Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
To cite this article: Nahla N. Bacha (2002) Developing Learners' Academic Writing Skills in
Higher Education: A Study for Educational Reform, Language and Education, 16:3, 161-177, DOI:
10.1080/09500780208666826
L2 writers are known to face problems in developing their writing skills at the univer-
sity level. These problems are even more accentuatedwith L1 Arabic non-native speak-
ers of English in required English composition courses. Some research has shown that
with low motivation levels the process can further be a very difficult and unrewarding
one for both the learner and the teacher. However, students need to develop their writ-
ing skills in order to cope with their university coursework in the medium of English.
This necessitatesthe search for learning tasks that meet student needs in a wider educa-
tional context. This paper outlines some of the writing theories proposed by research-
ers that have contributed to current L2 teaching/learning classroom methodologies.
Drawing upon the insights gained from these theories, one EFL freshman composition
classroom learning experience in doing practical research with L1 Arabic non-native
speakers of English is described. Results indicated that the experience was not only a
very highly motivating basis for developing students’ writing skills but also a valuable
one for students in acquiring necessaryacademic researchknow-how. Implications are
made for the teaching/learning of writing and programme development in light of the
post-war educational reform in Lebanon.
Introduction
Developing learners’ writing skills in L2 has been of concern for a long time in
tertiary education (Belcher & Braine, 1995; Jordan, 1997). Students studying in insti-
tutions of higher learning in the medium of English, which may not be their native
language, have been found to face problems mainly in writing, making them unable
to cope with the institution’s literacy expectations. However, these ‘disadvantaged’
students may be able to develop writing skills significantly with positive instruc-
tional attitudes towardsthe errors they make and an awareness on the teachers’ 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), recent findings suggest that, with appropri-
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
161
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). Other studies have
indicated problems in these students’ writing in linking ideas over larger
stretches of text (Al Abed Al-Haq & Ahmed, 1994; Dudley-Evans & Swales, 1980;
Kaplan, 1966). Al Abed Al-Haq & Ahmed (1994) point out that these texts are
characteristic of writing on mechanical and sentence levels rather than on more
communicative discourse ones necessary for ‘advanced’ writing. Discourse
aspects that these students find difficult to cope with in their academic texts are in
the use of cohesive devices that form meaningful connections between and among
sentences over larger stretches of text such as substitution, lexical cohesion, 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, with suitable teaching/learning methods, these students can
and many have overcome their difficulties in writing in English through various
techniques such as collaborative discipline-based writing classes, peer work and
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
French and English equally, the problems may also extend to negative influenc-
ing factors not only from L1 Arabic but also L2 French (Bacha, 2000a; Yazigi,
1991).
More significantly, few students following a course of study in the medium
of English at university level in Lebanon are motivated to 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 total population
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, past and present classroom practices, 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. As part of this reform, all schools must either adopt French or English as
the medium of instruction in addition to students learning the native
language, Arabic (Shaaban & Ghaith, 1997). If schools opt to choose English as
the medium of instruction, the system of education is referred to as an English
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
university system or an English one depending upon their career goals. Over the
past 10 years, there has been a significant increase in students attending
English-medium universities, hence the challenge for EFL programmes at these
institutions to develop teaching/learning environments conducive to helping
students acquire the necessary writing skills for both university coursework
and the workplace.
The work of the new national English curriculum is grounded in modern theo-
ries of curriculum design and teaching methods drawing upon local experts in
the various universities in Lebanon with international consultants. The project is
aimed mainly at the public sector, involving a multiplicity of interrelated learner,
teacher, subject and contextual factors. The purpose of the English curriculum is
designed for academic achievement, social interaction and cultural enrichment
based on the following five main principles:
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
this expressionist model. The cognitivist model (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
secondary and tertiary levels of writing. The interactionists focused more on the
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 and worded according to standardised academic criteria within 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 practice and grammar accuracy based on the audio-lingual
approach (Fries, 1949, in Kroll, 1990). Second, the rhetorical approach focused on
models of writing above the sentence level and advocated the different rhetorical
modes of narration, cause–effect, comparison–contrast, argumentation, etc., and
took into account the cultural and linguistic background of the writer as possible
negative interfering factors in L2 English writing. Later research indicated that it
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
advocated a more process 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
product is finalised (Kroll, 1990). The proliferation of the process approach in the
past two decades has been questioned (e.g. Robinson, 1988) especially by the ESP
approach in which the exponents (Halliday & Martin, 1993; Swales, 1990) view
the necessity to focus on more specific writing tasks or genre related to the differ-
ent discourse communities, be they academic, professional or other. Some ongo-
ing research in the English programme at the Lebanese American University has
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), the role of proficient writing in
fostering the thinking process and academic success cannot be underestimated
166 Language and Education
(Horowitz, 1986; Johns 1988; Jordan, 1997; Reid, 1993; Robinson, 1988; Swales,
1990; Vygotsky, 1962).
Methodology
In light of the above theories, recent studies in academic writing, and the writ-
ing problems of the students in the EFL programme, a research writing activity
was designed using the essay as a framework.1
Participants
The study involved 30 L1 Arabic non-native speakers of English who were
attending one freshman English 101 course (the first of the three required compo-
sition courses) in the EFL programme at the Lebanese American University. The
students had followed a pre-university course of study in either French or
English and were now enrolled in various majors in one of the four disciplines:
Arts and Sciences, Business, Engineering and Architecture, and Pharmacy. The
students’ ages ranged between 17 and 19 with 20 females and 10 males, 18 were
French-educated and the rest English-educated. However, since the focus of the
present study is to concentrate on the process of writing, age, gender, major, L2
or L3 were not influencing variables or of concern in the study.
Procedure
Over the last month (January) of the Fall 1999 semester (October to January)
and based on the pilot study done in the previous semester, a research essay writ-
ing activity was refined and better clarified for the students using models as
guides for each step in the writing process. The freshman English 101 course
involves writing essays of different rhetorical modes, drafted and finalised in
class time according to the process/product approach with reference to the read-
ings from the course textbook (Leki, 1995a). The study focuses on the last of the
four essays students write in the course. The essay is in the comparison–contrast
rhetorical mode, often found difficult and uninteresting for the students and thus
the challenge to revisit it in the learning situation.
The study specifically is comprised of eight steps, discussed and illustrated
below with one student’s work chosen at random (see Appendices). Results of
the relative success of the study are then discussed.
own topics was well exploited on the part of the students. In order to obtain
support for their research paper, students were requested to administer a
self-made survey on their topic, interview an expert in the field and find a rele-
vant Internet article. Thus, the students need not rely only on ‘library sources’
that they have found ‘boring’ and difficult at times to find, but can also be
involved in using all the four language skills: speaking, listening, reading and
writing in a more learner-centred activity (Nunan, 1997).
model). Students were asked to choose one or two questions from the survey and
write an essay of two body paragraphs mentioning the similarities and differ-
ences they found concerning one variable, following the model outline. For
example, in the ‘Internet Addiction’ paper, the student found that although male
as female students differ in owning a computer, males use the Internet as often as
females. Incorporating relevant material from the article, interview and survey
in the essay would help students read material of their choice and at their indi-
vidual literacy level and capacities.
Students were then asked to mention the statistical finding as well as to inter-
pret the results in the light of the interview, the article and/or their own experi-
ence. They found interpretation of the ideas the most difficult to do, as they had
been used to reading for literal comprehension and not for higher order cognitive
purposes. In the sample research paper, however, an attempt is made at interpre-
tation in giving reasons why females might own fewer personal computers. The
process of giving thought to these issues was the main aim of including them
since interpretation of findings is often a neglected area in EFL instruction in
pre-university education in Lebanon.
Format of presentation was discussed and modelled and the MLA documen-
tation of sources was followed, being the one required in the programme. First
drafts were read by the teacher mainly for content and organisation, leaving
language and mechanical aspects for a further draft.
non. It also allowed students to do research on topics they were interested or had
experience in such as surfing the Net, using statistics, interviewing business
people and sharing their ideas in the oral presentation with their colleagues at the
end of the semester.
The results of the study are far-reaching for English programme development
at the university in which the study was carried out. Teachers are of the opinion
that research should be learned at a much later stage of the English curriculum;
however, the study does indicate that it is possible for students to cope with
developing their writing skills through research. The ‘research essay’ is not,
however, the only way to help motivate and develop learners’ writing. Different
teaching/learning techniques can be used to exploit the essay (Hunter-Carsch,
1990) as a framework for discipline-related tasks. Discipline-related discourse
can be drawn upon to motivate students to want to improve their writing skills
and students can interact with various types of resources in a much more
dynamic way. These resources need to be identified, researched and included in
a curriculum which enables the learners to develop their writing proficiency.
Conclusion
The purpose of the present study was to identify writing theories which could
be drawn upon to help less proficient learners improve their language skills,
specifically writing through a practical research task. Kinneavy’s writing model
(1971 in 1980), mentioned earlier, is perhaps still relevant today to the latter. The
suggested model of the research paper based on Kinneavy’s model (see Figure 2)
emphasises the reciprocal relationship between the reader and the writer in the
production and processing of a text – in this case the research essay – in confor-
mity with the academic community and its conventions concerning research
writing. Although the reader in the present study was not involved as such, the
reader is included in the diagram as presumably research is to be shared ulti-
mately with others in the same discourse community that writers must conform
to. More precisely as it relates to the present study, the inverted triangle frame-
work could be seen to represent the overall approach to any writing task, which
begins with broad, general assumptions or research questions, moving on to
more specific theses and evidence. The model could be adapted to other types of
research and/or writing tasks in the academic community.
Having students interact in practical research, even in a basic freshman
English composition course, and using the essay as a framework proved initially
to be a valuable learning experience, one in which students learned a disci-
pline-related task or the process of the task, interacted with different texts and
language skills and above all increased their interest in the assignment. The
students could ‘stretch out’ of the English classroom into other classrooms and
places, making the development of their writing more genuine and used for a
motivating purpose. No doubt it is no easy task to help the more ‘disadvantaged’
develop their writing proficiency, but it is believed it is here that we as curricu-
lum designers and educators can make the most difference.
Acknowledgements
I thank the Research Council at the Lebanese American University for
supporting a travel grant to present the above paper at the TESOL Greece
Convention in March 1999. I also extend my appreciation to the students for their
active involvement in the classroom experience.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Dr N.N. Bacha, Lebanese Ameri-
can University, PO Box 36, Byblos, Lebanon (nbacha@byblos.lau.edu.lb).
Note
1. The practical research assignment was included in the English 101 syllabus beginning
the academic year 2000–01. Readers are welcome to contact the author concerning the
present study (nbacha@byblos.lau.edu.lb).
References
Al-Abed Al Haq, F. and Ahmed, A. (1994) Discourse problems in argumentative writing.
World Englishes 13 (3), 307–23.
Bacha, N.N. (2000a) Academic writing in a multilingual context: A study of learner difficul-
ties. InternationalJournal of Arabic-EnglishStudies 2 (2), 239–68. Beirut: Librarie du Liban.
Bacha, N.N. (2000b) Revisiting language learning across academic and professional com-
munities. Paper presented at the British Association of Applied Linguists Conference
(BAAL), Cambridge, England, 7–9 September.
Bader, Y. (1992) Curricula and teaching strategies in university English departments: A
need for change. IRAL 30 (3), 233–40.
Belcher, D. and Braine, G. (eds) (1995) Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on
Research and Pedagogy. New Jersey: Ablex.
Braine, G. (1988) A reader reacts… TESOL Quarterly 22 (4), 700–709.
Britton, J. et al. (1975) The Development of Writing Abilities (11–18). Houndmills: Schools
Council Research Studies, Macmillan Education.
Connor, U. (1996) Contrastive Rhetoric Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crusius, T.W. (1989) Discourse: A Critique and Synthesis of Major Theories. New York:
Modern Language Association of America.
Dudley-Evans, A. and Swales, J. (1980) Study modes and students from the Middle East.
Study Modes and Academic Development of Overseas Students, ELT Documents 109. London:
British Council.
Flower, L. and Hayes, J.R. (1981)A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition
and Communication 32 (4), 365–87.
Ford, J.E. (1995) Teaching the Research Paper: From Theory to Practice, From Research to
Writing. London: Scarecrow Press.
Fulwiler, T. and Young, A. (1990)Programs That Work: Models and Methodsfor Writing across
the Curriculum. Portsmouth: Boynton Cook .
Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R. (1996) Theory and Practice of Writing. London: Addison Wesley
Longman.
172 Language and Education
Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R. (1993) Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power.
London: Falmer.
Horowitz, D.M. (1986) What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly 20 (3), 445–62.
Hunter-Carsch, M.C. (1990) Improving students’ essay-writing. Reading 24 (2), 76–91.
Jacobs, H.J. et al. (1981)Testing ESL Composition:A Practical Approach.Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Johns, A.M. (1988) Another reader reacts . . . TESOL Quarterly 22 (4), 705–7.
Johns, A.M. (1990) L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2
composition’. In B. Kroll (ed.) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Class-
room (pp. 24–36). Cambridge University Press.
Jordan, R.R. (1989)English for academic purposes (EAP). Language Teaching (July), 150–64.
Jordan, R.R. (1997) English for Academic Purposes: A Guide and Resource Book for Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R.B. (1966) Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning
16, 1–21.
Khalil, A. (2000) Syntactic devices for marking information structure in English and
Arabic. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies 1 (1), 133–56.
Kharma, N. and Hajjaj, A. (1989) Errors in English among Arabic Speakers: Analysis and
Remedy. London: Longman.
Kinneavy, J.L. (1980) A Theory of Discourse. New York: Norton.
Kroll, B. (ed.) (1990) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1995a)Academic Writing:Exploring Processesand Strategies.New York: St Martin’s Press.
Leki, I. (1995b) Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum.
TESOL Quarterly 29 (2), 235–60.
Moffet, J. (1968) Teaching the Universe of Discourse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Nunan, D. (1997)The Learner-CentredCurriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NCERD (1994) Plan for Educational Reform. National Center for Research and Develop-
ment, Beirut, Lebanon.
Reid, J.M. (1993) Teaching ESL Writing. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Robinson, P.C. (ed.) (1988) Academic Writing: Process and Product, ELT Documents 129.
Reading: Modern English Publications and the British Council.
Sa’Addedin, A.M. and Akram, M. (1989) Text development and Arabic-English negative
interference. Applied Linguistics 10 (1), 36–51.
Sa’Addedin, A.M. and Akram, M. (1991) Writing across language communities: The
structure of Arabic text. In P. Adams et al. (eds) Socio-Cultural Issues in English for Aca-
demic Purposes 1 (2). London: Macmillian.
Shaaban, K. and Ghaith, G. (1997) An integrated approach to foreign language learning in
Lebanon. Language, Culture and Curriculum 10 (3), 200–207.
Shaughnessy, M.P. (1977) Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Silva, T. (1993) Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL
research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly 27 (4), 657–77.
Spack, R. (1988a)Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far
should we go? TESOL Quarterly 22 (1), 29–51.
Spack, R. (1988b) The author responds to Johns . . . TESOL Quarterly 22 (4), 707–8.
Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language. London: John Wiley.
Yazigi, R.J. (1991) Social and psychological factors in learning English as a foreign lan-
guage in Lebanon. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Leicester, England.
Zamel, V. (1983) The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies.
TESOL Quarterly 17 (2), 165–87.
Zamel, V. (1992) Writing one’s way into reading. TESOL Quarterly 26 (3), 463–85.
Zughoul, M.R. and Husain, R.F. (1985) English for higher education in the Arab world – a
case study of needs analysis at Yarmouk University. ESP Journal 4, 133–52.
Academic Writing Skills in Higher Education 173
5) How much does the use of the Internet affect your social life?
A Lot Some
A Little None
6) Do you think that the heavy use of the Internet has some kind of effect on a
person’s social life? Explain.
(3) How many hours do you spend on the Internet per week?
It seems that most of males and females work on the Internet between 0 and
4 hours a week, only a very small number work more than 15 hours a week
and nobody works on the Internet more than 30 hours a week.
(4) How do you rate yourself as an Internet user?
Most males and females are average users. Few are heavy Internet users and
nobody is an Internet addict.
(5) How much does the use of the Internet affect your social life?
It seems that females and males are not affected socially by the Internet. (Not
included in the research paper as the results were not deemed necessary.)
(6) Omitted from the research analysis by the student as the results were
considered unimportant and irrelevant.
Introduction
– Arouse interest
– Place your topic in context and give background information
– Define any key terms
– Thesis statement
Although there are differences between males and females in owning a computer at
home, there are a few similarities in the use of the Internet.
Conclusion
– Restate thesis statement
– Refer to background mentioned in the introduction
– Conclude with a closing remark
keep track of everything that is happening all over the globe, like updates in
sports, technology, news, political issues and other information. So, there is noth-
ing strange about the similarity between males and females on the use of the
Internet because all this information is in the interest of both sexes, not to forget
the fact of meeting and making new friends. A look at the article only shows us
the negative side of the Internet because of the addicted users that make it look
bad. If we take a look at the interview, however, the advantages of the Internet
exceed by far its disadvantages.
Body paragraph 3: Additional comments
A brief look at the other questions shows that 33% of the males and 30% of the
females use the Internet around 4 hours a week and about 36.7% of the males and
40% of the females are average uses (4–8 hours a week are rated average users),
but no one seems to use the Internet more than 30 hours per week which means
we have no addicted users.
Conclusion
To conclude, although there are differences between males and females on the
owning a personal computer at home, there are few similarities on the use of the
Internet . Even though some females do not own a personal computer, they are
managing to use the Internet at the university or any other place taking advan-
tage of all the facilities it gives us, because the Internet was created for everybody,
and not only one sex.