Clute I nstitute I nternational Conference March 2012 Bangkok, Thailand

181
The Writing Journey Of English Second
Language (ESL) Students With Various
Levels Of English Language Proficiency
Abdul Rashid Mohamed, University of Science Malaysia, Malaysia
Norizul Azida Darus, MARA University of Technology (UiTM), Perlis Campus, Malaysia


ABSTRACT

Being a second language teacher is not an easy task since the students are not proficient enough
in the second language; what more in writing. One of the more tedious aspects of teaching is to
provide adequate instructions to students especially when it comes to writing in English. Most
students are confused in the use and usage of tenses forms even when they have been learning
English for over 11 years in primary and secondary schools. As such this study tried to provide
descriptive data regarding the writing of 10 undergraduates of Diploma in Business Studies,
Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Perlis, who in their written work have different levels of
proficiency in English Language. Besides that, these subjects also come from different family
backgrounds. Their usage of English Language was looked into to determine their acquisitions
and abilities in writing. It was also designed to explore the changes the subjects undergo after
having to write a number of topics given to them. In addition, their writing abilities in using the
tenses were also compared as part of multi-case analysis, to see consistencies and inconsistencies
among them besides seeing the quality of the products. Both qualitative and quantitative
approaches were used to analyze the data collection for the duration of four academic semesters
that is for two years. Qualitative approach was used to measure the subjects insights based on
interviews, observations and think aloud protocols. The subjects were observed and interviewed to
get clearer picture of the problems they encounter in ESL writing. They were asked to write
journals during the time frame in order to know their experience while undergoing the process
and furthermore to see the journey they went through in their quest of writing. Quantitative
approach on the other hand was employed to see correlation and number of errors committed by
the subjects in their writing if there is any. The quantitative approach was used to measure the
percentage of improvement and progress the subjects had undergone. The non-progressing
subjects were also identified from here if there was any. The research results found that most
subjects are still not progressing excellently . Nevertheless, there are still subjects who are also
able to show good improvement. It could not be denied that the subjects; background also play a
significant role in determining their abilities. Hence, the insights generated by the descriptions of
findings and analysis of the data collected for this study can be used for a variety of purposes; to
better understand writers of second language learners, to enhance the existing teaching and
learning process of the English Language particularly in the teaching and learning of writing and
also to upgrade the standard of English Language writing not only among second language
learners but also the educators as well.


INTRODUCTION

In modern day living, learning to write is vital in any language and this is especially true for the English
Language since it is the lingua franca for global communication. In this era of rapid technological innovations, the
ability to write is undeniably essential to ones career and personal development. This is especially pertinent in
fields of research, academic advancement, business relations and management. This fact has been reinforced by
Janet Emig (in Walvoord, 2003) who stressed that writing is uniquely effective tool for learning because the two are
Clute I nstitute I nternational Conference March 2012 Bangkok, Thailand
182
strikingly parallel: learning is multifaceted, as is writing. Thus, learning benefits from self-provided feedback as
attained through writing (Walvoord, 2003).

Writing is also an important skill whereby learners are able to progress independently to a higher level of
intellectual maturity, especially in the case of language learning. Writing assignments can be structured accordingly
to aid learners to develop and practice the skills on the final rung of Piagets ladder of intellectual development
which encompasses the skills of abstracting, synthesizing and forming coherent, logical relations. As such, the
significance of writing should be given due emphasis. However, although writing is an important skill, research
indicates that writing is not a natural activity. Academicians argue that learning to write fluently and expressively
are the most difficult of the macro skills for all language users regardless of whether the language in question is a
first, second or foreign language. White (1982: 2 in Nunan, 1989: 36) highlights:

Writing is not a natural activityWriting unlike speech is displaced in time
and so all people have to be taught how to write.

The teaching of writing was primarily product-oriented in that teachers placed heavy emphasis on the
accuracy of students compositions and highlighted all grammatical errors students made on their final product.
However, the views of the nature of writing began to change in the last two decades. Some researchers of writing for
native speakers of English (Emig, 1971; Graves, 1975; Perl, 1978,1979; Pianko,1979) began to explore the
processes involved in the criterion of a written text. They discovered that writing was not a linear, but a complex,
recursive and creative process. They also discovered specific differences in the writing processes of expert and
non-expert writers. As writing teachers became dissatisfied with traditional approaches to teaching of writing,
which were mainly product-oriented, these findings suggested a different direction. Instead of concentrating on the
writings that students produced and making critical comments about them, teachers could aim to help students write
better by helping them in the actual process of writing and by identifying the sources of problems involved in
creating good written texts and by enabling them to overcome these difficulties.

Thus, a process-approach to teaching writing began to emerge (Hairston, 1982; Raimes, 1983). The key
factor here was that teaching focused on the writing process rather than on the final product. This approach was in
the first instance a teaching approach, not a teaching method; the pedagogical methods and means whereby a teacher
was to help students adopt more successful processes were not laid down or even clearly implied by most of those
who did empirical research on writing processes (Caudery, 1995). The resulting recognition that different learners
actually had different requirements with respect to language skills meant that new attention was given to the
teaching of writing. In this context, the process approach arrived at a very opportune moment. The problem was not
so much that traditional methods of teaching writing had proved inadequate as that there had previously existed no
coherent theory-based approaches at all for teaching writing in a second language (Caudery, 1995; Silva,1990).
Therefore, slowly at first but with gathering momentum, the process approach to teaching writing has been widely
adopted in the second language classroom.

THE PROBLEM

To most second language learning students, learning English is not an easy task even though the students
have gone through the primary and secondary school systems and found to be good enough to pursue their diploma
programme. Ironically, they are going through their programme in English. They had learnt English as a second
language in both primary and secondary schools; yet, they are still facing difficulties in their writing in English. As
such, their main problem is with regards to writing in English. Probably, out of the four skills (reading, listening,
speaking and writing), writing has often been regarded as the most difficult and tedious skill to learn. Writing causes
problems to a student in terms of psychology, linguistic and cognitive. Psychologically, a student may find it hard to
write since the actual writing involves the student alone (Bryne, 1988). The students may have the content
knowledge but at the same time they have to think of the mechanics of writing. In this case, the student has to be
able to convey his or her ideas on paper logically and practically. The task is even more difficult as the student will
not have the chance to receive immediate feedback from the reader. As a result, the student will have to be very
careful in writing down his ideas so as to avoid any misunderstanding. Moreover, linguistically, writing is difficult
because it requires the student to construct grammatically correct sentences and to form the organization of the
Clute I nstitute I nternational Conference March 2012 Bangkok, Thailand
183
points accordingly. In the cognitive aspect, the student has to use his initiative and intelligence in putting words
together to make the written product visible and meaningful to the audience (Bryne, 1988).

Although we can see the final product of the students writing, which consist mostly the content knowledge
and mechanics of writing, we are unable to delve into their process of writing or how they have gone through the
writing process of a piece of writing (essay question) given to them. Therefore, we have to look into what actually
happen with the students from the moment they were given a topic until they manage to produce a piece of writing.
I believe that by investigating and identifying this, necessary remedial steps can be taken to improve teaching-
learning activities to cater students needs with the aim of improving their writing performance.

RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

Students who enrolled in Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) have to learn most of the academic courses
in English since English is made compulsory as a medium of instruction in UiTM. Most teaching and learning
processes are in English. Besides that, learning and passing English papers (BEL codes) is made compulsory for
each student in order to graduate. Why is UiTM making their students learn and write in English? The objective of
doing so is very clear; to assure that the students, once graduated manage to secure jobs easily with their fluency in
English since English is the international language and the second language in Malaysia. If the students are fluent,
they are marketable. However, if the objectives are not properly implemented, these objectives may not be fulfilled.

To this, many undergraduates find doing their written assignments in English is an arduous task. The
students may have the knowledge and able to write out the main points of the essay in their respective mother
tongue but have great difficulty expanding those main points in prose form, as it requires grammatical competence,
which they lack severely. Most of the undergraduates have low language proficiency levels, thus they are weak in
their command of vocabulary and sentence structures. Their lack of grammatical competence includes their inability
to use appropriate tenses, verb form, prepositions and articles in their written work. Furthermore, they also have
difficulty in ordering and sequencing of words in a sentence, and often choose the wrong words to express their
meaning. All these affect their writing ability and the written product. As such, it is essential that we understand the
process the students go through in the process of getting ideas, that is in second language that is English. The
insights generated by the description and analysis of the data collected for this study can be used for a variety of
purposes; to better understand writers of second language learners, to help ESL curriculum and instructional
practice, and to provide useful insights for educational policy-making.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Writing is one of the productive skills in language learning besides reading and other two receptive skills
that are listening and speaking. All the four skills are required in order to become competent in the language.
However, in certain situations, the emphasis might differ and depend entirely on an individuals needs and
preferences.

In the Malaysian context, undergraduates in the local universities still seem to have difficulty in expressing
themselves well in writing in the target language. This is because these students do not have a strong foundation in
the rudiments of basic grammar and therefore are unable to put down their ideas or points effectively in written
form. In most situations, the lack of grammatical competence and written practice causes most students to be
anxious, self-conscious and uncomfortable, automatically making writing a dreaded task. Writing is undoubtedly the
central issue in second language learning. Raimes (1983) says:

First, writing reinforces the grammatical structures, idioms and vocabulary we
have been teaching our students. Second, when our students write, they also
have a chance to be adventurous with the language, to go beyond what they
have learned and to take risk. Third, when they write, they necessarily become
very involved with the new language.

Clute I nstitute I nternational Conference March 2012 Bangkok, Thailand
184
Therefore, writing requires students to use the other three skills in tandem and thus becomes the testing
ground for all the linguistic skills learnt by the learners. Chitravelu et.al (1995) referred to writing as a system for
interpersonal communication using visible signs or graphic symbols. Thus, using written form to convey meaning
or ideas to another person. Phenix (1990) on the other hand, defined writing as,

a process of selecting, organizing and developing ideas, expressing them in
effective language, arranging them in logical sequence and presenting them in
neat, standard forms of handwriting and spelling.

It has been established that the fundamental function of writing is for communication in prose form.
Writing is more demanding and needs formal instruction unlike speaking, which can be acquired naturally.
Furthermore, a clear distinction needs to be made regarding the fact that being able to speak English adequately does
not necessarily mean being able to write well. Thus, good acquisition of one skill does not automatically guarantee
good performance in other skills. As highlighted by Raimes (1983:4), learning to write is not just a natural
extension of learning to speak a language. Raimes also postulated that although learners can acquire their first
language at home with minimal systematic instruction, they still need formal instruction on how to write in the same
language. It is also common to find that many adult native speakers of a language find writing difficult.

E.B. White, an American essayist, who is known for his great work, confessed, Writingis a hell of a
chore for me, closely related to acid indigestion (Nadell, et.al. 1994). If the task of writing was so traumatic for a
prolific writer like White, what more the students; the apprehension and fear they experience when required to
produce a piece of written work. Basically, most of the anxiety and distress stems from students lack of form
(grammar and sentence structure), which subsequently hinders their content (meaning and ideas). Thus, the
combination of students grammatical incompetence and the pressure to excel during written examinations, adds to
their apprehension, which results in their inability or reluctance to write. Nonetheless, though writing is a difficult
skill to acquire and master, it has significant qualities, which aid in daily communication.

Martin-Betancourt (1986) also considered the use of a first language in second language writing processes.
Martin-Betancourt indicated that her subjects writing processes involved solving linguistic problems, and that the
use of first language in second language writing added to the problems, especially in terms of vocabulary.
Concerning first language use in second language writing, Martin-Betancourt found inconsistencies among her
subjects in that some relied on Spanish very infrequently while others used Spanish frequently, sometimes even
incorporating translation into their second language writing processes.

The overall review of second language writing research suggests that first, there are similarities as well as
differences in the first language and second language writing processes (Arndt, 1987; Raimes, 1985,1987;
Zamel,1982,1983). Second, regarding the factors affecting second language writing. It was found that first language
use plays a role in second language writing, in addition to linguistics competence (Campbell, 1993; Chelala, 1981;
Cumming, 1987; Friedlander, 1990, Johnson, 1985, Lay 1982; Schiller, 1989).Third, the paradigm shift in second
language writing instruction has led to the process approach, and this approach has proved to be effective in teaching
writing to second language learners, but there has been some resistance to the implementation of the approach in
Asian settings (Brock,1994; Diaz, 1985,1986, Urzua, 1987; Pennington et.al, 19960. Fourth, empirical research on
feedback could not provide conclusive evidence on which feedback techniques worked effectively for ESL students.
However, most studies in the field of second language writing research seem to lack a description of how learners
from different backgrounds in the writing classroom act and respond to this approach. What is missing in some
second language studies reviewed in this chapter is the whole picture including the participants background
experience in second language writing, how they experience process-oriented class activities such as peer feedback
and group work, how they perceive the growth of their writing skills, how their writing is changed over a period of
time, what plays positive or negative roles in a process-oriented writing class with learners from different language
backgrounds. To fill this gap, this study seeks to explore how ESL students from different backgrounds respond to
the journey of writing in an ESL classroom setting.



Clute I nstitute I nternational Conference March 2012 Bangkok, Thailand
185
METHODOLOGY

The study requires qualitative data because it explored the practices, reflections and recommendations of
the participants regarding their experiences with the process- writing in an ESL setting. In order to accomplish these
goals, a descriptive case study method was utilized to explore the phenomena in question. According to Robson
(1993:290),

with a single method, some unknown part or aspect of the results obtained
is attributable to the method used in obtaining the result. Because we can never
obtain results for which some methods have not been used to collect them, the
only feasible strategy is to use a variety of methods.

An English proficiency assessment and writing samples, one in L2 and one in respondents L1, provided
baseline data. Think-aloud and interviews were used to provide insight into writing processes in L1. As the
respondents were writing, I observed both the writer and the computer screen and took field notes regarding their
behaviour. For example, hesitation and pauses, or modifications made in the text were noted. These field notes
complement the data gathered on the think-aloud audiotapes and were examined using the codes established for the
think-aloud transcripts and writing samples.

The transcribed audiotapes from the think-aloud and interviews with the respondents provided information
regarding the respondents writing in L1 and L2. The following overarching codes were used in the analysis of the
transcripts and writing samples: a) writing process; planning, drafting, revising and editing b) attention to text
structure c) attention to audience d) L2 limitations e) formal instruction. Instances of these behaviours were
compared and counted within and across cases. Analyses were made of processes in L1 and L2. Writing processes
were also compared across respondents, in a multi-case analysis.

As such, the advantage of using multiple methods is it permits triangulation. Triangulation is the use of
multiple sources of data, settings and methods of data gathering to support emerging themes and to explain the
research findings. Techniques of triangulation and respondent validation were carried out so as to ensure credibility
of the researchers findings (Bryman, 2001).

FINDINGS

The data obtained from think-aloud protocols, observations, interviews and journal writings were
transcribed and analyzed. It was seen that the respondents writing were improved with regards to content,
organization and mechanics. The respondents also acquired revision strategies and improved their writing skills
through multiple revision process. Common features of the respondents drafts were their lack of detail and their
broad and general descriptions. However, it expanded gradually to include more supporting details. They said that
they learned writing which is messy, non-systematic and recursive process that is accompanied by an extensive
revision process.

Several respondents explained they strove for accuracy when writing in L2 and sometimes would make
word changes in hopes of avoiding grammar and spelling errors. Such writers believed that grammar was one of the
most important factors teachers consider when grading students writing (Porte, 1997). Studies have suggested that
second language students may perceive themselves as incapable to modifying their own writing; these writers are
afraid to reread their texts as they are unsure what to do if they discover errors (Raimes,1987; Uzuwa, 1996).

The use of simple multiple sources provided a richness of both product-related data not found in most
previous studies. Think aloud protocols suggested that some subjects either did not feel comfortable thinking aloud
or did not understand what was expected of them. However, interviews provided information not revealed during
drafting regarding attitudes and experiences with writing. Observations were used to confirm what subjects reported
about themselves. Participants statements were sometimes contradicted by their actions. Finally, the study would
have been made stronger had it incorporated follow-up interviews; this data source could have been used to explore
incongruence revealed as the data were examined.
Clute I nstitute I nternational Conference March 2012 Bangkok, Thailand
186
Finally, the results of this study suggest that many more studies must be done before a comprehensive
description of second language writing can be reached. However, by taking using multiple data sources to data
gathering, this study offers a glimpse into the complexity of the L2 writing process. By revealing the variations texts
and processes found across languages and across participants, the results serve as reminder of the diversity of
knowledge and experience writers bring to threat writing.

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

ABDUL RASHID MOHAMED is a Professor and Dean of School of Educational Studies from University of
Science Malaysia. He is also the Chairperson for Malaysian Deans Council in Education. He contributes a lot in
articles published in newspapers and journals. He has presented in national and international conferences as well as
being invited as keynote speaker in many international conferences. His interests among his enormous experience
include teaching English as a second language, life-long learning, qualitative research and educational management.

NORIZUL AZIDA DARUS is a senior lecturer attached to University Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Perlis. She has
vast experiences in teaching English Language in secondary schools and tertiary levels.

Her fields of interests are TESL, Second Language Writing, Second Language Acquisition and error analysis. She
can be contacted at norizulazida@perlis.uitm.edu.my

REFERENCES

1. Caudery,T. (1995). What the process approach means to practicing teachers of Second Language Writing
Skill. TESL-EJ (4), 1- 16.
2. Emig, J. (1971). The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Urbana, 11: National Council Of Teachers
of English.
3. Graves, D. (1975). An Examination of the Writing Process of Seven-Year-Old Children. Research in the
Teaching of English, 9 (3), 228- 231.
4. Hairston, M. (1982). The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching Writing.
College Composition and Communication, 33 (1), 76- 88.
5. Merriam, S. (1988). Case Study Research in Education. A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco: Josey-
Bass Publishers.
6. Pianko, S. (1975). A Description of the Composing Process of College Frenchman Writers. Research in the
Teaching of English, 13, 5- 22.
7. Perl, S. (1978). Five Writers Writing: Case Studies of the Composing Processes of Unskilled College
Writers. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University.
8. Perl, S. (1979). The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers. Research in the Teaching of
English, 13, 317- 336.
9. Porte, G. (1997). The Etiology of Poor Second Language Writing: The Influence of Perceived Teacher
Preferences on Second Language Revision Strategies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, (1), 61- 78.
10. Silva, T. (1990). Second Language Composition Instruction: Developments, Issues and Directions in ESL.
In Kroll (Ed), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp 11- 23). Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press.
11. Raimes, A. (1983). Tradition and Revolution in ESL Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 535- 552.
12. Rohman, D.G., & Wlecke, A.O. (1964). Pre-Writing: Construction and Application of Models for Concept
Formation. Cooperative Research Project No. 2174. Michigan State University. (Eric Reproduction Service
NO. ED 001273
13. Rohman, D.G. (1965). Pre-Writing: The Stage of Discovering in the Writing Process. College Composition
& Communication, 16, 106- 112.
14. Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The Process of Discovering Meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16. 159- 209.
15. Zamel V. (1983). The Composing Processes of Advanced ESL Students: Six Case Studies. TESOL
Quarterly, 17 (2), 165- 187.