shah abdul latif university, khairpur sindh, pakistan

155 Pages·2011·0.93 MB·English

by  Talabdar Mangi

I
ISSN.1026-7026

E L F
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERARY FORUM
ANNUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
Vol. No.11 Refereed Journal 2009

Department of English

Faculty of Social Sciences and Arts

SHAH ABDUL LATIF UNIVERSITY, KHAIRPUR
SINDH, PAKISTAN
II
ISSN.1026-7026
E L F
English Language & Literary Forum
ANNUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
Department of English

Shah Abdul Latif University Khairpur
Sindh Pakistan

Vol. No.11 Refereed Journal 2009

EDITORIAL BOARD
Prof. Dr. Ziauddin Khand Editor-in-Chief
Dr. Ghulam Mustafa Mashori Member
Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah Member
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Dr. Zafar Iqbal Member
Dr. Muhammad Shahbaz Arif Member
Dr. K.M Lark Member
Dr. G. M. Hall (UK) Member
Dr. J.L. Milton (UK) Member
Dr. Estela Ene (USA) Member
Dr. Kaplan M. Lindsay (USA) Member
Dr. Xiaoming Li (USA) Member
Dr. Paul Tench (UK) Member
III
NOTES ON EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
• Prof. Dr. Ziauddin Khand Editor-in-Chief
Chairman
Department of English, Shah Abdul Latif University,
Khairpur Pakistan
• Dr. Ghulam Mustafa Mashori Member
Associate Professor
Deepartment of English Shah Abdul Latif University,
Khairpur Paksitan
• Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah Member
Assistant Professor
Department of English Shah Abdul Latif University,
Khairpur Pakistan
• Dr. Zafar Iqbal Member
Chairman, Department of English,
University of Management & Technology Lahore, Pakistan
• Dr. Muhammad Shahbaz Arif Member
Professor and Head
School of Social Sciences & Humanities University of
Management Sciences and Technology Lahore Pakistan
• Dr. K.M Lark Member
Department of Business Administration,
Iqra University, Defense View Karachi
• Dr. G. M. Hall (UK) Member
School of Applied Linguistics
University Wales Swansea
• Dr. J.L. Milton (UK) Member
Head of School of Applied Linguistics
University Wales Swansea
• Dr. Estela Ene (USA) Member
School of Second Language Acquisition & Teaching
University of Arizona
• Dr. Xiaoming Li (USA) Member
Associate Professor of English
Long Island University, Brooklyn Campus New York
• Dr. Kaplan M. Lindsay (USA) Member
School of English, George Town University,
Washtion D.C
• Dr. Paul Tench (UK) Member
Senior Lecturer, School of English
Cardiff University, Wales (U.K)
IV
GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS
This research journal is published once a year. Articles submitted to the journal
should be original contribution, and should not be under consideration for any other
publication at the same time. If an article is under such consideration, authors should
clearly indicate this at the time of submission.
Authors are entitled to 10 free off prints and a copy of the issue in which their
articles appear. Copyrights in articles rest with the publisher. Articles should be typed on
an IMB compatible word processor (Preferably MS Word 2000, Adobe Page Maker 7) if at
all possible, and the floppy should accompany the typescript at acceptance stage.
Floppies should be labeled with the title of the articles, the author’s name, and the
software used.
Articles should be submitted in duplicate, double spaced throughout (including
notes), with sample margins. Pages, including those containing illustration, diagrams or
tables, should be numbered consecutively. The articles should conform to the journal style
outlined below. Any figures and tables must be clearly produced ready for photographic
reproduction. The source should be given below the table. Each manuscript should be
abstract of the whole article, not of the conclusion alone.
Length
Articles of around 3500 words in length are preferred. It is not possible for us to
accept articles over 4000 word long. Please give a word count at the end of your article.
Word counts should include tables and appendices, but may exclude the abstract and the
list of references.
Title and Abstract
Please give your articles a brief, clear, and informative title Titles should
preferably by a maximum of 50 characters long, with an absolute maximum of 70,
including spaces. Begin your article with an abstract of no more than 150 words
summarizing your main points.
Headings and subheadings
Headings and subheading should be on a separate line, ranged left. Underlined
main headings, but do not underline subheadings. Do not use a numbering or lettering
system for headings. Do not try to format your submission in the style of a published article.
The Journal of ELF Annual Research Journal is published annually by the
Department of English. All correspondence should be addressed to the Editor-In-Chief
ELF, Annual Research Journal, Faculty of Social Science & Arts, Shah Abdul Latif
University, Khairpur Sindh Pakistan.
E-mail: [email protected]
ISSN 1026-7026
Subscriptions:
Pakistan: Annual Rs.100
Foreign: Annual US $ 10
Copy right@ 2009: Reserved with the ELF Annual Research Journal
Publisher: Department of English, Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur
Printed by: Popat Press, Mall Road Khairpur Mir’s
Designed by: Hubdar Ali Mangi
Composed by: Muhammad Younis Phulpoto, Computer Operator, SALU, Khairpur
V
ISSN.1026-7026
E L F
English Language & Literary Forum
ANNUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
Department of English

Shah Abdul Latif University Khairpur
Sindh Pakistan

Vol. No.11 Refereed Journal 2009

CONTENTS
1. English Writing Instruction at Undergraduate Level at Public Sector
University: An Analysis of Teachers’ Perceptions about Current
Practices and changing Paradigms...............................................................01
Dr. Ghulam Mustafa Mashori
2. Development in Sindhi Lexicography: a Descriptive Survey of
Bilingual English-Sindhi Dictionary after 1947...............................................21
Syed Zulfiquar Ali Shah and Prof. Dr. Ziauddin Khand
3. Bias in Grading: A truth that every one know but no body talks about..........51
Naushaba Haq and Dr. Mamuna Ghani
4. Dominance of English Language and Transition towards Native
Languages to exploit computer and IT Tools.................................................91
Ghulam Ali Mallah, Noor Ahmed Shaikh
5. An analysis of writing skills in Pakistani Academic and Occupational
Legal settings...............................................................................................105
Dr. Naveed Ahmed Chaudry and Prof. Dr. Ziauddin Khand
6. Use of Strategic Competence in L2 (English) oral Communication: A
Pakistani Perspective...................................................................................131
Malik Muhammad Tariq Hassan and Dr. Zafar Iqbal
7. A Corpus Based Study of Urdu English Lexicography................................153
Abrar Hussain Qureshi and Prof. Dr. Iqbal
VI
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
01. Abrar Hussain Qureshi
Ph.D Candidate,
Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan Pakistan
02. Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah
Assistant Professor, Department of English,
Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur
03. Prof. Dr. Zafar Iqbal
Chairman, Department of English,
University of Management & Technology Lahore, Pakistan
04. Dr. Naveed Ahmed Chaudry
Assistant Professor, Department of English,
Bahauddin Zakriya University, Multan Pakistan
05. Prof. Dr. Ziauddin Khand
Chairman & Professor, Department of English,
Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur
06. Naushaba Haq
Research Scholar,
Islamia University, Bahawalpur
07. Prof. Dr. Mamuna Ghani
Chairperson, Department of English,
Islamia University Bahawalpur
08. Prof. Dr. Ghulam Ali Mallah
Professor, Department of Computer Science,
Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur
09. Prof. Dr. Noor Ahmed Shaikh
Chairman, Department of Computer Science,
Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur
10. Malik Muhammad Tarique Hassan
Lecturer, Govt College Muzaffargarah
11. Dr. Ghulam Mustafa Mashori
Associate Professor, Department of English,
Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur
English Writing Instruction at Undergraduate Level at a
Public Sector University: An Analysis of Teachers’
Perceptions about Current Practices and Changing
Paradigms
Dr. Ghulam Mustafa Mashori•
ABSTRACT: The importance of English Language teaching in
Pakistan is being increasingly recognized. Apart from the fact that
there is a great dearth of research in ELT in Pakistan and that there
are no studies existing in Pakistan about the use of a process based
method of teaching writing at undergraduate level, one importance of
this particular study lies in the fact that without improving in
accordance with pedagogical trends, the writing efficiency of the
students can not be developed. This paper therefore, reports the results
analysis and interpretation of the responses given by the teachers of
writing English at undergraduate level in Shah Abdul Latif University,
Khairpur. Based on perception data, the paper is an attempt to look
into the classroom practice of teachers, their views about students’
efficiency in written English, and their opinions about introducing a
change and bringing a paradigm shift from traditional teaching of
writing to process based teaching of writing .The paper concludes that
there is great need to shift from traditional grammar based teaching to
a new method which can help the students improve their writing skills.
Key Terms: Writing, Instruction, Accuracy, Fluency, Process method
INTRODUCTION
The place of writing English in all the syllabi prepared so for is very important.
Enough content and time are spared to teach reading and writing. Despite this, the state of
written efficiency of university students in Pakistan, in general, is very bad, especially of
the institutions located `at the rural areas. Though this is the most difficult of all the four
skills yet good efficiency in written English is an essential criterion for eligibility to good
employment opportunities.
The students are therefore, expected to master this skill before they pass out
their final degree at an academic institution. But due to a lack of awareness of the modern
teaching techniques, teachers always focus on the structural and grammatical aspect of

• Associate Professor, Department of English, Shah Abdul Latif University Khairpur
2 Annual Research Journal ELF 2009 Vol.11
writing rather then its compositional or functional aspects. Teachers teach sentences as
active voice, passive voice, direct and indirect speech, degrees of comparison and
sentence transformation. This, they suppose, will help them improve their writing
efficiency. The current course is based on reading and writing, and the students are
explained some models of essays and mostly the teachers allocate number of titles/topics
1-10 out of which students have to be tested in the final examination. Thus the final
examination tests three out of ten topics and all the students need, is to write their
crammed essays, if they are so lucky. This is a very common practice at the universities
of rural areas; however, the universities at the main cities offer courses which focus on
English composition and writing is taught in a more organized way. This organized
teaching of writing succeeds in developing the efficiency of urban students. Thus when
there is a writing competition (a sort of examination) the students of rural areas fail to
qualify simply because their compositional skills were not developed, (FPSC report
2001). Realizing the training needs of our teachers, the current minister of education
Khurhro (2005) observes that “the main problem in our education system is lack of
direction and well defined objectives. We need to ensure that education we give is
relevant to our times and of good quality. Lack of training, she argues is also responsible
for the poor English language skills of our students” (Daily Dawn, 13 February, 2005).
This article therefore explores the perception of the teachers of English Language
Teaching at Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur, with a view to introducing a change
in the department. After review of literature, the paper analysis the perception data
collected by the questionnaire as part of study conducted by Mashori ( 2007). The paper
aims to answer the following main research question.
The main research question:
What are the teacher’s views about the teaching of writing?
METHODOLOGY
Ten teachers of the department of English took part in this study. The designing
of the teachers’ questionnaire was a crucial job. While designing this questionnaire, many
things were kept in mind such as teachers’ temperament; their knowledge and their
honestly responding to questions that directly expose their classroom practices. Before
constructing the questionnaire, several informal discussions were held with teachers
about the standard of writing English in Pakistani universities in general and universities
of rural areas like Shah Abdul Latif University in particular. This was intended to
motivate the teachers to discuss an issue, which they were a part of and experiencing for
many years. This was necessary because all the teachers said that they had never been
asked to fill in a questionnaire and therefore they were quite inexperienced to such a kind
of inquiry; so all the 10 (Ten) teachers were personally motivated to cooperate in this
study in which we were trying to see how a new teaching methodology can help us
improve students written efficiency. Moreover, identifying the problems from the
teachers’ point of view would help realize the need and the suitability of a new
methodology which can indirectly or directly minimize these problems. This is
English Writing Instruction at Undergraduate Level at a Public Sector University: An Analysis of Teachers’ 3
Perceptions about Current Practices and Changing Paradigms
noteworthy here that conducting a piece of research in a non research oriented
environment (rural areas in Pakistan) has its own beauty and excitement but all this is
very painful too, simply because one is doing a thing which has never been done before
in that context at least.
This questionnaire after pilot testing was amended on several occasions. The
final form of the questionnaire as appears at appendix- (A) consisted of four parts and 23
items. Part one deals with the background information part two focuses on teacher’s
current teaching practices or methodology, part three deals with teacher’s opinions about
students’ efficiency in written English and part IV reflects upon teacher’s perception
about a new methodology. The total number of items (questions) in the questionnaire was
23 with 19 sub items. Most of the questions in this questionnaire were close ended except
one open ended question, which was included in the end in part II and part III sections.
This was done with a view to give freedom to teachers to write what ever they feel
relevant to that section. The questionnaire begins with background information in part-I
which is fill in the blanks and in part II, there are multiple choices given to each question
till item number 5 in which the teachers are asked to rank the importance of knowing the
teaching methods. From item No. 6 to item No.19, a likert scale containing four ranks 1
to 4 was used. Items from 7 to17 dealt with what actually teachers do when teaching
writing, in a sense they were required to reflect upon their classroom practice. Item
number 18 was open ended where teachers were asked to add any thing else they do in
class. One for strongly disagree to four for strongly agree. There was no fifth scale like
“do not know” it was deliberately left out so that teachers might be urged to rank their
opinions.
In part III and IV, most of the questions were also based on a four point likert
scale, except a few questions on multiple choice patterns in part III. The last part ended
with an open ended question which was set to get a more qualitative view of teachers
regarding their teaching, students’ efficiency, and proposed methodology. All the
teachers very candidly received the questionnaire but they filled it at their respective
homes for two reasons, first, because they did not have enough time on campus due to a
heavy workload of assessment and teaching, second they wanted to give themselves
enough time to study the questions and think about the answers. Unlike the student
questionnaire, for this no official permission was obtained as it was not necessary. But in
personal meetings with these teachers they were motivated to be a part of this study. All
the 10 teachers were teaching the same course at the same level in the University.
Administration procedure: As mentioned earlier the teachers of English were motivated
in advance to cooperate in questionnaire administration process. All the teachers very
candidly received the questionnaire but they filled it at their respective homes for two
reasons, first, because they did not have enough time on campus due to heavy workload
of assessment and teaching, second they wanted to give themselves enough time to study
4 Annual Research Journal ELF 2009 Vol.11
the questions and think about the answers. After a few days my colleagues brought the
duly filled in questionnaire.
Analysis procedure: This data was also analyzed by using simple statistical percentages
and their frequency. The procedure was almost the same as in the analysis of the student
questionnaires. The responses (1+2) which means strongly disagree and disagree were
combined under one column of disagreement and column (3+4) agree and strongly agree
were combined under the title of agreement. Some items responses for the question were
combined as (a) + (b) and (c) + (d). Item # 19 the responses were merged in the three
categories (a) (b) and (c) Poor, fair and good respectively. Seven sub items of question #
22 were also merged as (1) for not at all effective, with (2) for slightly effective, and (3)
fairly effective with (4) very effective.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Zamel (1976) is frequently praised (or blamed) for introducing process writing
to the ESL field. Zamel made the first major call for the application of L1 composition
research to ESL composition and argued that “the primary emphasis of writing
instruction should be upon the expressive and creative process of writing” (p. 74),
criticizing the prevailing conception that “writing entails grammatical proficiency” (p.
69). On the other hand, she did not mention specifically any process writing tenets. In the
1990s, the works of Swales, Johns, and Connor (1994), Grabe & Kaplan (1996; and
Johns 1997) have been influential in generating theoretical perspectives on the nature of
writing and writing instructor. In addition, a number of research studies carried out in L2
contexts have provided us with a better understanding of L2 writing development and
writing constraints (Belcher & Braine, 1995; Carrell & Connor, 1991; Silva, 1993; Silva,
Leki, & Carson, 1997).
Interestingly and certainly there seems no theoretical conflict between process
pedagogies, based on the principles of awareness and intervention, and applied through
invention activities, peer review, and so on, and instruction in grammatical and rhetorical
forms. The problem here, as observed by Susser (1994), is how to offer a consistent
pedagogy that will not send mixed signals to learners. Our dilemma he argues, as
language teachers, is not different in kind from that of L1 writing teachers who also have
to deal with their students' grammar problems and unfamiliarity with academic discourse.
McQuade (1992) has offered an interesting recommendation in this respect that may
resolve this dilemma; he suggests that composition teachers respond to student writing as
they do to literature because “literary study is informed by an enormously important
assumption: no one does it wrong” (p. 516). Without denying that “some writers are more
accomplished than others,” he suggests that in literature “right and wrong are not as
important as the sustained ability of a writer's performance with language” (p. 516). This
attitude seems to have helped later in providing consistent, comprehensive process
pedagogy for ESL/EFL writing instruction. The works of White (1991), Williams J.