. (2008).Focus on formative feedback. Review in Educational Research, 78,153-
189.
Skiba, R., Michael,R., Nardo, A., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of
racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review,
34(4), 317-342.
Smith, P. L. Ragan T. J. (1993). Designing Instructional Feed-back for Different
Learning Outcomes. In J V Dempsey and G. C. Sales (Eds).Interactive instruction
and feed-back (pp. 75-103). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications
Smith,A.D. (2001). “Perceptions, and Beliefs” Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research. Vol. LXII. No 2.
64
Solomon, A. (2001). The Realization of Process Approach to Writing at the Level of Grade
10, MA Thesis (Unpublished), Addis Ababa University
Stern, L. A., & Solomon A. (2006).Effective faculty feedback: The road less traveled.
Assessing Writing, 11, 22–41.
Tang, G. and Tithecott, J. (1999).Peer Response in ESL Writing.TESLCanadaJournal,
16(2):20-38.
Tashakkori,A. and Teddlie,C.(1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches
TayeChefo (2005). "The Effect of Teacher Feedback of t» Year Students Writing:
DebreMarkos College of Teacher Education in Focus", ( M.A.Thesis) Addis Ababa
University, ( unpublished).
Taylor-Powell, E & Renner, M.(2003).Analyzing qualitative data Program development
and evaluation. New York: University of Wisconsin
TekleFerede, EndalferMelese, EbabuTefera (2011). A descriptive Survey on Teachers’
Perception of EFLWriting and Their Practice of Teaching Writing: Preparatory
Schools in Jimma Zone in Focus.
Topping, K.; Smith E.; Swanson, I. and Elliot, A. (2000). Formative Peer Assessment of
Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 25(2):149-169.
Truscott, J. (1996). “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”, in
Language Learning, 46, 2: 327-369.
Tsui, A. B. M. and Ng, M. (2000).Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2):147-170.
UNESCO (2009).Continuous Assessment: Hand Book and Guidelines for Tutors in
Primary Teacher Education. Uganda. National Commission for UNESCO, Kampala
65
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Usó-Juan E, Martínez-Flor A, Palmer-Silveira JC (2006). Towards Acquiring
Communicative Competence through Writing: Current Trends in the
Development and Teaching of the Four Language Skills. Uso´-Juan Martı´nez-
Flor&Gruyter (Eds.) Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berl
Van Beuningen, C. (2010). “Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives,
empirical insights, and future directions”, in International Journal of English
Studies, 10, 2: 1-27
Van de Ridder, J. M. M., Stokking, K. M., McGaghie,W. C., & Ten Cate, O. Th. J.(2008).
What is feedback in clinical education? Medical Education, 42, 189-197
Vollmeyer, R., &Rheinberg, F. (2005).A Surprising Effect of Feedback on Learning and
Instruction, 15, 589-602.
Wei, Z., Shang, H., &Briody, P. (2012).The relationship between English writing ability
levels and EFL learners' metacognitive behaviors in the writing process. The
International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and
Development, 1(4), 154-180.
West, W.W. (1988). Developing Writing Skills. Newton, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
White, R.,& Arndt, V. (1991).Process Writing. London, UK: Longman.
Winterowd, W. R., & Murray, P. K. (1988).English Writing and Skills. New York. NY:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston
WoredeYisehak, John Atkins, Gebremedhine Simon, Haile Michael Aberra (1996). College
English Volume 11..Addis Ababa. Addis Ababa University Printing Press
Yah Awg Nik1*,Badariah Bt. Sani2, Muhmad Noor B. Wan Chik2 Kamaruzaman Jusoff3
and HasifRafidee Bin Hasbollah (2010). Writing Performance of Undergraduates
66
in the University of Technology Mara Terengganu, Malaysia United Kingdom
.University of Bradford, West Yorkshire
Yamane,T. (1967). Statistics, An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed., New York: Harper and
Row
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback in the ESL
Writing Class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3):209-222.
Zikgmund ,W.(1994). Business Research Methods, 4th Edition, New York: The Dryden
Press.
Zikmund, W. G., Barry J., Babin, J. C.and Carr, M. G. (2003).Business Research Methods,
9th Edition, New York: The Dryden Press
67
APPENDIX: A Teacher Questionnaire Dear Teacher,
The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect data on your perceptions about your students’
performances in writing skills. It is to gather necessary data for my thesis conducted for the
fulfillment of MA in Teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) at Arba Minch
University. Your contribution is highly important for the success of this study that you are
kindly requested to give genuine answers to questions included. I would like to assure you
that the information your provide will be kept confidential and used only for the research
purpose. You don’t need to write your name. Thank you in advance for your co-operation!
1. Teachers’ personal data
Age-------------- Sex---------------Service Year----------------Qualification------------------
--
II. Teachers’ perceptions of their students’ writing skills performance
2.1. Indicate the degree of your agreement to the following statements about your students writing
skill performance by using the scales: strongly disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Not decided (ND),
Agree (A), and strongly agree (SA). Please put “X” mark under the choice that corresponds to your
degree of agreement.
No. Statements about students planning, practice and addressing feedback of writing skills
SD D ND A SA
Planning items 1 My students usually look for important points before they do their writing 2 My students often organize their ideas in their mind before writing them
3 My students prepare outline of the writing before they do the actual writing 4 My students show their outline to their peers/teachers before they do the
writing
Practice items 5 My students do their writing based on their outline 6 My students use logical arguments in their writing 7 My students use interrelated items in their writing 8 My students use easily understood sentences in their writing 9 My students use grammatically correct sentences in their writing 10 My students make good summaries of their writing
Feedback items 11 My students are happy to receive feedback on their writing 13 My students often incorporate my feedback in their writing correctly 14 My students receive feedback from their peers on their writing 15 Based on the feedback, my students improve my writing
68
Open-ended questions:
Answer the following questions in brief.
1. What factors do you think enhance your students’ performance in writing?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_________
2. What factors do you think hinder your students’ performance in writing?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
_________
3. What do you suggest to overcome/minimize factors that hinder your students’
performance in writing?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_________
69
APPENDIX: B Students’ Questionnaire Dear student,
The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect data on your perceptions about your
performances in writing skills. It is to gather necessary data for my thesis conducted for the
fulfillment of MA in Teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) at Arba Minch
University. Your contribution is highly important for the success of this study. You are
kindly requested to give genuine answers to questions included. I would like to assure you
that the information you provide will be kept confidential and used only for the research
purpose. You don’t need to write your name. Thank you in advance for your co-operation!
I. Personal Data
Age----------------------Sex----------------------Grade----------------------------
II. Students’ perceptions about their writing skills performance
2.1. Indicate the degree of your agreement to the following statements about your writing
skill performance by using the scales: strongly disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Not decided
(ND), Agree (A), and strongly agree (SA). Please put “X” mark under the choice that
corresponds to your degree of agreement.
No. Statements about students planning, practice and addressing feedback of writing skills
SD D ND A SA
Planning items 1 I usually look for important points before I do my writing 2 I often organize my ideas in my mind before writing them 3 I prepare outline of the writing before they do the actual writing 4 I show my writing outline to my peers/teacher before I do the writing Practice items 5 I do my writing based on my outline 6 I use logical arguments in my writing 7 I use interrelated items in my writing 8 I use easily understood sentences in my writing 9 I use grammatically correct sentences in my writing
10 I make good summaries of my writing Feedback items
11 I am happy to receive feedback on my writing 13 I often incorporate my teacher’s feedback in my writing correctly 14 I receive feedback from my peers on my writing 15 Based on the feedback, I improve my writing
70
Open-ended questions:
Answer the following questions in brief.
1. What factors do you think enhance your performance in writing?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_________
2. What factors do you think hinder your performance in writing?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
_________
3. What do you suggest to overcome/minimize factors that hinder your performance in
writing?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_________
71
APPENDIX: C Amharic Translation
1. የግልሁኔታ
ት/ቤት ----------- ዕድሜ -----------ፆታ
2. ተማሪዎችስለራሳቸው የጽሑፍ ክሂልብቃት የመረዳት / የመገንዘብ ችሎታቸው
2.1 ስለአንተ /ቹ የጽሁፍ ክሂልብቃትየመረጡት/ የመገንዘብ ችሎታንቀጥሎ
በተቀመጡ መመዘኛዎችከመሠረትአመልክት /ቺ በጣም እስማማም በአ/
እልስማማም (አ) አልወስንምእስማማለሁ ( እ) እናበጣም እስማማለሁ
(በእ)እባክህን /ሽንከተስማማህበት /ሽበት ምርጫ የ “ “ ምልክትአድርግ /ጊ
የተማሪዎች ለጽሑፍ ክሂል ብቃት ማዕቀድ ፣ በተግባር (ማለማመድ /ና
ግብረመልስአድርግመግለጫ
ተ.ቁ በዕቀድ ረገድ በአ አ አልወ እ በእ
1 ከጽሁፍአስቀድሜ እንደተለመደው ዋናዋናሀሳቦችንእፈልጋለሁ
2 ብዙውንጊዜከጽሁፍበፊትሀሳቤንበአእምሮዬ አደራጃለሁ
3 በእርግጠኝነትከመፃፈውበፊትዋናዋናሀሳቦችንአዘጋጃለሁ
4 ከመፃፌ አስቀድሜ ዋናዋናሀሳብንድፌንለጓደኛዬ /ለመምህሬአሳያለሁ
በመተግበር /በመግለጽ /ረገድ
5 በዋና ዋናሀሳቤ ተንተርሼ ጽሁፌንአከናውናለሁ
6 የሚያከራክርናበግልጽ ማስረዳት የሚችልሀሳብ ለጽሀፌ እጠቀማለሁ
7 በጣም የተያያዙ የተዘማዱ ሀሳቦችንለጽሁፌ እጠቀማለሁ
8 በቀላሉ መረዳትየሚችሉ ዐ.ነገሮችንለጽሁፌ እጠቀማለሁ
9 ሰዋሰዋዊ ትክክል የሆኑዐ.ነገሮችን
10 ለጽሁፌጥሩማጠቃለያአደርጋለሁ / አዘጋጃለሁ
የግብረመልስአቀባበልረገድ
11 ለጽሑፌ ግበረመልስለመቀበል ደስተኛነኝ
12 ብዘውንጊዜየመምህሬንግብረመልስበጽሁፌ አክተዋሁ
13 ለጽሑፌ ከጓደኞቼ ግብረመልስየመቀበል ልምድአለኝ
14 በግብረ-መልስተንተርሸ ጽሑፌንእችላለሁ
72
Appendix: D Response Rate on Questionnaire (Teachers’ and Students’) For this study, a total of 252 questionnaires were distributed to the students currently learning
and 15 questionnaires were distributed to the teachers currently teaching in four secondary
schools to assess teachers’ and students’ perceptions of students’ performances in writing
skills. All distributed questionnaires were filled up and returned with response rate of 100%.
To supplement data collected through questionnaire interview and focus group discussions
were administered by the researcher with key informants and focus group participants in each
selected school concerning the subject under study.
Teachers Response Rate:
No Schools Questionnaires Distributed
Questionnaires Returned
Response Rate
1. Arba-Minch Secondary & prepa
5 5 100
2. Chamo Secondary & prepa 4 4 100 3. Abaya Secondary 4 4 100 4. Limat Secondary 2 2 100 Total 15 15 100 (source: own computation)
73
Students Response Rate:
Schools Questionnaires Distributed
Questionnaires Returned
Response Rate
Arba-Minch Secondary 61 61 100 Percent Chamo Secondary 66 66 100 Percent Abaya Secondary 87 87 100 Percent Limat Secondary 38 38 100 Percent Total 252 252 100 Percent
Appendix: E Cornbrash’s alpha result The Cornbrash’s coefficient alpha was calculated for each field of the questionnaire. The
tables below (both for teachers and students), depicts that the values of Corrnbrash’s Alpha
for each field of the questionnaire and the entire questionnaire.
Cornbrash’s Alpha for each filed items of the questionnaire from teachers
No Field Number of Items Cornbrash’s Alpha test
1. Planning 4 0.767
2. Practice 6 0.828
3. Addressing feed-back 4 0.988
14 (entire) 0.879
Source: Own computation (2015)
Cornbrash’s Alpha for each filed items of the questionnaire from students
Field Number of Items Cornbrash’s
Alpha test
Planning 4 0.743
74
Practice 6 0.792
Addressing feed-back 4 0.776
14 (entire) 0.897
Source: Own computation (2015)
APPENDIX: F Teacher interview questions Introduction (you may need to introduce yourself and your work to the interviewees here)
1. How do you evaluate your students’ performance in writing skills? What strengths
and weaknesses they have with planning the writing, doing the actual writing and
dealing with the feedback they receive on their writing tasks?
2. What factors do you think enhance your students’ performance in writing skills?
3. What factors do you think hinder your students’ performance in writing skills?
4. What strategies do you suggest to overcome/minimize the factors that hinder your
students’ performance in writing skills?
75
APPENDIX: G Questions for students’ Focus group discussions Introduction (you may need to introduce yourself and your work to the participants here)
1. How do you evaluate your performance in writing skills? What strengths and
weaknesses you have with planning writing, doing the actual writing and dealing with
the feedback you receive on your writing tasks?
2. What factors do you think enhance your performance in writing skills?
3. What factors do you think hinder your performance in writing skills?
4. What strategies do you suggest to overcome/minimize the factors that hinder your
performance in writing skills?
Appendix-H: Interview Questions for students in Focus Group Discussion
in Amharic Translation ቃለ መጠይቅ ለተማሪዎች
ጤና ይስጥልኝ፣እሳቱ ይገዙ እባላለሁ፡፡የመጣሁት ከአርባምንጭ ዩኒቨርሲቲ የድኀረ-ምረቃ ት/ቤት ከእንግሊዝኛ ቋንቋና
ሥነ-ጽሁፍ ትምህርት ክፍል ነው፡፡የመጣሁትም ተማሪዎች ስለ
ጽህፈትክህል(Writingskill)ያላቸውንግንዛቤለማወቅናበክፍልውስጥየጽህፈትክህልትምህርትበምንመልክእየተሰጠእንዳ
ለመረጃበመሰብሰብለማጥናት፡፡
በቃለመጠይቁለመሳተፍፈቃደኛበመሆንህ/ሽበቅድምያላመሰግንህ/ሽእወዳለሁ፡፡የምትሰጠኝ/ጭኝትክክለኛምላሽወይምአስ
ተያየትለጥናቴከፍተኛአስተዋጽዖስላለውሚዛናዊምላሽ/አስተያየትእንድትሰጠኝ/ጭኝበትህትናእጠይቃለሁ፡፡የምትሠጠኝ
/ጭኝአስተያየትወይምምላሽበምስጢርተጠብቆለጥናቱውጤትብቻየሚውልመሆኑንእየገለጥኩ፤ውድጊዜህን/ሽንሰውተህ
/ሽለቃለመጠይቁስለተባበርከኝ/ሽኝበድጋሜከልብአመሰግናለሁ፡፡
