Developing Learners’ Academic Writing Skills in Higher Education: A Study for Educational Reform

Developing Learners’ Academic Writing Skills in Higher Education: A Study for Educational Reform Nahla N. Bacha Lebanese American University, PO Box 36, Byblos, Lebanon L2 writersareknown to faceproblemsin developingtheirwritingskillsat the univer-sitylevel.TheseproblemsareevenmoreaccentuatedwithL1Arabicnon-nativespeak-ersof English in requiredEnglish composition courses.Some researchhas shown that withlow motivationlevelsthe processcanfurtherbe averydifficultandunrewarding one forboth thelearnerandtheteacher.However,studentsneedtodevelop theirwrit-ing skillsin order to cope with theiruniversity courseworkin the medium of English. Thisnecessitatesthesearchforlearningtasksthatmeetstudentneedsinawidereduca-tional context.This paper outlines some of the writingtheoriesproposed by research-ers that have contributed to current L2 teaching/learning classroom methodologies. Drawingupon theinsightsgainedfromthesetheories,one EFL freshmancomposition classroom learning experience in doing practical research with L1 Arabic non-native speakers of English is described.Resultsindicatedthat the experiencewas not only a veryhighlymotivatingbasisfordevelopingstudents’writingskillsbutalsoavaluable one forstudentsinacquiringnecessaryacademicresearchknow-how.Implicationsare madeforthe teaching/learningof writingand programmedevelopment in lightof the post-war educational reform in Lebanon. Introduction Developing learners’ writing skills in L2 has been of concern for a long time in tertiaryeducation(Belcher&Braine,1995;Jordan,1997).Studentsstudyingininsti-tutionsof higher learning in the medium of English, which maynot be their native language,havebeenfoundtofaceproblemsmainlyinwriting,makingthemunable tocopewiththeinstitution’sliteracyexpectations.However,these‘disadvantaged’ students may be able to develop writing skills significantly with positive instruc-tionalattitudestowardstheerrorstheymakeandanawarenessontheteachers’part of learner problems (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996;Shaughnessy, 1977;Zamel, 1983). The research literature in L2 writing contains a great range of different supportive methodologies (e.g. Belcher & Braine, 1995; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Jordan,1989,1997;Kroll,1990;Reid,1993;Silva,1993;Zamel,1983,1992).Similar studies on L1 Arabic non-native-speakers of English have also been found and although their writing problems might sometimes be different (Kaplan, 1966; Khalil,2000;Kharma&Hajjaj,1989),recentfindingssuggestthat,withappropri-ate instruction,these learners can and do improve in their writing skills (Bader, 1992; Connor, 1996; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). The Problem Studies carried out on L1 Arabic non-native speakers’ English-writing prob-lems have shown student texts to lack lexical variety, subordination and to rely 0950-0782/02/03 161-17$20.00/0 LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION 161 © 2002N.N. Bacha Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002 162 Language and Education heavily on redundancy that does not add any new information to the text (Sa’Addedin & Akram,1989,1991;Zughoul & Husain,1985).Otherstudieshave indicated problems in these students’ writing in linking ideas over larger stretchesoftext(AlAbedAl-Haq &Ahmed,1994;Dudley-Evans&Swales,1980; Kaplan, 1966). Al Abed Al-Haq & Ahmed (1994) point out that these texts are characteristicof writing on mechanical and sentence levels rather than on more communicative discourse ones necessary for ‘advanced’ writing. Discourse aspectsthatthesestudentsfinddifficult tocopewithintheir academictextsarein theuseofcohesivedevicesthatformmeaningfulconnectionsbetweenandamong sentencesoverlargerstretchesoftextsuchassubstitution,lexicalcohesion,transi-tion, deixis and so forth. Further studies in discourse have emphasised the need for students to produce certain types of texts or genres needed by the different disciplines in the academic community, such as summaries, reports, research papers and the like, which the non-native speaker of English finds difficult to produce.However,withsuitableteaching/learningmethods,thesestudentscan andmanyhaveovercometheirdifficulties inwritinginEnglishthroughvarious techniques suchascollaborativediscipline-basedwritingclasses,peer workand teacher conferencing (Connor, 1996; Fulwiler & Young, 1990; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Leki, 1995b; Swales, 1990). The writing problems for the students attending the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) freshman programme at the Lebanese American University (LAU) (a programme set up to help ‘low’ language proficiency students) are very similar to the foregoing. In addition,because they have had their elemen-tary, primary and secondary schooling in the medium of French, or English or FrenchandEnglishequally,theproblemsmayalsoextendtonegativeinfluenc-ing factors not only from L1 Arabic but also L2 French (Bacha, 2000a; Yazigi, 1991). Moresignificantly,fewstudentsfollowingacourseofstudyinthemedium of English at university level in Lebanon are motivatedto develop their writ-ing skills, except when directly related to their major course of study at the university (Yazigi, 1991). In a recent survey carried out on a totalpopulation of 1658 students attending the EFL programme at LAU in the four required English composition courses, motivation was reported to be significantly the main cause for their writing difficulties when compared to use of required textbooks,pastandpresentclassroompractices,evaluation techniques,nega-tive interference of Arabic and/or French, and individual learning styles (Bacha, 2000a). In addition to the above problems, an overriding concern by many institu-tions of higher education is in revisiting their EFL programmes in light of the recent developments in the new national English pre-university educational reform in post-war Lebanon. This new national English curriculum is spon-sored by the Ministry of Education in conjunction with the National Center for Research and Development and approved by the Council of Ministers in 1994.Aspartofthisreform,allschoolsmusteitheradoptFrench orEnglishas the medium of instruction in addition to students learning the native language,Arabic(Shaaban&Ghaith,1997).IfschoolsopttochooseEnglishas themedium ofinstruction,thesystemofeducationisreferred toasanEnglish type of education (students then would be called ‘English-educated’); if Academic Writing Skills in Higher Education 163 French were chosen, then the system is referred to as a French type of educa-tion (students referred to as ‘French- educated’). The public sector (national education) follows mainly the French system, while privately owned schools follow the English. However, students learn the other language (either English or French) as a third language and, when higher education is considered, students from either system of education might enter a French universitysystemoranEnglishonedepending upontheircareergoals.Overthe past 10 years, there has been a significant increase in students attending English-medium universities,hence thechallengeforEFLprogrammesatthese institutions to develop teaching/learning environments conducive to helping students acquire the necessary writing skills for both university coursework and the workplace. TheworkofthenewnationalEnglishcurriculumisgroundedinmoderntheo-ries of curriculum design and teaching methods drawing upon local experts in thevariousuniversitiesinLebanonwithinternationalconsultants.Theprojectis aimedmainlyatthepublicsector,involvingamultiplicityofinterrelatedlearner, teacher,subject andcontextualfactors.The purposeoftheEnglishcurriculum is designed for academic achievement, social interaction and cultural enrichment based on the following five main principles: (1) Language learning is learning to communicate. (2) Language varies according to the context of the communicative interac-tion. (3) Learningis anexposuretoanew culturewhereby studentsdevelop under-standing, respect, and appreciation of cultural backgrounds. (4) Language learners have to engage in meaningful and interactive tasks. (5) Language skills are interdependent. The above are achieved through: implementing a thematic content-based approach; developing native-like proficiency in English stressingfluency and then accuracy; referring to the objectives of the English language curriculum that have clear and measurable performance tasks; presenting language in a proper cultural context (cultural awareness objectives); highlighting the role of group work in the development of communica-tivelanguageskills(inthecooperativelearningmodelofclassroominter-action); having practical implications of cooperation between English teachers and thoseof othersubject areas and a comprehensive staffdevelopment program by the National Center for Research and Development. (NCERD, 1994) Thecurriculumisnowinitsthirdyearofimplementation,andalthoughthere are no published rigorous research results to date as to its relative success, the experience has indicated some positive feedback in the learning situation (personal communication with teacher trainers, 1999). 164 Language and Education Aim and Significance of the Study The purpose of the present study, therefore, is to describe one classroom task-based learning experience that could help to develop EFL students’ academic writing skills. The significance of the present study is that it gives a first opportunity to follow up on the content-based approach in language teaching and learning adoptedbytheMinistryofEducation,eventhoughhereonaverysmallscale.It is also a worthwhile study in reinforcing many of the teachers’ views that students at this ‘lower’ level of English proficiency can deal with ‘research’ tasks often thought too difficult for them. Most importantly, the research task adopted in the study may not only motivate these learners to improve their skills, but also give them those needed in the academic disciplines and the job market. The study described below focuses on the implications of writing theories to the development of learners’ writing skills and the application of the theory in the practical research task. Implications from Writing Theories Writing is significant in students’academiccourseof studyas mostexamina-tions,reportsandresearchworkdepend onit.Also,thewritingprocesshelps to develop the students’ cognitive skills in acquiring the necessary strategies such as analysis, synthesis, inference and so forth, instrumental in the learning process. Inthiscontext,bothL1andL2English-writingtheorieshaveinfluenced much present-day classroom practice (e.g. Crusius, 1989; Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). Crusius’s (1989) comment articulates this: ‘In our field … they [theories] have been andarestillthe mostinfluential, playing majorrolesin conceivingwriting, coursesyllabi,andtexts’(p.3).Four ofthemainL1theoriesthathavebeen influ-ential and onwhich much of L2 writingmethodologyhas drawn, specifically in the process and product writing approaches, are those expounded by: (1) the expressive school of thought (e.g. Moffet, 1968); (2) the cognitive school of thought (e.g. Britton et al., 1975; Kinneavy, 1980); (3) the interactionists (e.g. Swales, 1990); and (4) the social constructivists (e.g. Halliday & Martin, 1993). ThesetheoriescouldallbeviewedinlightofKinneavy’s(1971in1980)communi-cationtriangle(seeFigure1)whichcomprisesthreeessentialpartsofwriting:the encoder (writer), the audience (decoder or reader), and reality and truth (context),allcrucialtotheprocessofproducingatext.Basically,theexpressionist modelarguesfor‘expressive,selfactualizingwritinginwhichstudents“discov-ered” ideas and themselves through free-writing and brainstorming’ (Kroll, Figure 1 Kinneavy’s communication triangle (1971 in 1980) Academic Writing Skills in Higher Education 165 1990). Moffet’s (1968) model focused on the writer, audience and the different types of texts and was mainly influential in the American elementary and secondary schools. The process approach, as we know it today, had its roots in thisexpressionistmodel.Thecognitivistmodel(Flower&Hayes,1981)although overlapping with that of the expressionists, focused more on the rhetorical modes of discourse as end products and showed the relation between syntax, semantics and pragmatics. In this sense, there was more emphasis on both the process and the product in writing. The approach was more influential at the secondaryandtertiarylevels of writing.Theinteractionistsfocused moreonthe reader’s schemata (that is, knowledge of the world), and thus writing was focused more for a particular audience. The social constructionists spoke of discourse communities in which the writer had to take into consideration the norms and expectations of the tasks and writing models required. For example, in an academic context, the writer’s intended audience are those who expect scholastic forms such as research papers, reports and the like which are organ-ised andwordedaccordingto standardisedacademiccriteriawithin the context of the academic community. Thus, a research or term paper must conform to certain academic,organisational,language and content criteria which may vary from one discipline to another. Although L1 theories influenced many L2 theories and instruction,research-ers noted that L2 non-native students’ needs differ (Johns, 1990). Four instruc-tional methods have been influential in EFL: controlled, rhetorical, process and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and specifically English for Academic Purposes (EAP), on which the present study draws. First, controlled writing emphasised pattern practiceand grammaraccuracybased on the audio-lingual approach(Fries,1949,inKroll,1990).Second,therhetoricalapproachfocusedon modelsofwritingabovethesentencelevelandadvocatedthedifferentrhetorical modesofnarration,cause–effect,comparison–contrast,argumentation,etc.,and tookintoaccounttheculturalandlinguisticbackgroundofthewriteraspossible negativeinterfering factorsinL2Englishwriting.Laterresearchindicatedthatit is perhaps more of an instructional issue rather than a cross-cultural matter (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). The rhetorical approach was challenged by researchers and linguists who advocateda moreprocess type of writing in which learners go through prelimi-nary writing (brainstorming and outlining), drafting the product (revising and reformulating) and post-writing stages (editing and proofreading) before a productisfinalised(Kroll,1990).Theproliferationoftheprocessapproachinthe pasttwodecadeshasbeenquestioned(e.g.Robinson,1988)especiallybytheESP approach in which the exponents (Halliday & Martin, 1993;Swales, 1990)view thenecessitytofocusonmorespecificwritingtasksorgenrerelatedtothediffer-entdiscoursecommunities,betheyacademic,professionalorother.Someongo-ingresearchintheEnglishprogrammeattheLebaneseAmericanUniversityhas indicated a need for more writing tasks related to research and report writing (Bacha, 2000b). Although there is controversy as to what extent the English faculty should teach the content-based writing of the disciplines (Braine, 1988; Horowitz,1986;Johns,1988;Spack,1988a,1988b),theroleofproficientwritingin fostering the thinking process and academic success cannot be underestimated ... - tailieumienphi.vn