IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS' WRITING ABILITY AND WRITING STRATEGIES IN TWO DISCOURSE ...

386 Pages·2013·2.39 MB·English

IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING ABILITY AND
WRITING STRATEGIES IN TWO DISCOURSE TYPES

FARHAD FAHANDEJ SAADI

Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Education, University of
Malaya in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

2013
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation involved the contributions of many people whose kind support
enabled me to finish this educational journey. Therefore, I would like to acknowledge
and appreciate their assistance, cooperation, and encouragement.

First, my heartfelt gratitude goes to my supervisor, Associate Professor Dr.
Juliana Othman, for being such an exceptional mentor. She always provided me
support, both academically and mentally. She not only helped me gain confidence in my
academic development, but she also guided me to become more professional and
scholarly.

Second, my wholeheartedly sincere gratitude and thanks go to my beloved wife
and my cute son for being always beside me. I appreciate their valuable support and
understanding throughout my study.

ii
SYNOPSIS

This study investigated the writing strategies of Iranian EFL learners with
different levels of writing ability in narrative and argumentative essays. Three good
writers and three poor writers were selected from 32 initial volunteers based on their
level of proficiency. Data were gathered from these participants in two writing tasks
through four different sources, namely think aloud protocols, stimulated recalls, post-
writing interviews, and their written products. The strategic behaviors of each individual
writer were initially derived from single case analyses. After that, cross case analyses
were performed across different writing tasks and different groups of writers.

The findings revealed that writing was a complicated recursive process of
meaning discovery. Both groups of writers used certain writing strategies in
combination to approach the different tasks, interact with the texts, generate new ideas,
and modify their texts. The degree of recursiveness was different between good writers
and poor writers. The two groups of writers were found to employ different writing
strategies in the way they interact with the emerging text, ability to see their text as a
whole, concentrating on meaning, and lowering cognitive load. Another difference
between the two groups of writers was that the poor writers followed almost the same
writing behaviors across two different writing tasks while the good writers appeared to
modify the way they composed different writing tasks.

iii
SINOPSIS
Keupayaan Menulis Dan Strategi Penulisan Pelajar Bahasa Inggeris
Sebagai Bahasa Asing Berkewarganegaraan Iran Dalam Dua Jenis Wacana

Kajian ini menyiasat strategi penulisan pelajar EFL Iran yang mempunyai tahap
keupayaan penulisan yang berbeza dalam karangan naratif dan karangan argumentatif.
Tiga penulis yang baik dan tiga penulis yang lemah telah dipilih daripada 32
sukarelawan awal berdasarkan tahap kecekapan mereka. Data dikumpulkan daripada
responden dalam dua tugasan bertulis melalui empat sumber yang berbeza iaitu melalui
protokol meluahkan fikiran, melalui imbasan berdasarkan stimulasi, temu bual selepas
penulisan, dan melalui hasil penulisan mereka. Tingkah laku strategik penulis setiap
individu pada mulanya diperolehi daripada analisis kes tunggal. Selepas itu, satu
analisis yang membandingkan satu kes dengan yang lain (cross case analysis) dibuat
berdasarkan tugasan penulisan yang berbeza dan kumpulan penulis yang berlainan.
Hasil kajian telah menunjukkan bahawa penulisan adalah satu proses berulang
yang rumit yang membawa kepada penemuan makna. Kedua-dua kumpulan penulis
menggunakan kombinasi strategi tertentu untuk melengkapkan tugas-tugas yang
berbeza, berinteraksi dengan teks-teks, menjana idea-idea baru, dan mengubah suai teks
mereka. Tahap perulangan penulisan adalah berbeza di antara penulis yang baik dan
penulis lemah. Kedua-dua kumpulan penulis telah didapati menggunakan strategi
penulisan yang berbeza dalam cara mereka berinteraksi dengan keupayaan teks yang
baru muncul, untuk melihat teks secara keseluruhan, dengan tumpuan kepada maksud,
dan mengurangkan beban kognitif. Satu lagi perbezaan yang didapati antara kedua-dua
kumpulan penulis adalah bahawa penulis yang lemah mempunyai gaya penulisan yang
sama merentasi kedua-dua tugasan bertulis yang berbeza manakala penulis-penulis yang
baik mengubah cara penulisan mereka mengikut tugasan.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

SYNOPSIS iii

SINOPSIS iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xi

LIST OF APPENDICES xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction 1
Process Approach to Writing 1
Composition, Cognitive Psychology, and Strategies 3
Writing Strategies, Writing Ability, and Writing Discourse Types 4
English Writing at the Tertiary Level in Iran 6
Problem Statement 8
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 14
Significance of the Study 15
Limitations of the Study 16
Operational Definitions 17

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 18
Introduction 18
Theoretical Framework 18
Criticism of Flower and Hayes‟ (1981) Model 20
Rationale for Using Flower and Hayes‟ Model 22
Operationalizing Theoretical Framework 26

v
Writing Strategies, Processes, And Sub Processes 28
Implication for Current Study 29

Three Main Components of Writing 30
Planning 30
Writing 32
Reviewing 34
Implication for Current Study 37

Composing Research 37
Studies on Composing Strategies 39
Implication for Current Study 45

Writing Ability 46
Implication for Current Study 51

Writing Strategies of Skilled and Less Skilled Writers 52
An Overview of the Major Findings 57
Implication for Current Study 62

Writing Discourse Types 62
Implication for Current Study 65

Studies on Writing Strategies with Different Writing Discourse Types 66

Conclusion 70

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 72
Introduction 72
Design of the Study 72
Research Site 74
The Participants 74
Sources of Data for Selecting the Participants 75

Judging the Participants‟ Writing Ability 77
The Researcher‟s Role 86
Sources of Data and Rationale for Employing Them 87
Writing Prompts 88
Think Aloud Protocols 8 9
Training of the Participants 8 9
Stimulated Recalls 90
Semi-Structure Interviews 9 1
Written Products 9 1

vi
Data Collection Procedures 9 2
Data Analysis 94
Interview and Stimulated Recall 95
Think Aloud Protocols 95
Transcribing/Translating the Recorded Think Aloud Protocols 96
Coding System 97
Segmenting the Transcribed Protocols 98
Coding the Segmented Protocols 98

Reliability of the Coding Scheme 100
Intra Rater Reliability 100
Inter Rater Reliability 102

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 105
Introduction 105
Research Question 1: What writing strategies do skilled and less skilled
Iranian EFL students employ throughout composing? 107
Skilled Writers‟ Writing Strategies in the Narrative Writing 107
Planning 107
Translating 112
Reviewing 120
Skilled Writers‟ Writing Strategies in the Argumentative Writing 123
Planning 123
Translating 126
Reviewing 131
Less Skilled Writers‟ Writing Strategies in the Narrative Writing 134
Planning 134
Translating 139
Reviewing 146
Less Skilled Writers‟ Writing Strategies in the Argumentative
Writing 149
Planning 149
Translating 153
Reviewing 156
Summary of the Findings on the First Research Question 158

Research Question 2: How do skilled and less skilled Iranian EFL writers
differ in their use of writing strategies? 159
Comparison of Good and Poor Writers in the Narrative Writing 16 0
Planning Before Writing 160
Planning While Writing 164
Translating 167
Reviewing 176
Comparison of Good and Poor Writers in the Argumentative
Writing 179
Planning Before Writing 179
Planning While Writing 181
vii
Translating 183
Reviewing 190
Summary of the Findings on the Second Research Question 194

Research Question 3: Do the Iranian EFL undergraduate learners‟ writing
strategies vary due to the discourse types? 195
Skilled Writers in the Narrative and Argumentative Task 195
Planning Before Writing 195
Interview Data on the Good Writers‟ Planning Before
Writing 201
Planning While Writing 204
Translating 206
Interview Data on the Good Writers‟ Translating 223
Reviewing 224
Interview Data on the Good Writers‟ Reviewing 232
Less Skilled Writers in Narrative and Argumentative Writing 234
Planning Before Writing 234
Interview Data on the Poor Writers‟ Planning Before
Writing 242
Planning While Writing 245
Translating 248
Interview Data on the Poor Writers‟ Translating 262
Reviewing 266
Interview Data on the Poor Writers‟ Reviewing 271
Summary of the Findings on the Third Research Question 273

Research Question 4: Do discourse types have a similar effect on the
strategic behavior of both skilled and less skilled Iranian EFL writers? 275
Planning Before Writing 276
Planning While Writing 276
Translating 282
Reviewing 297
Interview Data on the Differences Between Narrative and
Argumentative Discourses in the Writers‟ Viewpoints 301
Summary of the Findings on the Fourth Research Question 305

CHAPTER 5:DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 308
Introduction 308

Research Question 1: What writing strategies do skilled and less skilled
Iranian EFL undergraduate learners employ throughout composing? 308

Research Question 2: How do skilled and less skilled Iranian EFL
undergraduate writers differ in their use of writing strategies? 312

Research Question 3: Do the Iranian EFL undergraduate learners‟
writing strategies vary due to the discourse types? 314

Research Question 4: Do discourse types have a similar effect on the
strategic behavior of both skilled and less skilled Iranian EFL 315
viii
undergraduate writers?

Practical and Theoretical Conclusions 317
Implications of the Study 320
Implications for EFL Composition Teaching 320
Implications for Methodology in Writing Studies 325

Suggestions for Future Research 327

REFERENCES 347

ix
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Grouping Participants According to Their Writing 79
Performance

Table 3.2 Differences in the Means of Reported Strategy Use 81
Table 3.3 Grouping Participants According to the Strategy Use 81
Table 3.4 Participants‟ Scores on their Previous Writing Courses 82
Table 3.5 Summary of the Participants‟ Profile 83
Table 3.6 An Overview of the Data Collection Procedure 93
Table 3.7 An Overview of Categories of Major and Minor Writing 98
Strategies

Table 3.8 Percentage Agreement of the Subcategories in Protocol A 101
Table 3.9 Percentage Agreement of the Subcategories in Protocol B 101
Table 3.10 Percentage Agreement of the Main Categories in Protocol A 102
Table 3.11 Percentage Agreement of the Main Categories in Protocol B 102
Table 3.12 Percentage Agreement of the Main Categories in Protocol One 103
Table 3.13 P e rcentage Agreement of the Main Categories in Protocol Two 103
Table 3.14 P e rcentage Agreement of the Subcategories in Protocol One 103
Table 3.15 P e rcentage Agreement of the Subcategories in Protocol Two 103
Table 3.16 T h e Overall Average Intra Rater Reliability for the Main 104
Categories and Subcategories

Table 3.17 The Overall Average Inter Rater Reliability for the Main 104
Categories and Subcategories

Table 4.1 Presentation of Results in Chapter 4 106

x