ANALYSING EFL STUDENTS’ARGUMENTATIVE
WRITING DIFFICULTIES AND TEACHING
STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY LECTURERS
IN SELECTED UNIVERSITIES IN THAILAND
MALEERAT KA-KAN-DEE
UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA
2015
ANALYSING EFL STUDENTS’ARGUMENTATIVE
WRITING DIFFICULTIES AND TEACHING
STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY LECTURES IN
SELECTED UNIVERSITIES IN THAILAND
by
MALEERAT KA-KAN-DEE
Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctoral of Philosophy
August 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, my utmost appreciation goes to my supervisor, Associate
Professor Dr. Sarjit Kaur, for her insightful advice and constructive comments in
every stage of my thesis. Throughout the course of my PhD research, she never
failed to provide me continuous encouragement and invaluable advice. Her
professional guidance and clarifications tremendously contributed to the completion
of the thesis.
This research study would not have been possible without the kind support
and help of Khon Kaen University and Khon Kaen University, Nong Khai Campus
that supported me with the scholarship to complete this research study. I would like
to extend my sincere thanks to my university.
I would also like to express my special gratitude and thanks to all the
participants who took part in my study. In addition, I am also indebted to the raters
for grading the Thai EFL students’ essays.
I would like to thank senior lecturers from Khon Kaen University who
provided me with academic guidance and support during the process of data
collection and students’ verbal report transcription process.
My deepest gratitude goes to my parents and my husband for their
understanding and encouragement during my difficult time. Finally, all thanks to
Allah for listening to and answering my prayers, Alhamdulillah.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
ii
Table of Contents
iii
List of Appendices
vii
List of Tables
viii
List of Figures
ix
List of Abbreviations
x
Abstrak
xi
Abstract
xiii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1
1.0
Background of the Study
1
1.1
Challenges in Teaching Writing in ESL/ EFL Contexts
4
1. 2
Overview of Thailand
7
1.2.1
The Education System in Thailand
9
1.2.2
Role of English in Thailand
12
Profile of Mahasarakham University
17
1.3
1.3.1
Department of Western Language and Linguistics at
Mahasarakham University in Thailand
1.4
Profile of Udon Thani Rajabhat University
1.4.1
18
19
Department of English Language and Literature at Udon Thani
Rajabhat University
20
1.5
Statement of the Problem
21
1.6
Objectives of the study
24
iii
1.7
Research Questions
25
1.8
Scope of Study
25
1.9
Significance of the Study
26
1.10 Limitations of the Study
28
1.11
Definition of Key Terms
29
1.12
Summary
31
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
32
2.0
Introduction
32
2.1
The Writing Process
32
2.1.1
Approaches to the Teaching and Learning of EFL Writing
35
2.1.2
The Structure of Argumentative Essays
43
2.1.3
Rhetorical Structure of Argumentative Essays
46
2.2
2.3
Argumentative Writing
57
2.2.1
Definition of argumentative writing
57
2.2.2
Concepts of Argumentation
62
2.2.3
Theoretical Foundations of Argumentation
64
2.2.4
Argumentative Schemata Theory
66
2.2.5
Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle
68
Teaching Theories
72
2.3.1
Krashen's Theory on Language Acquisition
72
2.3.2
Flower and Hayes' Theory
78
2.3.3
Constructivist Teaching Strategies
88
2.4
Conceptual Framework of Study
93
2.5
Related Research on think-aloud protocols
95
iv
2.6
Related Research on Writing Difficulties
100
2.7
Related Research on Argumentative Writing Difficulties
107
2.9
Summary
111
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
112
3.0
Introduction
112
3.1
Research Design
112
3.2
Population and Sampling
117
3.3
Research Instruments
119
3.3.1
Think aloud protocols
121
3.3.2
The Semi-structured Interviews
124
3.3.2.1
3.3.2.2
Semi structured interview for Thai EFL English
Lecturers
125
Semi structured interviews for EFL English major
students
127
3.3.3
Classroom Observations
128
3.3.4
Stimulated Recall Interviews with two lecturers
131
3.3.4.1
132
Features of Stimulated Recall
3.4
Data Collection Procedures
135
3.5
The Pilot Study
141
3.6
Validity and Reliability of Research Instruments
149
3.6.1
Validity of the Research Instruments
149
3.6.2
Validity and reliability of qualitative data
150
3.7
3.8
Analysing Data
151
3.7.1
151
Analysis of Qualitative Data
Ethical considerations
156
3.9 Summary
157
v
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
158
4.0
Introduction
158
4.1
Difficulties in argumentative writing
158
4.1.1
Results of Students’ Interviews after the Think Aloud Protocols
168
4.2
Difficulties in Teaching Argumentative Writing
181
4.3
Teaching strategies Used to Teach Argumentative Writing
184
4.3.1
189
4.4
4.5
Results of Stimulated Recall Interview (SRI)
Results of Classroom Observations
194
4.4.1
197
Results of Field notes
4.4.1.1
Results of Field notes in Pailin’s classroom
199
4.4.1.2
Results of Field note in Manee’s classroom
203
Summary
CHAPTER FIVE
206
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
208
5.0
Introduction
208
5.1
Difficulties encountered by students while writing
209
5.2
Thai EFL English major students' need help from their lecturers
211
5.3
Difficulties in teaching Argumentative Writing
212
5.3.1
213
5.4
Teaching strategies from the Stimulated Recall Interview (SRI)
Teaching strategies to help improve Students’argumentative writing
218
5.4.1
219
Results of Classroom Observations
5.5
Triangulation the Results from Various Sources
223
5.6
Summary of Major Findings from Triangulation
224
5.7
Pedagogical Implications
226
vi
5.8
Recommendations for Future Research
227
5.9
Summary
228
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
List of Publications and Conference Presentation
APPENDIX B
Approval Letter to Conduct Research
APPENDIX C
Approval Letter from Two Public Universities
APPENDIX D
Consent letters to Participation from Lecturers and Students
APPENDIX E
Interview Questions for Lecturers
APPENDIX F
Interview Questions for Students
APPENDIX G
Classroom Observation Checklist
APPENDIX H
Selected Sample of TAP Transcription from a student
APPENDIX I
Selected Sample of Transcribed Verbal Reports from
Students and Lecturers
APPENDIX J
Written Tasks
APPENDIX K
Selected Sample of Students’ Written Essays
APPENDIX L
Argumentative Writing Difficulty Codes
APPENDIX M
Academic Writing Course Syllabus
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.1
The Basic Education Core Curriculum of a Foreign Language
Learning Time
14
Table 2.1
Four common argument genres in students academic writing
60
Table 3.1
Research Methods and Procedures
120
Table 3.3
The Amended Interview Questions for Lecturers
145
Table 3.4
The Amended Interview Questions for Students
146
Table 3.5
Argumentative Writing Difficulty Codes for Coding Transcripts
148
Table 4.1
Argumentative Writing Difficulties Faced by
Students
160
Table 4.2
Writing Difficulties (gathered from interview session)
169
Table 4.3
Students’ Expectation from their EFL Writing Lecturers
178
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1
Map of Thailand
7
Figure 1.2
Thai Education Systems
10
Figure 2.1
Different Writing Stages in Product Orient Approach
36
Figure 2.2
Different Writing Stages in Process Oriented Approach
38
Figure 2.3
The Process of Genre Oriented Product
39
Figure 2.4
Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle
68
Figure 2.5:
Rhetorical Triangle
71
Figure 2.6
An Adaptation of the Hayes and Flower’s (1980) Model
81
Figure 2.7
The Conceptual Framework of the Study
94
Figure 3.1
Research Design of the Study
115
Figure 3.2
Procedures of Applying Think- Aloud Method
136
Figure 3.3
Layout a Classroom Teaching
140
Figure 3.4
The Process of Qualitative Data Analysis in this Study
152
Figure 3.5
A Process for Approaching a Qualitative Project
156
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APA
American Psychological Association
CAQDAS
Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software
EFL
English as a Foreign Language
EQA
External Quality Assurance
ESL
English as a Second Language
FL
Foreign Language
IBE
International Bureau of Education
IELTS
International English Language Testing
IQA
Internal Quality Assurance
L1
First Language
L2
Second Language
MOE
Ministry of Education
MSU
Mahasarakham University
NNES
Non-native English speakers
OHEC
Office of the Higher Education Commission
ONESQA
Office of the National Education Standards and Quality Assessment
SPSS
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
SRI
Stimulated Recall Interview
TAP
Think aloud Protocols
UDRU
Udon Thani Rajabhat University
x
MENGANALISIS KESUKARAN PENULISAN ARGUMENTATIF DALAM
KALANGAN PELAJAR BERKHUSUSAN BAHASA INGGERIS SEBAGAI
BAHASA ASING (EFL) DAN STRATEGI PENGAJARAN YANG
DIGUNAKAN OLEH PARA PENSYARAH DI UNIVERSITI TERPILIH DI
THAILAND.
ABSTRAK
Matlamat utama kajian ini adalah untuk mengenal pasti kesukaran yang
dialami oleh para pelajar pengkhususan Bahasa Inggeris sebagai bahasa asing (EFL)
dalam proses penulisan karangan berbentuk argumentatif. Kajian ini juga menyelidik
strategi pengajaran yang digunakan oleh dua orang pensyarah Thai EFL untuk
membentuk kemahiran penulisan argumentatif dalam kalangan pelajar mereka.
Kaedah TAP (Think Aloud Protocol) telah digunakan sebagai alat atau wadah untuk
menganalisis kesukaran penulisan argumentatif yang dialami oleh 16 orang pelajar
pengkhususan Bahasa Inggeris sebagai bahasa asing (EFL). Temubual berstruktur
separa, temubual ransangan ingatan dan pemerhatian dalam kelas digunakan untuk
mengumpul maklumut yang terperinci daripada dua pensyarah Thai EFL untuk
mengetahui kesukaran yang mereka hadapi semasa mengajar karangan berbentuk
argumentatif dan strategi pengajaran yang digunakan untuk memperbaiki kemahiran
penulisan pelajar mereka. Kajian ini menggunakan teori proses kognitif yang
dipelopori oleh Flower dan Hayes (1980) dalam menganalisis proses penulisan para
pelajar di samping mengendalikan kaedah TAP. Teori pemerolehan bahasa dan
strategi pengajaran konstruktivis yang dibentuk oleh Krashen (1983) digunakan
untuk memerhati strategi pengajaran yang digunakan oleh kedua-dua pensyarah EFL
tersebut semasa mereka mengajar penulisan karangan argumentatif. Data kualitatif
yang diperolehi dianalisis melalui kaedah “grounded theory” di mana data yang
diperolehi telah disalin dan dikodkan mengikut tema. Hasil kajian dari kaedah TAP
xi
menunjukkan bahawa para pelajar mengalami kesukaran penulisan dari segi:
ketidakbiasaan dengan ciri penulisan argumentatif, kekurangan pengetahuan tentang
hukum tatabahasa, kekurangan kosa kata berunsurkan akademik, kesukaran
menghasilkan pernyataan tesis yang jelas, ketidakupayaan untuk memberikan bukti
yang kukuh, membentuk idea yang bernas dan menulis kesimpulan yang berkesan,
serta kurang peka terhadap permintaan dan elemen motivasi pembaca, kurang
kesedaran mengenai proses perancangan penulisan dan ketidakupayaan untuk
berfikir secara kreatif. Perolehan kajian daripada temubual berstruktur separa,
pemerhatian dalam kelas dan temubual ransangan ingatan menunjukkan bahawa
kedua-dua pensyarah EFL tersebut menggunakan strategi yang berbeza dalam
pengajaran penulisan argumentatif. Hasil kajian ini memberi manfaat dalam
membantu pembentukan program dan arahan pengajaran untuk meningkatkan proses
pembelajaran para pelajar EFL di Thailand dalam penulisan argumentatif. Di
samping itu, perolehan kajian ini boleh digunakan sebagai garis panduan bagi para
pelajar untuk memperbaiki kualiti penulisan argumentatif mereka. Implikasi kajian
ini mencadangkan agar pihak yang bertanggungjawab dalam merancang kurikulum
dan menulis serta mereka bahan pembelajaran menyatupadukan komponen yang
menekankan kaedah TAP dalam penulisan argumentatif untuk memahami kesukaran
yang dialami oleh para pelajar semasa menulis karangan. Pemegang taruh berkenaan
kemudiannya dapat menggunakan kaedah yang bersesuaian untuk meningkatkan
kemahiran penulisan para pelajar dalam konteks pembelajaran Bahasa Inggeris
sebagai bahasa asing (EFL) di Thailand.
xii
ANALYSING EFL STUDENTS’ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING
DIFFICULTIES AND TEACHING STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY
LECTURERS IN SELECTED UNIVERSITIES IN THAILAND
ABSTRACT
The main aim of this study was to identify the argumentative writing
difficulties encountered by Thai EFL English major students. This study also
investigated the teaching strategies used by two Thai EFL lecturers to develop their
students’ argumentative writing competence. Think aloud protocols (TAP) were used
as a tool for analysing argumentative writing difficulties encountered by 16 EFL
English major students. A semi structured interview, stimulated recall interviews and
classroom observations were used to collect detailed information from two EFL
lecturers about the difficulties they encountered in teaching argumentative essays and
the teaching strategies they used to help improve their students’ writing skill. This
study draws on the cognitive process theory developed by the Flower and Hayes’
(1980) in analysing the students’ writing process while conducting Think aloud
protocols.
Krashen’s (1983) theory on language acquisition and constructivist
teaching strategies were employed to monitor the teaching strategies used by the two
EFL lecturers to teach argumentative writing essays. Qualitative data were analysed
through grounded theory in which data were transcribed and coded thematically.
Findings from the students’ think aloud protocols reveal that they faced the following
specific writing difficulties: unfamiliarity with argumentative rhetorical features,
insufficient knowledge about grammar rule, insufficient academic vocabulary,
difficulty in writing a clear thesis statement, inability to provide solid evidence,
generate well organised ideas and write effective conclusions, lack of awareness
about audience expectation and motivational elements, lack of awareness of the
xiii
planning process of writing and the inability to think creatively. The findings from
the semi structured interviews, classroom observations and stimulated recall
interviews reveal that the two lecturers used different types of teaching strategies to
teach argumentative writing. The findings of the study provide valuable insights to
help develop teaching programmes and instructions to more effectively support EFL
students’ argumentative writing development. Additionally, the findings can also be
used as guidelines for students to improve their argumentative writing. The
implications of this study suggest that curriculum planners and material writers and
designers can integrate components that focus on argumentative writing which use
think aloud protocols to comprehend the difficulties students experience when they
compose written compositions. Such stakeholders can then use appropriate methods
to develop students’ writing competence in the Thai EFL context.
xiv
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background of the Study
Weigle (2002) opines that writing is an essential part of the curriculum in
schools from the earliest grade to university level. Argumentative writing is
considered as an important mode of written discourse. However, argumentative
writing is a difficult type of text for both ESL and EFL students. The main rationale
why argumentative writing is difficult arises from the complexity of argumentative
writing features. Argumentative writing is a complex task in which the writer takes a
stance on a controversial issue and offers reasons and supporting ideas to persuade
the audience to accept his or her position (Anker, 2004). In the same vein, Connor
(1987) posits that writing an argumentative essay is an intricate cognitive process
that is associated with the writer’s purpose, the audiences’ expectations, the expected
rhetorical patterns and the contextual position.
Furthermore, argumentative writing is represented by Flower (1979) as a
reader-based approach or referred to by Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) as a
knowledge-transforming approach that are largely similar as they both concentrate
on the audiences’ expectations. However, it is difficult for unskilled students to write
based on these two approaches as each requires a rhetorical pattern of argumentation,
the integration of content and critical thinking from student’s point of view.
Galbraith and Rijlaarsadam (1999) suggest that argumentative writing is difficult
1
even for expert writers due to the innate difficulty of
self-expression and the
existence of a set of external constraints; in an effort to meet the external constraints,
the writer is likely to forget what he/ she needs to write.
In L1 contexts, Crowhurst (1991) figured out the problems that occur in
argumentative writing and revealed that native English speakers also have poor
performance in writing an argumentative essay in the school system. The problems in
argumentative writing analysed in those studies were insufficient context and ideas,
shorter texts than narration, failure to support the point of view, poor organisation
due to a lack of knowledge, concerns of stylistic inappropriateness and
argumentative structure.
In Thailand, students need to study various types of written discourse such as
narration, description, exposition and argumentative writing. Argumentative writing
is considered as the most important task for students as they need to use it in exams.
Therefore, writing an argumentative essay has been set as a common type of
assignment for students at the tertiary level. Unfortunately, most Thai students at
tertiary level struggle with a variety of difficulties in English writing because of their
low competence in English. According to a Thai writing lecturer, “when students are
assigned to write essays or research reports, most of them are unable to write because
they neither have adequate knowledge of grammar nor do they know how to generate
and manipulate ideas” (Praphan, P., personal interview, September 27, 2013).
Numerous researchers (Chaya, 2005; Kongpetch, 2006; Boonsiri, 2007; Prommas
and Sinwongsuwat, 2013) also confirm that most Thai EFL students struggle to
compose effective argumentative essays because of their weaknesses in English
2
language. This is because they have inadequate exposure to argumentative writing
structure and have little knowledge of this genre. Therefore, they are unable to write
well organised argumentative essays. In other words, most Thai EFL students do not
know how to handle syntax and ideas in their argumentative essays because of the
drawback of
language teaching methods of the past in which most writing
programmes are still taught using the traditional teacher-centred model, emphasising
grammatical structure, accuracy and vocabulary. Moreover, Thai EFL students have
very few actual opportunities to present their ideas and knowledge in a written mode.
Because of this, most EFL students have linguistic problems, lack vocabulary
knowledge and do not know how to vary purposes and audience. Furthermore, they
do not acknowledge rhetorical patterns and organisation of ideas when they engage
in argumentative essay writing (Siriphan, 1988; Wongsothorn, 1994; Clayton &
Klainin, 1994).
In a Thai context, there is much detailed information relating to students’
difficulties in writing an argumentative essay. According to Udomyamokkul (2004),
it is recognised that Thai EFL students tend to write narration and build up their own
pattern to write an argumentative essay. Besides, insufficient implicit knowledge
about argumentative conventional pattern is revealed in students’ writing.
Consequently, they do not know how to write a good argumentative essay. They are
unable to write an essay clearly and convincingly. In other words, EFL students do
not know the importance of audience awareness in order to write an explicit
supporting evidence and refutation.
3
According to Chaya’s study (2005), Thai EFL students’ problems in writing
an argumentative essay are similar to those of native speakers. The students’
problems comprise an unclear focus, no awareness of audience expectations,
insufficient evidence to support the point of view, insufficient supporting details,
inappropriate transitional words and lack of explicit thesis or claim. Most students
write an argumentative essay by narrating, explaining or informing only facts to the
audience.
The researcher expects to gain a detailed description about students’
difficulties throughout the writing process. With the knowledge of the argumentative
writing process, EFL lecturers might learn of the effective ways to enhance their
students’ argumentative writing competence.
1.1 Challenges in Teaching Writing in ESL/ EFL Context
Teaching writing is still considered a problematic matter in the area of
Second and Foreign Language instruction. Although, there are a number of methods
for teaching writing in English as a Second Language (ESL hereafter) or English as a
Foreign Language (EFL hereafter) contexts, not many ESL/ EFL writing instructors
have a clear insight on writing approaches. Therefore, they still prefer to concentrate
on using traditional approaches in their teaching. In traditional approaches, the
teacher provides knowledge about the structure of language and sample texts for
students to imitate the form of writing (Badger and White, 2000). ESL/EFL writing
is a difficult, intricate and demanding procedure (Alsamadani, 2010). This hardship
and intricacy in ESL/EFL argumentative writing arises from the reality that writing
4
comprises searching out a proposition, fostering evidence for the claim, formulating,
modifying and finally revising the proposition to ensure an effective and productive
piece of writing (Langan, 2005). Furthermore, ESL/EFL argumentative writing is
one of the most crucial genres of language instruction. As claimed by Coffin (2004,
p.3), “students academic writing continue to be at the centre of teaching and learning
in higher education, but it is often an invisible dimension of the curriculum; that is,
the rules or conventions governing what counts as academic writing are often
assumed to be part of ‘common sense’ knowledge students have, and are thus not
explicitly taught within a disciplinary course.’’ To provide an effective ESL/EFL
academic writing instruction is the prime responsibility for lecturers, researchers,
textbook writers and programme coordinators in the area of foreign language
instruction (Lee, 2003), but producing a textbook for most ESL/EFL students is a
difficult task because the writing procedure requires an extensive domain of
cognitive and linguistic approaches which ESL/EFL students are largely incognizant
of (Luchini, 2010). Moreover, research about ESL/EFL writing has evolved over the
last 40 years. As a result, writing has shifted into a multidisciplinary area (Matsuda,
2003). Writing an argumentative essay is considered a common assignment at the
tertiary level. This genre of writing calls for students to argue for and against a
proposal. Most tertiary students (whether L1, L2 or EFL) are unable to argue or
propose a convincing thesis statement (Nemeth and Kormos, 2001; Boonsiri, 2007;
Qian, 2010). Argumentation is a procedure to compose an argument by looking for
actual evidence to back up the claim or thesis statement. To write a good piece of
argumentative writing is often difficult for EFL/ ESL students. Basically, writing an
argument begins with taking a stance and giving evidence in order to convince the
readers to execute the action or to accept the idea based on a controversy. Nippold
5
and Ward-Lonergan (2010, p. 238) note that “argumentative writing is a challenging
communication task that needs sophisticated cognitive and linguistic abilities.”
Likewise many research studies (Ferretti, Andrews-Weckerly & Lewis, 2007; Neffvan Aertselaer & Dafouz-Milne, 2008; Lertpreedakorn, 2009; Promwinai, 2010)
confirm that an argumentative writing essay is the most difficult genre for both ESL
and EFL students. Most Thai EFL students are unable to produce good
argumentative essays because of their lack of readiness for English argumentative
writing and insufficient writing practice during classroom instruction.
As stated by Crowhurst (1991, p.314) arguing a case is particularly
challenging even though “it is important both for academic success and for general
life purposes”. Knudson (1994, p.211) also asserts that, “argumentation is one of the
genres which is essential for full participation in society”. This genre of writing is the
most crucial in academic writing especially at the tertiary level. Students are
supposed to argue for their stand point in order to convince the readers. However,
most ESL/EFL students struggle with the various difficulties in writing
argumentative essays. They are unable to write due to insufficient skills in
argumentative writing.
6
1.2 Overview of Thailand
Thailand is very proud not to have had colonial rule among the countries in
Southeast Asia. This is due to the virtue of the monarchy; the military and the
Buddhist religion which have supported the embodiment of its social and political
practices. Thailand is well known for its tourism industry which brings a great
income to develop the country. However, the recent unrest in the south and the
tsunami of 2004 has posed barriers to development (Croissant, 2005; Zurick, 2010).
Currently, political unrest is a major obstruction to develop the economy, society and
education. Figure 1.1 below shows the map of Thailand:
Figure 1.1: Map of Thailand
Source: http://www.divetheworldthailand.com/map-of-thailand.php
7
As shown in Figure 1, Thailand is situated in Southeast Asia, neighbouring
Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia and Myanmar. Thailand lies in the heart of Southeast
Asia with an area of approximately 514,000 sq km. The population of Thailand is
approximately 66,720,153. There is a diverse range of ethnic groups: Thai, Chinese,
Malay, Khmer, Mon. Around 80 per cent of the population are ethnic Thai people.
The remaining 20 per cent comprise Chinese, Malay and other minority ethnic
groups, particularly in the north, whereas there is a large Malay population who
reside in the south. Thailand consists of 76 provinces that are segmented into
districts, sub-districts and villages. Bangkok is the capital city which provides
various activities and employment for many people. Thailand is known as “The land
of Smiles’’ and it is this attribute that attracts foreigners to enjoy Thailand’s beautiful
natural scenery and cultural diversity (MOENet Thailand Service, 1998).
In relation to the Thai economy, the World Bank has raised Thailand’s
income classification from a lower income economy to an upper income economy
this year. This is due to Thailand’s improvement in social and economic
development, despite experiencing serious political problems. Owing to this reason,
Thailand has a record of good achievement with maintained robust growth and
remarkable poverty deduction (The World Bank Group, 2012).
Thailand is an agricultural country. The main crops in Thailand are rice,
rubber, maize, sugar cane, cassava and oil palm. About 9 percent of the gross
domestic product is gained from the agricultural sector. Agricultural products in
Thailand have not been produced for their own consumption but are also a major
source of income from exporting. The value of agricultural exports is increasing
8
every year and it is still a major source of export earnings. Currently agricultural
exports constitute about 25 percent of the total export value. The Thai government is
attempting to enhance agricultural productivity. Therefore, Thailand is a major
exporter of a wide variety of food and agricultural products. The income accrued
from tourism contributed substantially to the Thai economy in 2008, accounting for
14.96 percent of the country's GDP. Unfortunately, the number of tourists largely
decreased from 12 percent to 6 percent during the coup d’état in 2014 (The Wall
Street Journal, 2014).
Thailand is one of the best performing economies in East Asia. It has welldeveloped infrastructure and facilities, free enterprise economy and pro-investment
policies. However, the overall growth of the economy has fallen as persistent
political instability delayed infrastructure and facilities mega-projects. Eroded
investor and consumer confidence has damaged the country’s international reputation
(The Wall Street Journal, 2014).
1.2.1 The Education System in Thailand
With reference to the government of Thailand, education is considered one of
the main priorities that the government takes into account due to the reality that
education is the backbone for development and betterment of the society. Therefore,
there is a need for educational reforms in various levels of education such as school
and tertiary contexts. The government has introduced several educational reforms
with the purpose of developing Thailand as a knowledge-based society. These
educational reforms will yield the Thai public equal access to lifelong education and
9
training, empowering them to gain knowledge and funding in order to produce
income and to curb further economic and social crisis. Figure 1.2 shows the structure
of the system of education in Thailand:
Figure 1.2: Thai Education System
Source: Thai Education System, MOE (2012)
As illustrated in Figure 1.2, the education system in Thailand comprises 12
years of basic education. Students spend three years to study in lower secondary
level and three years to complete the upper secondary level. In addition, preschool
education is provided for children aged between three and five years to complete the
course in order to continue to the basic education (MOE, 2012).
10
Basic education is mandatory for all children who permanently dwell in
Thailand. It targets to support all children to achieve a specific educational standard.
The mandatory education equips students with six years of primary education to
complete their education. Students spend three years of lower secondary education
and three years of upper secondary education to complete the target course. With
reference to the above mentioned, finishing the course satisfactorily at a level of
education is commonly a prerequisite of heading to the next education level. Students
who complete the elementary education level can proceed to the secondary level in
which they study for three years at the secondary level. Vocational and technical
training is available after completing basic and secondary education (Office of
Education Council, 2004).
In higher education in Thailand, students spend four years for most
bachelor’s degree programmes whereas the field of engineering takes five years to
obtain the qualification. In the area of medicine, students spend six years to complete
the course (International Bureau of Education (IBE), 2011). As illustrated in Figure
1.2, students spend two years to complete Master degree programmes meanwhile
doctorate programmes take three to five years to complete (IBE, 2011).
The Ministry of Education also offers special education courses for
individuals who need them. The structures of these courses are often in the form of
short courses and training courses in vocational education for students who do not
want to study in lower and upper secondary schools (Office of Education Council,
2008).
11
1.2.2 Role of English in Thailand
The Thai government acknowledges English as an essential medium for
exchanging knowledge, making contacts and fostering relations with other countries
(National Education Act 1999). Therefore, a good command of English is
highlighted and English is taught in Thai schools and also in all universities as a
foreign language. In other words, English is taught as a mandatory course in basic
education and secondary education (Luanganggoon, 2001; Muangkaew, 2006).
English courses have changed from elective to compulsory courses in
primary school since 2001. The Thai government announced English is taught as a
compulsory course in every school in Thailand because there is a difference in terms
of English language competence between students who studied English in private
schools and those who studied in government schools. Therefore, a modified
proficiency-based curriculum was employed to offer students a favourable chance to
pursue their English education without disruption and to promote life-long learning
as well (Khamkhien, 2006). With reference to this stage, the emphasis was set on the
improvement of the students’ language competence to fulfil a number of aims such
as communication, knowledge acquisition, use of English in socio-cultural
employment and career development. With reference to language teaching,
communicative language teaching with an eclectic adaptation was primarily centred
for teaching in Thai tertiary education (Wongsothorn et al., 2003).
English language is considered an important medium in Thai society and it is
taught as a compulsory subject in the school curriculum. The current English
12
curriculum was proposed in 2001 when the Ministry of Education announced that
English is regarded as the national foreign language in all institutions to meet the
demands of future work. The motive for this initiative was in line with the effects of
globalisation. It is necessary that all Thai students understand the importance of the
English language because it is one of good indicators for organisations to select new
personnel.
Thai children have the rights to 12 years of basic education. With this shift,
the 2001 system combined primary and secondary into a single level. The integrated
courses were arranged as follows: Grades 1-3 and Grades 4-6 are in Primary
Education, whereas Grades 7-9 are in lower secondary education and Grades 10-12
are in upper secondary education. In this regard, six English credits are required as
part of the general education programme. Under the current curriculum, English is
taught one hour per week in Grades 1-3 (40 hours in each academic year). Students
in Grades 4-6 need to study English two hours per week (80 hours in an academic
year). Meanwhile in lower secondary education, English is taught three hours per
week (120 hours in each academic year) while students need to study English six
hours per week in upper secondary education (240 hours in an academic year). Table
1.1 below shows the basic education core curriculum prescribed in the framework for
a foreign language learning time:
13
Table 1.1: The Basic Education Core Curriculum of a Foreign Language
Learning Time
Learning
Areas
Foreign
Language
Learning Time ( in hours )
Primary Education Level
Lower Secondary
Education Level
Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 Gr9
40
40
40
80
80
80
120 120 120
Upper Secondary
Education Level
Gr10 Gr11 Gr 12
240
240
240
At the tertiary level in Thailand, both public and private universities revised
the English language curriculum in order to meet the demands for English language
competence at the workplace. According to Foley (2005), twelve credits of English
instead of six credits are required in tertiary education. Students need six credits in
general English and another six credits in English for academic or specific purposes
before they complete their course and obtain the required qualification. Moreover,
Wongsothorn et al. (2003) state that the English language curriculum in Thailand can
be regarded as a change of paradigm from English as an elective subject to English
as a compulsory subject. This shift focuses on individual work and self-governing
learning. Furthermore, innovations and new technology in English language teaching
(ELT hereafter) are emphasised in the new curriculum. ELT now consists of selfaccess learning, performance standards of general English and English for academic
and specific purposes. In the new curriculum, English is regarded as a compulsory
foreign language course. In other words, English is taught as a foreign language
course from primary education to tertiary education. It is one of the eight mandatory
courses that students need to take in the core and elective courses in learning English.
(Wongsothorn et al., 2003; Foley, 2005).
14
Multiple approaches are used in English language teaching and learning that
centres on learners and communicative purposes. The Communicative Approach is
still applied but this approach mainly centres on the listening and speaking skills.
Meanwhile, other approaches such as integrated, cooperative, holistic learning,
content, task-based and problem-based learning are also employed in teaching and
learning. With reference to course descriptions, each education level sets up both
standards and benchmarks to assess the students’ English language acquisition.
Teachers are needed to write their own teaching materials related to real-life
situations (Office of the Education Council, 2008).
The Thai government has put prime importance on setting up several
development policies and plans to promote English language proficiency. However,
Promwinai (2010) states that there are some controversial problems which work to
impede students from achieving English language proficiency. First of all, primary
students from grade one to grade four often focuses on sets of simple vocabulary.
Second, it is common that one teacher is responsible for teaching many subjects,
which means that the English teacher might not be well-trained in the subject. Third,
one teacher may be responsible for a large class (40 students or more) and thus may
not have time to provide feedback to every single student. Fourth, Thai students
study English as a foreign language. Although English is considered important for
the reasons stated above, students generally study all other subjects in Thai. Finally
most English language courses in Thailand mainly concentrate on grammar,
vocabulary and reading. Thai teachers prefer to write tests in the form of multiple
choice questions instead of writing task performance. Rappa and Wee (2006) add
15
that Thai EFL students face the difficulties in writing due to insufficient learning
resources and less effective teaching. Importantly, there is a lack of qualified English
lecturers who clearly understand on teaching strategies.
With reference to the background of English language stated above, it is not
surprising that a large number of Thai tertiary students are unable to produce good
essays. In relation to academic writing in English, these tertiary students are
commonly required to write essays or research reports which they find difficult to
write. Furthermore, it is worth noting that students are also not familiar with writing
argumentative essays. Writing argumentative essays is considered a crucial feature
for academic writing in various countries. However, it is not typically contained as a
section of English writing courses in universities in Thailand. Very few universities
teach this type of writing in their advanced writing class for English major students.
In some universities, argumentative essay writing is excluded from the course
objectives. Only descriptive, narrative, process and cause-effect essays are taught in
writing courses. It can be said that Thai EFL students have been trained with
explanation genres (Martin & Rose, 2008) but have not improved their ability to
argue through the written genres of their foreign language.
16
1.3 Profile of Mahasarakham University
Mahasarakham University (MSU hereafter), where the research study was
carried out is located in Maha Sarakham Province in the Northeast region of
Thailand. MSU was established in 1968 as the college engaged to produce qualified
teachers to work for schools and universities. It was originally set up as the College
of Education Mahasarakham. It was later renamed a regional campus of
Srinakharinwirot University which contained only four faculties: Education,
Humanities, Social Sciences and Science. In 1994, the university obtained an
independent status and was renamed Mahasarakham University. In terms of both
facilities and academic services, MSU has developed very quickly. It has become an
all-inclusive university, providing undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in
three academic fields such as Social Sciences, Pure and Applied Science and Health
Science. In response to this development, Khamriang Campus was set up in
Kantarawichai District in 1998. Currently, there are 18 faculties and 2 colleges
providing academic services. MSU is considered as one of Thailand’s fastestgrowing universities. The university currently has more than 40,000 students
enrolled in various courses. With reference to broadening its academic services to
remote communities, MSU has launched 15 academic service centres located in
North eastern provinces.
MSU is known as a community-based university of knowledge and wisdom,
academically providing the community with diversity of educational systems and
appropriate technologies. MSU has made a decision to take a leading role in research
and integration of local wisdom for international recognition.
17
1.3.1 Department of Western Language and Linguistics at Mahasarakham
University in Thailand
The Department of Western Language and Linguistics (DWLI hereafter) at
Mahasarakham University has developed rapidly. It provides the opportunity for its
students to expand their knowledge and communicative skills as English language
teachers through the nation. DWLI mainly aims at improving and enhancing the
students’ linguistic ability and skill by providing them with high proficiency in
language skills. However, students still have a problem in producing argumentative
writing. According to Lertpreedakorn (2009), Thai EFL students take several years
of studying basic writing courses at tertiary level but still face many problems when
attempting to write academic writing in particular argumentative essays. Generally,
they have a problem with the structural issue including appropriate words, correct
grammar use, creating ideas and developing ideas in writing.
The purpose of the basic writing curriculum at the Department of Western
language and linguistics is to assist students to write and express personal ideas,
views and feelings and use correct and appropriate English. It aims at assisting them
to write well-organised written texts. Despite a number of writing courses provided
at Mahasarakham University, it is found that their EFL students still have many
language problems and difficulties in producing argumentative writing. It is crucial
to point out that English writing education at tertiary level in Thailand does not equip
students to write at postgraduate level (Glass, 2008).
18
1.4 Profile of Udon Thani Rajabhat University
Udon Thani Rajabhat University (UDRU hereafter), where the current study
was also carried out, is located in Udon Thani province. UDRU was set up on
November 1, 1923. It was originally set up as a Teacher Training School in
Agriculture Udon Thani. It provided a two-year certificate programme to people who
wanted to be a teacher in the local area. In 1930, it was officially shifted to a Teacher
Training school for Men and later it was changed to a Teacher Training School for
Women that provided a two year certificate programme in general subjects to obtain
the teaching qualification. In 1958, it was renamed Udon Thani Teachers' Training
School and was promoted to be Udon Thani Teachers' College in 1960. A
remarkable shift took place when the Rajabhat University Act was passed and
officially approved in 2003. Therefore, Udon Thani Rajabhat Institute was legally
changed and achieved a university status since June 15, 2004. It was renamed Udon
Thani Rajabhat University (URDU). This new university comprised five faculties
and a Graduate Studies School. There are five faculties in UDRU such as Education,
Science, Humanities and Social Sciences, General Management Sciences and
Technology. UDRU also offers degree programmes at the diploma, bachelor, master
and doctoral levels in several academic disciplines.
UDRU is regarded as one of the fast growing Thai universities. There are
more than 22,000 students enrolled in various courses. It has 478 teaching staff
members and 310 supporting staff members to serve its academic functions. UDRU
is considered as a university offering international and local knowledge to meet the
demands of the community. With reference to its origin as a teacher education
19
institute, UDRU keeps on its specialisation in teaching and learning areas as it
continues to expand its specialties in the area of education.
1.4.1 Department of English Language and Literature at Udon Thani Rajabhat
University
The Department of English Language and Literature at Udon Thani Rajabhat
University strives to develop its students to master English because most students do
not pass the entrance exam. This is a difficult task for English lecturers to shape their
students to become proficient in English language use. In this regard, the language
centre provides remedial courses. It is compulsory for all students to sit for the
English proficiency test when they register to study at UDRU. Students, who do not
pass the English proficiency test, are required to take a remedial course before
enrolling in the Fundamental English course (EN 101). The remedial course mainly
aims at improving and enhancing the students ‘linguistic ability at UDRU by
providing them with proficiency in language skills.
20
1.5 Statement of the Problem
Argumentative writing has been confirmed by many researchers to be the
hardest genre in writing (Ferretti, Andrews-Weckerly & Lewis, 2007; Neff-van
Aertselaer & Dafouz-Milne, 2008). This genre of writing is important for university
students to express their own points of view in academically appropriate forms and
patterns. Unfortunately, both ESL and EFL learners at the tertiary level often
encounter difficulties in the use of complex syntactic patterns and appropriate
elements in composing argumentative writing (Applebee et al., 1994; Nemeth and
Kormos, 2001).
Based on the literature review on argumentative writing difficulties, most
research studies have focused on how to examine students’ structural features of
argumentative writing (Kubota, 1998; Hirose, 2003; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2008;
Uysal, 2008; Chandraegaran, 2008; Qin & Karabacak, 2010). There are only a few
research studies that emphasised instructional strategies designed to help improve
students’ argumentative writing (Varghese & Abraham, 1998; Yeh, 1998; Emilia,
2005). Although these research studies have provided evidence of students’
weaknesses in terms of structural features of argumentative writing, the research
studies conducted were limited to second language classroom settings. Therefore,
these studies have not been able to explain the difficulties in learning and teaching
argumentative writing in a Thai context.
21
Based on preliminary interviews with two Thai EFL lecturers about students’
argumentative writing difficulties, both of lecturers confess that their EFL students
are unable to write argumentative essays because of students’ insufficient knowledge
about the structural features and the writing process. In other words, they neither
have adequate knowledge of grammar structure nor do they know how to generate
and manipulate ideas. It is difficult for EFL lecturers to teach argumentative writing
to their students because they are not familiar with this genre. Argumentative writing
requires students to search out a thesis statement, foster evidence for the claim,
formulate, modify and finally revise the thesis statement to ensure effective writing.
However, students do not know how to project their voice in their writing. It can be
said that they do not know how to write a thesis statement. Importantly, EFL students
do not have the analytical skills to manipulate a well organised idea which is the
main barrier to effective argumentative writing.
Only a few research studies (Kongpetch, 2006; Promwinai, 2010; Saito,
2010) have been conducted to investigate Thai EFL students’ structural features of
argumentative writing and genre-based teaching strategy was suggested as a way to
help improve argumentative writing. According to Saito (2010), Thai EFL students
have both linguistic and rhetorical insufficiency. Their writing has variant areas of
weaknesses such as poor organisation including a lack of knowledge about
argumentative structure and a failure to elaborate reasons to support the arguments.
The other weakness is stylistic appropriateness so students produce inappropriate
styles of writing by using inappropriate registers of language as well as the wrong
connectors. Thai EFL students have insufficient exposure to argumentative writing
22
and receive little explicit instruction (Siriphan, 1988; Wongsothorn, 1994; Clayton &
Klainin, 1994; Udomyamokkul, 2004).
Because of these reasons, there is a need to know more about the specific
problems encountered by Thai EFL students when composing argumentative writing
essays. Moreover, there is a lack of research on argumentative writing difficulties
that have focused on the holistic problems in producing argumentative writing
through the process of think aloud protocols. Therefore, this study aims to investigate
students’ argumentative writing difficulties through the process of think aloud
protocols. Furthermore, this study intends to explore the teaching strategies used by
Thai EFL lecturers to teach their students. Although, there are numerous teaching
strategies available for writing in the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL
hereafter), not many EFL writing teachers have a clear understanding about writing
approaches. Therefore, much of teaching writing still focuses on a traditional
approach that is mainly concentrated on the knowledge about the structure of
language and writing improvement as the result of the imitation of input, in the form
of texts provided by the instructors. Knowledge about argumentative teaching
strategies is not adequately descriptive to effectively instruct EFL students to be
proficient in writing. Therefore, there is a critical need to investigate the use of
teaching strategies to develop students’ writing competence. This study also used
stimulated recall interviews and classroom observations to collect detailed
information from two Thai EFL lecturers about the teaching strategies used to help
improve their students’ writing skill. The types of teaching strategies used by the
Thai EFL lecturers can help them further develop their teaching activities to meet the
writing needs of their students (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Leighton & Gierl, 2007).
23
The study would provide useful insights on Thai tertiary students’ writing
difficulties with a complete description of the writing problems and teaching
strategies used by EFL lecturers to teach their students.
1.6 Objectives of the study
The main aim of this research study is to identify the argumentative writing
difficulties faced by Thai EFL learners when writing argumentative essays and
teaching strategies used by two Thai EFL lecturers. In relation to this, this study aims
to:
1. identify the difficulties faced by Thai EFL English major students when writing
argumentative essays
2. examine the extent to which Thai EFL English major students need help from their
lecturers to enhance their argumentative writing competence
3. investigate the difficulties experienced by Thai EFL lecturers when teaching
argumentative writing
4. investigate the types of teaching strategies used by Thai EFL lecturers to teach
argumentative writing
24
1.7 Research Questions
In order to achieve the objectives of this research study, the present study
aims at answering the following research questions:
1. What are the difficulties faced by Thai EFL English major students when writing
argumentative essays?
2. To what extent do Thai EFL English major students need help from their lecturers
to enhance their argumentative writing competence?
3. What are the difficulties faced by Thai EFL lecturers when teaching argumentative
writing?
4. What types of teaching strategies are used by Thai EFL lecturers to teach
argumentative writing?
1.8 Scope of Study
There were three groups of respondents in this research study. The first group
consisted of a group of fourth year English major students, in the academic year
2012/ 2013 from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Mahasarakham
University (MSU). The second group comprised a group of fourth year English
major students, in the academic year 2012/ 2013 from the Faculty of Humanities and
Social Sciences, Udon Thani Rajabhat University (UDRU). The third group
consisted of two Thai EFL lecturers who have more than 6 years of experience
teaching writing in MSU and UDRU. They were also experienced in teaching
Academic Writing (0105405) in Mahasarakham University (MSU) and Udon Thani
Rajabhat University (UDRU).
25
It has to be pointed out that this study does not intend to study variables such
as gender, culture, ethnicity, social economic background and race. Rather, it is
centred on investigating both EFL English lecturers and Thai EFL English major
students’ perceptions of argumentative writing difficulties in order to provide a
complete description of the writing problems generated by EFL English major
students in selected Thai public universities. Analysis on the argumentative writing
difficulties was carried out based on Thai EFL English major students’ experiences
when writing an argumentative essay. This study also centres on the difficulties faced
by Thai EFL lecturers when teaching argumentative writing. Therefore, its scope is
both Thai EFL English lecturers and Thai EFL English major students’ perceptions
in argumentative writing difficulties. The findings gained from the selected sample
from this study can provide practical insights on students’ difficulties while
composing argumentative writing essays as there is a scarcity of the research in this
area in Thailand.
1.9 Significance of the Study
The present study was carried out to assist Thai EFL English major students
in higher education to comprehend their weaknesses in argumentative writing
through the process of think aloud protocols. The current study investigated the
difficulties in writing argumentative essays produced by EFL students in two public
universities in Thailand. The findings provide useful insights on Thai undergraduate
learners’ writing difficulties. This study aims to give a complete detail of the writing
problems faced by learners in selected Thai public universities.
26
This research study would also be beneficial for EFL lecturers in other public
universities in Thailand. It aims to provide valuable insights into the weaknesses in
their learners’ language variants that can be used to develop their teaching
programmes and instructions to more effectively support students’ argumentative
writing development. Additionally, it can also be used as guidelines for students to
improve their argumentative writing.
The type of teaching strategies used by the two EFL lecturers in teaching
writing can provide practical teaching methods to other Thai EFL lecturers. These
writing strategies can provide avenues for other lecturers to select appropriate
activities for their writing instruction. It is expected that constructivist teaching
strategies can be used as an effective model of teaching to enhance EFL students’
writing competence. Moreover, knowledge of teaching methods is crucial for Thai
EFL lecturers to understand how to teach their students in a student-centred learning
environment that can foster critical thinking.
The findings of this study can also provide useful suggestions to curriculum
planners and material writers and designers to integrate components that focus on
argumentative writing which use think aloud protocols to comprehend the difficulties
students experience when they compose written compositions. Such stakeholders can
then use appropriate methods to develop students’ writing competence in the Thai
EFL context.
27
1.10 Limitations of the Study
There are number of limitations that arose from this study. The first limitation
is the small sample size which makes generalisation to the extensive community not
feasible. This study is limited to Mahasarakham University (MSU) and Udon Thani
Rajabhat University (UDRU) fourth year English major students from the academic
year 2012/ 2013. Therefore, generalisations to other fourth year English major
students in other public universities in Thailand need to be prudently determined.
Nevertheless, the findings gained from the chosen sample from this study can
provide practical insights into students’ difficulties while composing argumentative
writing essays.
Second, only two EFL English lecturers participated in this study. They were
both experienced in teaching the Academic Writing course (0105405) in
Mahasarakham University (MSU) and Udon Thani Rajabhat University (UDRU).
Due to this number, generalisation to other Thai EFL English lecturers who are
experienced in teaching Academic Writing course (0105405) in other public
universities in Thailand needs to be attentively investigated. Nevertheless, the results
obtained from the selected sample from this study can provide practical teaching
strategies that can help improve EFL English major students in writing
argumentative essays more effectively.
28
1.11 Definition of Key Terms
This section explains the key terms that were used to give clarity and
understanding of how these terms were used in the context of this research study.
Argumentative essay refers to a genre of writing that needs the writers to clearly
take their stand and give adequate real evidence to support the claim in order to
convince to the audience to accept or reject the appeal (Wood, 2001).
Argumentative writing difficulties refer to students’ difficulties in the use of
complex syntactic patterns and appropriate elements in composing argumentative
writing (Applebee et al., 1994; Nemeth and Kormos, 2001).
Think-aloud protocols refer to a research tool used to understand the subjects’
cognitive processes based on their verbal reports of their thoughts during
experiments (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). In this study, the term refers to a method
used to identify the difficulties in writing while Thai EFL English major students
compose their argumentative essays.
Thai EFL English major students refer to the 60 fourth year English major
students from two public universities in Thailand (Mahasarakham University and
Rajabhat Udon Thani University) who participated in this research study.
29
Thai EFL English language lecturers refer to two EFL English language lecturers
from two public universities in Thailand (Mahasarakham University and Rajabhat
Udon Thani University) who teach Academic Writing course (0105405).
Teaching strategies refer to a method of teaching and classroom management that
focuses on the belief that students learn best when working with and learning from
their peers such as problem-solving exercises, small group discussions, case studies,
think–pair–share, talking circles, brainstorming and debates. These teaching methods
fall under a student centred approach that is associated with collaborative learning
and reciprocal teaching to help improve students’ argumentative writing competence
(Langer and Applebee, 1987; Hyland, 1990; Meyers and Jones, 1993; Dudley-Evans,
1997).
Field notes refer to an approach used to document classroom interaction through
taking notes what is happening in the two intact classrooms (Nunan and Bailey,
2009). The field notes in this study were used as an analytical tool and they provided
in-depth information about the learners (Thompkins, 1994).
Stimulated Recall Interview refers to a process whereby a researcher stimulates the
recollection of the two EFL English language lecturers in viewing their videotape
recording of the intact classroom teaching and call for the reason why they use
certain teaching strategies to teach their students (Gass and Mackey, 2000).
30
1.12 Summary
This chapter presented a background of the study. The profile of Thailand and
the remarkable development of higher education in Thailand were also discussed in
this chapter. The section on the overview of Thailand provided background
information about the location, population and the economy of the country. The
system and challenges in teaching writing in Thailand was also discussed. The
chapter also presented the statement of the problem, the research objectives, the
research questions and the significance of the study. The limitations of the study and
definitions of the key terms were also discussed in this chapter.
31
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
This chapter presents a discussion of the writing process and the instructional
approaches of writing in an EFL context. In addition, it discusses the definition of
argumentative
writing
essays
including
the
‘concepts
of
argumentation’.
Subsequently, the chapter concentrates on the theoretical foundations of
argumentation, argumentative schemata theory and Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle
which are considered vital elements in composing argumentative writing. Krashen’s
(1983) theory on language acquisition, Flower and Hayes’s (1980) theory and
constructivist teaching strategies are then discussed in this chapter. Furthermore, the
chapter presents related studies on analysing argumentative writing difficulties.
Finally, the chapter presents the study’s conceptual framework and this is then
followed by a summary of the chapter.
2.1 The Writing Process
Behizadeh and Engelhard (2011) identified the meaning of writing by
separating it into three different definitions: (1) writing as form, (2) writing as
content and ideas and (3) writing as a process of social and culture context.
Behizadeh and Engelhard (2011) characterised writing theories in a current time as
focussing on (1) form, including grammar, procedures and individual skills; (2) idea
32
and content, counting creative resolutions, applying skills to real situations, and
imaginative thought inciting content; or (3) the writing related to social and cultural
context in which writing takes place. With reference to the doctrine of assessment
theory, these sections are rather unrealistic. However, it is useful for the purposes of
perceiving general themes and styles.
Some researchers (Johnson, 1995; Vesterman, 2003; Deqi, 2005; Lee, 2006;
Hinkel, 2013) consider writing as a process rather than a product. The initial aim of
the process is to generate a product that will work as a way of exchanging
information between the writer and the audience depending on the distributed
recognition they have. The writing process itself can be challenging since effective
writing requires a high degree of well-organised thought and information and a high
degree of sound reasoning so that persuasiveness and a convincing argument can
effectively persuade the audiences to accept the writer’s idea and change their beliefs
(Ramage & Bean, 1995). Basically, a written argument can be considered to be
logical and rational to its readers.
Hence, it can be concluded that a writer should have the appropriate
communicative skills and ability to generate an effective piece of argumentative
writing to fulfil the requirements of a writing task. An effective piece of
argumentative writing will rely on a logical idea and its persuasiveness in convincing
an audience. Therefore, it is imperative that the writer has the ability to produce an
effective argumentation in order to fulfil specific communicative needs. Moreover,
the writer should give importance to both the grammatical aspects of language and
the meaning of ideas to make the written argument logical and rational. According to
33
scholars such as Wood (2001) and Vesterman (2003), argumentative writing should
be well organised in both content and form, in which the logical and rational
perspectives of language are maintained. Such pieces of writing would normally
meet the requirements and expectations of the audience. Principally, a student would
need the necessary linguistic and persuasive competencies to be able to effectively
communicate information to his or her audience. They should be competent in
formulating both form and rational ideas to be creative writers as being competent in
one without the other is not enough to generate an effective piece of argumentative
writing.
Argumentative writing is a very challenging and complex process that
requires high mental effort to create sound reasoning in order to persuade and
convince audiences (Nippold and Ward-Lonergan , 2010). To create sound
reasoning, it requires the skilful use of logical and rational sentences to convince the
reader what he or she needs to know by being explicit, clear, well-organised, logical
and well-developed. Wood (2003, p.91) suggests that students of argumentative
writing should focus on the following aspects:
1. Choose an issue and write down some ideas.
2. Read some articles on your issue; think and take notes and write a first
draft.
3. Read the draft to a peer group in class to get ideas for additional research.
4. Carry out research in the library or on the Internet to supplement and
improve the content of the first draft.
5. Incorporate this research and write a second draft.
6. Read it to the peer editing group in class.
34
7. Rewrite, revise and prepare a final copy
Typically, argumentative writing is considered as a process rather than a
product. Therefore, researchers have started to analyse effective elements in
argumentative writing and the cognitive processes that students experience in the
course of writing about which research has been scarce in the past ( Powers, 2001;
Yang et al., 2006; Osborne et al., 2004; Jiménez-Aleixandre et al., 2007 ).
2.1.1 Approaches to the Teaching and Learning of EFL Writing
Chow (2007) posits that assumptions about producing an argumentative
written piece can be outlined in three main theoretical approaches to the teaching and
learning of writing. These approaches consist of the following:
1. The traditional product oriented approach.
2. The process oriented approach.
3. The genre oriented approach to the teaching and learning of writing.
Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages which will be
discussed in detail in the sections below.
Traditional Product Oriented Approach
This approach focuses on the mastery of grammatical and syntactic forms.
Teachers can provide a range of writing models from written textbooks. Written
textbooks can be used to help the students to experience an appropriate range of
writing models that they can reproduce while composing their written essays
(Holmes, 2001). This approach to the teaching of writing is highly teacher-centred
35
and contributes to the belief that teachers have the professional obligation to push
students’ learning by providing grammatical forms and preventing from producing
errors in a written essay (Silva,1990; Brown,2001; Hyland,2002; Harmer, 2007)
Mystkowska-Wiertelak and Pawlak, 2012; Hinkel, 2013).
Similarly, Badger and White (2000) express the view that this approach to
learning of writing is an approach to enhance students’ linguistic knowledge. It is an
approach that stresses the student’s mastery of language structure such as
vocabulary, mechanics and syntax. According to Badger and White (2000), the
product oriented approach shares four basic stages of writing and producing essays,
as shown in Figure 2.1 below:
Familiarization
Stage
Controlled
Writing Stage
Guided
Writing Stage
Free Writing
Stage
Figure 2.1: Different writing stages in product orient approach
Source: Badger and White (2000, p.153)
As shown in Figure 2.1, the different writing stages in the product oriented
approach are i) the familiarisation stage, ii) the controlled writing stage, iii) the
guided writing stage, and iv) the free writing stage. In the familiarisation stage, EFL
36
students are exposed to the structures of language and the specific patterns of the
written text such as a story, essay, letter or resume that the teachers think are
imperative for the students to master and reproduce. Writing models to help students
clearly understand the demanding of the written tasks are usually provided to the
students. This step is known as assisted imitation. In the controlled and guided
writing stages, the teacher provides the students with writing practices and
instructions that will help them to practice until they are completely ready to
continue the free writing stage and create and produce written products by
themselves (Badger & White, 2000; Hinkel,2013).
The Process Oriented Approach
The process oriented approach to writing instruction is noticeably different
from the traditional product oriented approach in both function and concept. This
approach is known as a student-centred approach that requires more concentration by
the students themselves with the teachers playing the role of facilitators (Deqi, 2005;
Lilian, 2008; Littlewood, 2009; Askarzadeh Torghabeh, 2011). The process oriented
approach was introduced because of immense disfavour with the product oriented
approach which did not meet the needs of the students.
The process oriented approach concentrates on the writing activities that
connect the creation and thoughts and ideas stage in the writer’s mind to produce the
written product. Figure 2.2 below shows the four writing stages of the process
oriented approach to writing instruction:
37
Pre-writing
Stage
Composing and
Drafting Stage
Revision Stage
Editing Stage
Figure 2.2: Different Writing Stages in Process Oriented Approach
Source: Badger and White (2000, p.153)
As indicated in the Figure above, the process oriented approach comprises
four writing stages which are i) the pre-writing stage, ii) the composing and drafting
stage, iii) the revision stage and iv) the editing stage. This approach typically aims to
provide opportunities for students to develop their ideas and thoughts throughout
different stages until they create and produce their final writing draft. In other words,
students do not need to follow a linear process to produce writing as the production
of a written essay is carried out cyclically through overlapping written processes
(Raimes, 1985; Silva, 1983; Wang, 2000; Brown, 2001; You, 2004; Thompson,
2001; Looi & Chen, 2010; Janssen et al., 2010). Therefore, in the process, it can
either be moved forward or backward at any stage in the process of writing.
38
The Genre Oriented Approach
The genre oriented approach to writing instruction is more current than the
other two approaches discussed so far. This approach shares many common features
with the product oriented approach such as concentrating on the linguistic knowledge
of the students and utilising appropriate text models as samples for imitation
(Hyland,2003a;
Hyland,2003b;
Leki,2003;
Casanave,2004;
Deng,2007;
Harmer,2007; White & Badger, 2000; Hinkel, 2013 ).
In contrast to the product oriented approach, Widdowson (1984, p.64) asserts
the basic assumptions of the genre oriented approach is that the writing process is a
provoked activity that is “located in an ongoing social life”. For instance, different
written products such as reports, academic writing, research projects, research work,
articles and newspapers are generated in different social contexts. This approach
comprises three writing stages which are presented in Figure 2.3 below:
Modelling Stage
Guided Practice
Stage
Production Stage
Figure 2.3: The Process of Genre Oriented Product
Source: Chow (2007)
39
As indicated in Figure 2.3 above, the process of the genre oriented approach
comprises three writing stages which are i) the modelling stage, ii) the guided
practice stage, and iii) the production stage. This approach is quite similar to the
product oriented approach. The linguistic knowledge of the learners is embedded in
the three stages. The use of an appropriate text model for language learners are
adopted and learned through the imitation (Badger and White, 2000; Chow, 2007). In
other words, the teacher facilitates the students to study a sample text model of an
effective piece of writing and students make an effort to imitate that directed
example via practices up to they can generate their own writing product.
Critique of the Three Writing Approaches
ESL and EFL researchers and lecturers (Badger & White, 2000; Hyland,
2003; Hinkel, 2013) have stated that the three approaches are different from each
other and that the teaching of writing in any context is portrayed as an area that
creates several conflicting opinions. In addition, researchers consider that each
approach has its strengths and weaknesses about which language lecturers should be
concerned (Chow, 2007). The fundamental weaknesses of the product oriented
approach is that it does not afford appropriate concentration to the actual writing
processes but rather focuses on the final written product (Kamimura, 2000).
Likewise, Badger and White (2000) criticised the product oriented approach
because it does not emphasise the prominent aspects of writing such as planning,
drafting and revising the written text. Writing instruction in the classroom is also not
40
given its due importance as the focus is mainly on the surface aspects of writing
particularly grammatical and linguistic accuracy in the final product.
In addition, lecturers applying the product oriented approach do not provide
feedback to students during the course of producing the written product. In other
words, the final products are just read, marked and graded. In spite of all of these
weaknesses, the product oriented approach does possess an advantage – there is a
focus on grammatical accuracy. Therefore, there is an emphasis on providing
students with better linguistic knowledge and input and providing appropriate
example texts to help them improve their writing (Chen, 2005).
The process oriented approach, on the other hand, emphasises the progress of
students’ processing skills. However, it does not provide the different types of
written products or their objectives. Scholars of writing (Silva, 1983; Brown, 2001;
Thompson, 2001) posited the view that while a process oriented approach to writing
instruction help students to be effective writers, it would not be beneficial when
students do not poses the knowledge of the readers, decoders or audience of the
written essay. Another limitation of this approach is that it is unable to adequately
provide students with appropriate linguistic knowledge to represent their ideas and
thoughts (Badger & White, 2000). In describing the strengths and weaknesses of
each writing approach of the three main approaches explained in this section,
scholars and researchers have different opinions.
Delpit (1993) noted that to gain effectiveness in teaching, clear instruction on
the forms and spoken discourse of classroom-based writing is essential to help
41
students understand important linguistic knowledge before starting a course. Another
noticeable weakness is the failure of the process oriented approach to provide
language learners the adequate linguistic knowledge to effectively generate their
ideas into writing. On the other hand, the main limitations of the genre oriented
approach are depicted as being parallel with those of the product oriented approach
in terms of its lack of regard for linguistic skills required for the language learners to
generate a piece of writing as well as its concentration on the final product inevitably
reducing the role of passive students (Badger & White, 2000).
With reference to the three main methods to writing instruction, the
researcher believes that all three approaches have benefits to the methodologies of
teaching writing. The process oriented approach has a great influence in writing
instruction in both ESL and EFL contexts (Badger & White, 2000; Hyland, 2003;
Hasan & Akhand, 2010; Hinkel, 2013).
It is the cognitive aspect of generating a piece of writing that has gained the
attention of many researchers in the writing area. Although the adoption of the
process oriented approach as an option is seen to be beneficial to language learners
and lecturers, it still encounters difficulties and problems. Initially, EFL language
lecturers who adopt a process oriented approach in teaching writing will experience
problems in implementing a writing programme because it is a teacher-centred
approach. The traditional approach has been taught in EFL classroom teaching for
decades. This is clearly reflected in the Thai EFL context even at higher education
level (university level). Textbooks are predominantly used in most EFL contexts, and
in Thailand, teachers invariably employ traditional approaches and writing models in
42
classroom practice. In this regard, the researcher believes that in writing instruction,
language learners must acquire the skill to display grammatical knowledge in a
competent way, which unfortunately is not given adequate focus in the process and
product oriented approaches. It is crucial for students to know how to use such
structures because it will help to make their writing more comprehensible to readers.
Apart from grammatical knowledge, it is imperative for students to know
how to make logical and rational claims in argumentative writing. In relation to this,
the researcher regards Toulmin’s (2003) model of argumentative writing as
appropriate in teaching students to create an effective piece of argumentative writing
that requires a strong claim to persuade and convince the readers. Therefore, in the
writing context, more emphasis should be given to the above mentioned aspects at
the higher education level in order to help EFL learners become more proficient in
generating well developed arguments.
2.1.2 The Structure of Argumentative Essays
Basically, a five paragraphs approach is considered a simple method for
writing an argumentative essay. However, it does not mean that there is only one
formula for the genre of writing. It is widely used because it is straightforward.
According to Nunnally, (1991, p.67), this method comprises the following three main
parts:
1. introduction
2. three body paragraph
3. conclusion
43
Nunnally (1991) suggested that the means to generate a good piece of
argumentative writing requires a student to consider the following five main
elements:
1. Clarity in thesis statement is crucial to write in the first paragraph.
In the first paragraph of the argumentative essay, it is advised that students write in a
general way which the writer needs to explain the importance of topic or why
audiences have to be concerned about the issue. Lastly, a student writer needs to
assert the thesis statement. It is necessary that a thesis statement be properly concise
to follow the directions proposed in the task performance. If the writer is not
proficient in this part of the essay, it is very hard for them to write an effective
argumentative essay.
2. Clarity in transitions among the three main elements
Transitions are the connecting devices that hold the elements of the essay
together. The audience is unable to follow the argumentative essay without logical
thought. Therefore, the structure will break down. It is recommended that transitions
be used to conclude the belief or notion from the preceding part and present the
notion that is to be written in the next part.
3. Three body paragraphs that contain strong evidence to support a thesis statement
It is imperative that each paragraph consists of one main idea to ensure clarity
throughout the essay. In addition, it is easy for the reader to understand. It is crucial
to indicate that each paragraph contains some rational link to the thesis statement in
44
the first paragraph. Some paragraphs precisely provide the result of research studies
as evidence to support the thesis statement. It is also crucial to give a reason for why
the evidence supports the thesis statement (warrant). However, an argumentative
essay is required to present opposing views based on the topic. To rely on the length
of the task performance, a student needs to write opposing ideas on the topic at least
two paragraphs of an argumentative essay. Students need to indicate how opinions
that do not coordinate with their thesis statement might not be updated rather than
explain how these opposing opinions are wrong.
4. Solid evidences are regarded to make the strong argument
The argumentative essay needs precise, descriptive and logical evidence to
back up the thesis statement. It is necessary to consider other opinions as well. Some
factual, logical, statistical or anecdotal evidence are used to back up the thesis
statement. However, students have to consider different opinions when gathering
evidence. Regarding to the paragraph mentioned above, a student needs to discuss
opposing opinions in order to balance the argumentative essay. It is wrong to discard
evidence given by the other opinions about the topic that may not support the thesis
statement because it is not necessary for students to point out how other opinions are
completely wrong. They had better explain how other opinions are not well
informed.
5. Restatement of the thesis statement in light of the evidence in a conclusion
Most students struggle when they arrive at this point of the essay. This part of
the essay grasps the most impression on the reader’s mind. Therefore, a conclusion
must be effective and logical to draw the attention of the audience. They do not need
45
to write any new information into the conclusion. It needs to synthesis the presented
information in the body of the essay. It is recommended to readdress the importance
of the topic, review the main ideas, and the thesis statement. In light of the essay, a
student writer needs to write a short discussion of more research. The classic five
paragraphs approach is widely employed in all types of writing including
argumentative essays because it comprises important structures to write a well
organised argumentative essay. In addition, it is considered an appropriate approach
to teach students to understand into the writing form.
2.1.3 Rhetorical Structure of Argumentative Essays
Researchers like Hyland (1990), Liu (2005), Jonassen and Kim (2010)
confirmed that the example of a model text is regarded the finest part of detail
including favourable frames and a precisely description. Therefore, the
argumentative essay is illustrated based on its aim which is to convince the audience
to accept or reject the appeal from a thesis statement. This model text is categorised
by a three stage pattern which exemplifies the main argumentative writing structure:
Thesis, Argument and Conclusion. Subsequently, each stage carries a form
represented in terms of moves, some of which are alternative components in the
system. Moves are recognised in multiple means at the level of pattern in the form of
lexical and grammatical meaning. However, discourse moves cannot be isolated in
specific clause relations or lexical signs. The three stage patterns of argumentative
writing are illustrated as follows:
46
I. The Thesis Stage
Hyland (1990), Bacha (2010) and Crossley et al. (2014) claimed that the
thesis stage is to present the topic and pursue a writer’s proposal or a thesis
statement. It is commonly written in the first paragraph to draw the audience’s
attention. The following five types of moves (Hyland, 1990) can be selected to write
a thesis statement:
1. The tactic is characterised mostly by its remarkable effect on the audience. The
role of the move is mainly to attract the audience’s attention instead of notifying. The
move usually exists in editorials and needs authority people to influence the written
proposal.
Example:
The quality of Thai graduates in language competence is complained by many
employers.
2. Introducing moves are employed extensively for this type of writing. This
understanding is widely derived from a confined type of illocutions which contains
definitions, classifications, descriptions, critiques or arguments.
Example:
Education is an investment in human resource and is imperative to develop
the society (Definition)
Example:
Students in Thailand have over 2000 institutions providing for them ranging
from primary schools through universities. Universities spent a lot of money
47
to enhance the tertiary system but did not gain effective achievement to
produce qualified graduates to meet the demand the marketplace (critique).
3. The proposal moves that it is considered as a very crucial element. It is used to
provide a particular statement of position. It yields a concentration to the whole
writing.
Examples:
It is clear that the university sector required more money to develop the
quality of teaching and learning.
The universities called for more government funding support to develop the
quality of graduates.
I strongly recommend the idea that our university sector be allocated in terms
of financial assistance to help improve teaching quality.
4. The thesis statement consists of an evaluation that gives a positive statement on
the topic.
Examples:
This primary sector is the most vital because it gives fundamental knowledge
and skills for students to pursue the next education level.
Basic education is mainly concerned because it is the spine of our education
system.
5. The marker move constructs the speech by giving a signposting for its script. It
can be seen frequently in the test directions. It is limited to a specific classroom.
48
Examples:
There are various logical reasons for raising assistance to primary education.
There are three connecting parts that can help to find for resolutions in this
issue (Source: Hyland, 1991, p. 70-71).
II. The Argument Stage
This stage provides the structure of rationales that aim to distinguish the
genre of writing (Hyland, 1991). It consists of a cycle of four moves in a particular
system:
1. The marker sets up the subsequence and links in both stages in the argument with
the proposal. To change to a new subsequence can be tacit in a topic change and
claim. However, writers often need to apparently persuade the audience through the
argument stage.
Hyland (1990), Cho and Jonassen (2002) and Roznitskaya et al. (2007)
suggested that there are two main components for achieving this:
a) Students list signal words such as first(ly), second(ly), next, etc. They can select
closed type of conventional components which give a bank of items but the audience
needs to understand the relationships between them.
b) Students understand the means to use transition signals in order to illustrate the
step to another consequence, namely addition, contrast, condition, specificity in order
to indicate for changes in the discussion.
Examples:
Turning to the social advancement of tertiary education....
49
Another method to help improve the quality of graduate is to...
However, a modified teaching programme in tertiary level is mainly required
to carry out and...
2. It is common to write a restatement of the proposal especially in testing data. It is
written for foregrounding the proposal to provide a warning of the course.
Examples:
The first reason why government funding should be given to the primary
division is...
Another means to develop the quality of tertiary education is....
3. Students acknowledge claim is the main move in the argument organisation. This
is a reason for approving the validity of the proposal. There are mainly three tactics
for convincing:
(i) A statement appealing is considered as effectiveness of shared intentions about
the background of the topic. This is a persuasion to consent with the student’s beliefs
and accept the reason of the stand point for instance it is clearly anticipated to insight
into the incident as the writer acceptance the argument for primary education.
With the fundamental proficiency we obtain from primary schools it helps us to
comprehend the economy of our country.
Examples:
The following claim also depends on expectations for appealing, albeit it calls
for more evidence to prove relevance.
To provide the essence knowledge of voting in this division also assists
people perceive how to vote in elections instead of someone directing them.
50
(ii) There is another option that students can access the audience by using facts or
expert opinion to present a generalization. Examples of using expert opinions are as
follows:
For the best social returns we spend slightest government fund for each
student in primary schools
The Prime minister of Thailand states that this division equips students to be
ready to work.
(iii) Students can use the third tactic to present opinion in order to increase effect
with the regard for decrease opposing opinions. Below are some examples to present
opinions:
It is believed that tertiary education cannot equip students to meet the demand
of ASEAN.
The country’s economy is disintegrating.
4. The support move is an imperative section to the thesis statement. It provides a
clear support for the claim. It consists of several paragraphs presenting to various
kinds of evidence. This type of move is related to the claim. It searches for evidence
to support the claim. To be successful of the claim-support relies on explicitly
creating this relevance.
Peters (1985, p.8) stated that “the connection almost always includes some
tacit understandings or warrants and these differ enormously in the generality of their
acceptance”. It is clear to see that the knowledge of the audience is crucial for the
writer to get the idea to present the support move to convince the audience to consent
given beliefs. The warrant is different from shared understandings. On the other
51
hand, a basic knowledge is affected the audience. For instance, the writer tends to
have less obstruction to a specific claim and discard unstated statement:
...all children who reside in Thailand are required to study for a basic
education (Source: Hyland, 1990, p.72-74 ).
III. The Conclusion Stage
The conclusion is considered a combination of elements in argumentative
essays. It performs to develop the discourse. It reflectively confirms what has been
stated. There are four moves in this stage:
1. There are signal words or phrases used to write in this stage for example, normally
thus, therefore, to conclude, the lesson to be drawn is and so on.
2. The consolidation move indicates back to the content of the argument in order to
bridge the points of the argument stage with the thesis statement. It is the vital
section of the conclusion. Below are examples of conclusion:
Therefore, the quality of the graduates in tertiary education is developed to
meet the demand of the employers in various sectors.
....many changes are required to be carried out in order to develop the quality
of graduates in tertiary education to be ready for the trend of AEC.
3. The affirmation is an alternative readdress of the proposal. This type is rarely
found in journalism but in argumentative writing is commonly used to restate the
thesis statement in a conclusion stage. Examples of restatement are as follows:
In conclusion, I strongly recommend that government funding should be
allocated on the tertiary division.
52
The tertiary sector is a very important stage in improvement the community
and country and thus it is entitled to obtain the government funding to
strengthen the quality of graduates.
4. On the other hand, the retrospective operation of the consolidating move gives an
expected focus. It aims to unaddressed aspects of the discussion in order to broaden
the situation. Examples of a consolidating move are as follows:
In turn, this will increase the income to help improve the standard of living in
the community.
If nothing is worked out to develop this sector, our country will be put in
jeopardy (Source: Hyland, 1990, p.74).
Hyland (1990, p.75) stated that “a genre-based description of text
organisation is not an end in itself for an increased understanding of communicative
events can be of great value to teachers and learners”. This information provides a
key role to language by underlining that it is employed to gain the knowledge of
writing. Genre analysis provides students the vocabulary and concepts of
argumentation that they can follow to write as a model text. EFL students experience
writing problems owing to an inability to write the preference of content and
organisation to meet the requirement of the argumentative essay. This is undoubted
that argumentative structure retains a crucial component of the learning process.
Genre descriptions are employed to assist students understand the structure of the
text therefore they enable to produce an argumentative writing (Bacha, 2010;
Crossley et al. 2014).
53
In the same vein, Martin and Rothery (1993) and Rothery (1996) state that
generic structure of knowledge is favourably employed to instruct writing at primary
levels. The components of narrative structure in familiar lines were exposed to Grade
2 children for recognising the model texts. Then they were directed to write their
own essays. Martin et al. (1997,p.142) point out that “knowledge of staging and
grammatical realisations did not frighten the children but promoted more effective
negotiations and consultations as well as providing each child with their own
individual scaffolding that can be deployed as needed to produce successful texts”.
It is essential for teachers to mediate an effective pedagogy to teach in their
classes. It is believed that this detailed information of the argumentative essay is
useful in many ways. Firstly, it makes the schema features clearer. Teachers can
select proper examples of the argumentative essay as models. These selected models
can be reviewed and exploited step by step to present how an essay is improved. On
the other hand, they were exposed to unorganised lines to provide chances for
analysing weaknesses. Students were given opportunities to analyse the problems
and examples of ineffective expression. Secondly, the structure of argumentative
writing can be employed for directed writing practice. Guided structure is functioned
on individually intensify strategies to draw up a proposal or compose an effective
conclusion. This can be gradually developed by raising the intricacy and how
working systems are presented. Alternatively, motivation can be placed on authentic
texts to write a statement within a larger discourse. Thirdly, research skills can be
developed as they are essential parts of accumulating an argument stage in order to
focus on the link between support moves and claim. It presents the relation to the
proposal. Moreover, students are required to know the skill of material selection,
54
library searches, note-taking and summarising. These skills are crucial features of
essay writing.
Furthermore, the lecturer’s evaluation of learners’ written essays can be
administered in a practical way. The information of this genre gives a standard for
valuable feedback, giving objective criteria for qualitative assessment. It also gives a
basis for informed review on each stage of the essay. The methods for development
can be recommended relied on clear insights of the required content instead of
simply encouraging students with scores and grades.
Finally, a clear approach can offer more avenues for group discussion. It can
mediate the lecturer at the writing stage. Writing is considered a collaborative
enterprise because learners can discuss with the lecturer how to establish their
arguments. With reference to explicit knowledge of the argumentative genre, the
lecturer provides activities for students to discuss in class and peer students can yield
more explicit recommendations and assessment during a class discussion.
Hyland (1991) claims that teachers’ intervention to develop learners’
metacognitive and metalinguistic knowledge is a key to develop students’ writing
skills. It can be said that it is crucial for teachers to understand the idea of
intervention to help improve their students’ writing skills. The focus on form and a
linguistic metalanguage use do not indicate restrictive tenets or limitations on
proficiency. It does not imply that this approach is better than grammar drills.
However, it is a tactic to build up students’ awareness on how language functions in
the argumentative essay context.
55
A particularly ‘product-based’ orientation is not recommended to teach
writing because students are required to improve their process skills. However, an
understanding the processes of writing does not impede the structural information. It
is imperative to provide a clear knowledge of target rhetoric forms to students. A
crucial modification in forms is pivotal for students to practice in order to achieve
better proficiency in writing. It can go with integrated process methods. It can be said
that explanation of text products will provide pivotal classroom support for the
student whose linguistic proficiencies are not likely to produce compositions
(Jonassen & Kim, 2010; Ghanbari, 2014).
It is known that genres are socially set up activities and express how language
is normally utilised to achieve specific purposes in our society. Effective argument is
considered a matter of controversial issues in the society as a content to make an
argument includes improvement of rhetorical steps. In other words, to make an
argument is to voice opinions in these peculiar means. Therefore, the initial
information of the argumentative essay is used to outline the confined area of
alternatives available to writers when making an argument. It is relied on the idea
that the structural formation provides considerably to the comprehension of the
definition it holds. It is believed that a description of this form can be a crucial
pedagogical resource (Hyland, 1990; Coffin, 2004; Jonassen &Kim, 2010; Ghanbari,
2014).
56
2.2 Argumentative Writing
2.2.1 Definition of argumentative writing
Crowhurst (1990) states that an argumentative essay as more challenging
because writing argumentative essays are more cognitively demanding than writing
narrative essays. Reids (1988) states that in argumentative writing, the writer takes a
position on a controversial issue, gives reasons and opinions, clarifies and illustrates
those opinions to convince the audience to agree or disagree with an issue. Applebee
(1984, p.87) defines argumentative writing in a confined perspective as “the writing
that has a hierarchical, analytic structure and requires critical arguments to be
systematically” supported’’.
Connor (1987, p. 185) provides a broad definition of argumentative writing;
“written persuasive discourse integrates the rational and affective appeals and the
appeals to credibility”. She considers the task of persuasion a complex cognitive
process of problem-solving demanding the writer’s awareness of the writer’s
purpose, the audience expectations, the rhetorical pattern and the context of situation
or problematic situation. According to Connor (1990), argumentative writing intends
to change the reader’s primary opposing position to the final position that equals the
writer’s. Choi (1988, p.17) defines argumentative writing as “one kind of writing
whose main purpose is to persuade the reader to accept the writer’s belief or
opinion”. The writer is required to demonstrate his or her position clearly to the
audience. Thus, audience awareness is important in argumentative writing. Both
Connor and Choi consider audience awareness as a vital element to write an
57
argumentative essay, but Connor gives a broader perspective on argumentative
writing, taking it as a process of problem solving.
Reid (1988) illustrates that the purposes of argument involve presenting an
opinion to the audience, explaining, clarifying and illustrating that opinion and
convincing the audience that the opinion is right to move the audience to action. An
argument intends to convince the audience that the opinion is correct or, for an
opposed audience, persuade the audience that the opinion is worth considering. Reid
also suggested the process of reaching the aims of argumentative writing in which
the writer is required to decide upon the controversial topic including making a list of
arguments for two sides, write a thesis, develop solid reasons or arguments and
organise them in order of essence and strengths and utilise supporting evidence for
example facts, examples, physical descriptions, statistics and personal experiences.
Crowhurst (1990, p.349) defines an argumentative essay as the type of
“writing that the writers take a point of view and support it with either emotional
appeals or logical appeals”. Crowhurst concentrates on the writer’s role in writing an
argumentative essay instead of the audience. In argumentative essay writing, the
writers are expected to monitor writing as the act of persuasion in which they aim to
persuade the audience to accept their position on the given issue. The student writers
composing an argumentative essay need to have a careful plan by analysing the
expected audience, anticipating and addressing the audience’s opposition and trying
to convince the audiences to think in the same way as the writer (Connor, 1990). To
comply with the rhetorical approach of an argumentative essay, the student writer has
58
to concentrate on a controversial issue, take a position and offer reasons and
supporting evidence to persuade the audience to agree with him or her.
Coffin (2004, p.236) defines an argumentative essay as a type of writing
which aims to increase or decrease “the acceptability of a controversial standpoint
for the listener or reader”. There are four argument genres that comprise different
stages and are organised differently according to their purpose, as shown in Table 2.1
below:
59
Table 2.1: Four common argument genres in student academic writing
Genre
Purpose
Hortatory
Analytical
Hortatory
Analytical
Exposition
Exposition
Discussion
Discussion
To put forward a To put forward To argue the case To argue the case
point of view and a point of view for two or more for two or more
recommend
a or argument
points of view points
course of action
of
view
about the issue about an issue and
and recommend state a position
a course of action
Staging
Thesis
Thesis
Issue
(Recommendation)
Argument
+
Evidence
(Counter-
Arguments
Arguments
+
Evidence
+
Issue
Evidence
(2
(Counter-
+
+
or
Arguments
+
Evidence
more (2
or
perspectives)
perspectives)
Argument
Arguments
(Judgement/
Judgement/
Evidence)
Evidence)
Position)
Position
more
( Reinforcement of Reinforcement
thesis)
of thesis
Recommendation
Source: Coffin (2004, p.236)
Note: 1. An optional 1stage is shown in parentheses.
2. ^ = ‘is followed by’
Coffin (2004, p.236) states that an argumentative essay “ is generally located
in the genre category analytical exposition – a kind of factual text with the purpose of
60
persuading people that a particular point of view is correct”. To achieve this purpose,
several stages need to be illustrated, with a typical staging or schematic structure
being “Thesis ^ Arguments + Evidence ^ (Counter-Argument + Evidence) ^
Reinforcement of thesis”. In the Thesis stage, the topic and the writer’s position are
presented. Optionally, arguments to be illustrated will be outlined. In the Argument
stage, arguments supporting the position will be presented. Evidence will be
elaborated to develop and support the arguments. The Counter-Argument stage may
or may not be presented. Then in the Reinforcement of thesis stage, the writer’s
position will be restated to reinforce his /her position (Coffin 2004, p.237).
These definitions clearly indicate that the key elements of an argumentative
essay include a controversial topic, the writer’s position, critical arguments and
reasons to support the position. The goal of an argumentative essay is to convince the
audience to accept the writer’s proposition. Writing an argumentative essay is not
easy because it requires not only being well organised around a clear thesis through
illustration, but also to influence the audience’s attitudes and viewpoints. Thus, the
students’ success in writing an argumentative essay rests in taking audience
awareness into consideration, and arranging and organising components needed in an
argumentative discourse in a logical, systematic and effective way. To achieve this
aim, students are required to be familiar with the way argumentative essay is
structured.
61
2.2.2 Concepts of Argumentation
Kuhn (1991, p.12) defines arguments as “assertions with accompanying
justification”. In the same vein, van Eemeren et al. (1996, p. 5) define argumentation
as “a verbal and social activity of reason aims at increasing (or decreasing) the
acceptability of a controversial standpoint for the listener or reader, by putting
forward a constellation of propositions intended to justify (or refute) the standpoint
before a rational judge”. Typically, argumentative writing is defined as a genre of
writing where writers are required to express their own points of view in
academically appropriate forms and strategies (Varghese and Abraham, 1998).
Likewise, Wood (2001, p.5) asserts that the goal of argument “is to create or increase
the adherence of minds to the theses presented for [the audience’s] assent.”
According to the definitions mentioned earlier, it can be concluded that an
argumentative essay is a genre of writing that requires the writers to clearly take their
stance and give adequate real evidence to support the claim in order to convince the
audience to accept or reject the proposal.
In relation to academic discourse, Toulmin (2003) and Mitchell et al. (2008)
state the term ‘argument’ is employed in many ways, ranging from the philosophical
construct of grounds (evidence) and conclusions to various writing practices. It is
considered as individual claims or a whole text. In reference to an individual claim,
argument refers to a thesis statement that is supported by grounds (evidence) and
warrants. Davies (2008, p. 328) asserts that this type of argument requires the ability
to make assumptions. It can be taught by using syllogisms (deductive reasoning) for
example “if Socrates is a man and all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal’’. On
62
the other hand, in reference to whole text, Andrew (1995, p.3) define an argument as
“a process of argumentation, a nexus series of statements intended to establish a
position and implying response to another position”. Similarly, Toulmin et al. (1984,
p.14) define argument as “the sequence of interlinked claims and reasons that
between them, establish content and force of the position for which a particular
speaker or writer is arguing”. According to these definitions, the vital component of
argumentation is to clearly state the stance and present the position through the
logical organisation of the thesis statement that draws up this position which is
mentioned in Andrew’s definition as “a nexus series of statements” and in Toulmin
et al.’s as “the sequence of interlinked claims and reasons”. However, Woo (2006, p.
330) claims that there is a third component which students are required to learn in
order to write a well organised argumentative essay, which is to analyse and assess
the knowledge of content.
Research has illustrated that many academic lecturers and learners have
unclear perceptions of argumentation which can be connected to a difficult insight of
what the genre essay calls for. Johns (2008) points out that it is difficult to give the
definition of an argumentative essay as a genre because it is utilised as an umbrella
term for different kinds of discipline-specific writing and the structure’s features of
argumentation is extremely contrary to disciplines. This reason leads them to
question the concept of an argument. Therefore, it is imperative to explain the
discipline’s value system and epistemology to students to understand the concept of
argumentative writing. Samraj (2004) and Andrews (2010) agree with the earlier
statement that the epistemology and discipline’s value system are considered as wellwritten and valid arguments in writing argumentative essays.
63
2.2.3 Theoretical Foundations of Argumentation
Resnick et al. (1993) and Candela (1998, cited in Leitao, 2000, p.332) claim
that the empirical and theoretical research on argumentation has developed
remarkably over the past few decades. This research study has reviewed diverse
methods to the study of argumentation from the theoretical framework to the
methodological perspectives. With reference to the differences in approaches to its
study, there are clear agreements among researchers about the point of views that
argumentation is valuable for the shaping of new recognition and alters in the people
perspectives.
Argumentation is also considered as the crucial feature of critical thinking by
Kuhn (1993; cited in Jonassen & Kim, 2010). Voss and Van Duke (2001) present the
view that argumentation is concerned as the independent ability to employ critical
thinking. Meanwhile Jonassen and Kim (2010) assert that learning argumentation
requires a complex thinking ability to form expressions as well grounded reasons in
writing.
Jonassen and Kim (2010) conducted a literature review on how argument
ability influences other cognitive competence and ways of gaining recognition. They
found that argumentation is associated to a scientific thinking skill. Siegel (1995)
asserts that argumentation underpins scientific thinking skill. It is said that scientific
knowledge is gained by employing scientific skills linked with argumentation (von
Aufschaiter et al. 2008). Driver et al. (2000) assert that an argument involves with a
social constructivist perspective of effectiveness formation where learners learn
64
through grasping reflective interactions that concern the knowledge of social
construction.
Learning argument involves
the epistemological levels and
epistemological foundations of knowledge domains. These prime principles are
employed to search for rational reasons to support the claims of controversial issues
to convince the audience or reader.
Jonassen and Kim (2010, p.441) claimed that clearly understanding
perceptions of the skill to argue comes from Kuhn (1991, p.2) who proposed that
cognition is “a way to formulate and weigh the arguments for and against a course of
action, a view or a solution to a problem”. Castillo (2012, p.1675) identified five
crucial competences of argument:
1. the ability to create uncertain assumption to promote claims or conclusions
2. the skill to give evidence to advocate a thesis statement
3. the skill to produce optional beliefs
4. the skill to indicate the conditions that would confront the beliefs that
people possessed
5. the skill to argue other opposing views.
Kuhn (1991) confirmed that argument can be regarded solid if it consists of
these components. There are many different types of arguments based on their
purposes such as communicative or expressive, expository and persuasive (van
Eemeren et al., 1996, cited in Leitao, 2000). Rhetorical arguments are aimed as a
conversation between a writer and a reader and are the most prevalent forms of
argument. The purpose of rhetorical arguments, also known as argument monologue,
is to persuade the audience to believe in what the writer express their opinions
65
against the other stances held (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1996, cited in Leitao,
2000). However, the rhetorical method in this current research is a written form
because students are required to be able to produce a thesis statement and use a type
of data (evidence) to support the claims by applying the underlying principles
mentioned above to create a solid argument.
2.2.4 Argumentative Schemata Theory
With reference to literature on reasoning, it is known that there are many
alternative definitions of reasoning including its knotty skills (Kuhn, 1992; Taboada
& Mann, 2006). Anderson et al. (2001, p.2) define rational argument as “a flow of
propositions within a discourse of reasoned argumentation’’. On the other hand,
Taboada and Mann (2006) regard the argumentation as efficient negotiation within a
specific social context. Reznitskaya and Anderson (2002) claimed that writers are
required to count on a theoretical model called Argumentative Schemata Theory
(AST hereafter) in order to comprehend the argumentative reasoning component. In
relation to AST, the knowledge of an argumentative essay is exemplified through a
skeletal mental structure that is known as an argument schema. Toulmin (2003)
stated that normative models of a rational argument is to propose the development of
argument formation which consists of components such as the stance, reasons,
grounds, warrants, backing, modifiers, counterarguments and rebuttals. It maintains
an insight of the rhetorical pattern of the argument structure. It is imperative to
understand its processes, operations and situations for use. Particularly, an argument
formation is concerned more than a simple selection of individual components.
These components and their marriages are promoted through a set of stances which
66
replace an “explanatory framework” (Mishra & Brewer, 2003) for the perspective
model. Student writers need to understand the operation and value of a logic
argument as a way for selecting among choices that is embedded in the explanatory
formation for an argument structure. Govier (1987, p. 233) claimed that such an
understanding is “something quite elementary and yet illusive to many not
encouraged to think about reasoning, argumentation, and the justification of claims.
It is a sense that reasoning is going on, that there is an inference made from some
propositions to others, and that this inference can be critically scrutinised”.
Anderson et al. (2001) asserted that an argument schema can be divided into
argument gambits or repetitive patterns. Argument stratagems are explicit rhetorical
and rational moves employed in argument. For instance, in a study exploring
students’ debates that relied on fictional stories they read (Anderson et al., 2001), it
was noted that students often utilise such statements as “in the story, it is said” or “on
page 10, she said,” to clearly mark information as taking from the story in order to
increase its trustworthiness and to connect to convincing force of their debates. This
gambit is identified with the common form “In the story, it is said [EVIDENCE].’’
The capitalized, bracketed part of the gambit will alter in answering to diverse
situations. Reznitskaya et al. (2001; 2007) recommended that the use of appropriate
stratagems may help students produce well developed arguments.
67
2.2.5 Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle
Killingsworth (2005) and Haskins (2013) considered argumentation as
efficiently positioned and negotiated within a specific social setting. A social
background can be seen as a rhetorical triangle with interrelated points that consists
of the writers or speaker, an audience, and the subject or topic. It is known as
Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle (communication triangle). Speakers or writers can
examine how interaction occurs and use that insight to improve sound and persuasive
arguments. In order to do that, writers are required to take into account the three
main components shown in Figure 2.4 below:
Writer
Audience
Subject
/Message
Figure 2.4: Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle
Hassen (2004) stated that a student writer has to begin to regard three
components: the subject, the audience, and the writer on how to write a text. The
three components are linked and are interdependent within the triangle. White and
Billings (2002) explained that the first component students need to regard is the
subject. It means that the writers figure out what they know and need to know,
68
explore point of views, and determine different kinds of valuable evidences or proofs
that can be used to support the thesis statement.
Typically, students are often
instructed how to back up claims with suitable grounds or evidence. It is believed
that students know well and feel confident about what is going to be written on the
assigned topic in the subject point of the triangle. However, Aristotle displayed
knowing a subject (rhetorical terms, and reasons) is only one feature of composing
argumentative writing.
Ramage et al. (2004) explained the second element that students need to
consider which is the audience. This component means the writer requires assuming
about the reader’s expectations, knowledge and emotions. It is beneficial for students
to know what their audience anticipate from them when they give a response to an
assignment given by a teacher. With reference to the understanding of the audience
expectation, they are enabling to write valuable details. It is useful to provide an
instruction about the persuasiveness that an argument demands and the negotiation
between writer and audience. To do this, instructions will suggest to students what
the audience expects and will call for. Students are required to understand a
rhetorical triangle in order to persuade the audience to believe in their point of views.
White and Billings (2002) argued that if students practice Aristotle’s definition, they
can employ their own observation and experience to assist them to write to the point
of communication triangle. Understanding about rhetorical elements, the writers
enable to create their writing voices to convince the audience. Regarding the
exordium, writers make an effort to yield reader understand of the writer’s tone as
well as of the subject by employing his or her experience to express the individual
expression. The construction of that expression Aristotle named the persona, the
69
standpoint the writers create as they write. Aristotle viewed these rhetorical
components taking from lived experience. It is valuable for students to practice
observing carefully and comment on rhetorical situations in action. This practical
exercise builds up crucial skills to help students transfer skills to their writing and
interpreting of argumentative lines.
Magrath (2012) noted that many writing scholars support the application of
the rhetorical triangle as a means of evaluation and insight into any potential
rhetorical situation. The rhetorical triangle, as developed by Aristotle, (1356a, p.10),
is divided into three perceptions acquired to understand any rhetorical settings:
1. the writer’s credibility (ethos),
2. the writer’s competence to stimulate the sentiments of the targeted audience
(pathos),
3. the rational evidences used by the writer (logos)
In many courses, teachers need to spur their students to apply the rhetorical
triangle by inquiring questions for example: Is this information reliable? (Ethos)
How do you think the audience will respond to this statement? (Pathos) Does this
argument convince the audience? (Logos)”. The generality of these questions gives
an allowance for teachers to access into communications about student writing based
on given topics. It is imperative for the teacher to understand about a rhetorical
triangle and teach students to apply all potential rhetorical situations in their writing.
Figure 2.5 below shows a rhetorical triangle:
70
LOGOS(idea, message)
PATHOS (force, emotion)
ETHOS (form, manner)
Figure 2.5: Rhetorical Triangle
Any communication consists of a trilateral relationship (rhetorical triangular).
It means that each point of the triangle affects the others, and all are affected by the
circumstance of the communication. In relation to this, each point of the triangle
carries some responsibilities for the achievement of the communication, and each
point of the triangle coordinates with one of Aristotle's three appeals: rational
(logos), emotional (pathos), and ethical appeals (ethos). Toulmin (2003) suggested
that once readers have ensured that the basic elements of argument are engaged, they
move on to determine the other issues such as the strength of persuasion. Crowhurst
(1988) asserted that persuasive methods are needed to be assessed in the
circumstance of the reader to whom the argumentative writing is stated. Varghese
and Abraham (1998) advocated that if the writers produce an explicit persona with a
credible expression, they construct reliability to convince the audience.
This research adopts the rhetorical triangle concepts to provide the persuasive
strategies combined with the underlying basic structure of Toulmin’s model (2003)
to students. It is believed that both underlying concepts will help students to create a
71
clear stance and solid reasons to back up the thesis statement in order to develop
credibility in argumentative writing.
2.3 Teaching Theories
2.3.1 Krashen’s theory on language acquisition
Krashen’s theory on language acquisition claims that efficient and effective
natural foreign language acquisition can occur in the classroom environment. His
Acquisition Theory consists of five hypotheses as follows:
1. The acquisition-learning hypothesis. This states that there is a strict
separation between conscious learning of language and subconscious
acquisition of language and that only acquisition can lead to efficient
language use.
2. The monitor hypothesis. This states that language knowledge that is
consciously learned can only be employed to monitor output, not to
produce new language. Monitoring output needs learners to be
concentrated on the rule and to have time to apply it.
3. The input hypothesis. This states that language is obtained by exposure to
comprehensible input at a level a little higher than that the learner can
already comprehend. Krashen terms this kind of input "i+1".
4. The natural order hypothesis. This states that learners obtained the
grammatical features of a language in a fixed order and that this is not
affected by teaching.
5. The affective filter hypothesis. This states that learners must be relaxed
and open to learning in order for language to be gained. Learners who are
nervous cannot learn features in the input that more relaxed learners
would take up with little effort.
The fifth point discusses how the emotional factor would considerably
influence students’ English language learning. Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis
72
(1985) suggests that language learners might be disturbed by emotional factors in the
language learning process. It is possible that students would not be able to
understand what they should learn in class because of their teacher’s unpleasant
manners or classmates’ aggressive and competitive attitudes. In his affective filter
hypothesis, Krashen (1982) points out that in Second Language Acquisition (SLA),
the main factors of learner success in language learning should be lined up to the
students’ emotional condition. A language learners’ passion for participating in the
class and confidence from teachers’ encouragements can lead to accomplishment in
their SLA. Krashen’s theory became a prevalent influence in both second language
teaching practices. Krashen posited that SLA is determined by the amount of
comprehensible input that is one-way input in the second language that is both
understandable and at the level just beyond the current linguistic competence of
learners. Krashen’s scaffolding theory is referred to as i + 1. This theory maintains
that a second language is learned unconsciously in a manner similar to the
acquisition of the first language. According to Krashen (1996), language learning is
based on the concept of receiving messages learners can understand. Teachers can
make language input comprehensible through a variety of strategies such as linguistic
simplification and the use of visuals, pictures, graphic organisers and other current
second language learning strategies.
Based on Krashen, acquisition is a subconscious process while learning is
conscious. Although both play a role in developing second-language competence,
acquisition is far more important, since the competence developed through it, is
responsible for producing language and thus elucidates language efficiency.
Competence gained through learning, or the “Monitor” as Krashen terms it, can only
73
alter language generated by obtained language competence. In other words, the
second language student can use learned rules to “monitor” or correct his language
either before or after the moment of production. Monitoring provides a limited
function, however, since it can be performed only when there is sufficient time, when
the concentration is on form, and when the necessary rule has been learned.
Normally, these rather restricted conditions are met when a person is writing or
taking a grammar test.
Krashen points out that learned competence and gained competence develop
in prominently different ways. In his view, language learning appears through the
conventional study of rules, patterns and conventions, a study which empowers one
to talk about and consciously engage the knowledge gained. Language acquisition
takes place quite differently. It develops exclusively through “comprehensible input”.
That is, second language students obtain language competence by exposure to
language that is both understandable and meaningful to them. By concentrating on
meaning, they subconsciously obtain form. The most valuable input for acquisition is
language that goes just a step beyond the structures which second language students
have already gained (or, in Krashen’s terminology, i + 1, where i represents language
at the students’ current level of competence). No matter how appropriate the input,
however, acquisition will not take place if a student’s “affective filter,” or collection
of emotional responses that obstruct comprehension of meaning, is raised.
Importantly, Krashen insists that learning does not turn into acquisition
except in a certain intricate way. This can appear only if second language students
successfully monitor their language production so that they equip their own
74
grammatically correct comprehensible input. This self –produced input then becomes
part of the total necessary for acquisition to occur (Krashen and Terrell, 1983).
Krashen posits the existence of the Monitor largely upon studies relied on the
discovery that people, both children and adults obtain the morphemes of a second
language in a remarkably similar order. Modifications in this natural order can be
discovered, however, when subjects are exposed to common instruction in late
obtained morphemes (the- s ending of English third person singular present tense
verbs, for example) and are then given tests which need them to focus on form with
ample time to respond. Under these conditions, they are able to provide morphemes
which they have not yet shown evidence of obtaining. If these subjects are
subsequently placed in a situation where the focus is on communication, rather than
form, they turn back to the natural order of the morpheme acquisition. All this
suggests to Krashen that competence gained through learning is distinct from that
gained through acquisition and that the former, the Monitor, manifests itself only
when the emphasis is on form and there is sufficient time ( Tricomi, 1986).
At first consideration, it might seem that since writing requires sufficient time
for monitoring, writing teachers should teach their students as many of the rules and
conventions of teaching. Teachers can then help students to turn their attention to
form by encouraging or even insisting on careful editing. Such thinking has several
problems. As Krashen notes, only a few of the rules that regulate any language,
including English, have been described by linguists and of these, even fewer are
recognised by the best teachers and so can be successfully taught to most of their
students. Many writing teachers experienced in traditional grammar have discovered
75
this to be true when they have endeavoured to explain to EFL students the nature of
their errors, only to find that they themselves do not know the rule that is required.
Since Krashen’s research indicates that obtained competence is so much more
accessible and reliable than learned competence, teachers should help students to
enhance their obtained competence in whatever ways possible. One way of doing this
is to instruct students editing “tricks” that draw upon their ear for language. One such
trick is covering up the first item in a compound prepositional object to check for
appropriate pronoun use.
In place of error-based exercises, it is recommended to use students’ own
papers when teaching for acquisition. Rather than labelling their errors and
explaining how to correct them, teachers can discuss their students’ sentences in
terms of their ambiguous meaning. For instance, they can describe the ambiguity
created for them as readers by a misplaced modifier without ever mentioning the
term. Similarly, reading out loud a sentence that lacks proper punctuation illustrates
the appropriate placement of a comma far more powerfully than a lecture on its
various uses. Once aware of how their sentence structure or punctuation impedes
their communication of meaning, students can then, with help, try to correct them. In
this way, they can strengthen their acquisition of certain structures.
Krashen states that a teacher can promote acquisition by providing students
with appropriate comprehensible input. There are many different procedures that
language teachers can expose to students with a rule and then help them practice
using it. Discussions on how meaning can be illustrated can be problematic,
especially when that discussion requires knowledge of complex terminology. In other
76
word, it does not need to include complex terminology and sophisticated analyses of
how syntax works. Thus it does not turn the attention to form because it will not aid
in facilitating acquisition. Obviously discussing and revising one sentence in this
way would be far from sufficient for acquisition to take place, but it would provide
students bit more comprehensible input, a bit that presumably would be particularly
powerful since it would formulate the student’s competence to express their own
ideas with some help from teachers. The teacher can encourage greater student
independence in discovering and correcting errors by indicating only the word, line
or sentence in which the errors occurs and letting the student try to determine the
exact nature and appropriate correction of the error. If the student has difficulty, the
teacher can provide the required assistance. Krashen’s model of second language
acquisition is extremely useful for writing teachers because of its clear distinction
between the two types of language competence obtained and learned that their
students gained through formal instruction which also includes the desirability of
acquisition which in turn, leads to acquisition of the target learning. Students tend to
be satisfied with the way of teaching through Krashen’s (1982) concern of human
being’s affective factor. Lin (2008) recommended that teachers at the tertiary level
should adopt techniques such as games, movies, role play, music and problem
solving in order to enhance students’ motivation for learning English. Students
expect to learn in a more effective and efficient way through relaxing pedagogies.
77
2.3.2 Flower and Hayes’ Theory
Flower and Hayes (1980) divide their model into three main parts: the task
environment, the writer’s long term memory and the writing process. They posit the
view that this basic cognitive model would provide a clearer understanding of the
key steps and thought patterns that occur throughout the writing process. In relation
to this knowledge, they intend that composition researchers discover the most
effective way to teach unskilled students so that they could more easily learn and
then use strategies that promote better overall revision through developing writing
expertise. To better understand what betterment has been made in understanding the
cognitive processes employed in writing and in particular in revision, it is helpful to
examine the key writing models that have developed over the last twenty years. With
a clearer insight into how various cognitive abilities engage during the writing
process, especially the role that evaluation skills and working and long term memory
play, it becomes much easier to find out what kinds of teaching technique will help
unskilled writers develop effective revision strategies and writing fluency (Becker,
2006).
Flower and Hayes’s cognitive process theory depends on four key points as
follows:
1. The process of writing is best understood as a set of idiosyncratic thinking
processes which students organise during the act of composing.
2. These processes have a remarkably embedded organisation in which any
given process can be settled within any other.
3. The act of composing itself is a goal-directed thinking process, guided by
the students’ developing their own sense of purpose.
78
4. Students create their own purposes in two key ways: by producing both
high-level goals and supporting sub-goals which illustrate the student's own growing
of purpose and then, at times, by altering major goals or even creating entirely new
ones based on what has been learned in the act of writing ( Flower & Hayes, 1981,
p366).
Flower and Hayes (1981) state that the best way to model the writing process
is to study a writer in action and there are many methods to do this. However,
introspective analysis of what they did while writing is markedly inaccurate and
likely to be influenced by their ideas of what they should have done. Therefore,
Flower and Hayes turned to protocol analysis, which has been successfully used to
study other cognitive processes. Unlike introspective reports, think aloud protocols
collect a detailed record of what is going on in the student's mind while composing
the writing task. To collect protocols, researchers give students a problem, such as
"Write an article on the advantages of studying and working abroad," and then ask
them to compose out loud near an unobtrusive tape recorder. The researchers ask
them to work on the task as they normally would-thinking, taking notes and writingexcept that they must think out loud. They are asked to verbalise everything that goes
through their minds as they write including aimless ideas, false starts, and incomplete
or fragmentary thoughts. The students are not asked to verbalise any kind of
introspection or self-analysis while writing, but simply to think out loud while
working like a person talking to him/herself. The transcript of this session, which
may amount to 20 pages for an hour session, is called a protocol. As a research tool,
a protocol is extremely rich in data and together with the student's notes and
manuscript offers a detailed picture of the student's writing process.
79
Flower and Hayes (1980) propose that the writing model consist of three key
processes: planning, translating and reviewing. In this model, the planning process
involves three sub-processes including generating, organising and goal setting as
shown in Figure 2.6.
The generating process is to retrieve information from
student’s long term memory and the task environment. In organising process,
students organise all information into an outline for writing. The last sub-process is
goal setting. In this process, students select relevant information needed for the text.
Regarding the second major process or the process of translating, it is the process
that students transform semantics into syntax. In the third major process or the
process of reviewing, students improve their written text using the sub-process of
reading and editing (Benton, 1984).
80
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
I
N
G
ORGANISING
GOAL SETTING
REVIEWING
TRANSLATING
R
E
A
D
I
N
G
E
D
I
T
I
N
G
Figure 2.6: An Adaption of the Hayes and Flower’s (1980) Model
Source: Benton (1984, p.820)
In this model, the first element is the task environments which consist of all
of those things outside the student’s knowledge domain, beginning with the
rhetorical problem or assignment including the expanded texts. The second element
is the student's long-term memory in which the student has reserved knowledge, not
only of the topic, but of the audience and of various writing plans. The third element
in Flower and Hayes’ model includes writing processes based on the basic processes
of Planning, Translating and Reviewing which are under the control of a Monitor.
This model attempts to clarify the processes the researchers saw in composing
81
protocols. It is also a guide to research which asks researchers to investigate each of
these elements and their interaction more completely.
At the beginning of composing writing essays, the most essential element is
obviously the rhetorical problem. A university assignment is a simplified version of
such a problem, describing the student's topic, audience and his/her role as a student
of the teacher. As writing is a rhetorical performance, not a simple work, students
endeavour to "solve" or answer to this rhetorical problem by writing something. In
theory, this problem is very intricate: it involves not only the rhetorical situation and
audience which leads one to write, but it also comprises the student's own goals in
writing. A good writer is a person who can manipulate all of these demands. But in
practice Flower and Hayes observed, as did Britton et al. (1975), that students
frequently decrease this large set of restraints to a completely simplified problem
such as "write another theme for English class." Redefining the problem in this way
is obviously an economical method when the new illustration fits phenomenon, but
when it doesn't, there is a problem: students only solve the problems they define for
themselves. If a student's illustration of her rhetorical problem is wrong or simply
underdeveloped, then she is unlikely to "solve" or reveal the missing aspects of the
problem. In conclusion, defining the rhetorical problem is a consistent part of the
writing process, but the way in which students define a rhetorical problem can differ
greatly from student to student. Cognitive Process Theory research will then discover
how this process of representing the problem works and how it affects the writer's
performance.
The problem with long-term memory is getting things out of it - that is,
finding the source that will help students retrieve a network of useful knowledge.
82
The second problem for a student is usually reconstructing or modifying that
information to suit the demands of the rhetorical problem. The phenomena of
“writer-based” essay elucidate the results of a writing method which relies on
retrieval. Planning, or the act of creating this internal illustration, comprises a
number of sub-processes. The most obvious is the performance of creating ideas,
which includes retrieving appropriate information from the long-term memory.
Sometimes this information is so well developed and organised in the memory that
the student produces standard written English. At other times, a student may produce
only fragmentary, unorganised even conflicting thoughts, like the pieces of an essay
that have not yet elaborated in writing. When the structure of ideas already in the
student's memory is not sufficiently modified to the current rhetorical task, students
are unable to give a meaningful structure to their ideas. The procedure of organising
appears to play an important role in creative thinking and discovery since it involves
grouping ideas and producing new concepts. More specifically, the organising
process allows the student to identify types of supporting ideas which could be used
to develop the topic. At another level the organising procedure also appears to more
strictly textualise decisions about the presentation and organisation of the text. That
is, students identify first or last topics, important ideas, and presentation patterns.
However, organising is much more than only ordering point, as it seems clear that all
rhetorical decisions and plans for reaching the audience affect the process of
organising ideas at all levels because it is often directed by a major purpose created
during the powerful process of goal-setting. The most important thing about writing
purposes is the fact that it is produced by the student. Although some well-learned
plans and purposes may be drawn intact from the long-term memory, most of the
student's goals are produced, developed, and revised by the same processes that
83
produce and organise new ideas. This process goes on throughout the composition.
The purpose leads a student to create ideas; those ideas lead to new, more intricate
purpose which can then combine content and goal. Flower and Hayes studies on goal
setting suggested that the performance of defining one's own rhetorical problem and
setting goals is an essential part of "being creative" and can elucidate some important
differences between good and poor writing. Flower and Hayes (1980) argue that the
performance of developing and refining one's own purposes is not confined to a "prewriting stage" in the composition process, but is related to the ongoing, moment-tomoment process of composing. Translating is an important process of putting ideas
into visible expression. Flower and Hayes (1980) select the term translates for this
procedure over other terms such as "transcribe" or "write" in order to emphasis the
unique qualities of the task. The information created in planning may be illustrated in
a variety of symbol systems other than language such as imagery or kinetic
sensations. Trying to capture the movement of a deer on ice in language is clearly a
kind of translation. Even when the planning process express one's thought in words,
that illustration is unlikely to be in the refined syntax of written English. So the
student's task is to translate a meaning, which may be illustrated in key words and
organised in a complex network of relationships into a piece of written English.
The monitor serves as a writing strategy which determines when the student
moves from one process to the next. For example, it checks out how long a student
will continue composing ideas before endeavouring to write texts. Our observations
suggest that this choice is identified both by the student's purposes and by individual
writing styles. As an example of varied composing styles, students vary from those
who try to move to the task as quickly as possible to people who select to plan the
84
entire discourse in detail before writing a word. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987)
illustrate that much of a child's difficulty and lack of fluency is based on their lack of
an "executive routine" which would promote switching between processes or
encourage the uninterrupted generation of ideas. Writing processes are viewed as the
student's tool kit. In using the tools, the student is not constrained to use them in a
fixed order or in stages.
Generating ideas requires evaluation while students
compose sentences. It is noted that evaluation forces the student to think of new
ideas.
This proposition is the cornerstone of cognitive process theory. It also seems
somewhat counter-intuitive. Writing often seems a spontaneous experience, a
performance of discovery. People begin writing without knowing exactly where they
will end up; yet they agree that writing is a purposeful act. For example, students
often report that their writing process seems quite disorganised, even chaotic, as they
work, and yet their protocols expose a coherent underlying structure.
The third point of Flower and Hayes’ theory-focused on the role of the
writer's own goals- which assist researchers to clarify purposefulness in writing.
Richard Young, Janet Emig, and others argued that writing is uniquely adapted to the
task of promoting insight and developing new knowledge. Cognitive models have
attempted to define writing in terms of problem-solving (McCutchen, Teske, &
Bankston, 2008). Basically, writing problems arise from the student’s attempt to map
language onto his or her own thoughts and feelings including the expectations of the
audience. This attempt highlights the complexity of writing, in that problems can
arise from strategic considerations to the implementation of motor plans. A skilled
85
student can confront a hierarchy of problems as well as how to compose and organise
task-relevant ideas; phrase grammatically correct sentences that flow; use correct
punctuation and spelling; and integrate ideas, tone, and wording to the desired
audience, to term some of the more remarkable rhetorical and linguistic tasks.
Clearly, writing skilfully can be associated with sophisticated problem solving.
Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) propose that skilled writers often “problematise” a
writing task; adopting a strategy they termed knowledge transforming. Expert writers
often develop elaborate aims, particular content and rhetorical purposes, which need
sophisticated problem-solving. In contrast, unskilled students typically take a
simpler, natural approach to producing, adopting a knowledge-telling approach in
which content is created through association with one idea prompting the next
(Bereiter & Scardamalia, pp. 5-30). Whereas the inefficient skill of students limits
them to a knowledge-telling approach, skilled writers can move freely between
knowledge telling and knowledge transforming. Problem solving has been
conceptualised in terms of information processing. In their original model, which has
attained broad acceptance in the field of writing research studies, Hayes and Flower
(1980) attempt to assort the various activities that occur during writing and their
relationships to the task environment and to the internal knowledge state of the
student? Hayes and Flower (1980) posited that the student’s long-term memory has
various types of knowledge, including knowledge of the topic, knowledge of the
audience, and stored writing plans. In the task environment, Hayes and Flower
(1980) differentiate the writing assignment (including topic, audience, and
motivational elements) from the text generated so far. However, writing tasks differ
in the types of problems they display to the student, including varying amounts of
planning, translating, reviewing, or editing; thus, each task needs a different
86
combination of cognitive strategies. For our purposes, the distinctions between text
interpretation, reflection and text production are imperative, in that they highlight
three very different kinds of cognitive process that are involved in almost any type of
writing task (the reflective, interpretive and expressive processes). It is important to
note that text production and text interpretation are not simple processes based on a
linguistic point of view. When we mention text production, for instance, it makes a
great difference whether we are talking about the awareness of strategic, consciously
controlled rhetorical plans or about automatised production procedures, such as the
expression of a sentence after the expected content is fully indicated. Similarly, the
process of text interpretation differs depending on whether the object of interest is
the phonological trace for the wording of a text, its literal interpretation, or the whole
conceptual complex it reliably elicits in a skilled audience. These variant levels of
interpretation call for specific demands upon working and long-term memory. If
writing processes work together as a system, a question of primary importance is
how content is traced from long-term memory. Writing effectively relies on having
flexible access to context-relevant information in order to write comprehensive texts.
In Hayes and Flower’s model, generating (a subcomponent of planning) is
accomplished for retrieving relevant information from the long-term memory.
Retrieval is self-regulating. Information about the topic or the audience serves
as a primary memory search, which is then elaborated as each retrieved item
provides as an additional search in a relative chain. Similarly, Bereiter and
Scardamalia illustrate automatic activation as underlying a knowledge-based
approach. However, Bereiter and Scardamalia state that knowledge transformation
rests on strategic retrieval. In transforming knowledge, problem solving consists of
87
analysis of the rhetorical issues including topic and task issues and that analysis
results in multiple studies of long-term memory. Retrieved content is then evaluated
and selected based on the writer’s goals (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001).
2.3.3 Constructivist Teaching Strategies
Constructivist teaching strategies draw on the developmental work of Piaget
(1977) and Kelly (1991). These teaching methods are based on the constructivist
learning theory. Piaget and Inhelder (1969) and Vygotsky (1978) state that
constructivist teaching strategies are based on the belief that knowledge is not given
but gained through real experiences that have purpose and meaning to learners and
the exchange of perspectives about the experience with others. Therefore, it fosters
critical thinking and creates motivated and independent learners. The democratic and
interactive process of a constructivist classroom allows students to be active and
autonomous learners. In other words, teachers can create environments in which
students can construct their own understanding through the process of constructivist
teaching strategies. Using constructivist teaching strategies, teachers are able to
promote communication and create flexibility so that the needs of all students can be
met ( Fosnot, 1989; Zemelman et al., 1993; Bimbola et al., 2010).
Gray (1997) defines the characteristics of a constructivist classroom as follows:
1. The learners are actively involved
2. The environment is democratic
3. The activities are interactive and student-centred
4. The teacher facilitates a process of learning in which students are
encouraged to be responsible and autonomous
88
Richardson (2003, p.1626) defines the constructivist pedagogy as a process of
teaching that has the following characteristics:
1. attention to the individual and respect for students’ background and
developing understandings of and beliefs about elements of the
domain ( this could also be described as student-centred);
2. facilitation of group dialogue that explores an element of the domain
with the purpose of leading to the creation and shared understanding
of a topic;
3. planned and often unplanned introduction of formal domain
knowledge into the conversation through direct instruction, reference
to text, exploration of a Web site, or some other means;
4. provision of opportunities for students to determine, challenge,
change or add to existing beliefs and understandings through
engagement in tasks that are structured for this purpose;
5. development of students’ metawareness of their own understandings
and learning process.
These elements play out quite differently depending on content domain, age
level of the students and students’ experiences as learners prior to coming into the
specific classroom, school context and teaching strategy. Constructivist pedagogy is
regarded as the creation of classroom environments, activities and methods that are
grounded in constructivist theory of learning, with goals that focus on individual
students and habits of mind that aid in future learning.
The fundamental importance of teaching strategies is to make it easier to
implement a variety of teaching methods and techniques to help students take more
89
responsibility for their own learning and enhance the process of teaching for
learning. The key is to create learning environments that are more interactive, to
integrate technology where applicable into the learning experience, and to use
collaborative learning. The teaching method can be very effective when used in
conjunction with active learning and teaching strategies. Meyers and Jones (1993)
define active learning as learning environments that allow students to talk and listen,
read, write, and reflect as they approach course content through problem-solving
exercises, informal small groups, simulations, case studies, roleplaying and other
activities.
In constructivist classrooms, students work primarily in groups and there is a
great focus on social and communication skills as well as collaboration and exchange
of ideas. This is contrary to the traditional classroom in which students work
primarily alone, learning is achieved through repetition and the subjects are strictly
adhered to and are guided by a textbook. Some activities encouraged in constructivist
classrooms are related to cooperative learning such as experimentation, research
projects, field trips, films, class discussions, small group activities, pair work, sample
texts analysis and class presentation and debates. Constructivists tend to favour
problem-solving activities that are linked to student interests, that have at least some
of “messy” attributes of real world problems and that are meaningful and satisfying
for students to solve (Collins el al. 1989; Brown et al., 1989; Lebow, 1993). The
importance of using these types of strategies with students contributes to what Bain
(2004, p. 4) noted as critical learning environments where instructors “embed” the
90
skills they are teaching in “authentic task that will arouse curiosity, challenge
students to rethink assumptions and examine their mental mode of reality”.
DeVries et al. (2002) assert that in most pedagogies based on constructivism,
the teacher’s role is not only to observe and assess but also to engage with the
students while they are completing activities, wondering aloud and posing questions
to the students for promotion of reasoning. Teachers will find that since the students
build upon already existing knowledge, when they are called upon to retrieve the
new information, they may make errors. Therefore, teachers need to correct these
errors which are inevitable that some reconstruction error will continue to occur
because of students’ innate retrieval limitations. The constructivist teaching
strategies help learners to internalise and transform new information. Transformation
of information occurs through the creation of new understanding that results from the
emergence of new cognitive structure. Brooks and Brooks (1993) propose the
principles of constructivist teaching as follows: 1) posing problems of emerging
relevance to students; 2) structuring learning around primary concepts: the quest for
essence; 3) seeking and valuing student’s points of view; 4) adapting the curriculum
to address students’ suppositions; and 5) assessing student learning in the context of
teaching.
Meanwhile, Yager (1991) provides other characteristics of constructivist
teaching as follows:
1. Constructivist teachers invite question and ideas from students
2. Constructivist teachers accept and encourage students’ invented ideas
91
3. Constructivist teachers encourage student’s leadership, cooperation,
seeking information and the presentation of the ideas
4. Constructivist teachers modify their instructional strategies in the process
of teaching based upon students, thought, experience and interest
5. Constructivist teachers use printed materials as well as experts to get
information
6. Constructivist teachers encourage free discussions by way of new ideas
inviting student questions and answers
7. Constructivist teachers encourage or invite students’ predictions of the
causes and effects in relation to particular cases and events
8. Constructivist teachers help students to test their own ideas
9. Constructivist teachers invite students’ ideas, before the student is
presented with the ideas and instructional materials
10. Constructivist teachers encourage students to challenge the concepts and
ideas of others
11. Constructivist teachers use cooperative teaching strategies through
student interactions and respect, sharing ideas and learning tasks
12. Constructivist teachers encourage students to respect and use other
people’s ideas through reflection and analysis
13. Constructivist teachers welcome the restructuring of his/ her ideas
through reflecting on new evidence and experience
The instructional strategy of constructivist teaching is inviting ideas,
exploring, proposing explanations and solution and taking action. These teaching
methods foster critical thinking which is important for students to produce
convincing ideas to support the thesis statement in writing argumentative essays.
92
Bimbola and Daniel (2010) have confirmed that constructivist teaching is considered
to be an effective way to teach because it is beneficial in achieving desirable
educational goals for students. It is also important for teachers to grow professionally
towards a constructivist practice.
2.4 Conceptual Framework
This study posed four research questions which aimed to analyse EFL
students’ argumentative writing and teaching strategies used by two Thai EFL
lecturers to teach argumentative writing. Figure 2.7 shows the conceptual framework
of the study. The main approach in this study was to conduct think aloud protocols
which aimed to identify Thai EFL students’ argumentative writing difficulties.
Conducting think aloud protocols consisted of the following four stages: (1) warm up
stage, (2) audio recording and writing session stage, (3) audio transcript stage, (4)
protocol analysis stage. These steps were used to assess the writing weaknesses of
Thai EFL English major students. Gaining insights into students’ weaknesses in
argumentative writing can help EFL lecturers to change their teaching methods to
enhance their students’ argumentative writing performance. Moreover, classroom
observations, semi structured interviews and stimulated recall interviews were
employed to explore the teaching strategies used by two Thai EFL lecturers to teach
their students.
Krashen’s theory on language acquisition and constructivist teaching
strategies were employed as a framework to investigate whether two Thai EFL
lecturers used these teaching strategies to instruct their students in the argumentative
93
writing course. The teaching strategies used by these Thai EFL lecturers offer
valuable ideas for improving students’ argumentative writing ability. The findings of
this study have the potential to provide a valuable description of students’
argumentative writing difficulties as well as effective teaching methods to enhance
argumentative writing performance.
Krashen’s (1983) Theory on
Concurrent Think aloud protocols
Language Acquisition
(Ericson & Simon, 1993)
Constructivist teaching strategies
(Piaget, 1977; Kelly, 1991)
Diagnose difficulties in
argumentative writing
Classroom observations
(Cohen et al, 2005)
Semi structured Interviews
Teaching Strategies used by
Thai EFL Lecturers
Stimulated Recall Interview
(Gass and Mackey, 2000)
Pedagogical Implications and
Recommendations
Figure 2.7: The Conceptual Framework of the study
94
2.5 Related Research on think-aloud protocols
Research on think-aloud protocols flourished over the past two decades.
Think-aloud protocols have been widely employed in social sciences namely in areas
such as writing, reading, translation research, process tracing and decision making
(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Cumming, 1989; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Murphy &
Roca de Larios, 2010). The significance of studies using think-aloud methods is to
gain information about what happens in the human mind when it processes
information to solve problems or make decisions in different contexts (Payne, 1994;
Russo et al., 1989; van den Haak et al., 2003). This section reviews related research
on think-aloud protocols and their contributions.
Many research studies on think aloud protocols have been carried out but the
purposes were different. Pomerantz (2004) used think-aloud protocols to investigate
factors that influence decision-making processes during digital reference triage. He
recruited 28 triagers from various digital reference services in libraries. He arranged
a time to meet each participant, based on the participant’s regular schedule to
perform triage on incoming reference questions. At each session, the participants
triaged all the reference questions waiting for processing; a total of 185 questions
were included in the data set. The findings revealed that the factors (including
attributes of the question, the answer, the patron, the patron’s current information
need, the triaging service, and the receiving service, if forwarded, or the answerer)
influenced the routine processes of their work. These expert triagers know their work
relatively well but are not likely to have experienced thinking aloud while they are
doing their work. Therefore, they had difficulty in verbalising the routine processes
95
of their work since they are usually doing it “very fast” and because their expert
knowledge has been internalised to the point that it is implicit.
In another research study on think aloud protocols, Edlin (2005) compared
the effectiveness of two distinctive types of think-aloud protocols collected in a
remote usability study. One version was collected via phone; the researcher was on
the phone with the subject as the subject interacted with the system being tested. The
other version used an instant message session for communication between the
researcher and the subject. She found that the think-aloud protocols collected via
phone were much richer and more detailed than those collected via instant
messaging.
Li (2006) explored the effectiveness of word processing on students’ writing.
The subject of this study consisted of 21 advanced English proficiency Chinese
students who were residing in Toronto. Each participant was asked to write two
comparative writing tasks under the condition of the test: one written on a Macintosh
computer and the other written with a pen. Participants were asked to record the
verbal report when they wrote the essays in both writing sessions. The study revealed
that participants paid more heed to produce argumentative essays with the use of
computer. In assessing their written tasks in the computer session, they made
corrections significantly on the computer. Therefore, the writing score on computer
was higher than the hand written one.
Plakans (2008) conducted a study to investigate the differences in writer’s
processes when they compose two writing performances of academic English in a
96
university placement test. The participants in this study were 10 non-native English
speaking students at Midwestern United States University. These students took part
both in interviews and talk-aloud writing sessions. The study provided an
understanding into the distinctiveness in process for reading-to write task and
writing-only. The reading-to write task illustrated extensive distinctiveness across
writers hinged on their experience and interest in writing. This task also revealed a
process that gave rise to interaction with the source texts. It was found that writers
made more attempt in planning before writing and obtained a higher placement in the
writing course.
In the same vein, Llosa et al. (2011) conducted a study to indentify the most
extensive types of academic writing at the secondary level. The study also examined
the challenges that both English language learners (ELLs) and non-English language
learners (non-ELLs) encountered when they write exposition essays. This study
gathered verbal reports from 27 students to “think-aloud” as they composed an essay
to answer the following prompt: think about the best book you have ever read or the
best movie you have ever seen. The participants had 30 minutes to work on this
writing task. The study revealed that (1) exposition and argument were the most
extensive genre assigned as a writing performance in the context of New York City
secondary schools; (2) both groups articulated that translating was the most difficult
for them when writing the genre of exposition. ELLs reported fewer difficulties in
writing exposition essay than did non-ELLs.
Vaezi and Alizadeh (2011) carried out a study to investigate how learners
deal with an English tense task and how they discover right or wrong answers. The
97
subjects of this study consisted of 26 Iranian students who were enrolled in an EAP
course. Think-aloud protocols were used to collect data. The participants were
requested to fill in the blanks provided with the correct pattern of verbs while giving
a concurrent verbal report in English or in Persian. The findings of the study revealed
that Iranian EFL learners implement a tense task by using the processes namely
translating, paraphrasing, applying knowledge of context and referring to previous
experiences. Furthermore, it was found that errors in a tense use were mainly as a
result of inattention to subject-verb agreement, incorrect use of passive voice, wrong
pronominal reference and wrong translations. The findings of this study can assist
language lecturers to develop their teaching strategies to teaching grammar and
promoting students’ awareness toward sources of mistakes in English tense usage.
Yang et al. (2014) carried out a study to investigate whether concurrent
verbalisation has a responsive impact on the second language process of writing. The
participants of this study consisted of 95 Chinese EFL learners who were categorised
into three groups based on the construction conditions as follows: metacognitive
think aloud (MTA), nonmetacognitive thinking aloud (NMTA), and no thinking
aloud (NTA). These participants were asked to write an argumentative essay. The
study revealed that there was no evidence of responsiveness remained on the large
part of criterion except that: (1) there was an increase of dysfluencies in participants’
essays for both features of think aloud; (2) there was an decrease in syntactic variety
and (3) MTA considerably extended time to perform the task and the pace of writing
were delayed. These negative results are illustrated in light of Kellogg’s (1996)
cognitive model of writing. It was suggested that these negative results were not
considered as serious disruptions with L2 process of writing. However, it was
98
suggested to take these negative results as prudence for instead of opposing to the
employment of the think aloud method to gain L2 writing process description.
In conclusion, the researcher agrees with the above discussed studies that
think-aloud protocols are important methods that can be used to identify problems
when the subjects perform their tasks. In addition, this method can be used to gain
insights into student’ abilities to produce their tasks as it provides detailed
information. The researcher also observes that many research studies (Pomerantz,
2004; Edlin, 2005; Li, 2006; Plakans, 2008; Llosa et al., 2011; and Vaezi and
Alizadeh, 2011) adopt think-aloud protocols to investigate the thought processes of
an individual’s mind in order to capture cognitive behaviours. Although, there are
many studies that investigated the thought processes, none has examined the use of a
think-aloud writing session by EFL students, particularly in a Thai context.
In this regard, the present study adopted think-aloud protocols advocated by
Ericsson and Simon (1993) to analyse the difficulties that Thai EFL English major
students encounter in writing argumentative essays. Since detailed information was
gained by an analysis through the think-aloud method, it is crucial for Thai EFL
teachers to gain insights about the weaknesses in their students’ abilities in producing
argumentative essays.
99
2.6 Related Research on Writing Difficulties
There are many research studies on writing difficulties related to exploring
the problems encountered by students when they write various types of writing such
as narrative, expository and academic writing. However, research on writing
difficulties has extensively been discussed under the academic writing in ESL
contexts. Very few studies have been carried out to diagnose argumentative writing
difficulties in Thai EFL contexts.
Research studies on writing difficulties comprise investigations on common
errors produced by the students, prevalent challenges experienced by students when
writing and strategies to help improve students’ writing competence. Ellis and Yuan
(2004) conducted a study on the influences of planning on second language (L2)
students' oral narratives and utilised Kellog's (1996) model of writing. The
participants of this study comprised 42 Chinese students. They were requested to
write narratives drawn out by methods of a picture composition. The study aimed to
explore the influence of three types of planning conditions (pretask planning,
unpressured on-line planning, and no planning). The results found that pretask
planning generated a significant fluency and syntactic variety. According to
unpressured on-line planning, students were provided chances to utilise the computer
assistance to check the words. Therefore, this type of planning created higher
accuracy. It is suggested that the two types of planning affected on different L2
writing process features as well as pretask planning developing production and
unpressured on-line planning yielding better chances to follow the provided model.
Meanwhile, students in the no-planning condition were encountered with the
100
requirement to plan, implement and observe under pressure. The group of no
planning condition also revealed a negative result with the complexity, fluency and
accuracy of the written product when compared to the planning groups.
Kormos (2011) conducted a study to identify the features of linguistic and
discourse in narratives written by upper-intermediate foreign language students in a
bilingual secondary school. The participants in this study were divided into two
groups: (1) 44 Hungarian-English bilingual secondary school students and; (2) 10
undergraduate students at a university in the UK of a bilingual education programme.
In this study, a diversity of linguistic and discourse variables were employed for data
analysis and a computer tool (Coh-Metrix 2.0: McNamara, Louwerse, Graesser,
2002) was utilised to explain the features of narrative essays. As a source of
comparison, a small group of L1 writers were asked to write a narrative essay in
order to understand features of narrative written task that is not impeded by
difficulties in achieving linguistic knowledge needed to perform an essay. There
were two variables set up in this study: (1) students were asked to narrate a story
with a provided content; (2) they were allowed to plan the plot of the story using a
major influence only on one dimension of lexical refinement and had a minor
influence on the obvious language use of earthly cohesion. The current study
revealed that the main difference between L1 and FL writers could be discovered
with relation to diversity of grammatical errors, refinement and extent in a well
organised narrative writing.
A study of Chinese vernacular students in Malaysia aimed to explore the
students’ common errors while writing English essays. In the study conducted by
101
Darus and Ching (2009), 70 Chinese vernacular students from two classes in a
selected public school in Perak, Malaysia were asked to write an essay. Both Markin
3.1 software and an error classification scheme were employed to analyse 70 essays
which were then classified into 18 types of errors. The results of the analysis
discovered that writing procedures, tenses, preposition and subject-verb agreement
were the four prevalent common errors that emerged in students’ writing essay. In
writing these essays, students were influenced by their L1. It was discovered that L1
transfer was seen in their writing. This study suggested that teachers focus on
concepts is executed in English, Malay and Chinese. It is crucial to assist students to
become aware of the differences in English, Malay and their L1 structure. Students
are advised to gain insights into the distinctiveness of these languages and make use
of the exclusive aspects to write appropriate sentences.
In another research study on writing difficulties, McDonough et al. (2014)
carried out a study to analyse three summary paragraphs written by Thai university
students. The participants comprised 46 Thai EFL university students who enrolled
in required English as a foreign language class. The participants were requested to
read the provided article from Reader’s Digest within 20 minutes and to complete a
summary paragraph writing task in 20 minutes as well. Their texts were analysed in
terms of the rhetorical organisation of a summary paragraph and the incorporation of
source text data. The findings revealed a significant increase in the number of
students who clearly referenced the proper source texts, including making
considerable changes in existence of imitated and altered word lists.
102
There were similar findings reported in other studies. Hashemi et al. (2012)
conducted a study on investigating the collocation errors in EFL college students'
writing. The participants in this study comprised 68 second year students in
Hamadan city. A total of 38 writing tasks and 38 in-class practice essays were
gathered and analysed for collocation mistakes. The unacceptable syntactic and
linguistic mistakes made by students were analysed according to the adapted version
primarily developed by Benson et al. (1986) and Chen (2002). The BBI Dictionary of
English Word Combinations and the British National Corpus, was used to analyse
the students' collocation mistakes and to give advice for modification. Furthermore, a
questionnaire was implemented to investigate the respondents' perceptions of
difficulty in using collocations. The results of the questionnaire revealed that the
participants' perceptions of collocation types were diverse from the collocation
mistake types the students produced in their writing samples. It was believed that
ignorance of the limitation rule was the main source of collocation mistakes. EFL
students produced collocation mistakes in their writing because of the obstruction of
their L1 language. They were unaware of the concept of collocation, the paraphrase,
intra lingual transfer and their deficiency of their collocation recognition.
Wette (2010) carried out a study on the difficulties encountered by university
students when writing literature review using sources in both first and secondlanguage (L1, L2); however, few studies have researched on teaching interventions
that aim to help students be proficient in this intricate academic proficiency. A total
of 78 undergraduate students who enrolled in L2 writing courses were the
participants for this action research. The participants’ level of competence and
knowledge was verified by a guided writing task and a pre-unit quiz. After 8 hours of
103
teaching on technical and discourse competence elements, students were required to
write a reflective comment after completing a post-unit task. They needed to submit
the outside classroom assignments as part of data collection. Findings revealed a
significant development in learners’ descriptive literacy and in the rule-administered
competence features. It was found that there was a reduction in using direct imitation
from the sources in post-tasks and in class task performance. Meanwhile, students
were unable to write in the more refined and insightful features. They had difficulties
understanding intricacy in texts, summarising propositional content properly and
combining citations with their own expressions and stances. This research
implication can be used to assist teachers to set up a body of practice-oriented
research.
Ong and Zhang (2010) carried out a study on exploring the influence of task
intricacy on fluency and lexical intricacy. The participants in this study were 108
EFL students who enrolled in an argumentative writing course. This study was
embedded in Robinson’s (2001a,b, 2003) Cognition Hypothesis and Skehan’s (1998)
Limited Attentional Capacity Model. Task complexity was carried out employing
three approaches: (1) opportunity of planning time; (2) ideas and macro-structure
preparation; and (3) availability of making draft. All participants were designated to
the above three approaches in which the opportunity of the planning time factor
consisted of four levels (extended pre-task, pre-task, free-writing, and control); the
ideas and macro-structure preparation factor comprised three levels (topic, ideas, and
macro-structure given; topic and ideas given; and topic given); and the availability of
making draft factor retained two levels (draft available vs. draft unavailable) using
their writing task proficiency scores as a gauge. The findings revealed that: (1) the
104
planning time opportunity generated significantly greater fluency and lexical
intricacy; (2) macro-structure preparation and ideas generated considerably greater
lexical intricacy but no result was recorded in fluency I or fluency II; and (3) draft
availability had no significant differences in fluency and lexical intricacy.
Another study was conducted by Yasuda (2011) to examine how beginner
foreign language (FL) students improve their genre awareness, linguistic proficiency
and writing skill in a genre-based writing course that integrated email-writing
performance. Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) was employed to view language
as a resource for making meaning in a particular circumstance of use rather than as a
set of fixed rules and structures (Halliday, 1994) in order to define genre. The genrebased syllabi design promoted both lexical and writing improvement. This study also
attempted to connect genre to task (Norris, 2009). The participants in this study were
70 Japanese undergraduate students. After completing a fifteen-week writing course,
they concentrated on designed genre-based tasks where they learned the methods in
which diverse genres are formulated by different linguistic resources to achieve their
goals through the organised feature tasks. Three sets of qualitative and quantitative
data were gathered to analyse students’ changes as a FL writer: survey, interviews,
and the emails written at the beginning and the end of the semester. The findings
revealed that the students made improvements in their genre awareness and
perceptions and that change in their awareness were obvious in their written task.
The study discussed that a combination of genre and task can produce an important
pedagogical nexus between socially situated writing task and alternatives of language
use, which is expected to assist as a venture to generate integration between writing
and language evolution in FL circumstances.
105
Hirano (2014) carried out a study to investigate the challenges refugee
students encounter with academic writing in their first year of college and the
resources they draw upon to prevail these difficulties. The participants were seven
refugee students from four different countries who were admitted to a liberal arts
college regardless of not being considered ‘‘college-ready’’ by traditional
admissions. Interviews with the key participants and faculty, class observations and
written documents were employed for data collection in this study. It was claimed
that writing in college illustrated these students with challenges regarding with their
English language proficiency were in the developing stage. The findings revealed
that these challenges were successfully acknowledged due to these students’
competence to investigate the resources that they employed to write. According to
this case, it can be said that the refugees who graduate from high school not having
achievement for the college admission standard. Therefore, their literacy level was
needed to overcome tertiary academic writing difficulties.
According to the related studies discussed above, it can be concluded that a
number of research studies on writing difficulties mainly centred on the students’
common errors, the difficulties encountered by students in producing academic
writing and interventions in improving students’ writing competence. In the present
study, the researcher investigates argumentative writing difficulties experienced by
Thai EFL students and provides effective teaching strategies for Thai EFL lectures to
help improve their students’ writing skill. Current research in the teaching and
learning of writing indicates that in order to produce a well organised and soundly
reasoned argument, student writers are required to know more than language and
106
content knowledge. However, Lee (1989) claims that many teachers and practitioners
only focus on providing language and content knowledge in their writing classes. To
produce a good piece of argumentative writing, student writers need to know crucial
elements to produce solid evidence to support the claim (Brem & Rip, 2000; Qin &
Karabacak, 2010). In addition, think aloud protocols enable the researcher to
diagnose the weaknesses of EFL student writers in argumentative writing. It is
beneficial for teachers to also understand the weaknesses of their students. In relation
to this, the teacher can provide effective solutions to the teaching and learning of
writing in the classroom. The researcher hopes that the conceptual framework and
results of this research can add to the body of knowledge in relation to teaching and
learning in argumentative writing.
2.7 Related Research on Argumentative Writing Difficulties
Few research studies on argumentative writing difficulties have been carried
out but the purposes were different. Boonsiri (2007) conducted a study to analyse the
rhetorical patterns of 16 argumentative compositions written by Srinakharinwirot
University English majors. The samples were divided into three categories: three
high, three moderate and three low rated essays. Taeko and Kyoko’s (1996)
framework of argumentative organisation was applied in her study. The findings of
the analysis revealed that highly and moderately ranking essay writers know how to
develop and organise the argumentative essay. However, the informants in those two
groups were unable to include adequate specific supporting details in their writing.
Low rated writers, however, did not understand the key concept of the argumentative
rhetorical organisational features. They did not understand specific supporting
107
information. Therefore, they failed to produce a complete argumentative essay
together with the expected rhetorical features.
In another research study on argumentative writing difficulties, Saito (2010)
carried out a study to find out the major features of argumentative essays written by
third year English major students who were instructed with the integrated processgenre approach. The findings indicated that the students made an improvement in the
quality of writing from the first draft to the second draft. Furthermore, the results
revealed that students could produce well-organised and well-developed essays
consisting of four major components of an argumentative writing including claim,
data, opposition and refutation. In terms of the main features of an argumentative
essay, the students improved their writing in all four aspects: claim, data, opposition
and refutation. This study suggested that teaching students to write by integrating the
process and genre based instruction could facilitate and help students to write an
effective argumentative essays.
In the same vein, Promwinai (2010) carried out a study to examine the
writing quality of analytical exposition written by Thai tertiary students in Australia,
focusing in particular on two postgraduate Thai students beginning their studies at an
Australian university. The major concern of her study was to investigate how EFL
learners cope with the demands of argumentative essays writing. In terms of practical
implications, the study was also interested in teacher intervention as part of explicit
teaching and the giving of feedback when employing a genre-based approach to
teaching writing. Based on Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as the theoretical
framework, the study investigated how differently a low rated writer and a mid-rated
108
writer employed ideational, interpersonal and textual resources to build up arguments
in order to convince the reader, responding to register variables of field, tenor and
mode. The findings revealed the writer’s strong capability in controlling the generic
structure of argumentative essays regardless of their proficiency level. In terms of the
use of metafunctional resources, the analyses have demonstrated both the strengths
and weaknesses displayed by the writers as they grappled with the genre of
arguments as well as what may have been very new knowledge outside their
discipline area. It could be argued that the categories used to differentiate learners as
high achievers or low achievers are not nuanced enough to identify what learners can
do or cannot do. The findings also suggest that numeric score may not be useful in
revealing what linguistic resources these students bring to their argumentative essay
writing. The implications for educators include how a familiarity with such advanced
academic features can assist them to support the linguistics needs of international
ESL students in terms of explicit teaching, identifying both the strengths and
weaknesses in students’ essays and providing useful feedback.
Prommas and Sinwongsuwat (2013) carried out a study to examine the use of
discourse connectors (DCs) in argumentative compositions of Thai and English
native college students retrieved from the Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays
(LOCNESS). ‘And’, ‘but’, ‘because’ and ‘for example’ were mostly found in the
compositions of the two groups. ‘And’ was the connector deployed by native
speakers to denote four senses; namely, additive, causal, temporal and adversative.
The adversative sense, however, never appeared in the learners’ writing. Similar to
native speakers, ‘but’ was used by Thai learners to mark contrastive facts, contrastive
stances, concession and addition. ‘Because’ was also used to mark a causal effect and
109
a reason. Additionally, ‘for example’ was used to clarify in formation previously
stated in the form of examples. In terms of syntactic distribution, the findings
suggested that the learners were more familiar with the inter clausal rather than intra
clausal use of DCs, associating them with clause linking rather than intra clausal
devices and the learners apparently had difficulties with such DCs as ‘but’, and
‘because’ which can be partly attributed to the influence of the native language.
So far, few empirical studies have been conducted on argumentative essays in
Thailand. Among the existing studies, almost all examined argumentative essays
written by English major university students. These studies concentrated on a wide
range of aspects such as discourse connectives (Prommas and Sinwongsuwat, 2013),
and rhetorical patterns and structural features of argumentative essays written
(Boonsiri, 2007; Saito, 2010; Promwinai, 2010). However, none of these studies
were carried out to identify holistic argumentative writing difficulties through the
process of think aloud in a Thai context. Therefore, to enrich the existing findings
about argumentative writing difficulties in Thailand, there is a need to explore the
teaching strategies used by two Thai EFL lecturers to instruct their students in order
to enhance students’ argumentative writing ability. The researcher expects to gain a
complete description of Thai EFL English major students’ weaknesses in
argumentative writing competence.
110
2.8 Summary
This chapter discussed the writing process and approaches to the teaching and
learning of EFL writing. The chapter then discussed the definition of argumentative
writing including related concepts of argumentative writing. Next, Krashen’s ( 1983)
theory on language acquisition, Flower and Hayes’s (1980) theory and constructivist
teaching strategies were also discussed. Following this, the conceptual framework of
the study was presented. Finally, the chapter provided related research studies that
used think aloud protocols and studies that investigated students’ argumentative
writing difficulties.
111
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
The chapter presents the research methodology applied in this study. First, it
presents the research design for this study. Second, the target population and the
sampling technique in this study are described in detail. Third, the study focuses on
describing the methods of data collection. Fourth, it concentrates on explaining
methods and strategies for data analysis. Finally, this chapter discuses the ethical
consideration that directed the researcher during data collection followed by an
analysis of data and reporting the results.
3.1 Research Design
A research design is the procedure of integrating the different constituents of
the research study in a systematic method. It comprises the systematic processes that
researchers implement to gain valuable results from their studies. According to
Blaikie (2010, p.39), the term research design may refer to “the process that links
research questions, empirical data and research conclusions”. However, the term
research design is defined as the processes of data collection and analysis in some
studies. De Vaus (2002, p.5) defines qualitative research as “an exploration of
human’s perceptions, behaviours and situation by using observation and intensive
interview method.” Schutt (2009, p. 358) asserts that “qualitative data focuses on
112
text which derives from transcripts of interviews and participation observation
sessions.”
Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p.2) define qualitative research as “multi method
in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This
means that qualitative researchers tends to study things in their natural settings,
attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meaning people
bring to them’’. The exclusive facet of qualitative research is its exploratory
character; it concentrates on quality and not quantity. The qualitative research also
focuses on the why and how questions. It can be said that it seeks in-depth
comprehensive of human behaviour and the reasons embedded it (Yin, 2010).
Qualitative research is descriptive in that its purpose is to gather, investigate and
elucidate data via observation of people’s action and performances in the target
setting.
Furthermore, the qualitative method is a research relied on descriptive
information that researchers can observe circumstance in depth and detail without
prognosticated hypotheses. Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research
concerns real phenomenon that is difficult to analyse by using other means. The term
qualitative research is defined as a research that is based on descriptive data without
using statistical process (Mackey & Gass, 2005). With reference to the data
presented from qualitative research, there are detailed information rather than
number of data. Qualitative research yields anecdotes including descriptions of
attitudes and perceptions. In qualitative approach, phenomenon is unsteady variable
113
shifting. It is considered to be in qualitative approaches when a phenomenon is
approved as a measurable circumstance (Merriam, 2009).
The triangulation technique verifies facts from multiple sources (Sekaran &
Bougie, 2010, Bogdan & Biklen, 2007) because “one method alone cannot provide
adequate support. It may take two or more independent sources to support the study
and its conclusion” (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p.181).Multiple sources in triangulation
refer to multiple data sources, research methods, investigators and inferences
(Teddliie & Tashakkori,2009). Merriam (2009) posited that triangulation is also a
well-known strategy to support the internal validity of a study. There are four kinds
of triangulation: 1) methodological triangulation, 2) data triangulation, 3) researcher
triangulation and 4) theory triangulation (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010).In this current
study, methodological triangulation was applied where multi methods of data
collection were used. Methodological triangulation has been used to refer to a multi
method triangulation as entailing “gathering information pertaining to the same
phenomenon through more than one method, primarily in order to determine if there
is
a
convergence
and
hence,
increased
validity
in
research
findings”(Kopinak,1999:171). Kopinak (1999) indicated that the use of more
instruments would provide more detailed and multi-layered information about the
phenomenon under study. In this study, the researcher focussed on triangulation by
method by developing a strategy to combine the data collected with four different
instruments to discover descriptions of argumentative writing difficulties and
descriptions of teaching strategies used by two EFL lecturers to teach argumentative
writing. The plan of the current research design is divided into four main parts for
data collection. Figure 3.1 shows the research design of the study:
114
Analysing EFL Students’ Argumentative Writing Difficulties
and Teaching Strategies Employed by Lecturers in Selected
Universities in Thailand
Think aloud protocols
Semi structured Interviews
Stimulated Recall Interviews
Classroom Observations
Data Analysis
EFL students’ argumentative
writing difficulties
Difficulties in teaching
argumentative writing
Teaching strategies used to teach
argumentative writing
Triangulation
Student’s expectations
from their writing lecturers
Triangulation
Descriptions of argumentative writing
difficulties
Descriptions of teaching strategies
used by two Thai EFL lecturers to
teach argumentative writing
Figure 3.1: Research Design of the Study
Based on Figure 3.1, this research used qualitative approaches to administer data
collection.
115
The researcher used think aloud protocols to identify the difficulties
experienced by Thai EFL English major students when writing argumentative essays.
Conducting think aloud protocols consist of the following four stages: (1) warm up
stage: training in thinking aloud and practicing it, (2) audio recording and writing
session stage: participants’ conducting a verbal report which is recorded through
audio recording, (3) audio transcript stage: transcribing verbal think aloud protocols
and (4) protocol analysis. These steps can help assess the weaknesses of Thai EFL
English major students writing of argumentative essays. A semi structured interview
for students was used to identify the extent to which Thai EFL English major
students need help from their lecturers to enhance their argumentative writing
competence. A semi structured interview for lecturers was employed to examine the
difficulties encountered by two Thai EFL lecturers in teaching argumentative
writing. Stimulated recall interviews and classroom observations were used to
investigate the types of teaching strategies used by the two Thai EFL lecturers to
teach argumentative writing. Constructivist teaching strategies and Krashen’s (1983)
theory on language acquisition were used as a model of teaching in order to monitor
whether the two lecturers used pair work, group discussions, debates and small group
activities in their teaching of argumentative essays. Both constructivist teaching
strategies and Krashen’s (1983) theory on language acquisition can be used by EFL
lecturers to enhance and enrich their students’ development in argumentative writing
competence. Zemelman et al. (1993) claim that constructivist teaching strategies
foster critical thinking and create active and motivated learners. Conducting
classroom observations can also identify the weaknesses and the strengths of Thai
EFL English lecturers in teaching argumentative essays.
116
Qualitative data were analysed through grounded theory in which data were
transcribed and coded thematically. These processes assessed argumentative writing
difficulties and the teaching strategies used by Thai EFL lecturers to teach
argumentative writing. The findings provided valuable descriptions of argumentative
writing difficulties and finally the pedagogical implications and recommendations
were presented. In this study, the data obtained from Think aloud protocols and the
findings gathered from the semi structured interviews were triangulated to provide
comprehensive understanding of the Thai EFL students’ argumentative writing
difficulties. Furthermore, the data from classroom observations and the findings from
stimulated recall interviews were triangulated to provide descriptions of the teaching
strategies used by two Thai EFL lecturers to teach argumentative writing.
3.2 Population and Sampling
Henn et al. (2005) stated that sampling is a crucial process in carrying out a
research study in the field of social sciences because it distributes the validity of the
research. There are many sampling methods which have been promoted in an effort
to obtain target samples and extrinsic validity. Both probability and non probability
sampling methods are involved.
This study was carried out over a 6- week period at two selected public
universities in Thailand (MSU and UDRU). Both universities are located in the
Northeast region of Thailand. The researcher is familiar with both universities as she
studied for her Bachelor and Master degree there. MSU and UDRD offer Academic
117
Writing Course (0105405) for English major students. It is a compulsory course for
English major students.
The target population include fourth year English major students who
enrolled in the Academic Writing course ( 0105405) from MSU and UDRU for the
academic year 2012/2013. The researcher used purposive sampling process to select
16 students (8 students from MSU and 8 students from UDRU) from two separate
classes of the Academic Writing Course to participate in the think aloud protocols.
The rationale why the research purposively selected only 16 students was because
think aloud protocols require a small sample to seek rich, in depth data. As suggested
by Kuipers and Kssirer (1984, p. 365 ) it is “a methodology of discovery appropriate
to the undoubted complexity of human knowledge requires rich data about
individuals rather than easily analysing data about a population”.
Two Thai EFL lecturers volunteered to participate in stimulated recall
interviews and classroom observations. The criteria for selecting the two Thai EFL
lecturers were as follows : 1.) Both lecturers taught the Academic Writing course at
MSU and UDRU for the academic year 2012/2013; 2.) They were available to
answer the research questions because they were experienced people who have indepth knowledge about teaching argumentative writing (Patton, 1990; Seidman,
2012); 3.) They have been teaching Argumentative Writing for over 10 years and 4.)
Both lecturers were willing to participate in the study. Therefore, the participants in
this research study were divided into the following three sets:
1. A total of 16 students who were purposively selected to participate in Think
aloud protocols (8 students from MSU and 8 students from UDRU;
118
2. Two EFL lecturers from two public universities volunteered to participate in
stimulated recall interviews;
3. A total of 60 EFL English major students (25 students from MSU and 35
students from URDU) and two EFL lecturers from two public universities
participated in classroom observations.
3.3 Research Instruments
In a qualitative approach, various strategies are employed for data collection.
These strategies comprise a combination of observations, interviews and review of
relevant documents in order to gain insights about the argumentative writing
difficulties of the respondents and how they experience learning and teaching
strategies to teach argumentative writing (Yin, 2003; Merriam, 2009). In this study,
data were gathered by way of think aloud protocols, semi structured interviews,
classroom observations and stimulated recall interviews. Data were collected in this
study through the use of qualitative methods. The research methods and processes of
the study are displayed in Table 3.1 below.
119
Table 3.1: Research methods and procedures
Types
of Data
Research
instruments
Source of Data
Qualitative
Think-aloud protocols
Fourth year
8 students
1/08/13
Participants’ Think-aloud
(Ericsson & Simon,
English majors
from MSU and
2/08/13
protocols
1993).
Number
of
Respondents
Data
Collection
8 from UDRU
Data Analysis
(Ericsson
&
Simon 1993) audio files
will be fully transcribed.
Qualitative
Semi-Structured
interview
Fourth year
8 students
3/08/13
English majors
from MSU and
4/08/13
8 from UDRU
Qualitative
Looking
at emergent
themes (Creswell,2009)
Semi-Structured
Two EFL
Two EFL
29/08/13
interview
lecturers
lecturers
30/08/13
25 students
from MSU &
35 students
from UDRU &
Qualitative
Classroom
observations
Two intact
Two EFL
2/09/13
Fieldnotes
classrooms from
lecturers
3/09/13
Classroom
two public
5/09/13
checklist
universities
10/09/13
observation
12/09/13
Qualitative
Stimulated Recall
EFL English
Two EFL
18/09/13
Looking
Interview
lecturers
lecturers
19/09/13
themes (Creswell,2009)
120
at
emergent
3.3.1 Think aloud protocols
Think aloud protocol is a method used to investigate human thought. Subjects
have to complete a task or solve a problem and verbalise their thought processes by
talking aloud. The researcher is required to record the verbal report and then analyse
the thought processes the subjects report. To conduct think aloud protocols,
participants are required to talk whatever they are thinking when they perform their
assignments. This method facilitates researchers to monitor the direct procedure of
task performance. Regarding the test session, researchers are required to take notes
about everything that the participants say without trying to describe their behaviours.
Audio and video recording are needed during test sessions because researchers can
look at the video and transcribe what the participants talk about their writing
difficulties. It can be said that the aim of this method is to make clear how
participants performed in a particular assignment.
Think aloud protocols were used for data collection in this study. They were
used to discover the difficulties encountered by 16 fourth year Thai EFL English
major students (8 students from MSU and 8 students from UDRU) when writing
argumentative essays. The researcher adopted Think-aloud protocols in order to
analyse the difficulties that students encountered while writing their essays. This
method has been widely used in writing research (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1987; Cumming, 1989; Murphy & Roca de Larios, 2010) to grasp the
full range of difficulties articulated by selected public university students in
Thailand. A concurrent think aloud was employed to record the EFL participants’
verbal reports during the participants’ performance. However, some researchers
121
(Stratman & Hamp-Lyons, 1994) have stated that there can be various problems with
this approach. For example, the confusion of talking while writing is prone to falsify
the result of the verbal report due to individual divergences in doing verbal reports.
On the other hand, studies on the reliability of concurrent think-aloud protocols
(Lighton & Gierl, 2007; Bowles, 2010) have found that asking participants to talk
aloud while conducting a writing task does not change their tasks. In order to
minimise the distraction of talking while writing, the researcher followed suggestions
put forward by Russo et al. (1989), Ericson and Simon (1993), Green (1998) and
Llosa et al. (2011) to minimise the problems in applying TAP:
1. Participants were given clear instructions and the chance to practice in
order to be familiar with the process of think aloud,
2. All process and training was pilot tested before the writing session,
3. EFL English major students were allowed to talk in Thai or English,
4. EFL English major students were prompted to keep talking if they fell
silent for longer than 20 minutes.
The data for this study comprised verbal reports articulated by 16 EFL
English major students as they wrote their argumentative essays. Furthermore, the
researcher followed the effective steps that were recommended by Russo et al.
(1989), Ericson and Simon (1993), Green (1998) and Llosa et al. (2011) when
conducting think aloud in the warm up stage.
1) The participants were settled comfortably.
2) Interference was at a minimal level.
3) An explanation was given about the aim of the research.
4) Participants were given an opportunity to practice thinking aloud
122
5) Interference only took place when the participants stopped talking.
The psychological model was used to make predictions for the coded verbal
reports in the phase of predicted coded verbal reports. The coding scheme is an
application of the psychological paradigm that is associated with the text of the
verbal reports related to the psychological pattern. It is in the pattern of a coding
scheme for verbal reports segments from the participants. Coded protocols can be
obtained by applying the coding scheme to the verbal reports whereas the code set is
gained by employing verbalisation theory to the psychological model (Someren et
al., 1994). This research study employed verbalisation theory as well as the way in
which thoughts occurred during the participants’ writing performance. In order to
analyse the problems that EFL learners experienced while writing the essay, the
researcher developed a primary code set based on the writing difficulties analysed in
previous research studies (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Breetvelt et al., 1994; Llosa et al.
2011). Moreover, this research study also employed grounded theory suggested by
Strauss & Corbin (1998) to identify other categories. The process of constant
comparison was used to make sure that codes were apparent and not repeated
(Plakans, 2008).The data collection for Think aloud protocols will be illustrated in
detail on page 134.
123
3.3.2 The Semi-structured Interviews
The interview method, which is qualitative in its attributes, comprises the
collection of data through explicit interaction. Nunan (1992, p.149) asserted that the
overall interview “has been widely used as a research tool in applied linguistics.”
According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1993, p. 372) face to face interviews are
“probably the most effective ways to enlist the cooperation of the respondents
because interviews place less of the burden on the reading and the writing skills of
the respondents and help to clarify unclear and incomplete questions and answers.”
Thus, semi-structured interviews were the second instrument employed in the current
research to investigate two EFL lecturers’ perceptions about difficulties in teaching
argumentative writing. The aim of using the interview technique was to give an
explicit picture of the EFL students’ argumentative writing difficulties.
An interview technique is a qualitative tool that is used to collect information
through an effective communication between the respondents and the researcher
(Singleton & Straits, 2002). Trochim (2001) confirmed that it is one of the
appropriate approaches to collect data from, particularly in the area of linguistics and
is used by most researchers. The interview technique gives a clear description to
insufficient answers and questions. Rosenthal and Rosnow (2008) believe that the
interview method is an appropriate tool in which a researcher can gain insights about
learners’ argumentative writing difficulties and Thai EFL English major students’
need help from their lecturers to enhance their argumentative writing competence.
124
Nunan (1992, p.149) notes that in a semi-structured interview, “the
interviewer has a general idea he or she wants to interview with a list of
predetermined questions. Topics and issues rather than questions determine the
course of the interviews”. Based on Singleton and Straits (2002), interviews differ
from each other according to the standard of pattern. They are categorised in terms of
unstructured, structured and semi-structured interviews (Beins, 2004).
In the
unstructured interview, the researcher possesses no control and the interview is
focused on the answer of the respondents. But, the semi-structured interview is
arranged between the earlier discussed two sorts of interviews. In the semi-structured
interview, the researcher has considerable authority of control on the result (Nunan,
1993; Cohen et al., 2011). The semi-structured interview method is considered an
effective qualitative method in collecting data from respondents as it gives the
interviewer a degree of control, adaptability, acceptance and influence over the
interview. The interview method was selected as a research tool in the current
research to gather data so that the researcher can investigate EFL lecturers’
perceptions and opinions about the difficulties in teaching argumentative writing.
3.3.2.1 Semi structured interviews with EFL English major students
Semi-structured interviews were also employed to interview 16 EFL English
major students who participated in TAP. The information from these interview
sessions will make the results of TAP more reliable. Moreover, it identified Thai
EFL English major students’ needs from their lecturers to enhance their
argumentative writing competence. The process and construction of the semistructured interview will be discussed in the next section. The semi structured
125
interviews were conducted on 27th and 28th August 2013. The interview sessions for
EFL English major students who participated in TAP, were held in the Language
Corner at the two public universities.
The researcher interviewed all 16 students in Thai language with a set of nine
questions in order to get in-depth information because they were more comfortable to
express their perceptions by speaking in their mother tongue language (Dornyei,
2003). In this study, the researcher selected Thai native speakers who had a high
level of fluency in English and Thai to translate the interview questions. The selected
Thai native speakers were English lecturers at Khon Kaen University (KKU), Nong
Khai Campus. The interview questions were first translated into Thai and then back
translated (Dornyei, 2002, p.51) into English using two isolated translators from
KKU. Then a team-based approach was utilised to evaluate the appropriateness of
the translated questions (Dornyei, 2002, p.50).
This study followed the above translation procedure so as to obtain the
reliability for the semi structure interview questions for the Thai EFL English major
students. Moreover, it was easy for them to answer the questions in Thai which
facilitated them to discuss their argumentative writing difficulties. It could be said
that this procedure stimulated the EFL English major students’ interest to express
their perceptions more clearly and sufficiently for the researcher to gain the required
information. According to Dornyei (2003, p. 53) “.....we should try to speak the
common language for constructions that come easily to the tongue of college
educated”. It means that the interview questions should be written in the students’
mother tongue language to make them meaningful and interesting to respondents. In
126
this way, respondents felt comfortable to speak Thai. In contrast, it was
uncomfortable for them to express their ideas in English because of their limited
fluency in English language. This was the main reason why the researcher translated
the interview questions for the students from English to Thai.
3.3.2.2 Semi structured interviews with EFL Lecturers
The semi-structured interview with the two Thai EFL lecturers was carried
out on 29th and 30 August 2013 in both public universities. This semi-structured
interview was conducted to answer research question 3. The first semi structured
interview in this research study involved a set of nine questions to identify the
difficulties encountered by two EFL lecturers when teaching argumentative writing
as well as their perceptions in using processes and methods to teach argumentative
writing.
These two EFL language lecturers teach the B.A English Language
programme in the selected public universities in Thailand. The researcher informed
the respondents about the attributes and objectives of the interview and told them that
the informative data given by them will be regarded as confidential and will only be
utilised for research purposes. They were encouraged to participate wholeheartedly
to discuss their perceptions about the difficulties they faced in teaching
argumentative writing.
Subsequently, the researcher proceeded to carry out the interviews with the
two Thai EFL lecturers individually. This is crucial because individual interviews
can give the participants flexibility and independence to talk about problems
127
associated with their perceptions about the difficulties they encountered in teaching
argumentative writing.
The interview sessions were carried out at the respective EFL lecturers’ office
at a time that was mutually convenient for both the researcher and the respondents.
This was decided prior to the interview. The interviewer asked questions relating to
their teaching course, teaching experience, problems of teaching argumentative
writing to Thai EFL English major students, providing feedback to students on their
writing ability, the processes and methods used when teaching argumentative writing
and recommendations for EFL lecturers of writing to help students effectively write
argumentative essays. A micro analysis approach was used to analyse the semi
structured interview to obtain the required information. The aim of this micro
analysis approach was to expose emergent themes as articulated by the respondents
and record their perceptions as they had articulated them in the interviews. The
subjects chosen for the lecturers’ interviews were based on variables of English
writing courses they taught, teaching experience and background in higher education
and difficulties in teaching writing to Thai EFL students.
3.3.3 Classroom Observations
Observation is a powerful tool for data collection. It is attractive as its
distinctive feature offers the researcher the chance to collect ‘live’ data from ‘live’
settings (Cohen et al, 2005). Observation is considered as a primary technique for
collecting data on non- verbal behavior in a natural setting (Veal, 1997). Cohen et al.
(2005) state that observation allows researchers to gain insights about the setting of
128
programmes to be inductive and open-ended to observe things that might otherwise
be unnoticed, to explore things that respondents might not freely talk about in
interview settings, to change perception-based data (e.g. opinions in interviews), and
to obtain personal awareness. Furthermore Simpson and Tuson (2003, p.17) confirm
that observation is a highly flexible structure of data collection that can help the
researcher to have additional avenues to interactions in a social context and to give
systematic evidence of these in many patterns and settings, towards enhancing other
types of data.
Observation is an inclusive method that associated with the assortment,
interpretation and comparison of information. Morrison (1993, p. 80) reports that
observations allow the researcher to collect data on:
1. The natural context for instance the physical environment and its
institution;
2. The humanistic environment such as the group of people being observed;
3. The communication context such as the interactions that are taking place,
formal, informal, planned, unplanned, verbal, non-verbal and;
4. The curriculum context for example the resources and their institution,
pedagogic patterns and their curricula.
This study used a structured classroom observation as one of its research
tools. It is very systematic and allows a researcher to collect numerical information
from the observation. Numerical data promotes the making of comparisons between
contexts and circumstances and frequencies, forms and current movement to be
recognised. The researcher took a non- intrusive role, merely drawing up the event of
the factors being investigated (Cohen et al., 2010).
129
In this research, the researcher carried out two intact classroom observations
in the advanced composition writing course. The researcher used this technique to
observe two EFL lecturers teaching argumentative writing to their students. In
addition, a classroom checklist (See Appendix G) was devised to check whether the
selected lecturers used specific processes and methods in their teaching. This
classroom checklist comprised seven category labels that identify a key pedagogical
goal in the teaching of argumentative writing to be observed in the classroom.
During each classroom observation, a video recording of the teaching period
was done because video recording enabled the researcher to preserve the actual
language of the lecturers in their classroom. With the lecturers’ consent, the
researcher recorded the teaching lessons that took place in the university classroom.
According to Greig and Taylor (1999, p.66-67), the main advantages of video
recording are:
(1) video recording allows for repeated viewing and checking,
(2) using video recording catches the non-verbal data for example facial
expressions
(3) video material is live and it is a superb medium for recoding evolving
situation and interaction. Furthermore, this tool does not yield any opportunity for
bias as the benefactions of the participants are on record; moreover, it offers an
opportunity for the researcher to figure out and analyse the data after the classroom
observations and during reporting the outcomes process. Each classroom observation
session lasted for 50 minutes. The classroom observations were held in the usual
130
lecture rooms at Mahasarakham University and Udon Thani Rajabhat University in
the Academic writing courses.
3.3.4 Stimulated Recall Interviews
The stimulated recall interview was developed by Gass and Mackey (2000).
It is a process where a researcher spurs the retrospection of the respondent in an
occurrence by allowing that person to review data collected during the occurrence by
viewing a videotape recording of the intact classroom teaching. Similarly, Dempsey
(2010, p. 349) defines the meaning of stimulated recall interview (SRI hereafter) as
“a technique for investigating how people coordinate their interactions in a number
of different situations including with interview individuals by playing them
audiovisual recording of their own behaviour in social situations and discussing
different aspects of those recorded interactions”.
Nunan and Bailey (2009) stated that the data employed in stimulated recall
interview normally consists of videotape or audiotape recording, or transcripts made
from such recordings. Some researchers believe that field notes can be used to take
note of what happens in the intact classroom teaching. Using stimulated recall in
classroom research is beneficial for the researcher to report the aspect of lesson
without disruption while the lesson is continuing. Furthermore, this approach gives
evidence by prompting participants’ memories with information from the incident, so
the researcher can obtain valued data instead of asking them to recall their teaching
strategies without supporting data. Nunan and Bailey (2009) pointed out that the
think aloud technique in classroom research has the greatest constraint as it cannot be
131
employed to gather data directly from ongoing classes, as this would seriously
interrupt the flow of the in progress lessons. In relation to this, techniques such as
retrospection and stimulated recall can be used to decrease the limitation of the think
aloud technique.
Retrospective data are gathered after the incidents being investigated have
occurred. Retrospection has been regarded as questionable by many researchers but
Nisbett and Wilson (1977) argue that the difference between the incident and the
reporting of the incident will bring about untrustworthy data. It has also been claimed
that if participants know they will be required to give a retrospective report, this
knowledge will affect their performance on the task. Ericsson and Simon (1984)
argue that the trustworthiness of the data can be improved by insuring that the data
are gathered as soon as possible after the task or incident has occurred. In other
words, collecting retrospective data on a lesson is recommended to happen
immediately after the lesson completion.
3.3.4.1 Features of Stimulated Recall
Similar to think-aloud protocols, stimulated recall is a process for generating
introspective data. It is employed after the incident has taken place instead of
concurrently. The researcher utilises data that were gathered during the incident (e.g.,
a videotape, audiotape, field notes, etc.) to stimulate the recollection of the people
who participated in the phenomenon. This means that the participants will not be
disturbed during the task performance. However, it is expected that the record of the
132
original occurrence will stimulate their memories sufficiently to produce good
introspective data.
Stimulated recall can provide insights into teaching and learning processes
that would be difficult to gain by other methods. It is extremely beneficial in
collaborative research because it facilitates teachers and students as well as the
researcher to enlighten their multiple interpretations of what had taken place in the
moment-by-moment interactions that gives description on a given lesson or
classroom phenomenon. The interpretations can be directly connected to the
classroom phenomena that caused success to them.
Wood (1989) reported one of the most understanding investigations to
employ stimulated recall. He said that the centre of the investigation was teachers’
decision making. He employed three data collection methods for example
ethnographic interviews, ethnographic observation over time and stimulated recall
respectively in order to gather information on the decision making of eight ESL
teachers.
The researcher followed the procedure of using SRI suggested by Dempsey
(2010) to administer a stimulated recall technique to obtain the best results from the
interview. It is a process whereby a researcher arouses the retrospection of the
participant in an occurrence by allowing that persons to review data collected during
their teaching through viewing the videotape recording of the intact classroom
teaching. Dempsey (2010, p. 349) defines the stimulated recall interview as a method
for “exploring how people access interactions in a number of different circumstances
133
including with interview individuals by playing them audio or audiovisual recording
of their own behaviour in social contexts and discussing different aspects of those
recorded interactions”. Similarly, De Smet et al. (2010) state that the stimulated
recall interview is considered as a retrospective technique which focuses on
retrospection lecturers’ thinking processes prior to and during their teaching
activities.
In this study, the stimulated recall interview was used to investigate teachers’
teaching strategies in teaching argumentative writing. In this classroom research
using stimulated recall, the researcher recorded a lesson and obtained permission
from the teachers to interview individuals and discuss on what was going on at the
time that the instruction and learning occurred. The informants (2 EFL lecturers) can
look at the recorded video or listen to a tape of the lesson, pausing at particular points
of interest in order to discuss the reason why choosing a particularly strategy to teach
in the intact classroom teaching. Additionally, field notes or transcripts of the lesson
were used as a memory aid for a researcher to record what was happening in the
classroom as well. To achieve the goal of the current study, the researcher used
stimulated recall interviews to observe the types of teaching strategies used by the
two Thai EFL lecturers. This method is also in the line with the work of Calderhead
(1981) who stated that the identification of teachers’ thoughts and decision making
by stimulated recall could yield vital teaching processes in naturalistic research. The
researcher adopted the process of stimulated recall interview to generate open-ended
questions given to the lecturer immediately after viewing their teaching benefactions
in the topic of argumentative writing essays. For example, the interviewer gave
information about particular strategy in teaching argumentative writing essays and
134
asked the lecturer to recall and report what he or she actually thought just before and
during teaching. The researcher aimed to find out if the lecturers used the following
constructivist teaching strategies: group discussions, small group activities, debates
and writing conference. The two lecturers were asked to provide reasons why they
selected some constructivist teaching strategies in their teaching. To collect
information about the reliability of the interview process, a number of additional
inquiries were asked about the difficulty in teaching strategies. As the stimulated
recall technique was also known as a type of “clinical supervision” (Wallace, 1991;
in Bennett & Marsh, 2002), the interviewer completed the session by asking the
lecturers if they needed any assistance from the faculty to launch tutoring sessions.
Moreover, the researcher gave personal comments on field notes as an initial written
pattern of reflecting on the data collection (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The researcher
used field notes to make the qualitative research procedure more distinctive.
3.4 Data Collection Procedures
This section illustrates the processes and steps included in data collection for
this study. Data collection processes were carried out from August 2013 until
September 2013. After obtaining the approval from MSU and URDU, the researcher
gave brief information about the current study to EFL English major students in both
universities in the Language Centre Corner on 15 July 2013 at MSU and 16 July
2013 at URDU, approximately 2 weeks prior to conducting think aloud protocols.
The briefing session began at 4.30 p.m. and ended at 5.30 p.m. The researcher
informed students about the purpose of the current study and their involvement in the
study during the briefing session. They were informed about the three data collection
135
phases which involved think aloud protocols, semi structured interview, and
classroom observations.
After completing the briefing session with the students, the researcher met
with the EFL lecturers in their office on the same day of the students’ briefing
session. The briefing session with each lecturer carried out at 5.30 p.m. and ended at
6.30 p.m. Furthermore, the lecturers were informed of the aims of current study and
their collaboration in the study. They were informed about the three data collection
phases which included semi structured interviews, classroom observations and
stimulated recall interviews.
136
Data Collection for Think aloud protocols (TAPs)
The first phase of the study was held on 1 August 2013 at MSU and 2 August
2013. Figure 3.2 below shows the procedure of Think aloud protocol method:


Warm up stage

Participants were trained in Think
aloud and practiced it before writing
session.
Participants were encouraged to use
Thai language

Audio recording & Writing session
Stage

Verbal reports were recorded by
using audio recorders

Audio Transcript Stage

Verbal reports were transcribed

Protocol Analysis Stage

Protocol Analysis
Figure 3.2: The procedure of applying the think-aloud protocols to collect
meaningful data.
In the warm up stage, the researcher trained the participants how to conduct
think aloud protocol by showing a video tutorial of someone thinking aloud while
performing a think aloud sample task. This technique can be useful in helping
participants to understand the process. After the warm up stage was completed, the
audio recording stage was conducted. Participants were settled in the sound language
laboratory. The two essay topics were distributed to the participants and they were
requested to select one of two controversial topics taken from the 2012 IELTS test
(see Appendix J ) to conduct the think aloud protocols process in order to record their
verbal reports which were produced in Thai while they wrote their essays. They
pressed the button of the voice recorder and began their thinking process.
Participants spent one and a half hours to work on the think aloud process.
137
Once the audio recording and writing session stage were completed, the
researcher transcribed the verbal reports that were completed concurrently with the
writing session into Microsoft Word files on a PC. Transcribing a verbal report
means to type it out exactly word for word. However, typing out verbal reports is a
tiring and time-consuming task. This stage may take a long time to list and type the
original verbal reports, based on the clarity of the verbal reports and the fluency of
the participants. Verbal reports that are transcribed from the audio recording are
called raw protocols. The transcription process data analysis is explained further in
section 3.7.1 analysis of qualitative data.
Data Collection for Semi structured Interview with Students
On the 3rd and 4th of August 2013, the semi structured interview with the
students was conducted at Language corner. Prior to the interview, all interviewees
were settled in the waiting room, which was next to the recording room. While
waiting for other interviewees to arrive, the researcher gave consent forms to them to
sign. The researcher would commonly communicate with the interviewees by having
an informal dialogue in order to make the interviewees feel convenient. After all the
interviewees were there, the first interviewee was allowed to enter the interview
room (a recoding room in Language corner). Seating in the interview room was
arranged in face to face interview with the researcher.
Each interviewee was waiting at the provided seat in the interview room. This
was to make sure they were comfortable during the interview session. All interviews
138
were video recorded and each interview lasted about 10 to 20 minutes. All the
interviews were carried out successfully over two days, in the first week of August
2013.
Data collection for Semi Structured Interview with Lecturers
On 29th and 30th August 2013, semi structured interview with the Thai EFL
lecturers were carried out at the language centre room soon after the students’
interview. Before the interview began, the researcher communicated with the
lecturers by having an informal dialogue so as to make them feel comfortable. The
seating in the recording room was arranged in face to face interview with the
researcher.
All interviews were video recorded with the interviewee consent and each
interview lasted about 30 to 45 minutes. All the interviews were carried out
successfully over two days, in the last week of August 2013.
Data Collection for Classroom Observations
The classroom observations in MSU took place at the lecture hall. The
researcher observed lessons for three weeks out of six weeks. The three observation
sessions were held on 2nd, 5th, and 12th
September 2013 at MSU. Meanwhile, at
URDU the classroom observations were carried out on 3rd, 10th, and 17th September
2013. All the classroom observations were video recoded with the lecturers and
139
students’ permission. Each session of the classroom observation lasted for 50
minutes. Figure 3.3 illustrates the layout of two intact classrooms:
Video
Camera
Projector and whiteboard
Lecturer’s
desk
and
microphone stand
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Figure 3.3: Layout a Classroom Teaching
For data collection, the current study recorded a lesson on week 13, 15 and 17
out of 6 weeks. The researcher recorded a video of two classroom teaching that
lasted four hours and a half in each classroom observations. Alternatively, the
researcher uses the field notes to record what is happening in the two intact
classrooms teaching. After conducting the videotape recording, the researcher made
an appointment to interview each teacher about what was happening in her classroom
teaching.
140
Data Collection for Stimulated Recall Interviews
The Stimulated Recall interview was conducted on 18th and 19th September
2013 with the two EFL lecturers. Additionally, field notes or transcripts of the lesson
were used as a memory aid for the researcher to record what was happening in the
classroom as well. The interviews were held in the office of each lecturer. The
videotape of the lesson was showed to the lecturer and it was stopped at intervals
when the researcher found particular points of interest. The researcher asked the
lecturer to explain the main reason why she used a particular method to teach her
students. During stimulated recall interview, the researcher recorded the lecturer’s
explanations of the interesting points. Each stimulated recall interview was
audiotaped and the researcher then transcribed the sample of the recording in order to
analyse the interview data. Coyne (1997, p. 624) defines purposeful sampling as
“selecting information rich cases for study in depth”. Purposeful sampling was based
on two lecturers from two public universities to create detailed information on the
type of circumstances which needed to be studied (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Detailed information was given by two lecturers who were involved in the current
study.
3.5 The Pilot Study
Researchers acknowledge the necessity of conducting a pilot study before
data collection. Bloor and Wood (2006) point out that a pilot study is viewed as a
proceeding research before carrying out the main study. Based on Wilson (1996, p.
141
130) “a pilot investigation is a small-scale trial before the main investigation and is
intended to assess the adequacy of the research design and of the instruments to be
used for data collection”. With reference to any research study, carrying out the pilot
study is crucial because it can equip the researcher with the findings of checking out
the research tools. For the current research study, the semi-structured interviews,
Think aloud protocols, classroom observation checklist, stimulated recall interviews
that were utilised for data collection were piloted before conducting the current
research study. The piloting of all the research instruments was conducted with the
sole purpose of obtaining information related to the following points:
a) Setting the time required for the semi-structured interview, Think aloud
protocols and stimulated recall interview sessions
b) Removing ambiguities from the semi-structured interview questions, the
classroom observation checklist and questions in stimulated recall interviews as well
as the research tools
c) Measuring the reliability of the questions in the semi structured interview and
the classroom observation checklist
d) Establishing the validity of the research instruments (semi structured
interviews and Think aloud protocols)
The pilot study also gave the researcher the opportunity to ascertain the
validity and reliability of this research and to gain some initial information that
assisted the researcher to improve her research plan in an effective method (Mitchell
& Jolly, 2007). By piloting the semi-structured interviews, Think aloud protocols and
interview questions, the researcher gained information on whether the semistructured interview questions were easy, unclear or difficult (Marczky et al., 2005),
142
as well as whether the frame time needed for the semi-structured interview questions
were appropriate or not so that she could modify the semi-structured interview
questions, Think aloud protocols procedure or changed the time scheduled to avoid
problems during the actual research process ( Creswell, 2009).
The main aim of the pilot study was to try out the research instruments that
were going to be used in the main study. Furthermore, the pilot study was carried out
for reliability and validity purposes. The aim of the pilot study was to carry out an
investigation for the processes for data collection and some methods for data analysis
before the data collection for the main study. In the pilot study, the participants for
the think aloud protocols was merely one student, the respondents in the semi
structured interview for students comprised one student. In addition, one EFL
lecturer was interviewed to test the validity of the semi structured interview for
lecturers. All these participants did not take part in the main study.
The setting and the participants of the pilot study were different to those in
the main study. The setting of the pilot study was carried out in another Thai public
university which was Khon Kaen University (KKU). In order to get permission to
carry out the pilot study, the researcher contacted the Dean of Humanities and Social
Sciences at Khon Kaen University and the EFL lecturer who was teaching the
Academic Writing course. The researcher was given permission to carry out the pilot
study at KKU. The Think aloud protocols were piloted with a volunteer EFL English
major student at Khon Kaen University. The pilot test was carried out in July 2013.
The amount of time taken by the student to complete the Think aloud protocols was
1.5 hours.
143
The data obtained from the completed semi structured interviews were
transcribed and analysed using Nvivo 10. To adapt the semi structured interview for
Thai EFL English language lecturers, some modifications were made to the semi
structured interview questions with slight changes in the wording of some questions.
The respondent gave her comments about ambiguous statements and these were
corrected as soon as possible to make wording in interview questions more
appropriate. These modifications made based on the respondents’ suggestions.
According to the suggestions and comments of the respondents in the pilot study, the
semi structured interview questions were modified in question 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 in
order to reduce ambiguity.
The semi structured interview for students contained nine questions. Some
alterations were made to the semi structured interview questions with small changes
in the wording of some questions. The respondents provided their comments about
unclear statements and it was corrected as soon as to make wording of the interviews
questions become clearer. These changes were hinged on the respondents’ opinions
on the questions. Table 3.3 below displays the amended interview questions for
lecturer.
144
Table 3.3: The Amended Interview Questions for the EFL Lecturers
Original version
Q1. Which English courses do you teach?
Adapted version
Q1. Which English courses are you teaching
this semester?
Q3. What are the problems you face in Q3. As instructors what problems do you
teaching argumentative writing to your face when you teach argumentative writing
students?
to your students?
Q4. How do you provide feedback to your Q4. How do you provide feedback to your
students about their writing ability?
students when you rate their argumentative
essays?
Q5. How do you treat your students’ ability Q5. Apart from the feedback on question 4,
in providing crucial elements in writing how do you help your students to improve
argumentative essays?
their argumentative writing essays?
Q6. What kinds of main elements of Q6. Which of these elements (claim, data,
argumentative writing occur most frequently counterargument
in their writing?
claim,
counterargument
data, and rebuttal claim and rebuttal data)
occur most frequently in your students’
writing?
Q9. Do you have any recommendations for Q9. Do you have any recommendations for
lecturers in writing to help students write lecturers in writing to help students write
argumentative essays?
argumentative essays? Do you need any
training in teaching writing?
145
The semi structured interview for students contained nine questions. Some
alterations were made to the semi structured interview questions with small changes
in the wording of some questions. The respondents provided their comments about
unclear statements and it was corrected as soon as to make wording of the interviews
questions become clearer. These changes were hinged on the respondents’ opinions
on the questions. Table 3.4 below displays the amended interview questions for
students:
Table 3.4: The Amended Interview Questions for Students
Original Version
Adapted Version
Q1.What are the main problems you
Q1.What are the main problems you face
encounter when producing an argumentative when writing an argumentative essay?
essay?
Q2. What kinds of argument elements are Q2. What kinds of argument components are
commonly
used
in
your
writing commonly
argumentative essay?
used
in
your
writing
argumentative essay?
Q3.What is the main problems when you Q3.What is the main problem you faced
conduct think aloud protocols?
when you did think aloud protocols?
Q5. What kinds of data are commonly used Q5.What types of evidence do you commonly
use in your argumentative essay?
in your argumentative essay?
146
Table 3.4 continued
Original Version
Adapted Version
Q6. Do you face the problem of writing off- Q6. Have you faced the problem of writing
topic when you write an argumentative off-topic when you write an argumentative
essay? Why?
essay? Why?
Q7. Which area of the problems (grammar, Q7. Which area of the problems (grammar,
and mechanics or vocabulary) do you find as the structure and component of writing
the main problem when you write an argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you
argumentative essay? Why?
consider as the main problem when you
write an argumentative essay? Why?
Q8. Do you think it is important to manage
the
writing
process
when
writing
argumentative essay?
Q8. Do you think it is important to follow the
an writing
process
when
writing
an
argumentative essay?
Q9. Do you have any recommendations for Q9. Do you have any recommendations for
your
teachers
to
help
you
write teaching strategies that would help you write
argumentative essays more effectively?
argumentative essays more effectively?
The semi structured interviews that were used for analysis of transcription
carried out in the pilot study assisted the researcher to alter the questions she
expected to ask during the collection of the qualitative data for the research study.
Moreover, the analysis of the transcripts of the semi structured interviews carried out
in the pilot study were valuable for building up codes for coding the transcripts of the
semi structured interviews in the major study. Table 3.4 illustrates difficulty codes
147
for coding transcripts of the problems encountered by Thai EFL English major
students.
Table 3.5: Argumentative Writing Difficulty Codes for Coding Transcripts of
the Problems Encountered by Thai EFL English Major Students
No.
Argumentative Writing Difficulty Codes
1
The academic vocabulary
2
The grammar structure
3
The argumentative rhetorical features
4
L1 transfer and translating
5
Awareness of audience’s expectation and motivational elements
6
Organised ideas
7
Solid evidence
8
Interpreting the questions
9
Understanding the questions
10
Thesis statement
11
Fulfilling task demand
12
Evaluation
13
Effective conclusion
14
Topic choice
15
Creative thinking ability
16
Planning process
17
Specific supporting details
18
Generating ideas
Adapted from Llosa et al. (2011) p.271-272
148
3.6 Validity and Reliability of Research Instruments
Gay, Mills and Airasian (2009, p.154-157) defined validity as being
“...concerned with appropriateness of the interpretation made from test score”. The
validity and reliability of instruments used in this research study are discussed in the
next section.
3.6.1 Validity of the Research Instruments
Validity can be categorised into face validity and content validity (Marczyk,
DeMatteo, and Festinger, 2005). Gay, Mills and Airasian (2009, p. 154-157), define
the meaning of face validity as “.... the degree to which a test appears to measure
what it claims to measure.” In addition, content validity refers to the “the extent to
which a test represents a balanced and adequate sampling of relevant dimension,
knowledge, and skills” (Mitchell & Jolly, 2007, p. 124). Both face and content
validity of this research instruments were approved by a panel of experts who are
experienced in this area of research. The panel consisted of five ESL and EFL
experts and lecturers from USM in Malaysia and a public university in Thailand
(Khon Kaen University). The instruments were assessed and validated during all the
stages of the development of research instruments. The feedback from panel of
experts was taken into account and modifications were made accordingly before and
after the pilot study. Furthermore, aspect and content validity of the research
instruments (writing task and semi-structured interview questions) were checked
through the pilot study. The semi-structured interview with the two EFL lecturers
was conducted in English since the respondents teach English and have no problems
149
in understanding and comprehending the questions posed to them. On the other hand,
the semi- structured interview with the EFL students and the think aloud protocols
were carried out in Thai to make students feel comfortable to talk in their mother
tongue.
3.6.2 Validity and reliability of qualitative data
Creswell and Clark (2007, p.134) define qualitative validation as “assessing
whether the information obtained through the qualitative data collection is accurate”.
There are many methods to figure out the accuracy of the data for example
triangulation of the data, member checking and peers examination. In this study, data
were approved through peer assessment. Semi structured interviews were conducted
with Thai EFL English major students and Thai EFL lecturers to obtain data for
qualitative enquiry. In addition, peer assessment was also undertaken to analyse the
data. The selected peer was a postgraduate doctoral student who had recently carried
out qualitative research that also centred on EFL students.
Coding comparison among several coders used as reliability in qualitative
data is known as “intercoder agreement” (Creswell & Clark, 2007, p.153). In this
study, the researcher coded the writing difficulty encountered by Thai EFL students
in NVivo 10 and she selected one argumentative writing lecturer from UiTM who
was trained in using Nvivo10 to code the transcripts. Then, the researcher carried out
coding comparisons to ensure that the coder assigned the same codes to the
researcher’s transcript.
150
3.7 Analysing Data
The selection of data analysis is relied on the kinds of the data collection. The
data from the research instruments were used for analysing qualitative data. In
connection with the discussion on the methods and processes of data collection, it is
crucial to elaborate here on the methods used in analysing the data collected. This
section discusses how qualitative data collected from different sources were
analysed.
3.7.1 Analysis of Qualitative Data
Creswell’s (2011) model of data analysing and data coding was implemented
in analysing the qualitative data in the present study. He recommended that analysis
of qualitative data associates with six important steps which begins with analysing
the audio-recorded data collected from the semi structured interviews with Thai EFL
English language lecturers, semi structured interview with the Thai EFL English
major students and Think aloud protocols. The audio recorded data were listened to,
read completely and transcribed effectively. Merriam (2009, p. 160) asserts that the
method that is used in the inductive analysis is content analysis: a “process that
involves the simultaneous coding of raw data and construction of categories that
capture relevant characteristics of the documents content”. The inductive data
analysis begins with the descriptive data to more general codes and more broad
themes, which is employed to investigate argumentative writing difficulties
experienced by Thai EFL English language lecturers and Thai EFL English major
students.
151
Figure 3.4 below (adopted from Creswell, 2011, p.237) illustrates the processes that
were included in analysing the qualitative data in this study:
Codes the text for description to be
Codes the text for themes to be
used in the research report
used in the research report
The researcher codes the data (i.e., locates text
3.10 Ethical Considerations
segments and assigns a code to label them)
Based on the constructed and scheduled interviews and the design of the
Interactive
Simultaneous
present research The
methodology,
several
ethical
considerations
will
be taken into
researcher reads through the data (i.e.,
account during the
research
process.
study such as this one, it is crucial to be
obtains
general
senseInofamaterial)
aware of ethical implications. Gay, Mills and Airasian (2009, p20) state that “
The researcher prepares data for analysis
perhaps the most basic and important ethical issues in research are concerned with
(i.e.transcribe interviews)
protection of participants, broadly defined, which requires that research participants
not be harmed in any ways ( i.e., physically, mentally, or socially) and that they
The researcher collects data (i.e. interviews)
, qualitative data will be collected through two data collection methods: think aloud
Figure 3.4: The Process of Qualitative Data Analysis
Corbin and Strauss (1990) proposed systematic processes in analysing
qualitative data. The grounded theory process begins with open coding, followed by
axial coding and coding selection. Creswell (2011, p.243) defined coding as “the
process of segmenting and labelling text to form descriptions and broad themes in the
data” During the coding process, the researcher analysed the interview transcription
for notable categories through analysis of every single word, phrase and sentence.
Simultaneously, constant comparisons were generated through the analysis in order
152
to select proper codes and categories for the data. The relationships between the
categories or themes were investigated after completing the coding procedure. This
step is called as axial coding procedure (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).
In relation to this, the researcher followed the steps mentioned above to
analyse the data collected through think aloud protocols and semi structured
interviews to establish a coding scheme to analyse the qualitative data. First, the data
were transcribed verbatim. The transcription process in TAPs and semi structured
interviews for Thai EFL English major students comprised four lines:
1. raw data was written in Thai language on the first line,
2. the Romanized transcription based on Royal Institute (2013) was
transcribed on the second line,
3. while on the third line, the Romanized transcription, was translated word
by word into English,
4. the complete English translation was written on the fourth line.
After completing the transcription, two senior EFL English language
lecturers from both participating universities checked the translation for reasons of
reliability. Second, data were repeatedly read to create the coding scheme. Third,
data were coded and categorised under emergent themes. The researcher adopted
NVivo10 to analyse the verbal protocols that were derived from the audio files’
transcript to code emerging themes from the think-aloud data and the semi structured
interviews.
In relation to the above mentioned process, the researcher employed
NVivo10, Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS
153
hereafter) to analyse the data after completing the data transcription. Initially, the
researcher created the project and imported the entire transcription document’s file
into the project. After that the analysing process began as follows:
1. the researcher read the content in the document many times and underlined
the theme,
2. the selected themes were coded into NVivo10,
3. the researcher asked her colleague (who was teaching in the writing field
and experienced in coding themes using NVivo10) to code in the same
project,
4. the researcher made queries for coding comparisons to check inter coder
reliability. In this step, the researcher checked to see whether there was agreement or
disagreement on each theme. If there was no agreement on that theme, the researcher
rejected it to retain only the accepted Kappa results above 0.70. The Kappa
coefficient was used to measure the proportion of corresponding codes to indicate
inter coder reliability.
K = ( TA -∑EF ) ÷ ( TU - ∑EF )
TA= total units of agreement between two users
∑EF = the expected frequency of agreement occurring by chance
TU = total unit within the sources
Researchers such as Gamer et al. (2010) and Love and Sell (2012) posit that
Cohen Kappa coefficient reliability index is good for value above 0.70 and can be
accepted to have an inter coder reliability. Many researchers (Burla et al. 2008;
Warren. 2010; Steven et al. 2014) consider the Kappa coefficient as a more
beneficial measure of inter coder reliability than the percentage agreement figure.
154
This is the reason why the researcher chose Kappa coefficient to make sure the
coding scheme in this study was reliable.
Le Compte and Preissle (1993) provide a brief description of the methods in
which information technology can be utilised in advocating qualitative research in
CAQDAS. Flick (2009, p. 362) suggests that CAQDAS can be grouped into several
types which enable researchers to select the appropriate means to suit the research
question. Kelle (1995) suggests that computers are peculiarly effective to battle the
common problem of data overload and retrieval in qualitative research. Computers
enable researchers to utilise codes, memos, hypertext system, selective retrieval, cooccurring codes and to perform quantitative counts of qualitative data types. Kelle
and Laurie (1995, p.27) suggest that the computer aided methods can enhance:
(a) validity by administration of samples;
(b) reliability by restoring all the data on a giving topic, thereby ensuring
reliability of the data, without losing contextual factors (Gibbs, 2007,p.106).
An important point here is the speed of organised and systematic data
collection and retrieval; though data entry is time-consuming, a great advantage of
software is its ability subsequently to process data rapidly. Gibbs (2007, p.114) states
that NVivo10 allows the researcher to combine word data with images, video
material and sound recording and to code these different kinds of data. Cohen et al.
(2011) confirm that NVivo10 can be used to analyse research data because it can be
used to cope with abundant quantities of text-based data rapidly. NVivo10 can assist
the researcher to manage, explore and find patterns in data, but it cannot replace the
155
researcher’ analytical expertise. Figure 3.5 below displays the process for
approaching a qualitative project using NVivo 10:
Import
Memo
Explore
Visualize
Code
Reflect
Query
Figure 3.5: A process for approaching a qualitative project using NVivo 10
3.8 Ethical considerations
Based on the constructed and scheduled interviews and the design of the
present research methodology, several ethical considerations were considered during
the research process. In the current study, the researcher was aware of ethical
implications. Gay, Mills and Airasian (2009, p20) state that “ perhaps the most basic
and important ethical issues in research are concerned with protection of participants,
broadly defined, which requires that research participants not be harmed in any ways
( i.e., physically, mentally, or socially) and that they participate only if they freely
agree to do so ( i.e., give informed consent)”. This was done in the present study.
156
Prior to the interview, the interviewees were informed that the information
provided by them would be treated confidentially and would only be used in relation
to this research. The name of all respondents (including the two lecturers and
students) were kept anonymous. Only pseudonyms were used with the two EFL
lecturers and all respondents (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006). The two raters also
wanted to keep their names anonymous. Only the two Thai public universities were
named throughout the research study.
3.9 Summary
This chapter presented the research methods and processes used in this
research study. It described the respondents who participated and the circumstances
in which this study was carried out. The research instruments employed to gather
data were discussed and procedures for data collection were also explained.
Consequently, qualitative data analyses procedures were also explained. Other
logical and important matters in carrying out the research for instance validity,
reliability and ethical considerations) were also discussed.
157
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
4.0 Introduction
The current study focuses on identifying argumentative writing difficulties
faced by Thai EFL English major students and their lecturers. The research design of
this study is qualitative in nature. The current chapter focuses on reporting the results
obtained after the analysis of the qualitative data. First, it reports the results of the
analysis of argumentative writing difficulties faced by Thai EFL English major
students when writing argumentative essays. After that, results of the analysis of
teaching strategies used by two Thai EFL lecturers are reported. Finally, the chapter
reports the results of the analysis of differences and similarities between the Thai
EFL lecturers’ suggestions about their teaching strategies to help improve students’
argumentative writing.
4.1 Results of Students’ Difficulties in Argumentative Writing
The current study aimed to identify argumentative writing difficulties faced
by 16 Thai EFL English major students when writing argumentative essays through
the process of think aloud protocols (TAs hereafter). The researcher collected verbal
reports by asking 16 EFL English major students to think aloud as they wrote an
argumentative essay in response to two essays taken from the 2012 IELTS exam
paper (see Appendix J).
158
The students were required to choose one topic to carry out a concurrent think
aloud and write an argumentative essay within 1.5 hours. To identify the difficulties
that students encountered while writing the argumentative essay, the researcher
adapted an initial set of codes based on writing processes identified in previous
research studies (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Breetvelt et al., 1994; Llosa et al., 2011).
The researcher employed inductive analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to identify
additional categories. In the inductive analysis, two researchers coded the difficulties
using NVivo10 and made queries for coding comparison. The researcher retained
only the difficulties that had Kappa results above 0.70.
The transcriptions were analysed by using NVivo10, a computer assisted
Qualitative Data Analysis Software. The repeated themes or the Kappa results of less
than 0.70 were deleted and merged together. During the think aloud protocols, all
students used the Thai language. Therefore, all the verbal reports articulated by
students were translated into English by the researcher who is a bilingual speaker
(proficient in both Thai and English) and great care was taken to ensure the meaning
remained the same. The translations were then validated by another bilingual speaker
(proficient in both Thai and English) who is also a senior Thai EFL lecturer at MSU
in order to make sure the verbal report translations were correct.
The participants in the think aloud protocols were coded based on their
universities: S for Student, U1 for MSU and U2 for UDRU (MSU is Mahasarakham
University while UDRU is Udon Thani Rajabhat University). For instance, a
participant with a code of S1/ U1 refers to an EFL English major student from MSU.
159
From the think aloud protocols transcription analysis, 18 themes (See Appendix L)
for definitions and examples of each theme) emerged and these will be discussed in
the following section. The 18 themes found are related to vocabulary, grammar
structure, interpreting the question, fulfilling task demand, evaluation, argumentative
rhetorical features, thesis statement, awareness of audience’s expectation and
motivational elements, topic choice, understanding the question, organised ideas, L1
transfer and translating, providing solid evidence, generating ideas, planning process,
specific supporting details, effective conclusion and creative thinking ability.
Table 4.1 below displays the argumentative writing difficulties articulated by the 16
Thai EFL English major students:
Table 4.1: Argumentative writing difficulties faced by students
Writing Difficulties faced by students
1.Vocabulary
2.Grammar structure
3.Interpreting the question
4.Fulfilling task demand
5.Evaluation
6.Argumentative rhetorical features
7.Thesis statement
8.Awareness of audience’s expectation and motivational elements
9.Understanding the question,
10.Organised ideas
11.L1 transfer and translating
160
Table 4.1 continued
Writing Difficulties faced by students
13. Generating ideas
14. Planning process
15.Specific supporting details
16. Effective conclusion
17. Creative thinking ability.
18. Topic choice
During the think aloud protocols, the respondents talked about their
difficulties in writing argumentative essays. They spoke in their mother tongue;
therefore the researcher translated their verbal reports into English. As shown in
Table 4.1, students indicated that they faced great difficulties in using appropriate
vocabulary. One of them said:
21: “ehhh….well……I will begin with…. Um… Nowadays, many teenagers
have become more…what is the word not relied on others….think…um…my
problem at this moment is that…Err… I cannot think of um… the right
vocabulary that I need to use…so I have to err…look up in a dictionary.
Oh….let me look up in the dictionary….oh I can find….. independent. OK..
this sentence will be um.. Nowadays, many teenagers have become more
independent”. (S1/U2).
This student seems to have insufficient vocabulary because he / she cannot
think of the needed vocabulary item as the student always relies on the dictionary to
find the needed vocabulary for writing tasks.
Students reported that grammar structure was one of the greatest difficulties
for their argumentative writing. They felt that they did not have enough knowledge
161
of English grammatical structure. For example, during the think aloud protocol, one
of the students articulated that:
19: “I want to..err… take stance that… I believe that..um.. living apart from
parents has more..err… advantages for teenagers. Err…the problem that…
found is…um… the problem of language in writing since…err…. I am weak
in grammar very much so…err it is the obstruction of…err…expressing my
opinion in writing”.(S4/U1)
Understanding the argumentative rhetorical feature was also considered
difficult for the respondents because students pointed out that the argumentative
rhetorical feature acted as a barrier for them to write a good piece of argument. For
example, during the think aloud protocol, one of the students said:
10:“I begin writing without knowing about…err… the argumentative
rhetorical features. The problem I have is err… I do not have…um…the right
pattern in argumentative writing essays to…err convince the readers to
believe in what I write. I think…err… I do not know…err.. how to
write…um.. an argumentative essay. So I write a narrative essay without
argumentative rhetorical features”. ( S 5/U2 )
In relation to the difficulties of solid evidence, students articulated that
providing solid evidence was one of the most difficult things for them to convince
the audience to believe in what they wrote. This was stated by one of students, during
the think aloud protocol:
17: I will use…err.. the intuition and belief to answer the question. It is
difficult for me to find out strong evidence. I use ..err. only experiences that
heard to write the evidence in order to..um… support in the part of the Thesis
statement so that the given reasons to write for argument..err.. are not
believable. What do I need to write…um….advantage of living apart from
parents
are …(1)….teenagers learn how to manage their own
income….(2)… um…..living apart from parents…. makes teenagers… more
mature…what…another reason is…. Um….(3)….there is no rules outside the
home…”. (S8/U1)
162
While the difficulties of organised ideas were considered difficult for the
students as well, they admitted that it was difficult to write a well-organised
argumentative essay. For example, during the think aloud protocols one of students
pointed out that:
20: “I don’t know…err… how to organise the idea of argumentative writing
essay. I don’t know that…um… I have to write the Introductory or I have to
control the idea. I have to write supporting details and then…err… I have to
write the conclusion. I write down…err… what I can think of without
…um…controlling the idea. I begin writing without…err… knowing exactly
where I will end up; yet my writing process is quite disorganised, even
chaotic”. (S8/U2)
With reference to the difficulties of fulfilling task demand and understanding
the questions, students considered fulfilling task demand difficult for them to write a
good piece of argument. Below is an excerpt from one student:
19:“I don’t have…err.. a standpoint in taking stance and giving the reasons
that can support. Um… this problem caused by my thinking system when I
cannot think,…so… I cannot write. I don’t know…err… how to take voice to
support the information”. (S6 /U2)
Meanwhile students stated that they encountered difficulties in understanding
the question as evidenced in the excerpt below:
1: “OK..um.. let see the two topics. OMG, the questions are very long.
2: I have to read them to understand what they need me to answer…
3:Topic 1 “... Nowadays, more and more young unmarried adults…what is
the meaning of young unmarried adults?.. it means… the young people
who..no married yet. Ok I get it.
4: These people are choosing to study and live outside their parents’ homes.
Do you think this trend… is positive?
5: As the world’s economies have grown, alternative living arrangements
among young people have become possible ehh…I do not understand this
phrase….what does it mean….um….maybe…
6. young people have an option to live apart from their parents…yes…
because this has led to the trend of young single people living apart from
their parents” (S1 /U1) .
163
L1 transfer translation and writing thesis statements were considered difficult
for the respondents. Students struggled to translate from Thai to English. They felt
that it was difficult for them to write in English because they were familiar with
translating from Thai into English. For example one of them articulated during the
think aloud protocol that:
15:“I have the problem in writing that I have to think in Thai first and then
translate into English when I have to write in English I cannot think…err..
how to write in English and I am going to write..um… based on the Thai
structure which it is not saying the right meaning”. (S4/U2)
Likewise students stated that writing a thesis statement was difficult for them
in order to convince the audience as stated by the student below:
20: “I have to write Introduction and a thesis statement…but.. I do not know
how to write a good thesis statement…what I can write… is to take my
position….that I agree that there are advantages to live apart from their
parents..
21: ehhh….well……I will begin with…. Um… Nowadays, many teenagers
have become more…what is the word not relied on others….think…um..oh
let me check….oh I can find….. independent. OK.. this sentence will be um..
Nowadays, many teenagers have become more independent. The problem that
I found is how to write a thesis statement that can make the readers to believe
in the matter that I write and find the believable evidences to support the
thesis statement”. ( S1/U1)
Other difficulties experienced by at least a quarter of the students included
interpreting the questions, evaluating and topic choice. Some of these difficulties are
shown in the student excerpts below:
11:“The problem in writing essay at this moment is that I cannot interpret the
question because I do not know the vocabulary, so it makes me have difficulty
in writing. They asked me to write the advantage…and… disadvantage of
working and living overseas… ”. (S5/U2)
164
7:“Another thing is that I am not sure whether I interpret the question
correctly or not. What they need me to answer……they asked me to fore or
against.. that nowadays.. um.. young people are choosing to live and study
outside their parents ’home.. Ehh…am I right or not. I think it is right”.
(S3/U1)
11:“The problem that I found is that the provided topics are not interesting
so I cannot think of the plot to write and I write without interested
Introduction that can convince the readers to read what I have written. OK
next…err… I have to choose only one topic.. Uhh… it is difficult for me.. to
choose… because both topics are not interesting…..
12: Umm... I have to choose the topic that I can write well…… which
one….which one…..
13:The topic.. that.. I choose is… the first topic. Young people prefer living
apart from their parents. Um…. ”. (S2/U2)
Most Thai EFL students articulated that they had difficulties in the awareness
of audience’s expectation and motivational elements. For example one of them
articulated during the think aloud protocol that:
20: “I have to write Introduction and a thesis statement…but.. I do not know
how to write a good thesis statement…what I can write… is to take my
position….that I agree that there are advantages to live apart from their
parents…because…um… I do not have the knowledge of audience’s
expectation and how to motivate the readers to believe in what I write in
supporting details”. (S5/U2)
With reference to the difficulties of generating ideas, students admitted that
generating ideas was one of the most difficult things for them, especially to put ideas
into logical expression. An example of this was stated by one of students, during the
think aloud protocols:
19 “Generating is important process of putting ideas into rational expression.
Um… I need to link the ideas in the coherent way. What do I need to
write…um….advantages of studying and working abroad are …(1)….they
can learn a language more quickly….(2)… um…..they get a good opportunity
and get a high salary…what…another reason is…. Um….(3)….working and
165
studying abroad can change our life…It is difficult to create the ideas to
explain the logical advantages of working and studying abroad”. ( S3/U2)
The planning process and creative thinking ability were also considered
difficult for Thai EFL students. They articulated that it was difficult for them to write
the outline of writing without having creative thinking ability. For example, during
the think aloud protocols one of students pointed out that:
13: “The topic.. that.. I choose is… the first topic. Young people prefer living
apart from their parents...Um….how I begin my writing….um.. I need
planning….alright….first….I need…um… introduction… second three body
paragraphs… what is next……oh I see…. I need…. supporting details in
each paragraph….and…. and conclusion. Um….I am going to
brainstorm what I am going to write….but it is not easy for me to write the
outline in planning process of argumentative writing”. ( S5/U1)
14:”I can write a thesis statement..um…. but it cannot draw attention of the
audience …err…because I write a thesis statement without creative thinking
ability to convince the audience to agree with my ideas”( S4/U2)
In relation to the difficulties of providing specific supporting details, students
articulated that providing specific supporting details was one of the most difficult
things for them when trying to convince the audience to believe in what they wrote.
This was stated by one of the students, during the thinking aloud protocols:
17: “What do I need to write…um….advantage of living apart from parents
are …(1)….teenagers learn how to manage their own income….(2)…
um…..living apart from parents…. makes teenagers… more
mature…what…another reason is…. Um….(3)….there is no rules outside the
home…based on these I need to provide specific supporting details in each
paragraph which it was very difficult for me to find out the evidence to
convince the audience to believe with the specific supporting details”.
(S3/U2)
166
The respondents talked about their difficulties in writing argumentative
essays. They expressed the view that they encountered difficulties in writing an
effective conclusion. Most students articulated that they struggle when they arrive at
this point of an essay. This part of the essay leaves a significant impression on the
reader’s mind. Therefore, a conclusion must be effective and logical to draw the
attention of the audience. Many students admitted that it was difficult to write an
effective conclusion. One student stated the following view:
37: “Yeh….now I come to conclusion. Well….err…In brief,…. living apart
from parents…. can be a positive trend because….err… it teaches
teenagers… how to make financial plan,…..err… how to cope with…. their
own problems and…. how to…err… judge….err… what is right and wrong.
38: However,….err…. parents should….monitor their children after, so
that….err… they can help ….their children in time when they are…..err… in
trouble.
39: After all, teenagers should also…. visit and…. take care…. of their
parents…. as well. It is not easy for me to write a conclusion in order to draw
attention of the audience”.( S1/U1)
The findings reveal that Thai EFL students were unable to produce a welldeveloped argumentative essay because they encountered many barriers such as
vocabulary, grammar structure, interpreting the question, fulfilling task demand and
evaluation. Furthermore, they had difficulties in various aspects such as
argumentative rhetorical features, writing a thesis statement, awareness of the
audience’s expectations and motivational elements, topic choice, understanding the
question, expressing organised ideas, L1 transfer and translating, providing solid
evidence, generating ideas, planning process, providing specific supporting details,
writing an effective conclusion and having creative thinking ability. These writing
barriers impeded the students’ writing ability.
167
4.1.1 Results of Students’ Interviews after the Think Aloud Protocols
The researcher used semi structured interviews to identify difficulties in
argumentative writing faced by 16 Thai EFL English major students after conducting
the think aloud protocols. The results of the students’ interviews in this section were
used to strengthen the information obtained from the think aloud protocols. It can be
said that the results from the interview made the TAP results more reliable. The
transcriptions were analysed by using NVivo 10 (CQDAS). During the interviews,
students were encouraged to answer in English but they were also allowed to report
in Thai. Therefore, all the verbal reports in Thai were translated into English by the
researcher, who is a bilingual speaker (proficient in both Thai and English) and great
care was taken to ensure that the meaning remained the same. The translations were
then validated by another bilingual speaker (proficient in both Thai and English) who
is a senior lecturer in MSU.
From the analysis of the interview transcriptions, there were 18 difficulties
that emerged in the students’ interviews which were quite similar to results of the
think aloud protocols. The results from the semi structured interviews with the
students were used to confirm the results of TAP. Table 4.2 below reports on the
writing difficulties (gathered from the interview sessions) experienced by the
students:
168
Table 4.2: Writing Difficulties (gathered from the interview sessions)
experienced by the students
Writing Difficulties
1.Evaluating
2.Fulfilling task demand
3.Grammar structure
4. Interpreting questions
5.L1 transfer and interpreting
6.Organised ideas
7.Solid evidence
8.Argumentative Rhetorical features
9.Thesis statement
10.Understanding the question
11.Vocabulary
12. Planning Process
13.Awareness of audience’s
expectation and motivational element
14. Effective conclusion
15. Generating ideas
16. Creative thinking ability
17. Topic choice
18. Specific supporting details
The majority of Thai EFL English major students had great difficulty in using
appropriate vocabulary because students encountered this difficulty when writing
169
argumentative essays. Students claimed that they had difficulties in putting together
organised ideas and producing solid evidence to write a well organised essay.
Moreover, difficulties in grammar structure were also considered to be significant
because students claimed that grammar structure was a barrier for them. The results
from the interview sessions were similar to the results obtained from the think aloud
protocols of the respondents’ difficulties in vocabulary, grammar structure,
interpreting the question, fulfilling task demand, evaluation, argumentative rhetorical
features, thesis statement, awareness of audience’s expectation and motivational
elements, topic choice, understanding the question, organised ideas, L1 transfer and
translating, providing solid evidence, generating ideas, planning process, specific
supporting details, effective conclusion and creative thinking ability
All the respondents were asked to talk about the argument components that
they commonly used. Majority of students told the researcher that they mainly used
thesis statement (claim) and evidence (data) in their writing. The following excerpts
from the interview sessions express some of their views:
“The argument components that I used are Thesis statement (claim) and
evidence”. ( S1/ U2)
“I used Thesis statement (claim) and evidence in my writing.” ( S4/U1)
“Thesis statement and evidence are used in my writing.” (S 4/ U2)
“I have claim and evidence in my writing.” (S 6/ U1)
“I cannot use the other argument component except claim and evidence.”
( S5/U 1)
170
Based on the above excerpts, it can be observed that students are unable to
use other argument components such as counterargument claim, counterargument
data, rebuttal claim and rebuttal data which are considered essential elements to
make solid arguments in argumentative writing. Thai EFL English major students
only used claim and data. They often missed the point about counterargument claim,
counterargument data, rebuttal data and rebuttal claim. They did not show awareness
of other opinions. This result shows that Thai EFL lecturers do not place sufficient
emphasis
on
argument
elements
for
example
counterargument
claim,
counterargument data, rebuttal data and rebuttal claim when they teach
argumentative writing. Therefore, students did not use these elements in their
writing. Pailin articulated that:
“Claim and data are used in students’ writing argumentative essays but they
did not use counterargument claim and counterargument data and rebuttal. If
I didn’t point out to them they would forget about that they would just say
what they believe in but they did not look for the other side of opinion so they
discard counterargument and rebuttal the most. I did not concentrate on
these elements in my teaching so they cannot make a solid argument in their
writing”.
Manee told the researcher that:
“My students are unable to use counterargument claim and
counterargument data and rebuttal in their writing. They used merely data
and claim. I did not focus on counterargument and rebuttal in my teaching”.
With reference to the difficulties in TAP, the majority of the students did not
like to talk out loud and write simultaneously. Below are some of the student
excerpts:
“It makes my thinking interrupted and makes my brain confused. I do not like
writing and speaking out as well”. ( S2/U1)
171
“I feel that it’s strange because when I write in English I have to stop
thinking and speaking for a while then continues thinking and speaking.”
(S4/U2)
“I feel confused because I have to think, speak and write. I am not happy with
this method.” (S 8/U1)
“I do not like the think aloud because it makes my writing become slow”
( S 6/U2)
Thai EFL students had difficulties on using think aloud protocols
because they had to do two things simultaneously. They had to say what they
were thinking about the writing process and write their essays simultaneously.
It was not easy for them to conduct TAP.
They also told the researcher that they had difficulties on L1 transfer and
translation in the process of think aloud protocols. They had to translate from Thai to
English when writing the essay. The following are some excerpts from the
interviews:
“I have the problem of L1 transfer. While I am writing English, I have to
stop thinking and speaking because doing three things at the same time it
makes me confused”.( S1/U1)
“I faced the difficulty in translating and L1 transfer.” ( S 8/U2)
“Translating and L1 transfer are the main difficulties for me.” ( S 5/ U1)
“My thinking is confused that I have to think, speak and write simultaneously.
The process of thinking and speaking are in Thai but when I write I have to
write in English. Therefore, when I write in English the process of thinking
and speaking are interrupted. It is unnatural”. (S 3/U2)
172
This shows that Thai EFL students have difficulties in L1 transfer translating
when they perform writing tasks. They have to translate from Thai to English. Their
writing is awkward because the structure of Thai and English is different so their
sentences were conveyed differently.
The researcher asked the students to talk about how they started their
argumentative essays. Most students stated that they used the classic five paragraphs
to write as shown in the excerpts below:
“I begin by writing Introduction and Thesis statement after that I write the
body three paragraphs and find out for the reasons to support the Thesis
statement. Finally, I write the conclusion. I have to think of the evidence from
internet journal to support what I have written in order to convince the
readers believe in what I wrote”. (S2/ U1)
“I have to read to make understanding of the questions before interpret the
question and write down my own opinions that for or against. After that I
write the body three paragraphs and find out for the reasons to support the
Thesis statement. Finally, I write the conclusion.” (S 5/U1)
“I write Introduction and Thesis statement to present my stance after that I
write the body three paragraphs and find out for the reasons to support the
Thesis statement. Finally, I write the conclusion.” (S 8/ U2)
“I have to write down my own opinions that for or against and write three
body paragraphs with evidence to support. Finally I write a conclusion.”
(S1/U1)
On the other hand, there were two students who began their writing by
dividing their essay into three phases as shown below:
“First I interpret the question and divided into three phases, the first phase is
opinion that is facts that make the readers believe in our writing. The second
phase is recommendation of the information that used to support more which
are positive information. The third phase is the part that use citation of
course if we write without citation the readers do not believe at all if we
173
have research or journal articles that have written in journals, interview that
have been broadcast on Television will be supported our writing.” ( S2/U1)
“I have to find the comparison of both sides and find the inspirations taken
from opinions are mainly on our opinion which divided in to three phases, the
first phase is opinion that is facts that make the readers believe in our
writing. The second phase is recommendation of the information that used to
support more which are positive information. The third phase is the part that
use citation of course if we write without citation the readers do not believe
at all if we have research or journal articles that have written in journals,
interview that have been broadcast on Television will be supported our
writing”. (S2/ U2)
The respondents were also asked to talk about the type of evidence they used
in their writing.Students stated that they used personal opinions to support the
argument and students used facts to back up their claims. They claimed that:
“The evidence that I used is personal opinions” (S6/U1).
“The evidence that I used is facts and personal opinions” (S5/U1)
The results indicate that Thai EFL English major students are unable to use
other types of evidence such as research reports or statistics to back up the thesis
statement in order to make the argument more solid. Only two students were able to
use research reports and statistics.
The respondents were also asked about the importance of following the
process of writing. The majority of students told the researcher that it is very
important to follow the process of writing argumentative essays. The excerpts below
illustrated the issue:
“It is very necessary to follow the process of writing argumentative essays
because it will help me write more easily” (S1/U1)
174
“It is crucial to follow the process of writing. We cannot propose the idea
without the process to convince the readers to believe in our writing.”
(S5/U2)
“It is essential to follow the process in writing argumentative essays because
it helps me write a well organised essay.”(S7/U1)
“It helps me write a step by step and prevents me from unorganized writing
essay. (S6/U2)
The results indicate that students are concerned about the importance of the
writing process of writing an argumentative essay that facilitates them to produce a
well organised essay.
Based on the transcription of the TAP (see appendix H), Thai EFL students
applied a writing process to complete their rhetorical tasks through the cognitive
process. The students also had difficulty in the writing process. Students needed to
retrieve information from their long term memory and the task environment in the
generating process. During the organising process, students organised all information
into an outline for writing. In the process of goal setting, students selected relevant
information for the text in an outline by using brainstorming. After completing the
process of goal setting, students needed to compose the written text in terms of
argumentative rhetorical features. In the next process, students improved their
written text by reading and editing (Benton, 1984).
The most obvious was the performance of creating ideas, which included
retrieving appropriate information from the long-term memory. Because this
information was not so well developed and organised in the memory, very few
175
students composed well written English. Most EFL students produced merely
fragmentary, disorganised even conflicting thoughts, like the pieces of an essay that
have not yet been elaborated in their writing. Students were generally unable to
provide a meaningful structure to their ideas if the structure of ideas in the student's
memory was not sufficiently modified to complete the current rhetorical task. The
procedure of organising appears to play an important role in creative thinking and
discovery since it is vital in grouping ideas and producing new ideas to convince the
audience. More specifically, the organising process allows the student to identify
types of supporting ideas which can be used to develop a topic.
In general, writing problems arose from the students’ endeavour to plan
language onto their own thoughts and feelings including the expectations of the
audience. This endeavour highlighted the complexity of writing related to the
implementation of writing plans. In relation to the transcription of the TAP of the
Thai EFL students, the researcher divided students into two groups: skilled and
unskilled students. Skilled students were able to tackle problems as well as compose
and organise task-relevant ideas, phrase grammatically correct sentences that flow,
use correct punctuation and spelling; and integrate ideas, tone and wording to the
expected audience, to name some of the more remarkable rhetorical and linguistic
tasks. Clearly, writing skilfully can be associated with sophisticated problem solving.
These students often develop elaborate purposes, particularly content and rhetorical
purposes which need sophisticated problem-solving. In contrast, unskilled students
typically adopt a simple way to produce, adopting a knowledge-telling approach in
which content is created through association with one idea to answer the rhetorical
task (Bereiter & Scardamalia, pp. 5-30). The inefficient skills of EFL students
176
limited them to a knowledge-telling approach. They were unable to move freely
between knowledge telling and knowledge transforming. They produced a lot of
pauses to think and they used phrases such as “Err”...., “Um”.....when they were
involved in the TAP. Hayes and Flower (1980) posited that the student’s long-term
memory has various types of knowledge including knowledge of the topic,
knowledge of the audience and stored writing plans. However, writing tasks are
distinctive in the types of problems including varying amounts of planning,
translating, reviewing, or editing; thus, each task needs a different combination of
cognitive strategies. Writing effectively rests on having flexible access to contextrelevant information in order to write comprehensive texts.
In answering the second research question, the study examined the extent to
which Thai EFL English major students need help from their lecturers to enhance
their argumentative writing competence. Table 4.3 below shows the range of
students’ expectations from their EFL lecturers in the writing course:
177
Table 4.3: Students’ Expectations from their EFL Writing Lecturers
Students’ expectations from lecturers
Assign homework to practice
Build up the atmosphere of joyful learning
Discussion how to write the argument
Give feedback time to time
Practice make progress
Provide different media
Provide models of good writing
Reading articles and grammar from time to time
Teach academic vocabulary and example for
usage
Teach based on the process
Teach citation
Teach sentence structure
Teach techniques in writing
Teach argumentative writing step by step
Students expect their lecturers to provide them with models of good writing.
One of them stated:
“I need the teacher to give clear examples of writing and provide me with
the interested topics. She must use media that is better than this” (S8/U1).
“The teacher has to teach based on the process and provide various model
texts for students to follow as a model” ( S7/U2).
178
“The teacher has to provide easy examples of model texts and let students
follow it” ( S8/U2).
“I need the teacher explains how to write an essay more deeper than this and
provides examples from different model texts”(S3/U1)
Students claimed that they need to practice more writing as they believe in
the saying “Practice makes perfect”. They stated that they need a lot of assignments
and feedback from their lecturers from time to time as well. Some of the students’
views are as follows:
“Students have to practice by themselves as “Practice make progress” and
ask the teacher gives the feedback”( S4/U1).
“Students need to practice writing at home as much as possible as saying
“Practice make progress” ( S5/U1).
“Students have to practice by themselves to follow the process of writing until
they can write by their own” (S7/U2)
“Students have to read essays and practice writing a lot”( S6/U2)
Many students need their lecturer to teach them academic vocabulary and
provide examples of usage and expect their lecturer to teach argumentative writing
structure step by step as evidenced in the following student excerpts:
“I need the teacher to teach us the academic vocabulary together with gives
an example of usage ( S4/U1)
“I want the teacher to teach us to write argumentative essay step by step and
provides the model in writing. This will make students to write easily”
( S1/U2).
179
“I want the teacher focus on academic vocabulary and give examples how to
use those vocabulary on sentences”( S3/U2).
“Students are needed to write step by step from simple to complex sentences
and increase the level of difficulty”(S6/U1).
“I want the teacher teaches various patterns of writing and gives examples of
each pattern step by step” ( S3/U1).
“The teacher has to teach the technique of writing and teach based on the
process” ( S7/U2)
Thai EFL students need their lecturers to use different media to build up the
atmosphere of joyful learning based on Krashen’s (1983) theory. The main factors of
learner success in language learning should be aligned to the students’ emotional
condition. A language learner’s passion for participating in the class and confidence
from teachers’ encouragements can assist in the accomplishment of his/her learning
experience. Based on these findings, it is clear that many students are still unable to
use academic vocabulary effectively in their writing as well as they are not familiar
with the structure of argumentative writing. In addition, students required lecturers to
teach them sentence structure. It can be implied that these Thai EFL students are not
competent in using sentence structures effectively. They did not have an awareness
of argumentative rhetorical features and citation to produce a good piece of
argumentative essay.
180
4.2 Results of Teachers’ Perceptions of Teaching Argumentative Writing
The researcher used semi structured interviews to examine the argumentative
writing difficulties experienced by two Thai EFL lecturers from two selected public
universities. Nunan (1992, p.149) states that in semi-structured interviews, “the
interviewer has a general idea he or she wants to interview with a list of
predetermined question. Topics and issues rather than question determine the course
of the interview”.
The two Thai EFL lecturers were interviewed in order to help the researcher
elicit data and information related to the research study. The individual interview
sessions lasted between 25-30 minutes. The results of the semi- structured interviews
were discussed based on themes related to the difficulties in teaching argumentative
essays in the Thai EFL context. Two Thai EFL lecturers were interviewed and their
personal details were kept anonymous. Taking into account the ethical considerations
of conducting this research, the real names of the respondents were not revealed,
instead, only the pseudonyms Pailin (U1), and Manee (U2) are used throughout the
thesis.
This section focuses on reporting the results of analysing the qualitative data
that answer the third research question that is related to argumentative writing
difficulties encountered by Thai EFL lecturers.
The average university teaching experiences of the two Thai EFL lecturers
(Pailin and Manee) is 11 years. Both of them teach writing courses. Pailin teaches
181
English Structure and Usage, Basic writing, Narrative composition, Descriptive
composition and Advanced writing composition. Manee teaches Academic writing,
Advanced writing composition, Structure and Usage.
When the researcher asked them to talk about the problems they faced in
teaching argumentative writing, Pailin and Manee confessed that the most consistent
problem was their students’ inability in the following aspects:
1. inability to produce a clear thesis statement
2. unfamiliarity with this genre
3. insufficient grammar knowledge
4. lack of awareness of the audience’s expectation and motivational elements
5. inability to write supporting details
6. inability to arrange their ideas in a logical order
7.insufficient knowledge of vocabulary
They told the researcher that Thai students went through a traditional way of
schooling and sometimes they never had to write argumentative essays because they
just read and memorised the content in order to pass exams in Thai schools.
Therefore, they were not encouraged to write argumentative essays. Furthermore,
they added that some of the Thai EFL lecturers at Mahasarakham University,
Udonthani Rajabhat University and other Thai universities are conservative in their
teaching and tend to use only conventional methods in their teaching. The
conventional method puts the responsibility for teaching and learning mainly on the
teacher and it is believed that if students are present in the lesson and listen to the
teacher’s explanations and examples, they will be able to use the knowledge. The
182
students are expected to memorise the grammatical rules and to practise using them
while translating sentences and analysing English texts. It is supposed that a person
who knows the rules and the lexis is able to understand and speak the target language
through the teaching that focuses on the grammatical rules and items of lexis
(Broughton, 1994; Richard, 2008; Cutright, 2008; Tharp, 2008; Xu, 2008;
Tyler,2008).
Pailin stated that:
“I think the problem comes from students being unfamiliar with the genre I
mean the type of writing because Thai students do not have a lot of training
in writing argumentative or actually writing compositions in general so it’s
hard for them to make an argument and they don’t know how to support their
argument. They do not have a lot of experience. Some Thai students
experienced only traditional way of schooling and sometimes they never have
to write argumentative essays because they just usually read and memorize
the content to pass exams. Usually schools do not encourage and teach
argumentative writing much even in Thai and in English”.
Manee added:
“I think the problem came from students not from the teacher. English
Language and Literature students at Thai universities seem to have
difficulties to make a clear thesis statement. They don’t understand what
argumentative writing is. It means that they are not familiar with this genre.
Furthermore, they do not know how to write supporting details for their
argumentative topic. They have problems in arranging their ideas in a logical
order and this may be because they don’t have good English language about
putting ideas together in a well-organised. They have a good idea but they
cannot arrange facts and ideas because they have language problems about
the writing. Thai EFL students seem to be very weak in grammar and have
insufficient vocabulary”.
183
4.3 Teaching Strategies Used to Teach Argumentative Writing
The two Thai EFL lecturers were also asked to talk how they can help their
students improve their argumentative writing. They informed the researcher that it
was difficult to help them to improve their students’ writing skill within a semester.
However, they tried to give different input and activities to help improve their
students’ process of thinking about how to make the argument more clearly. They
normally asked their students to analyse sample texts. They usually get their students
to read and study the line of the argument and analyse the techniques used in the
sample texts. After that, they come to present what they obtained from reading the
provided sample texts. They were divided into two groups (for and against) to have
debates in class. They admitted that analysing model texts and having debate in class
help the process of thinking because students can anticipate the different opinions
and when they have different opinions they have counterarguments. They can think
how to rebut that opinion. Pailin stated that her technique is as follows:
“It is not easy to help improve my students’ writing skill within a semester. I
try to give different input to help them improve their writing skills. I think the
most important thing is a lot of reading so I ask them to analyse sample texts
that are good for example argumentative composition and I ask them to study
the style and the technique. So I ask students to read that and study the line of
argument and come to class to present the article that they read. One group
read about an opinion against the fast food company and the other group
read about the opinion supporting the company. And they have to debate in
class. I think model text and having debate in class help the process of
thinking because they can anticipate the different opinions when they have
different opinions when they have different opinion they have
counterargument. They can think about how to rebut that opinion”.
Meanwhile Manee elaborated on her teaching technique by using a writing
project to help improve her students’ writing skill. She provided an individual
184
meeting to have them sit down and talk about their problems and how to improve
their writing individually. She stated that:
“I have a writing project and use it with my students in class. In the project,
in writing project they have to identify their problems that they would like to
improve. And they need to develop their own essay checklist which will
include their problematic problems as some kind of questions or
questionnaires to use with peer and teacher. So after completed their draft,
first step they have to send the draft to their friends to edit along with the
checklist that they develop by themselves and then students revise their essay
based on the first students’ comment and they will submit the draft to the
teacher and the teacher will give them feedback”.
Moreover, Pailin and Manee were asked to talk about the teaching strategies
they used to teach argumentative writing. Pailin employed group work and pair work
in her class. This teaching strategy provided students with further opportunities to
discuss ideas with friends for writing arguments. She felt this teaching strategy was
very authentic because students can exchange their ideas with friends so they can
observe if their argument were convincing. She asked her students to analyse
different sample texts because it was beneficial for students to study the line of
argument and techniques used in the model texts. Pailin stated her view as follows:
“I try to do group work and pair work a lot so they can discuss ideas with
their friends for argumentative writing, what the most important thing is
discussion about opinion. It may be when they talk with their friends it’s very
real when their friends give them comments and when their friends give them
their opinions they can think about that and make sure that their argument is
convincing”
On the other hand, Manee used a variety of activities in class. However, she
told the researcher that she used strategies that helped them become autonomous
learners. She stated that:
185
“I use the strategy that helps them to rely on their own a lot. Some kind of
encourage self study apart from the direct teaching class and try to
encourage them to find their own strategy to help them when write the essay.
So they can count on themselves instead of counting on the teacher all the
time. They can use the internet and other resources like writing program,
some grammar websites or some vocabulary websites and resources that
show them first to rouse their interest so they can further learning by
themselves”.
As feedback is an important aspect in teaching EFL writing at the tertiary
level, the two Thai EFL lecturers were asked to talk about the way they provided
feedback to their students when rating their students’ argumentative essays. Pailin
and Manee agreed that feedback was important in their writing courses. They told the
researcher that they normally provided oral feedback at the first stage to check
students’ topics and ideas in order to make sure that they are on the right track. The
most crucial way was to check whether they wrote a clear thesis statement or not and
give them the green light to continue their first draft. For the first draft, they gave
their students comments about the content and organisation, not the language.
Students are then asked to revise their essay to make the thesis statement clear. For
the second draft, they look at organisation, content and correctness in their language
variety in their sentences. Both Pailin and Manee used peer review for feedback.
They also listed consistent mistakes made by students and made corrections in the
whole class and taught grammar as well.
As Pailin stated:
“Feedback is provided at the first stage. I found that if I give feedback after
the students complete their first draft sometimes it’s too late because some
students do not start with a good debatable topic so I think first of all I ask
them to do an outline and discuss the outline first before they go on writing
the first draft. So I would see if their thesis statement is clear. Is that topic a
186
debatable topic? Is it suitable for argumentative writing? And I ask them
what kind of argument you are going to support that so it’s like oral feedback
at first talking. And then when the topic sounds good, the idea sounds good
and then I ask them to go on improving their first draft and after the first
draft I give them the comment about the content and organisation not the
language. That is the first draft. After the first draft, I ask them to revise to
make it strong to make the thesis statement more clear and for the second
draft, I look at everything such as organisation, content and also correctness
in their language variety in their sentences style is it good. And also I ask
them to have peer review and they receive feedback from peers too”.
Manee expressed her views as follows:
“I check their essays to correct any mistakes that come up in my students’
writing and do a class discussion. Sometimes, I use group discussions and
peer reading. I mean the students have a chance to read their friends’ essays
and give it back and then I give the feedback after they do all the thing I
assign them to do”.
Regarding the criteria in judging the quality of argumentative writing, the two
Thai EFL lecturers were asked to comment on the criteria they used to rate their
students’ writing. Pailin stated that most Thai EFL lecturers looked at three elements:
content, organisation and language. She added that:
“I look at three things: content, organisation and language. For content I
look at the thesis statement, the supporting evidence if it is relevant, if it is
strong and convincing. For organisation, I look at how they put their ideas in
order if they have thesis statement toward the beginning that means they
make their stand point or the point of view from the beginning. In the first
paragraph, I look if it has topic sentence, if it has supporting details that
support so see in each paragraph it has conclusion. For the language, I look
to see is it grammatical? It has a good style, if it has good word choice,
sentence variety”.
On the other hand, Manee used the classic five paragraphs as a framework to
judge her students’ writing. She stated her stand point in the excerpt below:
187
“I use the classic five paragraph essay as a framework. And I am looking for
a thesis statement and I am looking for topic sentence in each body
paragraph. I am looking for a conclusion the main statement of the thesis
statement and the summary of they have talked about so far. I provide them
about three ways and their essay for example: personal comment, quote of
the famous people that related to their topics, and do they provide the link
between paragraphs? Are they carrying reasonable? The last thing I don’t
put much emphasis is grammar. I put much score to organisation and topic
sentence in each paragraph”.
The two Thai EFL lecturers were asked to talk about their recommendations
for other Thai EFL lecturers to help students write more effectively. Both of them
had different suggestions to help their students which are beneficial for EFL lecturers
in other Thai universities. Pailin stated that she used a lot of input and made it
interesting to students, for example the lecturer had to choose the issue that students
were interested in therefore they were willing to join the activities. She claimed:
“I would recommend that they use a lot of input to make it interesting and
most important thing is to choose the topic that is relevant to the students’
topic that students passionate about it because when they write something if
they don’t believe or won’t believe in it so they don’t care about it. They
don’t want to write it because it’s not authentic”.
On the other hand, Manee recommended that lecturers had to understand the
nature of their students and fulfil what they need to develop their writing skill. It is
imperative to teach the linguistic features to them until they master the language by
using genre-based instruction. She stated:
“I think my recommendation for EFL learners is that it would be helpful if
the teacher knows about the students’ nature or ability in L1 writing before
they transfer writing skill to L2 because if they had less opportunity to write
in their own language how can they become proficient in L2 writing?”.
188
The findings show that both the Thai EFL lecturers had different teaching
strategies in teaching argumentative writing. Pailin recommended using different
inputs and activities in class in order to motivate students to become active learners.
She felt that lecturers had to use topics that were of interest to the students. She felt
this can motivate students to express their ideas during the discussion. Meanwhile,
Manee recommended that Thai EFL lecturers need to understand the nature of their
students in order to fulfil their needs. Thai EFL students require their teacher to teach
them linguistic features until they are more proficient in their language use and then
teach them the structure of argumentative framework step by step.
4.3.1 Results of Stimulated Recall Interview (SRI)
A Stimulated Recall Interview (SRI) was used to investigate introspective
data which recalled lecturers’ thinking process during their teaching activities. It is
believed that this tool can be used to gain insight into teaching strategies (Nunan &
Bailey, 2009; De Smet et al. 2010). In the process of SRI, both the researcher and
Pailin viewed the video that recorded Pailin’s classroom teaching. The researcher
paused the video when the she needed Pailin’s explanation about her teaching
strategies. The results from stimulated recall interviews were used to answer the
fourth research question in this study. The researcher found seven teaching strategies
used by Pailin as follows:
1. Pailin used a sample text of argumentative writing and asked her students
to analyse and study the line of argumentative writing. She used this strategy to begin
her teaching argumentative writing. She illustrated her teaching approach as shown
in the excerpt below:
189
“I think my approach is to present a sample writing to students and have
them analysed. To do that I kind of ask them question to guide their analysis.
Argumentative writing, a good piece begins with a good title that could
summarise your point, your argument and your main idea so I think my
approach is to have them look at a sample text and have them analyse and
they can model that text in their writing after the sample the model essay”.
Pailin believed that this approach can help her students develop a good
understanding about argumentative writing.
2. Pailin explained the strategy to give reasons or support evidence to make a
good argument. She told the researcher that she taught students to write general ideas
and then narrow down their points. She presented her teaching strategies to write a
good thesis statement as shown in the excerpt below:
“I told my students to write Introduction by providing some general ideas
first and then they have to narrow down to their points so I draw up side
down triangle saying that students have to make a kind of general statement
to introduce their topics first and make them narrow down to their points.
For example if students want to talk about dieting strategies ways to lose
weight. I would tell them to introduce the topic about weight lose first like
there are many techniques you can do for weight loss and then they should
give some different strategies and narrow it down to your main point like I
believe this strategy is the best. I believe strategy A is the best and then give
supporting argument saying why A is the best strategy so I explain to them
during the conference”
She used this teaching strategy because she believed that it is very important
to mention the opposing opinion so that the reader knows that the writer is aware of
the opposing opinion of people who might disagree with them. One of the most
important things about writing argumentative essay is that students need to anticipate
opposing ideas that people may think in this way but in fact what is the point they try
to make and what is the point they believe in because if they do not anticipate other
people’s views then they might not think of the issue from different views. It can be
190
said that opposing ideas can strengthen the thesis statement to be more convincing to
persuade the readers accepted the writers’ ideas.
3. Pailin taught different evidence in her class to help her students understand
how to provide a strong evidence to convince the readers. Pailin stated that:
“I follow the text book from Cambridge. They present reasons, research
findings, case studies, facts and example, statistics and quote from authority.
These different types of evidence are considered as solid evidence to support
the thesis statement. I follow the example in the text book because these
exercises in the book that go with each one and go with different kinds of
evidence help students understand different evidence used to support the
argument and it can be used to convince the reader to believe what students
want to argue in their writing”.
4. Pailin used persuasive appeal to teach her students. The concept of rhetoric
is universal and students should know about it. It is considered effective
communication to persuade the readers to believe in what students try to convince.
Palin gave the following reasons to the researcher:
“I think persuasive appeal is good for students to know this for effective
communication for both speaking and writing. So I think it is good for them to
know and I found this clip when I was trying to find an effective way to
convey this idea because it could be difficult to make them understand but
this clip that I found I think it is easy and it is related to real life so they can
see that this is the art of persuasion mean persuasive appeal people use it all
the time without being aware of it”.
5. Pailin asked her students to read an example of an argumentative essay
before she explained the argumentative component. She explained her teaching
strategies in excerpt below:
191
“I think that an example always help students to get a clear picture. I think I
based on my decision teaching style of learning things. I like to see an
example and see the breakdown of the detail later. I like to get the best
picture first I like maybe my style it’s easier to see the finished product and
then kind of have them analyse that and look at the model text and see how it
works but I haven’t tried the other way by explaining the component first and
ask them to work on it and put together into the whole essay. I haven’t tried
that”.
6. Pailin taught her students about the argument components that she used in
her class. This is a sort of generic pattern to produce a well-organised essay. She
stated her stand in the excerpt below:
“ I think I just give them the idea of essay in that they need to have the clear
thesis statement in the introduction which it is similar to the other kind of the
essay but in the body paragraph they have to make sure they have support
argument for each point that they make so each of body paragraph should be
the reason or supporting point for the thesis statement and for the supporting
detail the evidence they can use different evidence that I presented to them
and in the conclusion they are supposed to summarise the point the
supporting point and then restate the main idea given in the conclusion”.
7. Pailin used the conference to help improve her students’ writing skill. She
talks with her students about their problems in writing. Students were given oral
feedback about their writing and gained ways to revise their essays. She articulated
that:
“The writing conference allows me to talk with an individual student about
their process and their problems so I sit with them one by one and discuss
their essays based on what I read at home so they would submit their draft
and I look at the draft and make some comments written the comments on the
draft and then I bring that draft to the meeting and sit with them and gave
them oral feedback by talking to them and then they have a chance to ask me
if they don’t understand how should they would revise the essay”.
192
The researcher also conducted the stimulated recall interview with Manee.
After analysing the video, the researcher found that Manee used four teaching
strategies as follows:
1. Manee used explanation to teach her students instead of asking them to
study by themselves and having discussion in class. It is believed that explanation is
crucial for low proficiency students. They need explanations from their lecturers to
understand the structure of argumentative writing. Manee articulated her view in the
excerpt below:
“I think the argumentative essay is new for them so they need to know about
the background introduction for a preparation. In argumentative essay, there
are technical terms, concepts and structure that need to be explained to them.
I think Thai students I mean in my experience teaching essay classes, most of
them need explanation. If we assign them to do activity quickly without
explanation, most of them found that it is difficult”.
2. Manee used group discussions as a teaching strategy. Group discussions
allow her students to find an agreement among many opinions and help them to
check their understanding about what they have been learning, for example they are
required to write the introduction, thesis statement, body paragraph and conclusion.
Based on group discussions, the lecturer can check students’ understanding and she
can insert a new idea about persuasive essays. Manee told the researcher that:
“I use group discussions in order to make them work because I do not need
them just listen to me too much when I use explanation. I give them score if
they can answer the question. This makes a competitive activity which makes
the class lively. I think it is successful to use group discussions. They try to
answer the question and most of the answers are correct and they understand
the concept of the persuasive or argumentative essay”.
193
3. Manee made lists of students’ writing mistakes and put these on the screen
and asked students to correct flawed sentences. She showed them how to make the
corrections in front of the whole class. She told the researcher that:
“Most of the time, I help them improve their essays by reading their essays
and listing their mistakes and some of sentences that exemplify that mistakes.
I help them to understand by putting the wrong sentences on the screen and
talk in class. Then I explain to them and correct the sentences in the whole
class.”.
4. Manee used peer feedback in her writing class. She feels this helps students
check the organisation of their essay. Students have to check the introduction and
thesis statement based on the classic five paragraph essay framework. Their essay
should consist of three main topic sentences with supporting details. For the
conclusion, a restatement should exist in the last paragraph and students need to
check what kind of final comments are used in their essays. She stated as evidence in
the excerpt:
“Peer feedback is used to check these organisations of argumentative essay.
It saves my time to check these organisations. I can check language and
content in their essay. I think it is effective for a big class which I don’t have
much time to check or give them feedback. I provide them guidelines for peer
feedback so it is reliable”.
4.4 Results of Classroom Observations
The researcher carried out classroom observations of the two EFL lecturers
and their students by employing a classroom checklist (See Appendix G) which was
adapted from Brenes-Canajal (2009, p.190). The classroom observation took place
194
three times for each writing class. The classroom checklist used in this study was
categorised into six aspects: preparation (item 1 to 5), instructional strategies (item 620), teacher monitoring (item 21-23), student learning strategies (item 24-30),
instructional tools (item 31- 35), assessment and evaluation (item 36- 38) and
language use (item 39-40). This classroom observation checklist was implemented to
measure the presence or absence of the features mentioned above. The results from
classroom observation and field notes were used to answer the fourth research
questions.
In Pailin’s classroom, the results showed that there was a presence of all
preparation aspects. It reflected that she has good knowledge of teaching
argumentative writing essays. She used innovative strategies to teach her students.
Furthermore, she gave clear instructions to her students.
In the aspect of instructional strategies, there was an absence of the following
activities:
1. Pailin did not activate and link students’ prior knowledge about
argumentative writing.
2. Pailin did not use cooperative group instruction.
3. Pailin did not use six elements of argumentation.
4. Pailin did not use experiential learning activities.
5. Pailin did not use compare and contrast activities.
It can be said that Pailin did not connect students’ prior knowledge and
experiential learning activities were not used in her class. Moreover, the six elements
of argumentation which are considered very important were not taught. The rest of
195
the teaching strategies were used and this shows that she taught her students how to
write a good thesis statement and five paragraphs when writing essays.
In the aspect of teacher monitoring, Pailin monitored all the areas where
students were working and interacted respectfully with her students. However, she
did not maintain brief and orderly transitions between activities or components of the
lesson. Students in Pailin’s class were learning actively. They asked questions about
the content in argumentative writing. The results show that they had opportunities to
analyse the presented material in pairs and applied what they had learned in class to
write their argumentative essay. On the other hand, they had no opportunity to work
independently because Pailin always guided her students how to revise their essays.
According to her that “I am very directive of how to make corrections I do not give
them the chance to work on their own”.
According to the instructional tools, Pailin can be categorised as an
innovative teacher because she employed printed materials, textbooks, audio visual
devices and technology in her class that allowed her students to understand the
content easier. For example she used a video from YouTube about a little boy who
tried to convince his mum to eat pizza outside. It illustrated the way to give reasons
why eating pizza outside was good. The little boy gave many good reasons to
convince his mum to agree with him.
In the assessment and evaluation aspect, Pailin monitored her students’
understanding on the knowledge and skills about argumentative writing by asking
them questions. She also gave effective instructional feedback to her students (both
196
oral and written feedback) in the writing conference but not in class. The researcher
did not have a chance to see whether she adjusted her instruction after checking
student understanding or not.
Pailin used language according to her students’ level and used an appropriate
tone and volume of voice because she used a microphone to teach. She tried to use
simple words to make her students understand easily.
In Manee’s classroom, it was found that Manee did not employ innovative
strategies in the preparation aspect. She relied too much on the textbook without
using video from YouTube to motivate her students so her class was not interesting.
With reference to the teaching activities, it can be concluded that Manee did
not use the following teaching strategies:
1. Manee did not select activities that are appropriate for her students at
various stages of learning argumentative writing.
2. Manee did not link students’ prior knowledge about argumentative writing.
3. Manee did not employ models, skills or processes when teaching
argumentative writing.
4. Manee did not apply six elements of argumentation in her class and did
not use experiential learning activities.
5. Manee did not utilise compare and contrast activities in her class.
In the teacher monitoring aspect, Manee monitored all the areas where
students were working and interacted respectfully with her students. However, she
197
did not maintain brief and orderly transitions between activities or components of the
lesson.
Based on student learning strategies, students in Manee’s classroom were not
active learners. The absence of item 24, 26, 27 and 27 reveal that her students were
passive learners as they sometimes did not pay attention in class. They felt that their
writing class was boring. This was because Manee always asked questions but the
students did not ask her any questions about the content when writing an
argumentative essay. They did not have the chance to analyse model texts or discuss
the given text because they relied on their teacher to translate for them in class. In
general, Manee’s classroom used a translation based teaching approach.
With reference to the use of instructional tools, Manee relied on a textbook
without using any printed materials and video from YouTube to illustrate the way to
convince the audience in order to make her students understand the lesson easily.
In the assessment and evaluation aspect, as in Pailin’s classroom, Manee
monitored her students’ understanding on the knowledge and skills about
argumentative writing by asking questions. She selected the mistakes made by her
students and made corrections on the whiteboard in front of the whole class. She did
not have a writing conference as in Pailin’s classroom. The researcher did not have
an opportunity to observe whether she adjusted her instruction after checking her
students’ understanding or not.
198
The findings from the classroom observations indicated that both intact
classrooms from the two universities had differences in teaching argumentative
writing. Both of them used different teaching strategies in their class. Pailin used
various inputs in her class to make the lessons more interesting. She used technology
to make students easily understand the lesson. However, she was too directive which
impeded the students’ abilities to find ways to think on their own. Pailin’s classroom
was lively because her students were active learners. On the other hand, Manee relied
on the textbook without inserting printed materials from various sources. Manee used
a traditional way to teach her students without using technology such as interesting
videos relating to the lesson in order to make her class livelier. However, she used
peer feedback to check her students’ argumentative writing structure which was time
saving for lecturers.
4.4.1 Results of Field notes
Field notes were also used to observe the two intact classrooms to support the
results of classroom observations in order to monitor the teaching strategies used by
two Thai EFL lecturers. It is considered as a powerful tool for data collection. Its
distinctive feature offers the researcher the opportunity to gather live data (Simpson
and Tuson 2003; Cohen et al. 2005).
4.4.1.1 Results of Field notes in Pailin’s classroom
The researcher carried out three classroom observations which illustrated
what was taking place in Pailin’s classroom on 2 September 2013. The researcher
199
observed the class for 1
1
2
hours by taking notes of the events happening in this
classroom. Pailin asked her students to analyse different kinds of evidence such as
reasons, case studies, examples, statistics, research findings and facts from the given
articles. She gave them 10 minutes to complete the task. After 10 minutes, she gave
the correct answer together with explanations to the whole class. Pailin used the
technique for students to understand the features of argumentative writing by asking
the students to analyse the sample text. She provided two writing samples for
students to analyse. She asked students to work in pairs to analyse what kinds of
evidence had been used in each paragraph in “Think Twice before attending
University” and students were asked to examine whether the reasons given by the
author were convincing or not. She believed that using writing sample texts can help
students understand argumentative writing. The sample texts can be used as a model
to duplicate as a good pattern. While students were working in pairs, Pailin walked
around the class and students could ask her questions about the provided assignment.
After they completed the first assignment, she asked the students to read the
second essay on “A Call for Policies on Drinking”. She used explanations to teach
her students line by line. The writing components in argumentative writing, for
example background, opposing opinions and thesis statement were described in
detail. She gave an example about a college student who is trap of alcohol in order to
illustrate the line of facts in the essay and example of authority statement.
Furthermore, she explained the way the author used suggestion in the conclusion. At
the end of the class, she asked the students to write a sentence with a thesis statement
including evidence that will be used and she asked them to post it in face book so she
can read at home.
200
During the second classroom observation (5 September 2013), Pailin began
her class by letting her students watch a YouTube video on how a boy tried to
convince his mother to eat pizza. He gave good reasons why eating pizza was good.
She used this video because it was a good example for students to understand how to
convince the reader to agree with their reasons. She handed out sample texts for her
students to analyse the reasons that the author made arguments to convince readers to
believe in what he or she claimed in their writing. Pailin taught her students how to
support the argument, especially how to provide the reasons to answer writing
prompts. She suggested that they need to find a key word and write an outline. The
most important thing was to think about how to make it clear and to get it done when
they have limited time. She told her students that the introduction should have a clear
thesis statement. She gave an example of writing from one of her student in the class.
To do this, she corrected some minor grammar mistakes in the writing text and
showed students how to write a good thesis statement. She also exemplified the
component of writing an essay: introduction, body and conclusion. She selected three
thesis statements written by three students to explain how to make it better or clearer
with a good sentence. Then, she suggested to them how to write the body paragraph.
Finally, she taught them how to write a good conclusion by showing them a sample
text in which the author used restatement and suggested ways to help addicted
alcoholics. After she completed teaching about writing a good thesis statement and
conclusion, Pailin taught her students how to avoid plagiarism. She gave examples
on how to cite a paper by using APA style from different sources. It can be said that
this information was very useful for her students who wanted to continue studying in
Master degree to write a paper. As the class duration was insufficient, she had to
201
spend more time to explain and let them practice how to cite correctly. At the end of
the class, she assigned her students to find at least three sources (two from internet
and one from a book).
During the third classroom observation (12 September 2013), Pailin began
her class by distributing a sample text of argumentative essay. She asked the students
to read the sample text in pairs and discuss the components of argumentative essays.
After reading, they were requested to highlight the structure of argumentative writing
in the sample text in order to make them familiar with this genre. After students
completed the assignment, she explained the structure of argumentative writing that
was used in the sample text. She exemplified this on the screen and students could
check what they analysed were correct or not. She explained to her students when
they asked questions on the assignment. Moreover, she asked them to study the style
and the technique used by the author. Pailin tried to use different inputs to make
them understand the content of an argumentative pattern. She requested her students
to read and study the line of argument and present the article that they read. Students
were divided into two groups: group one read about opinions that were against the
Fast Food Company and group two read about opinions that supported the Fast Food
Company. After they completed the reading, they were asked to debate in class. The
debate activity made the class livelier.
Students in Pailin’s classroom were active learners because they always
asked their lecturer when they did not understand the content. They enjoyed
discussing issues with friend. Moreover, they were active in debating the topic of a
Fast Food Company. The atmosphere in Pailin’s classroom was lively because two
202
groups of students tried to convince the audience to believe their views. Students in
group one: were asked to support the Fast food company while students in group two
were required to argue against the fast food company. Students were given
opportunities to discuss or express their ideas in class after reading the assignment at
home.
The findings indicated that Pailin used various inputs in her class to make the
lesson more interesting. She used technology to make students easily understand the
lesson. However, she was too directive which impeded the students’ abilities to find
ways to think on their own. Pailin’s classroom was lively because students were
active learners. Pailin used genre based instruction in her class because she believed
that this approach help students understand the pattern of argumentative writing and
practice writing by duplicating the given model of writing until they can write on
their own.
4.4.1.2 Results of Field notes in Manee’s classroom
The researcher carried out three classroom observations. The first one took
place on 3 September 2013. Manee taught her students about persuasive and
argumentative essays. She used explanations and translation in her class. Most of the
time, she read from the textbook to explain the features of persuasive essays. She
told her students how to persuade the readers by writing. The students were told they
need statistics or research findings to make their case strong. She displayed debatable
topics or controversial issues, for example human cloning, green house effect,
pollution, abortions and free public transportation.
203
During the second classroom observation which took place on 10 September
2013, Manee asked her students to read a text about argumentative essays. She gave
her students 10 minutes to read a given text and do exercises. After 10 minutes, she
explained the features of argumentative writing and gave them the correct answers.
Students were told that argumentative writing aimed to persuade the readers to take
action or convince the readers to believe in what they wrote. To make writing
convincing, students had to find solid reasons to support a thesis statement. She
taught about the different evidences which can be used to support a thesis statement
such as personal opinions, facts, logical reasons, examples, personal experiences and
expert quotes. She divided students in groups of five to read the structure of the
argumentative essay. She gave them 10 minutes to read and then she asked any group
to answer her questions. Students in each group had to discuss the structure of the
classic five paragraph essay after they finished reading. When she asked any group to
answer, each group had to send a representative to answer her questions. She
assigned her students to write an essay and told them to bring it to class next time.
Furthermore, she requested her students to also read other texts from websites as
well.
During the third classroom observation which took place on 17 September
2013, Manee used a sample text from a website. She explained to the students that
the argumentative structure was a controversial issue. She also inserted grammar
structure in the text as well. In the previous week, she had assigned her students to
write an argumentative essay and had told them to bring it to class. In this lesson, she
used peer feedback. She asked her students to exchange the essay with their friend.
204
Then she taught them the strategy to check their friend’s essay, which was as
follows:
1. The structure of the classic five paragraphs. In this step, they had to check that
their friends had written a background and narrowed the topic to the point or not.
They had to check if the essay had a thesis statement or not. If their friends wrote all
these they were told to, give them
+
and draw
Broad
Narrow
If their friends did not have these aspects they were told to, give them
draw
Narrow
Broad
-
and
in front of the first paragraph.
2. They had to check the three body paragraphs to decide whether their friend had
three topic sentences and three main ideas to support the thesis statement or not. If
their friend had written all these aspects they were told to give
+
3 main ideas.
If their friends did not write all these aspects they were told to give them
-
no 3
main ideas in front of the second paragraph.
3. They had to check for supporting details. They had to specify what kind of
evidence was used in providing supporting details. They needed to underline the
evidence and write examples or personal opinions.
4. The last section to check was the conclusion. They had to check whether their
friends restated the thesis statement or not. They had to check if they used
recommendation to find the solution or they used final comments. They had to
specify what kind of final comments they had used, for example suggestions,
personal opinions and proverb statements. While students were doing this peer
205
feedback, Manee was walking around the class. Students could ask her questions
about the process of peer feedback to make sure that it was done correctly.
Manee checked language and content again after they submitted the results of the
peer feedback. At the end of the class, she gave three topics for her students to write.
They were required to choose one of the topics to write an essay and submit to her
next week.
Students in Manee’s classroom were passive learners. They listened to their
teacher when she explained the features of argumentative writing without asking any
questions about the content. They were mostly alert only when their teacher asked
questions in their group. However, they were active when they participated in peer
editing.
The findings indicated that Manee relied too much on the text book without
inserting printed materials from various sources. Manee used a traditional way to
teach her students. However, she used peer feedback to check the students’
argumentative writing structure which is a technique for lecturers to save time.
4.5 Summary
This chapter presented the findings of the analysis of the qualitative data
which was obtained from think aloud protocols, semi structured interviews, the
stimulated recall interview and classroom observations conducted with two lecturers
and 60 students. This chapter showed that Thai EFL students faced specific writing
difficulties: vocabulary, grammar structure, providing solid evidence and structure of
206
argumentative writing. In addition, Thai EFL lecturers revealed that it was difficult
to teach argumentative writing because their students faced the problem of having
insufficient knowledge of grammar structure and language use. The two Thai EFL
lecturers recommended some teaching strategies to help improve their students’
writing competence. The results reported in this chapter were supported by excerpts
taken from the interviews with students and lecturers and from students’ verbal
reports obtained by think aloud protocols.
207
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
The current chapter aims to present an overall discussion of the findings reported
in the previous chapter and to presents conclusions that can be drawn from these
findings. This current chapter discusses and interprets the findings as follows: the
first section focuses on difficulties encountered by Thai EFL students while writing.
The second section discusses Thai EFL English major students’ need help from their
lecturers to enhance their argumentative writing competence. The third section
discusses teaching strategies used to teach argumentative writing. The fourth section
presents the results of the stimulated recall interview (SRI) for teaching strategies.
The differences and similarities of teaching strategies to help improve students’
argumentative writing are discussed in fifth section. The next section focuses on
classroom observations of two intact classrooms. Moreover, chapter presents the two
major findings obtained from triangulations. First, the results of the TAP and semi
structured interviews are triangulated to provide valuable descriptions on EFL
students’ argumentative writing difficulties. Next, the results of classroom
observations and stimulated recall interviews are triangulated to give helpful
descriptions on the teaching strategies used by the two Thai EFL lecturers to teach
argumentative writing. Finally, the implications of development in argumentative
writing and recommendations for future research are discussed in this chapter.
208
5.1 Difficulties encountered by students while writing
The first research question of the current study aimed to identify the
argumentative writing difficulties faced by Thai EFL English major students. The
analysis of qualitative data showed that the main difficulties faced by the students
were: vocabulary, grammar structure, interpreting the question, fulfilling task
demand, evaluation, argumentative rhetorical features, thesis statement, awareness of
audience’s expectation and motivational elements, topic choice, understanding the
question, organising ideas, L1 transfer and translating, providing solid evidence,
generating ideas, the planning process, specific supporting details, writing effective
conclusions and creative thinking ability. According to the findings, it can be
interpreted that Thai EFL students were unable to write a well-developed
argumentative essay because they had barriers in vocabulary and grammar.
Furthermore, they had difficulties in providing solid evidence and writing organised
ideas. These barriers impeded the students’ ability to write effectively.
The data were collected after the students had completed think aloud
protocols. The findings reveal that Thai EFL students had difficulties in vocabulary
and grammar. These main difficulties were barriers to effective writing. Moreover,
Thai EFL students were unable to write a well-organised essay and write a good
thesis statement. They were able to support the thesis statement but the evidence they
used to support the thesis statement was not persuasive. The findings from the
interview were similar to the findings obtained from the think aloud protocols.
209
The findings of the current study were similar to studies done by Pongpairoj
(2002), Tuaycharoen (2003) and Thep-ackrapong (2005) which found that Thai EFL
students had problems in syntax, lexis and discourse aspects. The restriction at the
semantic level of the Thai language resulted in the limited semantic competence of
English words for Thai students. In other words, it can be said that grammar errors in
written English were influenced by Thai sentence structure.
Semi structured interviews were conducted with 16 EFL students who
participated in TAP to collect their perceptions of argumentative writing difficulties
and their expectations of their EFL lecturers. In the interviews, various perceptions
were put forward by the students when they were asked to talk about their writing
difficulties. Students stated that they used personal opinions to support the argument
and students used facts to back up their claims. The results indicate that Thai EFL
English major students are unable to use other types of evidence such as research
report or statistics to back up the thesis statement in order to make the argument
more solid. Based on the results, it indicates that students were unable to use
research report or statistics to support the thesis statement because they could not
think of the evidence due to time constraints in the writing task. Therefore, they used
only personal opinions and facts in their writing. These results support findings from
studies done by Brem and Rip (2000) and Qin and Karabacak (2010). In these studies
too ESL students were unable to use genuine evidence to support the claim. They felt
constrained to provide evidence from their own knowledge of the issue because their
knowledge of provided matters was limited. They would use pseudo evidence instead
of genuine evidence. The findings of this study indicate that the Thai EFL students
were also unable to use genuine evidence to support the claim which was considered
210
to be sound argumentation to persuade the readers to believe in their writing
(Andrews, 2005 ;
Nippold & Ward-Lonergan, 2010; Jonassen and Kim, 2010;
Castillo,2012).
5.2 Thai EFL English major students’ need help from their lecturers
The second research question aimed to examine the extent to which Thai EFL
English major students need help from their lecturers to enhance their argumentative
writing competence. Thai EFL students called for a model in writing. They claimed
that they need to practice more writing as “Practice makes perfect”. They felt that
they need a lot of assignments and feedback from their lecturers from time to time as
well. Many students feel that they need their lecturer to teach them academic
vocabulary and provide examples of usage. In addition, a few students expect their
lecturer to teach them the argumentative writing structure step by step. Based on
these findings, it is clear that many students are still unable to use academic
vocabulary effectively in their writing and they are not familiar with the structure of
argumentative writing. In addition, students requested that their lecturers teach them
sentence structure. It can be implied that these students are not competent in sentence
structure. Therefore, writing lecturers have to focus on finding solid evidence to back
up the supporting details in their instructions. Thai EFL English major students need
to be encouraged to study and analyse the sample texts in order to see how good
writers use evidence to support their writing (Chen, 2005; Lertpreedakorn, 2009;
Darus and Ching,2009; Rex et al. 2010; Klimova, 2014).
211
The findings of this study also reveal that Thai EFL English major students
need their lecturers to provide a model of writing so they can follow the model to
practice writing good argumentative essays. The students want their EFL lecturers to
teach them good sentence construction as well as provide step by step instruction on
how to structure argumentative essays. Furthermore, they need their lecturers to
teach them academic vocabulary and show examples of usage in writing. The
students feel that these strategies can effectively help them improve their writing
competence. Moreover, they need their teachers to build up the atmosphere of joyful
learning such as using pedagogies of games, movies, and other interesting learning
activities. These activities can promote active learning in class. Lastly, they also need
their lecturers to teach about using citations correctly to avoid plagiarism of
information in their essays.
5.3 Difficulties in Teaching Argumentative Writing
The third research question aims to investigate the difficulties in teaching
argumentative writing essays. The two Thai EFL lecturers stated that the most
consistent problems were their students’ inability in the following aspects:
1. inability to produce a clear thesis statement
2. unfamiliarity with this genre
3. insufficient grammar knowledge
4. lack of awareness of the audience’s expectation and motivational elements
5. inability to write supporting details
6. inability to arrange their ideas in a logical order
7.insufficient knowledge of vocabulary
212
The two Thai EFL lecturers stated that it was difficult to help students
improve their writing skill within a semester. However, they tried to give different
suggestions and activities to help improve their thinking on how to state arguments
more clearly. They normally asked their students to analyse sample texts. They were
required to read and study the line of the argument and the techniques used in the
sample texts. After that, they are asked to present the article they read. They were
divided into two groups (for and against) to have debates in class. They admitted that
analysing model texts and having debates in class help the process of thinking
because students are allowed to anticipate different opinions and when they have
different opinions, they have counterargument. This means they can think how to
rebut that opinion.
Pailin employed group work and pair work in her class. This teaching
strategy provided students with ample opportunities to discuss ideas with friends for
the writing task. It was very authentic to exchange their ideas with friends so they
can evaluate if their argument was convincing. She asked her students to analyse
different sample texts which was beneficial for students to study the line of argument
and techniques used in the model texts.
5.3.1 Teaching strategies from the Stimulated Recall Interview (SRI)
The fourth research question aims to explore the type of teaching strategies
used by two Thai EFL lecturers to teach argumentative writing essays. This section
presents the teaching strategies proposed by Pailin, a lecturer at MSU.
213
1. Pailin used examples of argumentative writing to teach her students. She
believed that an example always helps students to get a clear picture. She gave good
samples of writing to students and asked them analyse the samples. In this process,
students can study the sentence structure and imitate that text in their writing after
their practice in analysing the model text. It is believed that the process of writing
facilitated students to write a good argumentative essay (Steel, 2004; Harmer, 2007,
Lertpreedakorn, 2009; Christmas, 2011). She believed that this approach helped her
students develop good analytical skill and understand the structure of argumentative
essays.
2. Pailin explained the method to help her students write a good thesis
statement during the writing conference. She focused on how to give reasons or
supporting evidence to make a good argument. She looked at the draft that students
brought with them and she would point out how the introduction should begin with
some general idea first and then they have to narrow down to their point.
3. Pailin taught her students how to write the opposing opinion in the
introduction. She used explanations and brainstorming in her class to make her
students understands the importance of opposing opinion. It was very imperative to
stress to them about opposing opinions. They had to mention opposing opinions so
that the reader knows that the writer is aware of the opposing opinion of people who
might disagree with them. It is crucial for students to write opposing ideas in their
thesis statement because if they do not anticipate other people’s ideas then they
might not view the issue from different perspectives.
214
4. Pailin taught the students about the different forms of evidence such as
reasons, research findings, case studies, facts and example, statistics and a quote
from authority. She believed that being aware of different forms of evidence would
help students understand how to write the evidence to back up their arguments.
Davies (2008), Jonassen and Kim (2010) and Castillo (2012) articulated that
solid evidence can make the argument strong and reliable. In her teaching, she told
her students to have a clear thesis statement in the introduction which it is similar to
other kinds of essays but in the body paragraph they have to make sure they have
supporting arguments for each point that they made. Therefore, each body paragraph
should be the reason or supporting point for the thesis statement. For the supporting
detail, they can use different evidence in their writing. They are supposed to
summarise their main point of views and then restate the main idea in the conclusion.
Due to this reason, this kind of generic pattern is considered to write a thesis
statement in the introduction. However, it is crucial that students state the opposing
ideas in the introduction or in the body depend on the point of topic sentence in the
body paragraph.
5. Pailin used persuasive appeal to teach her students. She said that this
concept of rhetoric is universal and she thought that students should know about this
and be familiar with this concept because it is good for students to know this for
effective communication for both speaking and writing. As a result, she believed that
it is good for them to know about the persuasive appeal to write an argument. Based
on studies by Koenig et al. (2009), Mercier (2010) and Magrath (2012), persuasive
215
appeal is beneficial for students to acknowledge in order to convince the reader to
believe in what the students have written.
6. Pailin used the writing conference to help her students improve their
writing. This approach allowed her to talk with individual students about their
writing process and their problems; so she sat with them individually to discuss their
essays. They would submit their draft and she looked at the draft and made some
written comment on the draft. Then she brought that draft to the meeting and sat
with each student and gave the student oral feedback. During this time, the students
have a chance to ask her if they did not understand how to further revise their essay.
This session helped them with the revision process and taught them how to improve
the text in terms of grammar as well. It helped them to better understand her
comments and expectations on how they can revise their essay. It is believed that
they learned a lot from this teaching strategy.
On the other hand, Manee, a lecturer from Udontani Rajabhat University,
used the following teaching strategies in her writing classroom:
1. Manee used explanation as a strategy to teach her students instead of
asking them to study by themselves and discussing in class. Manee articulated that
the argumentative essay is a new genre for them so they need to know about the
background introduction for preparation. In argumentative essays, there are technical
terms, concepts and structures that need to be explained to them. Most Thai EFL
students need explanation. Manee felt that if teachers assigned them to do an activity
quickly without any explanations, most of the students would find it difficult. This is
216
why Manee used explanations most of the time to explain many concepts in her
writing class. She believes that exemplification gives students examples to make
them understand the content.
2. Manee makes use of group discussions in order to make them work
because she did not need them to just listen to her when she explained. She gave
them scores if they can answer the question. This makes it a competitive activity and
makes the class lively. She believes that it is a good idea to use group discussions as
a teaching strategy as it allows students to find agreement among many opinions and
helps them check their understanding about what they have been learning so far.
3. Manee also listed students’ mistakes from assignments and showed
students the main problems and explained to them why these aspects were wrong.
She suggested ways to make the corrections. Most of the time, she helped students
improve their essays by reading their essays and listing their mistakes and some of
the sentences that exemplify those mistakes and help them to understand.
4. Manee talked about the effectiveness of peer feedback. She used peer
feedback because this strategy can help her to check students’ writing essays as a
draft about the organisation of the essay. They write the introduction and thesis
statement based on the classic five paragraph essay as a framework. Their essay
consists of three main topic sentences with supporting details. For the conclusion,
students are required to check their friend’s essay that contains a restatement in their
writing essays. Moreover, they are asked to examine what kind of final comments are
used in their essays. In other words, peer feedback is used to check the organisation
217
of the argumentative essay. The advantage of peer feedback is that it saves time
because she does not need to check the organisation of argumentative writing. She
can check language and content in their essays. It is believed that peer feedback is
effective for a big class because she does not have much time to check or give them
feedback. Therefore, peer feedback is used in her class by providing guidelines for
students to check the organisation of essays. These guidelines make the students
score the organisation of their friends’ argumentative writing.
5.4 Teaching strategies to help improve students’ argumentative writing
The types of teaching strategies commonly used by the two EFL lecturers are
as follows:
1. brainstorming
2. pair work and group work
3. writing conferences
4. group discussions
5. debates
6. peer feedback
7. sample texts analysis and class presentations
8. explanation
9. self- access learning
The findings indicate that the two Thai EFL lecturers used constructivist
teaching strategies such as group discussions, debates, sample texts analysis and
class presentations.
These nine teaching strategies are based on constructivist
teaching strategies which foster critical thinking and create motivated and
218
independent learners under the democratic environment; the activities are interactive
and student-centred and the teacher facilitates a process of learning in which students
are encouraged to create their new ideas in order to discuss the given topic.
According to Gray (1997), constructivist teaching strategies are based on the belief
that learning occurs as learners are actively involved in a process of meaning and
knowledge construction rather than passively receiving information. For example,
the two EFL lecturers selected interesting topics that were based on students’ interest
in order to motivate students to express their ideas during the group discussions and
debates. The role of the two EFL lecturers is not only to observe and assess but also
to engage with the students while they are completing activities, wondering aloud
and posing questions to the students for the promotion of reasoning. They used
principles of constructivist teaching in their class to promote students’ creative
thinking skill to create solid evidence to convince the audience. Constructivist
teaching strategies are regarded as effective methods to help improve students’
argumentative writing (Lebow 1993; Richardson, 2003; Kim, 2005; Bimbola and
Daniel; 2010). Moreover, these types of teaching strategies foster creative thinking
which is crucial for students to argue or propose a convincing thesis statement.
5.4.1 Results of Classroom Observations
The researcher carried out classroom observations of the two EFL lecturers
and their students by employing a classroom checklist which was adapted from
Brenes-Carvajal (2009). This classroom observation checklist was implemented to
measure the presence or absence of the features mentioned in Appendix G.
219
According to the preparation aspect in Pailin’s classroom, the results showed
that there was a presence of preparation. It can be interpreted that Pailin had
knowledge of teaching argumentative writing. Her teaching style was lively because
she encouraged her students to discuss in class and she used various interesting
activities and teaching materials from websites that can motivate her students to
become active learners. Pailin used a student centred approach in her classroom.
In the aspect of instructional strategies, Pailin did not activate or link her
students’ prior knowledge about argumentative writing. She asked her students to
analyse the sample texts at home and then presented what they read in front of the
class. She often used group discussion in her class about the argumentative rhetorical
features. She avoided teaching the six elements of argumentation such as
counterargument and rebuttal to express opposing views. She taught her students
how to write a good thesis statement and stance taking in argumentative writing.
Pailin used the five paragraphs in writing argumentative essays in her class.
With reference to the aspect of teacher monitoring, Pailin observed all the
areas where students were working and she interacted respectfully with her students.
She always maintained brief and orderly transitions between activities or components
of the lesson. Students in Pailin’s class were active learners. They kept asking about
the content in argumentative writing if what they analysed was incorrect. Students
were engaged on the task and were not disruptive. While they were listening to their
teacher’s explanation, they always took notes on content related to argumentative
writing. Students were given ample opportunities to practice skills in small groups or
220
pairs. They applied content knowledge to write their own argumentative essays.
However, they had fewer opportunities to work independently.
In the aspect of using instructional tools, Pailin was an innovative teacher
because she used printed materials, textbooks, audio visual devices and technology in
her class which made her students understand the content easier. For example, she
used a video clip from YouTube about a boy who tried to persuade his mum to eat
pizza outside. He gave many good reasons for eating pizza.
In the assessment and evaluation aspect, Pailin observed her students’
understanding of the knowledge and skills about argumentative writing by asking
them questions or checking what they presented in class. Effective instructional
feedback (both oral and written feedback) was given in the writing conference. The
researcher did not have an opportunity to see whether she adjusted her instruction
after checking students’ understanding.
Pailin used language that matched her students’ English language
proficiency to explain the content of argumentative writing essays. She used simple
expressions in order to make her students understand what she explained to them.
She also used an appropriate tone and volume of voice because she used a
microphone to speak while teaching. Therefore, her students could understand the
content clearly.
In the preparation aspect in Manee’s classroom, it was found that Manee used
a teacher centred approach in her class. She did not use a variety of activities and
teaching materials from websites. She merely used explanation to teach her students
221
about the features of argumentative writing without asking her students to analyse
the sample texts.
She relied too much on the textbook and she did not use
technology to assist her teaching. Her class was not lively and her students were
passive learners.
In the aspect of instructional strategies, Manee did not use various activities
to motivate her students and she did not activate and link her students’ prior
knowledge about argumentative writing. She used explanations to teach the content
of argumentative writing essays without asking them to analyse a sample text or
present in front of the class. She often asked questions about the argumentative
rhetorical features to check their understanding. She avoided teaching the six
elements of argumentation such as counterargument and rebuttal in order to express
the opposing views. She taught her students how to write a good thesis statement and
stance taking in argumentative writing. She used the five paragraphs in writing
argumentative essays in her class.
With reference to the aspect of teacher monitoring, Manee observed all the
areas where students were working and she interacted respectfully with her students.
She did not maintain brief and orderly transitions between activities or components
of the lesson.
Students in Manee’s class were passive learners. They did not ask
questions about the content in argumentative writing. Students were engaged in the
task and were not disruptive. While they were listening to their teacher’s explanation,
they did not take notes on content related to argumentative writing. Students were
not given opportunities to practice skills in small groups or pairs. They applied the
content knowledge to write their own argumentative essays.
222
In the aspect of using instructional tools, Manee was not an innovative
teacher because she did not use visual devices and technology in her class that could
help her students understand the content easier. She merely used the textbook in class
to teach writing.
In the assessment and evaluation aspect, as in Pailin classroom, Manee
observed her students’ understanding of the knowledge and skills about
argumentative writing by asking them questions. She chose the common mistakes
made by her students and made corrections on the whiteboard in front of the whole
class. Peer editing was also used in her class. The researcher did not have an
opportunity to see whether she adjusted her instruction after checking student
understanding.
5.5 Triangulation of the Results from Various Sources
In this study, a triangulation method was employed to combine and
synthesise the results that were collected using different instruments. The researcher
used several instruments to keep and shed light on Thai EFL students’ argumentative
writing difficulties and the teaching strategies used by two Thai EFL lecturers to
teach argumentative writing. Triangulations were divided into two parts in this
study: 1) the results from the TAP and semi structured interviews were triangulated
to capture the argumentative writing difficulties faced by 16 EFL English major
students, 2) the results obtained from the classroom observations and stimulated
recall interviews were triangulated to provide valuable descriptions on the teaching
strategies used by the two Thai EFL lecturers to teach argumentative writing.
223
The 16 transcripts of TAP, 16 transcriptions of the semi structured interviews
with students and transcripts from the semi structured interviews with two lecturers
were coded with the NVivo 10 program, which allowed the researcher to describe the
argumentative writing difficulties faced by Thai EFL students in ten categories.
Moreover, the transcripts from the stimulated recall interviews and classroom
observations with two Thai EFL lecturers were coded with NVivo 10 in order to
obtain valuable descriptions of the range of teaching strategies used by the Thai EFL
lecturers to teach argumentative writing.
5.6 Summary of Key Findings
This section provides a brief summary of the two major findings of the study.
Firstly, it provides a summary of 16 Thai EFL students’ argumentative writing
difficulties. Secondly, it presents the key findings related to the types of teaching
strategies used by two Thai EFL lecturers to teach argumentative writing.
This study aimed to provide valuable descriptions on the argumentative
writing difficulties faced by 16 Thai EFL English major students. The analysis of
qualitative data showed that the students faced difficulties in the following ten
aspects of argumentative writing.
1. unfamiliarity with argumentative rhetorical features
2. insufficient grammar knowledge
3. insufficient academic vocabulary
4. inability to produce a clear thesis statement
224
5. inability to generate well organised ideas
6. inability to write effective conclusions
7. inability to provide solid evidence
8. lack of awareness of the audience’s expectation and motivational elements
9. lack of awareness of the planning process of writing
10. inability to think creatively
The second aim of the study was to investigate the types of teaching
strategies used by two Thai EFL lecturers to teach argumentative writing. The two
Thai EFL lecturers used the following nine types of teaching strategies to teach
argumentative writing:
1. using different input and activities in class in order to motivate students to
become active learners such as pair work, group discussions, debates in class, peer
feedback.
2. analysing sample texts and presenting their understanding in class
3. understanding the nature of their students’ writing difficulties and fulfilling
what they need to develop in their writing
4. using writing conferences to help students improve their writing
5. teaching students how to write a good thesis statement
6. teaching students how to write opposing opinions in the Introduction
section
7. teaching persuasive appeal to make students become aware of the
audience’s expectations
8. teaching how to give reasons by using research findings, case studies, facts
and examples, statistics and quotes from authorities to write supporting details
225
9. using self- access learning
5.7 Pedagogical Implications
The findings of the current study provide some practical suggestions for
further developments in argumentative writing. Researchers, educators and
policymakers have realised that there is a critical need to accord greater attention to
the improvement of teaching writing to tertiary students. The way to improve writing
instruction is to develop insights into the writing process. This type of evaluation
provides valuable data about students’ weaknesses in argumentative writing.
Moreover, it is beneficial for EFL lecturers in selected public universities in
Thailand to gain further insights into the weaknesses of their learners’ language
variants that can be used to develop their teaching programmes and instructions to
more
effectively
support
students’
argumentative
writing
development.
Additionally, it can also be used as guidelines for students to improve their
argumentative writing. The findings of this study can also provide useful suggestions
to curriculum planners and material writers and designers to integrate components
that focus on argumentative writing which use think aloud protocols to comprehend
the range of difficulties students experience when they compose written
compositions. Such stakeholders can then use appropriate methods to develop
students’ writing competence in the Thai EFL context.
Furthermore, the Higher Education Ministry in Thailand should put a prime
consideration to modify the English teaching curriculum into efficient practice for
226
evaluation and instruction of tertiary students. The most important thing is to
encourage EFL lecturers at tertiary level to be aware of the importance of using
effective teaching approaches to develop Thai EFL students’ writing skill. In other
words, Thai EFL lecturers should be aware of the range of university students’
writing difficulties. They should use appropriate approaches to reduce these writing
difficulties.
5.8 Recommendations for Future Research
The current study focused only on students from two selected universities in
Thailand. A total of 16 EFL students were the participants of the current study,
which included students from MSU and UDRU. Therefore, future studies can focus
on all Thai public universities that teach argumentative writing courses. Focusing on
all Thai public universities can help to generalise the findings on argumentative
writing difficulties in Thai universities. Another suggestion for future studies is to
analyse the argument elements used by Thai EFL students when they write
argumentative writing essays.
More research needs to be carried out to explore what EFL lecturers want to
know about writing and evaluation in order to employ diagnostic evaluation to
identify the sources of students’ writing difficulties. In addition, it is critical to
explore the effective teaching strategies to help improve Thai EFL English major
students’ argumentative writing skill. Future research can provide useful suggestions
to consider ways in which policymakers and lecturers can engage in rigorous writing
227
instruction. Various types of teaching strategies that can help improve students’
writing competence can also be an area of attention for further research.
5.9 Summary
This chapter presented the discussion of the findings in relation to previous
studies. The findings of the study revealed that the main difficulties faced by Thai
EFL English major students were vocabulary and grammar structure that can be
regarded as the main barrier in writing effective argumentative essays in the Thai
context. Furthermore, the students’ expectations from their writing lecturers were
also discussed to help them improve their writing competence. A range of teaching
strategies to teach argumentative essay was suggested by two Thai EFL lecturers
were also discussed in this chapter.
228
REFERENCES
Aksornkool, N. (1985). A Historical Study of Language Planning. Singapore:
University Press for Regional Language centre.
Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the Models of Writing: With
Commentaries by Ronald T. Kellogg & John R. Hayes (Vol. 9): Springer
Science & Business Media.
Alderson, C. (2006). Diagnosing Foreign Language Proficiency: The Interface
Between Learning and Assessment. London: Continuum.
Alderson, J. C. (2007). The Challenge of (Diagnostic) Testing: Do we know what
we are measuring. In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Byliss, L. Cheng, C. E. Turner,
C. Doe (Eds), Language Testing Reconsidered, (pp, 21-39). Ottawa, Canada:
University of Ottawa Press.
Alsamadani, H. A. (2010). The Relationship Between Saudi EFL Students’ Writing
Competence, L1 Writing Proficiency, and Self-regulation. European Journal
of Social Sciences, 16(1), 53-63.
Amogne, D. (2013). Enhancing Students’ Writing Skills Through the Genre
Approach. International Journal of English and Literature, 4(5), 242-248.
Andrews, R. (2007). Argumentation, Critical Thinking and
Dissertation. Educational Review, 59(1), 1-18.
the Postgraduate
Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and Learning Argument. London, UK:
Cassell.
Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in Higher Education. Improving Practice
through Theory and Research. London, UK: Routledge.
Anker, S. (2005). Real Writing (3rd Edition). Bedford / St. Martin. Boston: MA.
229
Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Mullis, I.V.S., Latham, A. S., Gentile, C. A.(1992).
NAEP 1992: Writing Report Card. Washington, DC : U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Babbie, E . R. (2012). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont,
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
California:
Bacha, N. N. (2010). Teaching the Academic Argument in a University EFL
Environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 229-241. doi:
10.1016/j.jeap.2010.05.001
Bacha, N.N. (2001). Writing Evaluation: What can analytic versus holistic essay
scoring tell us? System, 29(3), 371-383.
Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing
and Developing Useful Language Tests (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Badger, R. , & White, G. (2000). A Process Genre Approach to Teaching Writing.
ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160.
Bain, K. (2004). What Makes Great Teachers Great. Chronicle of Higher Education,
50(31), B7-B9.
Baleghozadeh, S., & Mozaheb, M. A. (2011). A Profile of an Effective EFL
Grammar Teacher. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2 (2), 364-369.
doi:10.4304/jltr.2.2.364-369
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1991).Assessment by Misconception: Cultural Influences
and Intellectual Traditions. Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic
Contexts, 1, 19-35.
Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1991). Teaching Students from Overseas: A Brief Guide
for Lecturers and Supervisors. Australia: Longman Cheshire.
Bashir, I. (2012). Developing a Comprehensive Language Testing System in Tertiary
Education in Sudan. Time for Change, 1, 48-52.
Becker, A. (2006). A Review of Writing Model Research Based on Cognitive
Processes. Revision: History, Theory, and Practice, 25-49.
Bennett, S, & Marsh, D. (2002). Are We Expecting Online Tutors to Run before
They Can Walk? Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
39(1), 14-20.
230
Bennui, P. (2008). A study of L1 interference in the writing of Thai EFL students.
Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 4, 72-102.
.
Benton, S. (1984). Cognitive Capacity and Difference among Writers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(5), 820-834.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bhumiratana, S., & Commins, T. (2012). Challenges and Opportunities for Higher
Education in Asia in the Era of Globalization: Case of Thailand. Asian
Journal on Education and Learning, 3 (2), 21-27.
Biemiller, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (1992). The Nature and Nurture of the SelfDirected Learner. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 75-80.
Bimbola, O., & Daniel, O. I. (2010). Effect of Constructivist-based Teaching
Strategy on Academic Performance of Students in Integrated Science at the
Junior Secondary School Level. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(7),
347-353.
Blaikie, N. W. H. ( 2010). Designing Social Research ( 3rd ed.), Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in Qualitative Methods: A Vocabulary of
Research Concepts. London: Sage.
Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar,
A. (1991). Motivating Project-based Learning: Sustaining the Doing,
Supporting the Learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398.
Bogdan, RC, & Biklen, SK. (2007). Qualitative Research for Education (5th.):
Boston: Pearson Education.
Boonsiri, N. ( 2007). An Analysis of Rhetorical Patterns: A Study of Thai University
Students’ Argumentative Compositions. (Master’s Project, M.A.),
Srinakharinwirot University. Retrieved February 9, 2015 from http://
downloads/Nattawadee_B%20(1).pdf
Bowles, M. A. (2010). Concurrent Verbal Reports in Second Language Acquisition
Research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 111-127.
Branch, J. L. (2000). Investigating the Information-seeking Processes of Adolescents:
The Value of Using Think Aloud and Think afters. Library & Information
Science Research, 22(4), 371-392.
Branch, J. L. (2001). Junior High Students and Think Aloud: Generating
Information-seeking Process Data Using Concurrent Verbal Protocols.
Library & Information Science Research, 23(2), 107-122.
231
Breetvelt, I., van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations Between
Writing Processes and Text Quality: When and how? Cognition and
Instruction, 12(2), 103-123.
Brem, S. K., & Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and Evidence in Informal Argument.
Cognitive Science, 24(4), 573-604.
Brenes Carvajal, M. G. D. C. (2009). Initial Development of English Language
Teachers in Mexico (Doctor of Linguistics), Macquarie University. Retrieved
June 19, 2013 from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.14/45945
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The Case for Constructivist Classrooms:
Alexandria, Va. : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Broughton, Geoffrey, et al. (1994). Teaching English as a Foreign Language. 2nd ed.
London: Routledge.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy (2nd ed). California: San Francisco State University.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture
of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality Criteria for Quantitative,
Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research: A View from Social Policy.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 261-276.
Burla, L., Knierim, B., Barth, J., Liewald, K., Duetz, M., & Abel, T. (2008). From
Text to Codings: Intercoder Reliability Assessment in Qualitative Content
Analysis. Nursing Research, 57(2), 113-117.
Calderhead, J. (1981). A Psychological Approach to Research on Teachers'
Classroom Decision‐making. British Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 5157.
Caldwell, J., & Leslie, L. (2010). Thinking aloud in Expository Text: Processes and
Outcomes. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(3), 308-340.
Casanave, C.P. (2004). Controversies in Second Language Writing: Dilemmas and
Decisions in Research and Instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
Michigan Press.
Cassell, J., & Ryokai, K. (2001). Making Space for Voice: Technologies to Support
Children’s Fantasy and Storytelling. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing,
5(3), 169-190.
232
Castillo, A. C. (2012). Promoting Argumentative Abilities in Written Composition of
Psychology Senior Students: CAAM Method. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1664-1675.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.20 .12.113
Chaisiri, T. (2010). Implementing a Genre Pedagogy to the Teaching of Writing in a
University Context in Thailand. Language Education in Asia, 1(1),181- 199.
doi:10.5146/LEiA/10/vi/A16/chaisiri
Chandrasegaran, A. (2013). The Effect of a Socio-cognitive Approach to Teaching
Writing on Stance Support Moves and Topicality in Students’ Expository
Essays. Linguistics a Education, 24(2), 101-111.
Chaya, W. (2005). The Effects of the Explicit Metacognitive Strategy on EFL
Students’ Revision of their Argumentative Essay. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima,
Thailand.
Chen,Y.S.,& Su, S. W. (2012). A Genre-based Approach to Teaching EFL Summary
Writing. ELT Journal, 66(2), 184-192.
Cheng, A. (2006).Understanding Learners and Learning in ESP Genre-based Writing
Instruction. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 76-89.
Cheng, A. (2011). Language Features as the Pathways to Genre: Students’ Attention
to Non-prototypical Features and its Implications. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 20(1), 69-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.12.002
Cheng, X. (2000). Asian Students' Reticence Revisited. System, 28(3), 435-446.
doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00015-4
Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The Effects of Argumentation Scaffolds on
Argumentation and problem Solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 5-22.
Choi, Y. (1988). Text Structure of Koreans Speakers’ Argumentative Essays in
English. World Englishes，7 (2), 129-142.
Chow, T. V. F. (2007). The Effects of The Process-Genre Approach To Writing
Instruction On The Expository Essays of ESL Students In A Malaysian
Secondary School [LB1631. C552 2007 f rb]. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Christmas, B. (2011). The Role of Brainstorming in Improving Students Writing
Performance in the EFL Classroom. Retrieved May 10, 2013 from
http://sydney.edu.au/cet/docs/research/The%20Role%20of%20Brainstorming
%20in%20Improve%20Students%20Writing.pdf
Clayton, T. & Klainin, S. (1994). How Organisation Affects Grammatical Accuracy.
In M.L. Tickoo (Ed.), Research in Reading and Writing. Anthology Series 32.
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
233
Coffin, C. (2004). Arguing about How the World Is or How the World Should
Be: the Role of Argument in IELTS Tests. Journal of English
for
Academic Purposes, 3(3), 229-246. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2003.11.002
Cohen, J. (1960). A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
Cohen, L, Manion, L, & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education ( 7th
Ed.).New York: Routledge.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship:
Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics.In L.B. Resnick
(Ed.) Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser,
Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coniam, D. (2009). Investigating the Quality of Teacher-produced Tests for EFL
Students and the Effects of Training in Test Development Principles and
Practices on Improving Test Quality. System, 37(2), 226-242.
Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL Student Revision after Teacher
Written Comments: Text, Contexts and Individuals. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 8(2), 147-179. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80126-X
Connor, U. (1990). Linguistics/Rhetorical Measures for International Persuasive
Student writing. Research in the Teaching of English. 24 (1), 67-87.
Connor, U. (1987). Argumentative Patterns in Student Essays: Cross-cultural
Differences. In Connor, U. and Kaplan, Robert B. (Eds.) Writing Across
Languages: Analysis of L2 Texts. (pp. 57-71). Reading, MA.: AddisionWesley.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in Qualitative Research. Purposeful and Theoretical
Sampling; Merging or Clear Boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing,
26(3), 623-630.
Crammond, J. G. (1998). The Uses and Complexity of Argument Structures in
Expert and Student Persuasive Writing. Written Communication, 15(2), 230268. doi 10.1177/0741088398015002004
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among
Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Croissant, A. (2005). Unrest in South Thailand: contours, causes and consequences
since 2001. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 27 (1), 21-43.
234
Crossley, S. A. , Roscoe, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). What Is Successful
Writing? An Investigation Into the Multiple Ways Writers Can Write
Successful Essays. Written Communication, 31(2), 184-214.
Crowhurst, M. (1991). Interrelationships between Reading and Writing Persuasive
Discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 314-338.
Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and
Learning the Writing of
Persuasive/Argumentative Discourse. Canadian Journal of Education. 15 (4),
348-359.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing Expertise and Second Language Proficiency.
Language Learning, 39(1), 81-135.
Cutcliffe, J. R. (2000). Methodological Issues in Grounded Theory. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 31(6), 1476-1484.
Cutright, P. (1936). Methods of Teaching. Review of Educational Research, 6(3),
310-323.
Darasawang, P. (2007). English Language Teaching and Education in Thailand: A
Decade of Change. English in Southeast Asia: Varieties, Literacies and
Literatures, 1(1), 185-202.
Darus, S., & Ching, K. H. (2009). Common Errors in Written English Essays of
Form One Chinese Students: A case study. European Journal of Social
Sciences, 10(2), 242-253.
Davies, C. A. (2008). Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and
Others. London: Routledge.
Delpit, S. M. ( 1993). Sociocultural Resources in Instruction: A Context Specific
Approach. In Beyond Language: In Advantages and Disadvantages. In T.
Miller (Ed.), Functional Approaches to Written Text; Classroom Application
( pp. 295). Washington : USIA.
Dempsey, N. P. (2010). Stimulated Recall Interviews in Ethnography. Qualitative
Sociology, 33(3), 349-367.doi:10.1007/s11133-010-9157-x
Dempsey, M. S., PytlikZillig, L. M., & Bruning, R. H. (2009). Helping Preservice
Teachers Learn to Assess Writing: Practice and Feedback in a Web-based
Environment. Assessing Writing, 14(1), 38-61.
Deng, X. (2007). A Pedagogical Response to the Different Approaches to the
Teaching of ESL/EFL Essay Writing. STETS Language & Communication
Review, 6(1), 15-20.
Denscombe, M. (2010). Ground Rule for Social Research: Guideline for Good
Practice. Maidenhead, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
235
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative
Research. Thousand Oaks , CA: Sage. Publications, Inc.
Deqi, Z. (2005). The Process-oriented Approach to ESL/EFL Writing Instruction
and Research. CELEA Journal, 28(5), 66-70.
Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and Issues in Genre-based Approaches. RELC
Journal, 34(2), 133-154.
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2010). Studying Though
Processes of Online Peer Tutors through Stimulated-recall Interviews.
Higher Education, 59(5), 645-661.
De Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in Social Research. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated Epistemic
Dialogue: Explanation and Argumentation as Vehicles for Understanding
Scientific Notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63-103.
Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in Second Language Research:
Construction, Administration, and Processing. London: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The Motivational Basis of Language Learning Tasks.
Netherland: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, Orientations and Motivations in Language Learning:
Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications. Language Learning, 53(S1),
3-32.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific
Argumentation in Classrooms. Science Education, 84 (3), 287-312.
Dudley-Evans,T. (2002). The Teaching of the Academic Essay: Is a Genre Approach
Possible. In A.M. John (Eds.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple Perspectives,
(pp.225-235). USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dueraman, B. (2012). Teaching EFL Writing: Understanding and Rethinking the
Thai Experience. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences,
4(1), 255-275.
236
Dunkin, M.J., Welch, A, Merritt, A., Phillips, R., & Craven, R. (1998). Teachers'
Explanations of Classroom Events: Knowledge and Beliefs about Teaching
Civics and Citizenship. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(2), 141-151.
East, M. (2009). Evaluating the Reliability of a Detailed Analytic Scoring Rubric for
Foreign Language Writing. Assessing Writing, 14(2), 88-115. doi:10.10.1016
/j.asw.2009.04.001
Edlin, A. L. (2005). The Effectiveness of Instant Messaging versus Telephone
Communication for Synchronous Remote Usability Evaluations. ( Master of
Science in Information) University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Retrieved
24 July 2014 from http://www.ils.unc.edu/MSpapers/3045.pdf
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The Effects of Planning on Fluency, Complexity and
Accuracy in Second Language Narrative Writing. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition,26(1), 59-84.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol
as Data. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Analysis: Verbal Reports
Ericsson, K. A, & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to Study Thinking in Everyday Life:
Contrasting Think-aloud Protocols with Descriptions and Explanations of
Thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3), 178-186.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., Cox, T. L., & Martin, D. J. T. (2014). Measuring
Written Linguistic Accuracy with Weighted Clause Ratios: A question of
Validity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24(0), 33-50. doi: 10.1016
/j.jslw.2014.02.005
Ferretti, R. P., Andrews-Weckerly, S., & Lewis, W. E. (2007). Improving the
Argumentative Writing of Students with Learning Disabilities: Descriptive and
Normative Considerations. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(3), 267-285.
Ferris, D. R. (1994). Rhetorical strategies in student persuasive writing: Differences
between native and non-native English speakers. Research in the Teaching of
English, 28 (1), 45-65.
Finocchiaro, M., & Sako, S. (1983). Foreign Language Testing: A Practical
Approach. New York: Regents Publishing Company.
Flick, U. (2011). Introducing Research Methodology: A Beginner's Guide to Doing
a Research Project. CA: Sage.
Flick, U. (2014).
An
Introduction
to
Qualitative Research.
CA:
Sage.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The Cognition of Discovery: Defining a Rhetorical
Problem. College Composition and Communication, 31 (1), 21-32.
237
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Foley, J. A. (2005). English
in… Thailand. RELC Journal, 36(2),
223-234.
Fonteyn, M. E, Kuipers, B., & Grobe, S. J. (1993). A Description of Think aloud
Method and Protocol Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 3(4), 430-441.
Fosnot, C. T. (1989). Enquiring Teachers Enquiring Learners: A Constructivist
Approach for Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1993). How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fulcher, G. (2000). The ‘Communicative’ Legacy in Language Testing. System,
28(4), 483-497. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00033-6
Galbraith, D. & Rijlaarsdam, (1999). Effective Strategies for the Teaching and
Learning of Writing. Learning and Instruction, 9(1), 93-108.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second
Language Research: London: Routledge.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2002). Frequency Effects and Second Language
Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(02), 249-260.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P.W. (2009). Educational Research:
Competencies for Analysis and Applications (ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson.
Ghanbari, B. (2014). Cross-cultural Rhetoric Awareness and Writing Strategies of
EFL Learners: Implications for Writing Pedagogy. International Journal of
Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(5). doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2014.620
Gibbs, G. R. (2013). NVivo 10 Introductory Manual. Retrieved 10 October
2013 from http://www.qsrinternational.com/Document/NVivo10/NVivo10Getting-Started-Guide.pdf
Glass, T. (2009). Why Thais Write to Other Thais in English. World Englishes,
28(4), 532- 543.
Govier, T. (1987). Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation (Vol. 5). Berlin,
German: Walter de Gruyter.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing: An Applied
Linguistic Perspective. New York: Longman.
Gravetter, F.J., & Forzano, L.B. (2006). Research Methods for the Behavioral
Sciences. South African Journal of Psychology, 36(2), 450.
238
Gray, A. (1997). Contructivist Teaching and Learning. SSTA Research Centre
Report, 97-07.
Green, A. (1998). Verbal Protocol Analysis in Language Testing Research : A
Handbook Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grieg, A., Taylor, J. (1999). Doing Research with
Children. London:
Sage.
Guha, T. K., & Saraf, V. (2005). OPAC Usability: Assessment through Verbal
Protocol. Electronic Library, 23(4), 463-473.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Scoring Procedures for ESL Contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons
Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts, pp.241-276. New
York: Ablex Publishing Corperation.
Hancock, M. (1987). Subject Searching Behaviour at the Library Catalogue and at
the Shelves: Implications for Online Interactive Catalogues. Journal of
Documentation, 43(4), 303-321.
Hansen, B.W. (2004). A Rhetorical Look at Proposal Writing and Reviewing in
Transportation Engineering. Master Thesis, Iowa State University.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching.(4th edition). Harlow:
Longman. doi: 10.1177/003368820103200109
Hasan, M. K., & Akhand, M. M. (2010). Approaches to Writing in EFL/ESL
Context: Balancing Product and Process in Writing Class at Tertiary Level.
Journal of NELTA, 15(1), 77-88.
Hashemi, M., Azizinezhad, M., & Dravishi, S. (2012). The Investigation of
Collocational Errors in University Students’ Writing Majoring in English.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(1), 555-558.
Haskins, E. (2013). On the Term" Dunamis" in Aristotle's Definition of Rhetoric.
Philosophy and Rhetoric, 46(2), 234-240.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). Writing Research: The Analysis of a Very Complex Task.
Complex Information Processing: The impact of Herbert A. Simon, 209-234.
Hayes, J. R., & Hatch, J. A. (1999). Issues in Measuring Reliability Correlation
versus Percentage of Agreement. Written Communication, 16(3), 354-367.
Henn, M., Weinstein, M., & Foard, M. N. (2005). A Short Introduction to Social
Research. USA: Sage Publication, Ltd.
Hinkel, E. (2009). The Effects of Essay Topics on Modal Verb Uses in L1 and L2
Academic Writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(4), 667-683. doi:
10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.029
239
Hinkel, E. (2013). Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in
Vocabulary and Grammar: London, UK: Routledge.
Hirano, E. (2014). Refugees in First-year College: Academic Writing Challenges
and Resources. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23(1), 37-52.
Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 Organizational Patterns in the
Argumentative Writing of Japanese EFL Students. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 12(2), 181-209.
Hirose, K., & Sasaki, M. (1994). Explanatory Variables for Japanese Students'
Expository Writing in English: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 3(3), 203-229. doi:10.1016/1060- 3743(94)90017-5
Hirsh, S. G. (1999). Children's Relevance Criteria and Information Seeking on
Electronic Resources. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 50(14), 1265-1283.
Hogan, M. J. (2007). Assessment and Its Place in International ELT. Paper presented
at the CamTESOL Conference on English Language Teaching: Selected
Papers
Volume
3,
2007,
Kingdom
of
Cambodia.
doi:http://www.Camtesol.org/Download/Earlier_Publication/Selected_Papers
1.Vol.3_2007.pdf#page=7
Holmes, N. (2001). The Use of Process-oriented Approach to Facilitate the Planning
and Production of Writing for Adults Students of English as a Foreign
Language. Retrieved September 10, 2014 from www.developingteachers.com
Hsieh‐Yee, I. (1993). Effects of Search Experience and Subject Knowledge on the
Search Tactics of Novice and Experienced Searchers. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science, 44(3), 161-174.
Hyland, K. (1990). A Genre Description of the Argumentative Essay. RELC Journal,
21(1), 66-78.
Hyland, K. (2003a). Second Language Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press.
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667251
Hyland, K. (2003b). Genre-based Pedagogies: A Social Response to Process.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17-29. doi: 10.1016/S10603743(02)00124-8
IELTS. (2012). Sample Academic Writing Task. Retrieved May 15, 2013 from
http://www.ieltsexam.net/ academic_writing sample_task _1/707/
International Bureau of Education. (2011). World Data on Education. Retrieved
May 25, 2013 from http://www.unesdox.unesco.org/image/0021/002117
/211701.pdf.
240
Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A. , & Paas, F. (2010). Making
the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Processoriented and Cognitive Load Approaches. Educational Psychology Review,
22(2), 139-154.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in
Science
Education: An Overview Argumentation in Science Education. London, UK:
Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2-1
Johns, A. M. (2008). Genre Awareness for the Novice Academic Student:
Ongoing Quest. Language Teaching, 41(02), 237-252.
An
Jolley, J., & Mitchell, M. (2007). Research Design Explained. USA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Jonassen, D. H. (1990). Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist View of
Instructional Design. Educational Technology, 30(9), 32-34.
Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to Learn and Learning to Argue: Design
Justifications and Guidelines. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 58(4), 439-457.
Kamimura, T., & Oi, K. (1998). Argumentative Strategies in American and Japanese
English. World Englishes, 17(3), 307-323.
Kamimura, T. (2000). Integration of Process and Product Orientations in EFL
Writing Instruction. RELC Journal, 31(2), 1-28.
Kelle, U., & Bird, K. (1995). Computer-aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory,
Methods and Practice. CA: Sage.
Kelle, U., & Laurie, H. (1995). Computer Use in Qualitative Research and Issues of
Validity. In U. Kelle, Computer-aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory,
Methods and Practice, (pp. 19-28). CA: Sage.
Kellog, R.T. (1996). Process and Performance, In R.T. Kellog ( Eds.), The
Psychology of Writing (pp. 47-70). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kelly, G. (1991). The Psychology of Personal Constructs: Volume One: A Theory of
Personality. London: Routledge.
Kenyon, D. M. (1998). An Investigation of the Validity of Task Demands on
Performance-based Tests of Oral Proficiency. Validation in Language
Assessment, 19-40.
Khamkhien, A. (2006). Teaching English Speaking and English Speaking Tests in
the Thai Context: A Reflection from Thai Perspective. English Language
Teaching, 3(1), 184-190. doi: 10.5539/elt.v3n1p184
241
Killingsworth, M. J. (2005). Rhetorical Appeals: A Revision. Rhetoric Review,
24(3), 249- 263.
Kim, J. S. (2005). The Effects of a Constructivist Teaching Approach on Student
Academic Achievement, Self-concept, and Learning Strategies. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 6(1), 7-19.
Klimova, B. F. (2011). Making Academic Writing Real with ICT. Procedia
Computer Science, 3(0), 133-137. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.023
Knoch, U. (2011). Rating Scales for Diagnostic Assessment of Writing: What should
they look like and where should the criteria come from? Assessing Writing,
16(2), 81-96.
Knudson, R. E. (1998). College Students' Writing: An Assessment of Competence.
The Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 13-19.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of First Language on Second Language
Writing: Translation versus Direct Composition*. Language Learning, 42(2),
183-209.
Koenig, A. M., Cesario, J., Molden, D. C., Kosloff, S., & Higgins, E .T. (2009).
Incidental Experiences of Regulatory Fit and the Processing of Persuasive
Appeals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(10), 1342-1355.
Komolmas, P. M. (1999). New Trends in Higher Education Towards the 21st
Century in Thailand. ABAC Journal, 19(1), 3-12.
Kongpetch, S. (2006). Using a Genre-based Approach to Teach Writing to Thai
Students: A case study. Prospect: an Australian Journal of TESOL, 21(2), 3-34.
Kopinak, J. K. (1999). The Use of Triangulation in a Study of Refugee Well-being.
Quality and Quantity, 33(2), 169-183.
Kormos, J. (2011). Task Complexity and Linguistic and Discourse Features of
Narrative Writing Performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2),
148-161.
Kormos, J. (2012). The Role of Individual Differences in L2 Writing. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390-403. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
Krashen, S., Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach. San Francisco, CA: Alemany
Press.
Kroll, B., & Reid, J. (1994). Guidelines for Designing Writing Prompts:
Clarifications, Caveats and Cautions. Journal of Second Language Writing,
3(3), 231-255. doi: 10.1016/1060-3743(94)90018-3
242
Kubota, R. (1998). An Investigation of L1–L2 Transfer in Writing among Japanese
University Students: Implications for Contrastive Rhetoric. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 7(1): 69–100.
Kubota, R. (2003). New Approaches to Gender, Class and Race in Second
Language Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 31-47. doi:
10.1016/S1060- 3743(02)00125-X
Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating Own and Other Perspectives in
Argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90-104.
Kuipers, B., & Kassirer, J. P. (1984). Causal Reasoning in Medicine: Analysis
of a Protocol. Cognitive Science, 8(4), 363-385.
Langan, J. ( 2005). College Writing Skills. Atlantic Cape Community College:
McGraw Hill.
Langer, J. A, & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of
Teaching and Learning. NCTE Research Report No. 22: ERIC.
Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist Values for Instructional Systems Design: Five
Principles toward a New Mindset. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 41(3), 4-16.
Le Compte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Educational Ethnography and
Qualitative Design in Educational Research. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
Lee, S. H. (2006). The Use of Interpersonal Resource in Argumentative/persuasive
Essays by East-Asian ESL and Australian Tertiary Students. (PhD
Doctorate), University of Sydney, Australia. Retrieved August 10, 2013 from
http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1285
Lee, S. (2003). Teaching EFL Writing in the University: Related Issues, Insights,
and Implications. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 16(1),
111-136.
Leighton, J. P, & Gierl, M. J. (2007). Verbal Reports as Data for Cognitive
Diagnostic Assessment. In J.P., Leighton, & M. J. Gierl (Eds.), Cognitive
Diagnostic Assessment for Education: Theory and Applications, (pp.146- 172).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.doi:10.1017/CBO097805116111
86
Leitão, S. (2000). The Potential of Argument in Knowledge Building. Human
Development, 43(6), 332-360.
Leitão, S. (2003). Evaluating and Selecting Counterarguments Studies of
Children's Rhetorical Awareness. Written Communication, 20(3), 269-306.
243
Leki, I. (2003). Coda: Pushing L2 Writing Research. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 12(1), 103-105.doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00128-5
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL Writers: A Guide for Teachers: Boynton: Cook
Publishing.
Lertpreedakorn, N. (2009). Genre-based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing.
In A.M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT 2008 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Li, J. (2006). The Mediation of Technology in ESL Writing and Its Implications
for Writing Assessment. Assessing Writing, 11(1), 5-21.
Lilian, Y. (2008). Consideration on Working - process Oriented Curriculum
Development Based on Cooperation of Working with Learning in Higher
Vocational Education [J].Vocational and Technical Education, 28(1), 1- 16.
Lin, G. H. C. (2008). Pedagogies Proving Krashen's Theory of Affective Filter. Hwa
Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, 14 (1), 113-131.
Lin, Y. C., Lin, Y. T., & Huang, Y. M. (2011). Development of a Diagnostic System
Using a Testing-based Approach for Strengthening Student Prior
Knowledge. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1557-1570.
Liu, L. (2005). Rhetorical Education through Writing Instruction across Cultures: A
Comparative Analysis of Select Online Instructional Materials on
Argumentative Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(1), 1-18.
Llosa, L., Beck, S. W., & Zhao, C. G. (2011). An Investigation of Academic Writing
in Secondary Schools to Inform the Development of
Diagnostic
Classroom Assessments. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 256-273. doi: 10.1016/j.asw
.2011.07.001
Looi, C. K., & Chen, W. (2010). Community‐based Individual Knowledge
Construction in the Classroom: A Process‐oriented Account. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), 202-213.
Love, T. P., & Sell, J. (2012). Developing and Assessing Intercoder Reliability
In Studies of Group Interaction. Sociological Methodology, 42(1), 348-364.
Luanganggoon, N. (2001). Improving English Language Teaching in Thailand.
(PhD Doctorate ), Deakin University, Victoria, Australia.
Luchini, P. L. (2010). Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Complimentary Approach to
Teaching Writing Skills. International Journal of Language Studies(IJLS)
,4(3),73-92.
244
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M . (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology
and Design. UK: Routledge.
Maimon, E. P., Peritz, J., & Yancey, K. B. (2007). A Writer's Resource: A Handbook
for Writing and Research. New York: McGraw-Hill College.
Map
of
Thailand.
(2014).
Retrieved
June,
15,
http://www.diveworldthailand.com /map-of-thailand.php.
2014,
from
Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of Research
Design and Methodology. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Markmee, K., & Taylor, S. (2001). Ongoing Teacher Development Initiatives. Thai
TESOL, 14(1), 10-13.
Marsh, E. E., & White, M. D. (2006). Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology.
Library Trends, 55(1), 22-45.
Martin, D.W. (2008). ‘Not Quite Right’: Helping Students to Make Better
Arguments. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(3), 327-340.
Martin, J.R., Matthiessen, C. & Painter, C. (1997). Working with Functional
Grammar. London: Arnold.
Martin, D., & Stuart‐Smith, J. (1998). Exploring Bilingual Children's Perceptions of
Being Bilingual and Biliterate: Implications for Educational Provision.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(2), 237-254.
Martin, J. R., & Rothery, J. (1993). Grammar: Making Meaning in Writing. In B.
Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to
Teaching Writing ( pp. 137-153). London, UK: Falmer Press.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second Language Writing in the Twentieth Century: A
situated historical perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed), Exploring the Dynamics of
Second Language Writing ( pp. 15-34). Cambridge: Cambridge Applied
Linguistics Series.
McBride, R., & Bonnette, R . (1995). Teacher and at-risk Students' Cognitions
During Open-ended Activities: Structuring the Learning Environment for
Critical Thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(4), 373-388.
McCutchen, D., Teske, P., & Bankston, C. (2008). Writing and Cognition:
Implications of the Cognitive Architecture for Learning to Write and Writing
to Learn. Handbook of Research on Writing, 451-470.
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2014). Summary Writing
in a Thai EFL University Context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24(1),
20- 32.
245
Mei, W. S. (2006). Creating a Contrastive Rhetorical Stance Investigating the
Strategy of Problematization in Students’ Argumentation. RELC Journal,
37(3), 329-353.
Mercier, H. (2011). What Good Is Moral Reasoning? Mind & Society, 10(2), 131148.
Merriam, S. B. (2014).Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning. Strategies for the
College Classroom: ERIC.
Mitchell, S., Prior, P., Bilbro, R., Peake, K., See, B. H., & Andrews, R. (2008). A
Reflexive Approach to Interview Data in an Investigation of Argument.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 229-241.
Mohan, B. A., & Lo, W. A. Y. (1985). Academic Writing and Chinese Students:
Transfer and Developmental Factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 515-534.
MOENet Thailand Service. ( 1998). History of Thai Education. Retrieved March 10,
2013 from http://www.moe.go.th/main2/article/e-hist01.htm.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer Information Seeking: Exploring Types, Modes,
Sources, and Outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 557-589.
Muangkaew, C. (2006). Focus on Form in a Thai University English Course. (PhD
Doctorate), University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Muijs, D. (2006). Measuring Teacher Effectiveness: Some Methodological
Reflections. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 53-74.
Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2012). Production-oriented and
Comprehension-based Grammar Teaching in the Foreign Language
Classroom. UK: Springer.
Nahl, D., & Tenopir, C. (1996). Affective and Cognitive Searching Behavior of
Novice End‐users of a Full‐text Database. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science, 47(4), 276-286.
Neff-van Aertselaer, J., & Dafouz - Milne, E. (2008). Argumentation Patterns in
Different Languages: An Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers in English and
Spanish Texts. Developing Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and CrossCultural Perspectives, 31(1), 87-102.
Németh, N., & Kormos, J. (2001). Pragmatic Aspects of Task Performance: The
Case of Argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 213-240.
246
Nippold, M. A., & Ward-Lonergan, J. M. (2010). Argumentative Writing in Preadolescents: The Role of Verbal Reasoning. Child Language Teaching and
Therapy, 26(3), 238-248. doi:10.1177/0265659009349979
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling More than We Can Know: Verbal
Reports on Mental Processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231-259.
Nunnally, T. E. (1991). Breaking the Five Paragraph Theme Barrier. English
Journal, 80 (1), 67-71.
Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring Second Language Classroom
Research: A Comprehensive Guide. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2010). Effects of Task Complexity on the Fluency and
Lexical Complexity in EFL Students’ Argumentative Writing. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218-233. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of
Argumentation in School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
41(10), 994-1020.
Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of Goal Setting and Strategy Use on the
Writing Performance and Self-efficacy of Students with Writing and
Learning Problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 230.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data
Analysis Using SPSS. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Paltridge, B. (1992). EAP Placement Testing: An Integrated Approach. English for
Specific Purposes, 11(3), 243-268. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(05)80012-2
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Paltridge, B. (2002). Genre, Text Type and the English for Academic Purposes
(EAP) Classroom. Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives, 50 (3), 7390.
Paltridge, B. (2004). Approaches to Teaching Second Language Writing. Paper
presented at the 17th Educational Conference Adelaide, Australia.
Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2010). Feedback to Writing, Assessment for
Teaching and Learning and Student Progress. Assessing Writing, 15(2), 68-85.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Peters, P. (1985). Strategies for Student Writers: A Guide to Writing Essays
Tutorial Papers, Exam Papers and Reports. New York: John Wiley.
247
Peterson, S. S., & McClay, J. (2010). Assessing and Providing Feedback for Student
Writing in Canadian Classrooms. Assessing Writing, 15(2), 86-99.
Piaget, J. (1977). The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive
Structures.(Trans A. Rosin): Viking.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the Child: Basic Books.
Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing Composing Processes in Writing-only and Readingto-Write Test Tasks. Assessing Writing, 13(2), 111-129.
Pomerantz, J. (2004). Factors Influencing Digital Reference Triage: A Think‐Aloud
Study. The Library Quaterly, 74(3), 235-264.
Pongpairoj, N. (2002). Thai University Undergraduates’ Errors in
Writing. Journal of Languages and Linguistics, 20(2), 86-89.
English
Power, P. (2001). The Methodology of Discourse Analysis. New York : Jones and
Bartlett.
Prapphal, K. (2002). English Proficiency of Thai Learners and Directions of English
Teaching and Learning in Thailand. Journal of English Language Studies,
1(1), 6-12.
Prapphal, K. (2008). Issues and Trends in Language Testing and Assessment in
Thailand. Language Testing, 25(1), 127-143.
Prommas, P., & Sinwongsuwat, K. (2013). A Comparative Study of Discourse
Connectors Used in Argumentative Compositions of Thai EFL Learners and
English Native Speakers. The TELTA Journal, 1 (1), 88-102.
Promwinai, P. (2010). The Demand of Argumentative Essay Writing:
Experiences of Thai Tertiary Students. (Doctor of Education), University of
Wollonggong.
Retrieved
August
10,
2013
from
http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3298
Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The Analysis of Toulmin Elements in Chinese EFL
University argumentative Writing. System, 38(3), 444-456. doi:
10.1016/j.system. 2010.06.02
Raimes, A. (1985). What Unskilled ESL Students Do as They Write: A Classroom
Study of Composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.
Raimes, A. (1994). Language Proficiency, Writing Ability and Composing
Strategies: A study of ESL College Student Writers. Bilingual Performance in
Reading and Writing, 139-131.
248
Ramage, J. D., Bean, J. C., & Johnson, J. (2001). Writing Arguments: A
Rhetoric With Readings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ramey, J., Boren, T., Cuddihy, E., Dumas, J., Guan, Z., van den Haak, M. J., & De
Jong, M. D. T. (2006). Does Think aloud Work?: How Do We Know? Paper
presented at the CHI'06 extended abstracts on Human factors in Computing
systems, New York: ACM Digital Library.
Reid, M. J. (1988). The Process of Composition (2nd edition). Englewood Cliff, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Rex, L. A, Thomas, E. E., & Engel, S. (2010). Applying Toulmin: Teaching Logical
Reasoning and Argumentative Writing. English Journal, 99(6), 56-62.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou,
A., & Kim, S.Y.. (2001). Influence of Oral Discussion on Written Argument.
Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 155-175.
Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Glina, M., & Anderson, R. C. (2009). Measuring
Argumentative Reasoning: What's Behind the Numbers? Learning and
Individual Differences, 19(2), 219-224. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.001
Riazantseva, A. (2012). “I Ain't Changing Anything”: A Case Study of Successful
Generation 1.5 Immigrant College Students' Writing. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 11(3), 184-193. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2012.04.007
Ricco, R. B. (2008). The Influence of Argument Structure on Judgements of
Argument Strength, Function, and Adequacy. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 61(4), 641-664.
Richards, J. C. (2005). Communicative Language Teaching Today: SEAMEO
Regional Language Centre.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist Pedagogy. The Teachers College Record,
105(9), 1623-1640.
Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of Information Quality and Cognitive Authority in the
Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 53(2), 145-161.
Riggenbach, H. (1999). Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom: Volume 1.
The Spoken Language. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Robins, D. (2000). Shifts of Focus on Various Aspects of User Information Problems
during Interactive Information Retrieval. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 51(10), 913-928.
Robertson, C. (2008). Integration of Moodle Course Management System (CMS)
into an EFL Writing Class. The JALT CALL Journal,4 (1),53-59.
249
Rose, K. R. (2005). On the Effects of Instruction in Second Language Pragmatics.
System, 33(3), 385-399. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow. R. (2008). Essentials of Behavioural Research Methods
and Data Analysis. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Rothery, J. (1996). Making Changes: Developing an Educational Linguistics. In R.
Hassan & G. William (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86-123). New York:
Addison Wesley Longman.
Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The Validity of Verbal
Protocols. Memory & Cognition, 17(6), 759-769.
Sabbaghan, S. (2013). How Noticing Is Affected by Replay of Writing Process
During Stimulated Recall. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 629633. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.119
Saeedi, M. H., & Sillince, J. A. A. (1999). Incorporating Rhetorical and Plausible
Reasoning in a System for Simulating Argumentation. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 12(3), 113-127.
Saito, S. (2010). An Analysis of Argumentative Essays of Thai Third-Year English
Majors Instructed by the Integrated Process-Genre Approach. (Thesis,
M.A.), Srinakharinwirot University. Retrieved February 9, 2015 from
http://downloads/Siwaporn_S%20(2).pdf
Samraj, B. (2002). Texts and Contextual Layers: Academic Writing in Content
Courses. In A.M. John (Eds.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple Perspectives,
(pp 163-176), UK: Routledge.
Samraj, B. (2004). Discourse Features of the Student-produced Academic Research
Paper: Variations Across Disciplinary Courses. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 3(1), 5-22.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an Empirical Model of EFL Writing Processes: An
Exploratory Study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259-291.
Sattayatham, A. & Ratanapinyowong, P. Analysis of errors in paragraph writing in
English by first year medical students from the four medical schools at
Mahidol University. Silpakorn University International Journal, 8: 17-38.
Schepens, A., Aelterman, A., & Van Keer, H. (2007). Studying Learning Processes
of Student Teachers with Stimulated Recall Interviews through Changes in
Interactive Cognitions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 457-472.
Schiller, D., & Liefner, I. (2007). Higher Education Funding Reform and University
Industry Links in Developing Countries: The Case of Thailand. Higher
Education, 54(4), 543-556.
250
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics
Perspective. UK: Routledge.
Schooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts Beyond Words: When
Language Overshadows Insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology General,
122, 166-166.
Schutt, R. K. (2009). Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of
Research. London , UK: SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Seidman, I. (2012). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers
in Education and the Social Sciences. New York, USA: Teachers college
press.
Sekaran, U, & Bougie, R. (2010). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building
Approach. Wiley: London.
Shaw, D. (1995). Bibliographic Database Searching by Graduate Students in
Language and Literature: Search Strategies, System Interfaces, and
Relevance Judgments. Library & Information Science Research, 17(4), 327345.
Shaw, D. (1996). Undergraduate use of CD-ROM Databases: Observations of
Human-computer Interaction and Relevance Judgments. Library &
Information Science Research, 18(3), 261-274.
Shohamy, E. (1983). The Stability of Oral Proficiency Assessment on the Oral
Interview Testing Procedures. Language Learning, 33(4), 527-540.
Siccama, C. J. , & Penna, S. (2008). Enhancing Validity of a Qualitative Dissertation
Research Study by Using NVivo. Qualitative Research Journal, 8(2),
91-103.
Siegel,
A. (1990). Research Issues: Multiple
Tests:
Considerations. TESOL Quarterly, 24 (4), 773-775.
Some
Practical
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 Writing:
The ESL Research and Its Implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 756-77. doi:
http://dx.doi.org /10.2307 657677400
Silva, T. (1990). Second Language Composition Instruction: Developments, Issues,
and Direction in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp.11-23).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simpson, M, & Tuson, J. (2003). Using Observations in Small-scale Research: a
Beginner’s Guide.(rev. ed.) Glasgow: University of Glasgow SCRE Centre.
251
Singleton, R. & Straits, B. (2002). Survey Interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A.
Holstein (eds.), Handbook of Interview Research (pp. 59-82): Context and
Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Siriphan, S. ( 1988).An Investigation of Syntax, Semantics and Rhetorical in English
Writing of Fifteen Thai Graduate Students. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Texas
Woman’s University.
Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing Critical Thinking in the Writing of Japanese
University Students Insights about Assumptions and Content Familiarity.
Written Communication,18(4), 506-548.
Stapleton, P . (2003). Assessing the Quality and Bias of Web-based Sources:
Implications for Academic Writing. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 2(3), 229-245. doi: 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00026-2
Stapleton, P. (2010). Writing in an Electronic Age: A Case Study of L2
Composing Processes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 295307. doi: 10.1016 /j.jeap.2010.10.002
Stemler, S. E. (2004). A Comparison of Consensus, Consistency, and Measurement
Approaches to Estimating Interrater Reliability. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 9(4), 66-78.
Stratman, J. F. , & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1994). Reactivity in Concurrent Think-aloud
Protocols: Issues for Research. Speaking about Writing: Reflections on
Research Methodology, 8 (1), 89-111.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Street, B. V. (2009). Hidden’ Features of Academic Paper Writing. Working Papers
in Educational Linguistics, 24(1), 1-17.
Sullivan, P., & Seiden, P. (1985). Educating Online Catalog Users: The Protocol
Assessment of Needs. Library Hi Tech, 3(2), 11-19.
Swales, J. M., Feak, C. B., Committee, School Curriculum Development, Council,
Schools, & Britain, Great. (2004). Academic Writing for Graduate Students:
Essential Tasks and Skills (Vol. 1): Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Taboada, M., & Mann, W. C. (2006). Applications of Rhetorical Structure
Theory. Discourse Studies, 8(4), 567-588. doi:10.1177/1461445606064836
Tashakkori, A, & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &
Behavioral Research: Sage.
252
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research:
Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and
Behavioral Sciences: Sage Publications Inc.
Tharp, James B. (1932). Modern Foreign Languages. Review of Educational
Research, 2(1), 47-55.
The Ministry of Higher Education, Thailand (2012).
Retrieved March 10, 2013 from www.moe.go.th.
Thai Education System.
The Ministry of Higher Education, Thailand (2012). Higher Education in Thailand.
Retrieved March 10,2013 from www.moe.go.th.
The Office of the Higher Education Commission, Thailand ( 2007). Higher
Education in Thailand: Seminar and Exhibition on Thai Education, 16-17 June,
2007 held in the People’s hall of Quangxi, Nanning, People’s Republic of
China. Bangkok: Ministry of Education.
The Office of Education Council, Thailand (2008). Strategic Plan for Developing
Education Quality: National Agenda (2008-2012). Bangkok: Office of the
Education Council.
The Office of the Higher Education Commission, Thailand (2009). Strategies and
Roadmap for Higher Education Reform in Thailand. Bangkok.
The Office of the Higher Education Commission. Retrieved March 13, 2013 from
http://www.onec.go.th/publication/470422 pdf.
The Royal Institute (2013). Guidelines of Thai Alphabet Transcription into Roman
Alphabet. Retrieved September 20, 2013 from http://www.royin.go.th/upload/
/246/FileUpload/416_2157.pdf
The Wall Street Journal. Thailand’s Political Unrest Deals a Blow to Key Tourism
Sector. Retrieved September 8, 2014 from http://www.wsj.com/economics
/2014/05/22/thailands-political-unrest-deals-a-blow-to-key-tourism-sector/
The World Bank Group. (2012). World Development Indicators 2012. USA: World
Bank Publications.
Thep-Ackrapong, T. (2005). Teaching English in Thailand: An uphill battle. Journal
of Humanities Parithat, Srinakharinwirot University, 27(1), 51-62.
Thepsiri, K., & Pojanapunya, P. (2013). Remedial Students’ Attitudes towards
English Language Learning and their Causal Attributions for Success or
Failure. วารสาร มนุษยศาสตร์ สังคมศาสตร์ , 29(1), 25-50.
Thompson, B. (2001). Significance, Effect Sizes, Stepwise Methods, and other
Issues: Strong Arguments Move the Field. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 70(1), 80-93.
253
Thompson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W., & Petrova, P. K. (2009). When Mental
Simulation Hinders Behavior: The Effects of Process‐Oriented Thinking on
Decision Difficulty and Performance. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4),
562-574.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the
Reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument: Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tribble, C. (2009). Writing Academic English— a Survey Review of
Published Resources. ELT Journal, 63(4), 400-417.
Current
Tricomi, E. T. (1986). Krashen's second-language acquisition theory and the teaching
of edited American English. Journal of Basic Writing, 5(2), 59-69.
Trochim, W.M. (2001). The Regression-discontinuity Design. In N.J. Smelser & B.
Batles (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural
Sciences, (pp. 615-635). Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tuaychareon, P. (2003). A Reflection of Thai English. Journal of Languages and
Linguistics, 21(2), 47-65.
Tyler, R. W. (2008). Nature of Learning Activities: Review of Educational Research.
JSTOR, 1 ( 1), 22-29.
Udomyamokkul, W. (2004). A Genre-based Approach to Teaching Argumentative
Writing:Effects on EFL Students’Wriing Performance. Unpublished Master
Thesis, Suranaree University of Technology. Nakorn Ratchasima, Thailand.
Uysal, H. H. (2008). Tracing the Culture Behind Writing: Rhetorical Patterns and
Bidirectional Transfer in L1 and L2 Essays of Turkish Writers in Relation to
Educational Context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17: 183–207.
Vaezi, S., & Alizadeh, M. (2011). How learners cope with English tenses: Evidence
from think-aloud protocols. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29,
986-993.
Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y.F., & Sandberg, J. A. (1994). The Think Aloud
Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes: Academic Press
London.
Varghese, S. A., & Abraham, S. A. (1998). Undergraduates Arguing a Case. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 287-306.
254
Veal, W. R. (1997). The Evolution of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Chemistry
and Physics Prospective Secondary Teachers. In Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (pp. 147).
Vesterman, W. (2003). Reading and Writing Short Arguments. Mountain View, CA:
Mayfield Publishing Company.
Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to
Learn and Learning to Argue: Case studies of How Students' Argumentation
Relates to Their Scientific Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in Psychology: Background
comments. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 89-111.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between Learning and Development. Readings on
the Development of Children, 23(3), 34-41.
Wang, P., Hawk, W. B., & Tenopir, C. (2000). Users’ Interaction with World Wide
Web resources: An Exploratory Study Using a Holistic Approach.
Information Processing & Management, 36(2), 229-251.
Wang, J. (2004). An Investigation of the Writing Processes of Chinese EFL
Learners: Sub- processes, Strategies and the Role of the Mother Tongue.
(Doctoral Dissertation), Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Wang, S. L., & Wu, P. Y. (2008). The Role of Feedback and Self-efficacy on
Web-based Learning: The Social Cognitive Perspective. Computers &
Education, 51(4), 1589-1598. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.004
Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 Use in the L2 Composing Process: An Exploratory
Study of 16 Chinese EFL Writers. Journal of Second Language Writing,
11(3), 225-246. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00084-X
Watcharakaweesilp, S. (2005). The use of English S1-Test for Accessing General
Language Proficiency for Non-native speakers in High School. Humanities
and Social Sciences, 22(3), 1-76.
Wette, R. (2014). Teachers' Practices in EAP Writing Instruction: Use of Models and
Modeling. System, 42 (1), 60-69.doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.11.002
Widodo, H. P. (2006). Approaches and Procedures for Teaching Grammar. English
Teaching. Practice & Critique 5(1), 122-141.
Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Explorations in Applied Linguistics (Vol. 2). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
255
Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ Helping Students Understand What Essay Writing
Is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145-154. doi:
10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001
Wiriyachitra, A. (2002). English Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand in
This Decade. Thai TESOL Focus, 15(1), 4-9.
Wongsothorn, A., Hiranburana, K., & Chinnawongs, S. (2002). English Language
Teaching in Thailand today. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(2), 107116.
Wongsothorn, A. (1994). An Investigation of Students’ Writing Improvement
Through Various Types of Teachers’ Investigation. In M.L. Tickoo (Ed.),
Research in Reading and Writing. Anthology Series 32. Singapore:
SEMMEO. Regional Language Centre.
Wood, N. (2001). Writing Argumentative Essays. United States of America: Prentice
Hall.
Xu, H. (1993). My Personal Philosophy in Teaching English as a Second Language:
Some Methods I Used in Teaching English to Chinese Freshmen in Xi'an
Foreign Language University.
Yager, R. E. (1991). The Constructivist Learning Model: Toward Real Reform in
Science Education. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57
Yang, M., Badger, R. And Yu, Z. (2006). A Comparative Study of Peer and Teacher
Feedback in a Chinese EFL Writing Class. Journal of Second Language
Writing,15 (3), 179-200.
Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based Tasks in Foreign Language Writing: Developing
Writers’ Genre Awareness, Linguistic Knowledge, and Writing Competence.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 111-133.
Yeh, S. S. (1998). Empowering Education: Teaching Argumentative Writing to
Cultural Minority Middle-school Students. Research in the Teaching of
English, 33(1), 49-83.
Yin, R. K. (2010). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: Guilford
Press.
You, X. (2004). “The Choice Made from No Choice”: English Writing Instruction in
a Chinese University. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 97-110.
doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2003.11.001
Zafeiriou, G. (2003). Managing Conflict and Reaching Consensus in Text-based
Computer Conferencing: The students' perspective. Education for
Information, 21(2), 97-111.
256
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1993). Best Practice: New Standards for
Teaching and Learning in America’s Schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Zhang, C. (2013). Effect of Instruction on ESL Students’ Synthesis Writing. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 51-67. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.12.001
Zheng, C. (2013). A Structure Analysis of English Argumentative Writings Written
by Chinese and Korean EFL Learners. English Language Teaching, 6(9),
67-73. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n9p67
Zurick, D. (2010). Post-tsunami Recovery in South Thailand, with Special
Reference to the Tourism Industry. In Pradyuma P. Karan & Shanmugam
P. Subbiah. The Indian Ocean Tsunami: The Global Response to a Natural
Disaster,( pp. 163). Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky.
257
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
List of Publications and Conference Presentation
Ka-kan-dee, M. & Kaur, S. (2014). Argumentative Writing Difficulties of Thai
English Major Students. Presented at the 2014 International Eurasian
Academic Conference, Bali, Indonesia, 18-21 May 2014.
Ka-kan-dee, M. & Kaur, S. (2014). Challenges of Argumentative Writing Among
Thai English Major Students. Presented at the 2nd Nong Khai Campus
International Conference 2014: Creative Economy: Research & Development
to Worthy Lifestyle, Khon Kaen University, Nong Khai Campus, Thailand,
3- 4 July 2014.
Ka-kan-dee, M. & Kaur, S. (2014). Argumentative Writing Difficulties of Thai
English Major Students. The West East Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2),
56-70.
Ka-kan-dee, M. & Kaur, S. (2014). Teaching Strategies Used by Thai EFL Lecturers
to Teach Argumentative Writing. Presented at the International Conference on
Linguistics, Literature, and Culture 2014 (ICLLIC 2014), Penang, Malaysia,
26-28 November 2014.
APPENDIX B
Approval Letter to Conduct Research Study
APPENDIX C
Approval letter from Two Thai Public Universities
APPENDIX D
Consent Form for Participation from Lecturers and Students
Consent Form for Participation in a Research Study
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Title of Study: Analysing EFL Students’ Argumentative Writing Difficulties
and Teaching Strategies Employed by Lecturers in Selected Universities in
Thailand
Description of the research and your participation
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Miss Maleerat Kakan-dee, a PhD candidates at Universiti Sains Malaysia. The purpose of this research
is to a) identify the difficulties faced by Thai EFL English major students when
writing argumentative essays, b) investigate the difficulties experienced by Thai EFL
lecturers when teaching argumentative writing, c) investigate Thai EFL lecturers’
teaching strategies used when teaching argumentative writing, d) compare the
similarities and dissimilarities of argumentative writing difficulties faced by EFL
English major students from two Thai public universities.
Potential benefits
This research may help us to understand the argumentative writing difficulties. It is
expected that the study will help EFL lecturers attain a valuable detailed profile of
strengths and weaknesses of their students’ writing ability by using Think aloud
protocols which can be used to develop their teaching programs and instructions to
more effectively support students’ argumentative writing development. It also helps
lecturers and learners investigate difficulties in learners’ writing argumentative
essays. It is assumed that the findings would shed some light on Thai undergraduate
learners’ writing difficulties. This is done to obtain a valuable detailed description of
the students’ argumentative writing difficulties encountered by student writers
majoring in English.
Protection of confidentiality
The information provided by your participation would be treated confidentially and
would only be used in relation to this research. The confidentiality also includes the
absence of names in the interview sessions and the access of data would be limited to
people directly involved in conducting the research.
Voluntary participation
Your participation in this research study is voluntary. You may choose not to
participate and you may withdraw your consent to participate at any time. You will
not be penalized in any way should you decide not to participate or to withdraw from
this study.
Contact information
If you have any questions or concerns about this study or if any problems arise,
please contact Ms. Maleerat Ka-kan-dee at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Mobile phone
no. +60103851528.
Consent
I have read this consent form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I
give my consent to participate in this study.
Participant’s signature______________________ Date_______________________
APPENDIX E
Interview Questions for Lecturers
1. Which English courses do you teach?
2. How many years of university teaching experience do you have?
3. What are the problems as instructors do you face when you teach
argumentative writing to your students?
4. How do you provide feedback to your students when you rate their
argumentative essays?
5. Apart from the feedback in question 4, how do you help your students to
improve their argumentative writing essays?
6. Which of these elements (claim, data, counterargument claim,
counterargument data, and rebuttal claim and rebuttal data) occur most
frequently in your students’ writing?
7. What teaching strategies do you use to teach argumentative writing?
8. What are the criteria you use in judging the quality of argumentative
writing ?
9. Do you have any recommendations for lecturers who teach writing to help
students write argumentative essays?
APPENDIX F
Interview Questions for Students
1. What are the main problems you face when producing an argumentative
essay?
ปัญหา หลักที่คุณพบในการเขียน เรี ยงความแนวโต้แย้งคืออะไร
2. What kinds of argument components are commonly used in your writing
argumentative essay?
องค์ประกอบอาร์ กิวเมนต์ที่คุณมักจะใช้ในการเขียนเรี ยงความแนวโต้แย้งมีอะไรบ้าง
3. What is the main problem you face when you are conducting think aloud
protocols?
ปัญหาหลักที่คุณพบในขณะที่คุณเขียนเรี ยงความและพูดถึงปัญหาในการขียนในเวลาเ
ดียวกันคืออะไรบ้าง
4. How do you begin your argumentative writing essay?
คุณ มี วิธีการ เริ่ มต้น ใน การเขียน เรี ยงความ แนวโต้แย้ง อย่างไรบ้าง
5. What kinds of evidence are commonly used in your argumentative essay?
คุณ มัก จะใช้ หลักฐาน ข้อมูล ประเภทใดในการเขียน เรี ยงความ แนวโต้แย้ง
6. Do you face the problem of writing off-topic when you write an
argumentative essay?
Why?
คุณ เคย ประสบปัญหา การเขียน เรี ยงความแนวโต้แย้ง ออกนอกหัวข้อที่ระบุไว้ หรื อไม่
เพราะ เหตุใด
7. Which area of the problems (grammar, the structure and component of
writing argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you find the main
problem when you write an argumentative essay? Why?
ปัญหาด้านใดที่เป็ นปั ญหาหลักในการเขียนเรี ยงความแนวโต้แย้ง (ไวยากรณ์ โครงสร้าง
และ องค์ประกอบใน การเขียน เรี ยงความแนวโต้แย้ง หรื อ คาศัพท์ ) เพราะ เหตุใด)
8. Do you think it is important to follow the writing process when writing
argumentative essay? Why?
คุณคิดว่าจาเป็ นหรื อไม่ที่ตอ้ งปฎิบตั ิตามขั้นตอนการเขียนเรี ยงความแนวโต้แย้ง
เพราะเหตุใด
9. Do you have any recommendations for teaching strategies to help you
write an argumentative essay more effectively?
คุณมีขอ้ เสนอแนะสาหรับแนวทางการสอนเรี ยงความแนวโต้แย้งเพื่อให้คุณมีประสิ ทธิภา
พในการเขียนเรี ยงความ มาก ขึ้นหรื อไม่
APPENDIX G
Classroom Observation Checklist
University:___________________________
Date____________________
Observer: ___________________________
Round (circle one) 1
Time: _______________________________
Room no. ________________
Preparation
1. Teacher is on time in the
classroom.
2. Teacher is well versed with
subject content on argumentative
writing.
3. Teacher employs innovative
strategies.
4. Teacher has command over
language.
5. Teacher gives clear instructions.
Instructional strategies
6. Teacher shows understanding to
teach argumentative writing essays
7. Teacher considers knowledge,
skill, abilities, interests and
experiences that students bring to
the subject matter.
8. Teacher chooses activities that
are appropriate for students at
various
stages
of
learning
argumentative writing.
Yes No
No
opportunity
to observe
2
3
Evidence
9. Teacher provides opportunities
for
students
to
practice
argumentative writing
10. Teacher focuses on form in
argumentative writing
11. Teacher activates and links
students’ prior knowledge about
argumentative writing.
12. Teacher uses whole group
instruction.
13. Teacher uses small group
instruction.
14. Teacher uses cooperative group
instruction.
15. Teacher models a skill or
procedure
when
teaching
argumentative writing.
16. Teacher uses six elements of
argumentation.
17. Teacher uses
learning activities.
experiential
18. Teacher uses compare and
contrast activities.
19. Teacher teaches how to write a
thesis statement and stance taking
in argumentative writing.
20. Teacher uses five paragraphs in
writing argumentative essays.
Teacher Monitoring
21. Teacher interacts respectfully
with students.
22. Teacher maintains brief and
orderly
transitions
between
activities or components of the
lesson.
23. Teacher monitors all areas
where students are working.
Student Learning Strategies
24. Most of the time, students are
engaged on task and are not
disruptive.
25. Students take notes on content
relating to argumentative writing.
26. Students ask questions about the
lesson
content
(argumentative
writing).
Student Learning Strategies
27.Students
independently.
practice
skills
28. Students practice skills in small
groups or pairs.
29. Students
material.
30.
Students
knowledge.
analyse
presented
apply
content
Instructional Tools
31. Teaching materials
websites are used.
from
32. Textbooks are used.
33. Other printed materials are
used.
34. Technology (e.g., computer ) is
used as a learning tool.
35. Other audio/visual devices are
used (e.g., overhead, projector, TV,
CD player, PowerPoint).
Assessment and Evaluation
36. Teacher monitors student
understanding of knowledge and
skills about argumentative writing.
37. Teacher provides effective
instructional feedback to students
on their argumentative essays
(verbal or written)
38. Teacher appears to adjust
instruction after checking student
understanding ( when appropriate)
Language Use
39. Teacher uses the language
according to student’s level
40. Teacher uses appropriate tone
and volume of voice.
Source: Adapted from observation checklist by Brenes-Carvajal, 2009: p. 190.
APPENDIX H
Selected sample TAP transcription from a Student
1: OK..um.. let see the two topics. OMG, the questions are very long.
2: I have to read them to understand what they need me to answer…
3:Topic 1 “... Nowadays, more and more young unmarried adults…what is the
meaning of young unmarried adults?.. it means… the young people who..no married
yet. Ok I get it.
4: These people are choosing to study and live outside their parents’ homes. Do you
think this trend… is positive?
5: As the world’s economies have grown, alternative living arrangements among
young people have become possible ehh…I do not understand this phrase….what
does it mean….um….maybe…
6. young people have an option to live apart from their parents…yes… because this
has led to the trend of young single people living apart from their parents”
7: What they need me to answer……they asked me to fore or against.. that
nowsdays.. um.. young people are choosing to live and study outside their
parents’home.. Ehh…am I right or not. I think it is right.
8: Let move to topic 2. In topic 2 what they need me to answer….“...Many people..
choose to work or live abroad… what does abroad mean?....let me check….oh.. it
mean overseas…ok continue reading because of.. the higher standards of living..
they can find outside their home country.
9:Do you think this brings more advantages or disadvantages to the people who
follow this path? Often in today’s world, people are attracted to countries that can
offer those increased opportunities and higher salaries”
10: They asked me to write the advantage…and… disadvantage of woking and
living oversea…
11:OK .. next I have to choose only one topic.. Uhh… it is difficult for me.. to
choose… because both topics are interesting…..
12: Umm... I have to choose the topic that I can write well…… which one….which
one…..
13:The topic.. that.. I choose is… the first topic. Young people prefer living apart
from their parents. Um….
14: how I begin my writing….um.. I need planning….alright….
15: first….I need..um… introduction… second three body paragraph… what is
next……oh I see…. I need…. supporting detail in each paragraph….and…. and
conclusion.
16: Um…. I am going to brainstorming….in Introduction…I…um… I agree with the
author …that…um… living apart from parents has advantages …
17: What do I need to write…um….advantage of living apart from parents are
…(1)….teenagers learn how to manage their own income….(2)… um…..living apart
from parents…. makes teenagers… more mature…what…another reason is….
Um….(3)….there is no rules outside the home…
18: OK.. next is… conclusion… I…um..am going to write… it teaches teenagers
how to… make financial plan and….. so on…I will add more…..later.
19: Now I finished brainstorming for writing plan. I am going to begin my
writing…um..
20: I have to write Introduction and a thesis statement…but.. I do not know how to
write a good thesis statement…what I can write… is to take my position….that I
agree that there are advantages to live apart from their parents..
21: ehhh….well……I will begin with…. Um… Nowadays, many teenagers have
become more…what is the word not relied on others….think…um..oh I let me
check….oh I can find….. independent. OK.. this sentence will be um.. Nowadays,
many teenagers have become more independent.
22: Um..next… Most of them..um.. prefer to separate themselves from their parents
by um.. renting.. their own… apartment. In my opinion, I believe…um.. this is.. a
positive trend… according to these..um following reasons. Well…um.. I get the
Introduction… but..Uhh… I cannot.. write an opposing view in the Introduction.
23: Um…Well… I am going to write the three body paragraphs. For the first body
paragraph, I need to find out the advantages of living apart from their
parents….um…I will follow my plan…
24: OK..from my brainstorming….First of all, teenagers learn how to manage their
own income. Well…um… I have to find the evidence to support it.. How do I
support?
25: Ummm…..Most teenagers...err.. who live apart from their parents..um.. are not
likely to get…err… financial support from the parents, so…. they have to get… a
part time job… in order to earn money.
26: What is the reason to support this sentence?…..Well…umm…This can…err…
help them know….err… how to manage money…err… and realize… the value of it.
Moreover, they will….err.. be more careful about…um… spending.
27: Well….err…However, if they cannot…err.. make both ends meet, the parents…
are always there….err… to support.
28: After all, teenagers become… aware of spending…err.. and able to manage their
finance, which…um.. will benefit…. them…err… in the future.
29: OK…Well…err…I need to write the second body paragraph… based on my
brainstorming…Um..Secondly, living apart from parents.. makes teenagers more …
err…mature.
30: Next, I have to find the reason to support it…err…Teenagers…err.. always….
want to…umm… prove to their parents…err… that they are…. ready to live…err..
without parents.
31: I need..err.. more evidence..umm… to support… the statement. Well.. err…In
addition, teenagers learn…err… how to… get through….umm… hard times. For
example, when they have….umm… problems about…err… how to…. make life
schedule, they are able…. Err… to do it….. by themselves.
32: What do I need to write more? Umm…However, if teenagers…err… encounter
serious problems, parents…err… should lend them….err… a hand and…um… give
proper… advice.
33: In the future,…err.. they will be ready…. for having their own family because
….umm…they know… how to…. manage their own life.
34: OK. Now I have to write the third body paragraph. Well…. Err…Another reason
is that….err… there is no…. rule outside the home.
35: I need to find evidence to support the sentence. Err….It is better for… young
people to try… what is right and wrong; however, parents should be…err… very
cautious about this. If people… never know… what is bad, how do they…. start
doing …err….what is right?
36: Living outside the home…. can be ….life experience for…. most teenagers
because …err….they can do what they want and….err.. discover the good and bad
on their own ways.
37: Yeh….now I come to conclusion. Well….err…In brief,…. living apart from
parents…. can be a positive trend because….err… it teaches teenagers… how to
make financial plan,…..err… how to cope with…. their own problems and…. how
to…err… judge….err… what is right and wrong.
38: However,….err…. parents should….. monitor their children after, so that….err…
they can help ….their children in time when they are…..err… in trouble.
39: After all, teenagers should also…. visit and…. take care…. of their parents…. as
well.
40: Well…err… I need to make a revision [read sentence in line 21-39] well….err….
sentence in line 27, the reader will not understand what I wrote…. How can I revise
it… However, if they cannot handle their schedule, the parents always be there in
order to support them.
APPENDIX I
Selected Sample of Transcribed Verbal Reports from
Students and Lecturers
A lecturer from Mahasarakham University
1. Which English courses do you teach?
This semester I am teaching English structure and usage. This is like a
basic writing for 1st year of English major and I teach also narrative,
descriptive composition for 3rd year English major and academic writing for
3rd year international program. This program is called English for
International Communication.
2. How many years of university teaching experience do you have?
About 9 years.
3. What are the problems as instructors do you face when you teach
argumentative writing to your students?
I think the problem comes from students unfamiliar with the genre
mean the type of writing because Thai students don’t have a lot of training
in writing argumentative or actually writing composition in general so it’s
hard for them to make an argument and they don’t know how to support
their argument. They don’t have a lot of experience. Some Thai students are
in the traditional way of schooling and sometimes they never have to write
argumentative writing because they just usually read and memorize the
content and the kind of exam that Thai school have. Usually they don’t
encourage argumentative writing much even in Thai and in English that’s
why I think because they are not familiar so they don’t... I think Thai culture
in general we are not encourage to do a lot of argumentative writing or even
talking maybe informally not formally so it’s hard because they are not
familiar. They don’t have training and it will start all over.
4. How do you provide feedback to your students when you rate their
argumentative essays?
Feedback is provided at the first stages. I found that if give feedback
after the student complete their first draft sometimes it’s too late because
some students do not start with a good debatable topic so I think first of all I
ask them to do outline and discuss the outline first before they go on in
writing the first draft. So I would see if their thesis statement is clear. Is that
topic a debatable topic? Is it suitable for argumentative writing? And I ask
them what kind of argument you are going to support that so it’s like
feedback but oral feedback at first talking. And then when the topic sounds
good, the idea sounds good and then I ask them to go on their first draft and
after the first draft I give them the comment about the content of
organisation not the language. That is the first draft after the first draft I ask
them to revise to make it strong to make the thesis statement more clear and
on the second draft I look at everything organisation, in content and also
correctness in their language variety in their sentences style is it good. And
also I ask them to have peer review and they give feedback from peers too.
5. Apart from the feedback on question 4, how do you help your students to
improve their argumentative writing essays?
I try to give different input I think the most important thing is a lot of
reading so I ask them to analyze sample text that are good for example
argumentative composition and I ask them to study the style, the technique
of each other. And also in the past semester I give them authentic article like
real article from magazine that deals with argument topic. The topic is about
fast food and obesity in America and people have different opinion on that
issue. Some people believe that fast food industry irresponsible for obesity
we should blame the company but some people think that it’s not the
company’s fault it is the consumer’s fault. Different people write the article
to support their point of view. So I ask students to read that and study the
line of argument and come to class to present the article that they read. One
group read about opinion that against the fast food company and other group
read about the opinion that in supporting against that opinion. And they
have to debate in class. Then I ask them to write their own piece based on
their opinion and using the argument from both sides and language used in
the argument. I think that help students because so I think the text is quite
difficult and I didn’t expect the student will do really well but I
underestimate them they did very well. They understood the article they
could present the essay pretty good so I think model text and having debate
in class help the process thinking because they can anticipate the different
opinions when they have different opinions when they have different
opinion they have counterargument. They can think about how to rebut that
opinion. And then I like to give a good example from the type of media like
one time I use the documentary called “Inconvenience Truth” that Alger
make argument about Global warming and he has different supporting
evidence also convincing within visual so I present this to them and ask
them to analyze how effective, how to follow or imitate the way to make
argument in such convincing way. So I believe in different input, different
activities to help them improve their process thinking how to make
argumentative more clearly.
6. Which of these elements (claim, data, counterargument claim,
counterargument data, and rebuttal claim and rebuttal data) occur most
frequently in your students’ writing?
I think that for my students claim and data are occurred the most
frequently but they often miss the point about counterargument claim and
counterargument data and rebuttal. If I didn’t point out to them they would
forget about that they would just say what they believe in but they didn’t
anticipate the other side of opinion so they miss counterargument and
rebuttal the most.
7. What teaching strategies do you use to teach argumentative writing?
I try to do group work and pair work a lot so they can discuss idea
with their friends for argumentative writing, what the most important thing
is discussion about opinion. It may be when they talk with their friends it’s
very real when their friends give them comments and when their friends
give them their opinions they can think about that and make sure that their
argument is convincing. So I do pair work and group work and also debate
group activity, presentation and what else I think all what I mentioned
before are all the activities that I did as a technique and then have them
analyze different sample texts that one of the technique too. I think that’s it.
8. What are criteria in judging the quality of argumentative writing?
I look at three things: content, organisation and language. I content I
look at the thesis statement, the supporting evidence if they are relevant if
they are strong and convincing. For organisation I look at how they put their
idea in order if they have thesis statement toward the beginning that means
they make their stand point or the point of view from the beginning. In the
first paragraph, when I look if it has topic sentence, if it has supporting
details that support so see in each paragraph it has conclusion. For the
language, I look to see is it grammatical? It has a good style, if it has good
word choice, sentence variety. Usually I give my students a lot of point on
content and organisation if they are very good on that. But for language,
sometimes I deduct a lot of points because they miss a lot of grammar point
and their sentence isn’t smooth and not very natural so they complain a lot
about I am very strict with language. But anyway the three elements should
be there to make good argumentative writing.
9. Do you have any recommendations for lecturers in writing to help
students write argumentative essays? Do you need any training for teaching
writing?
I would recommend that they use a lot of input to make it interesting and
most important thing is to choose the topic that are relevant to the students’ topic
that students are passion about it because when they write something if they don’t
believe or won’t believe in it so they don’t care about it. They don’t want to write
it. It’s not authentic. It’s not genuine but if something that they want to discuss and
talk about. The communication would be real and they have fun so what I did
actually has discussing with them the possible topic that they could choose from
and then limit the topic into two or four and let the whole class choose the topic
and write on that and they can debate if the people believe in different thing in the
same topic they can make debate that can make it fun. Another recommendation is
that to give a lot of input and do not underestimate students like me in the past. I
didn’t think the student would be able to understand the challenging text but they
could. I try one just the past semester and it worked well. And I think it’s good to
challenge them to read something difficult to learn some different approaches. I
think I do need training. I love to get training at a time. I think it’s good to learn
from other people to see other people practice what they do in class what they have
to say. I would love to have training and I think it is necessary even though you
might be teaching long time but it’s good to brush up once in a while.
A Lecturer from Udon Thani Rajabhat University
1. Which English courses do you teach?
Now I am teaching writing, grammar, literature, three of them mostly.
2. How many years of university teaching experience do you have?
About 13 years
3. What are the problems as instructors do you face when you teach
argumentative writing to your students?
The first thing is the difficulty when I have to help them to make a
good argumentative thesis statement for the whole essay because it should
be something that more difficult than personal essay that I assign them
during the semester. They don’t understand what argumentative is. The
second thing what is a good supporting detail for their argumentative topic.
The other thing is the organisation of the idea. They have problem in
arranging their ideas in logical order and may be because they don’t have
high proficiency about like transitional words something that provide a link
of idea. They have a good idea but they cannot arrange that most of the
problem. This is because they have some language problems about the
writing. They seem to be very weak on grammar. Moreover, they also have
a problem on the idea of the topic. Some of them do not know how to create
the idea related to the topic because argumentative essay have to deal with
the problems and issues in society. If they don’t have any idea, they cannot
write. The idea must come first. Finally, some of them don’t understand the
topic and they don’t know how to produce a piece of argumentative essays.
4. How do you provide feedback to your students when you rate their
argumentative essays?
I just check their essays and do the class discussion. Sometimes, I use
group discussion and peer reading. I mean the students have chance to read
their friends’ essay and give it back and then I give the feedback after they
do all the thing I assign them to do. While checking the essay I use symbol
like if they have the problem about transitional word I use “T” and circle. If
they have a problem about thesis statement I use “T” and I have a sheet to
explain what signals and symbols refer to on their papers.
5. Apart from the feedback on question 4, how do you help your students to
improve their argumentative writing essays?
I have the students write each topic. Sometimes they can follow the
model first after they have learned about the language feature, the linguistic
feature they have to study this first and then follow the model of
argumentative essay and later on let them produce a piece of writing on their
own and they can choose the topic to write for their homework. I have a
project and in use the project going along with students in class. In the
project, in writing project they have to identify their problems that they
would like to improve most in this 3 month course. And they need to
develop their own essay checklist which will include their problematic
problems as some kind of questions or questionnaires to use with peer and
teacher. So after finish their draft, first step they have to send the draft to the
student and peer for peer editing along with the checklist that they develop
by themselves which have this kind of you know the project include in it
and then students revise their essay based on the first students’ comment
and they will submit the seven draft to the teacher and the teacher will give
them feedback. Apart from the feedback in the paper then I use the symbol I
also usually provided an individual meeting to have them sit down and talk
about their problems and how to improve their writing individually.
6. Which of these elements (claim, data, counterargument claim,
counterargument data, and rebuttal claim and rebuttal data) occur most
frequently in your students’ writing?
My students have claim or thesis statement and data on their writing. I
make them write the outline before they write the essay to make sure that
they have a good thesis statement and their supporting details get to the
point that support to their point. So the focus in my class is much on the
outline of the essay.
7. What teaching strategies do you use to teach argumentative writing?
I use explanation, illustration, group work, pair work, grouping idea,
mind map, discussion and variety of activities. By the way I use the strategy
that helps them to rely on their own a lot. Some kind of encourage self study
apart from the direct teaching class and try to encourage them to find their
own strategy to help them when write the essay. So they can rely on
themselves instead of rely on the teacher all the time. They can use the
internet and other resources like writing program, some grammar website or
some vocabulary websites and resources that show them first to rouse their
interest so they can further learning by themselves.
8. What are criteria in judging the quality of argumentative writing?
The first thing is the structure of academic essay. I use the classic five
paragraph essay. They can write more than five but I think for them is
enough not too small. So they have introduction, three supporting details
and conclusion. I think that in many universities use that to evaluate
students’ knowledge after learning a course so I use the classic five
paragraph essay as a framework. And I am looking for a thesis statement
and I’m looking for topic sentence in each body paragraph. I’m looking for
a conclusion the main statement of the thesis statement and the summary of
they have talked about so far. I provide them about three ways and their
essay for example: personal comment, quote of the famous people that
related to their topics, and do they provide the link between paragraphs?
Are they carrying reasonable? The last thing I don’t put much emphasis is
grammar. I put much score to organisation and topic sentence in each
paragraph.
9. Do you have any recommendations for lecturers in writing to help
students write argumentative essays? Do you need any training for teaching
writing?
I set a goal quite high at the beginning but I end up with checking
their sentences that translate from Thai to English. It is called Tinglish.
Most of Thai teacher who teach writing field need lecture about structure
and I want to teach them to explain through the right structure. They don’t
know how to express ideas in which form of English. We should include the
structure and how to express the idea in the course. They use wrong word
choice, wrong verb form. We need to teach them about these first for L2
Thai students. Teachers should focus on the academic writing framework or
structure. I spend a long time to help them receive the idea of thesis
statement and topic sentence. So more activities how to write thesis
statement and topic sentence are crucial for them. Furthermore, I think
recommendation for EFL learners it would be helpful if the teacher know
about the students’ nature or ability in L1 writing before transfer writing
skill to L2 because if they had less opportunity to write in their own
language how can they become proficient in L2 writing. So I try to make
them work very hard during the class and at home. Give them some outside
assignment. They may follow the issue in everyday life and then read a lot
for that and then they can bring some information to write about because
argumentative essay mostly based on the society, controversial issue. We
have to know about that, if they have only the language, they cannot write
any argumentative essay. They have to know the knowledge about that to
try to make them work maybe looking from the websites and in the
newspaper something like that. This can help the students have some
information to write about ideas to support the thesis statement.
I need training to teach writing in a big classroom like 30 students or 40
students to see how they manipulate the big class.
Transcription of Students’ Interview
S1
1. What are the main problems you face when producing an argumentative
essay?
I do not know the vocabulary so it made me cannot translate what the
direction call for then I cannot write.
2. What kinds of argument components are commonly used in your writing
argumentative essay?
The argument components that I used are Thesis statement (claim) and
evidence.
3. What is the main problem when you conducting think aloud protocols?
I feel confused because I have to think, speak and write. When I think I
think in Thai but when I write I have to write in English. This makes me
stop speaking and thinking.
4. How do you begin your argumentative writing essay?
I begin by writing Introduction and Thesis statement after that I write three
body paragraphs and find out for the reasons to support the Thesis
statement. Finally, I write the conclusion.
5. What kinds of evidence are commonly used in your argumentative essay?
I use my personal opinion, experiences that I have been heard and facts in
everyday life.
6. Do you face the problem of writing out off topic when you write an
argumentative essay? Why?
I never write out off topic.
7. Which area of the problems (grammar, the structure and component of
writing argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you find it the main problem
when you write an argumentative essay? Why?
Vocabulary is the main problem in argumentative writing because it is very
important thing. If I do not know the vocabulary, I cannot communicate in
what I want to write.
8. Do you think it is important to follow the writing process when writing
argumentative essay?
It is very necessary to follow the process of writing argumentative essays
because it will help write more easily.
9. Do you have any recommendations for teaching strategies to help you write
argumentative essay more effectively?
I want the teacher takes us to write argumentative essay step by step and have the
model in writing. This will make students to write easily.
S2
1. What are the main problems you face when producing an argumentative essay?
I cannot think of the vocabulary then I cannot write.
2. What kinds of argument components are commonly used in your writing
argumentative essay?
The argument components that I used are Thesis statement (claim) and evidence.
3. What is the main problem when you conducting think aloud protocols?
I feel confused because I have to think, speak and write. When I think I think in
Thai but when I write I have to write in English this makes me stop speaking and
thinking.
4. How do you begin your argumentative writing essay?
I begin by writing Introduction and Thesis statement after that I write the body
three paragraphs and find out for the reasons to support the Thesis statement.
Finally, I write the conclusion.
5. What kinds of evidence are commonly used in your argumentative essay?
Evidence that I used are personal opinions and fact that have been read.
6. Do you face the problem of writing off-topic when you write an argumentative
essay? Why?
I never write out off the topic.
7. Which area of the problems (grammar, the structure and component of writing
argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you find it the main problem when you
write an argumentative essay? Why?
Vocabulary is the main problem in writing essays because vocabulary is an
important thing to convey the meaning.
8. Do you think it is important to follow the writing process when writing
argumentative essay?
It is very necessary to follow the process of writing argumentative essays because it
will help write more easily.
9. Do you have any recommendations for teaching strategies to help you write
argumentative essay more effectively?
I need the teacher teaches the academic vocabulary together with gives an example
of usage. I need the teacher assigns homework to practice writing and gives feedback
time to time.
S3
1. What are the main problems you face when producing an argumentative essay?
I cannot interpret the question correctly so I cannot answer what it is required.
2. What kinds of argument components are commonly used in your writing
argumentative essay?
The argument components that I used are Thesis statement (claim) and evidence.
3. What is the main problem when you conducting think aloud protocols?
Doing three things at the same time makes my thinking confused. I think in Thai
and speak out loud then I have to write in English. As I am writing in English,
thinking and speaking need to be stopped for a while which it looks unnatural.
4. How do you begin your argumentative writing essay?
I write Introduction and Thesis statement after that I write the Body three
paragraphs and find out for the reasons to support the Thesis statement. Finally, I
write the conclusion.
5. What kinds of evidence are commonly used in your argumentative essay?
Evidence that has been used are feeling, personal opinions and experiences from
the other people that I have been heard.
6. Do you face the problem of writing off-topic when you write an argumentative
essay? Why?
I used to write out off topic because I interpret the question incorrect.
7. Which area of the problems (grammar, the structure and component of writing
argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you find it the main problem when you
write an argumentative essay? Why?
Grammar is the main problem in writing argumentative essay because if I use the
structure of grammar is incorrect, it cannot convey the meaning.
8. Do you think it is important to follow the writing process when writing
argumentative essay?
It is essential to follow the process in writing argumentative essays.
9. Do you have any recommendations for teaching strategies to help you write
argumentative essay more effectively?
Firstly, the teacher has to teach the sentence structure in order to make students
master in grammar because students are weak on grammar very much.
S4
1. What are the main problems you face when producing an argumentative essay?
I have the problem of placing the plot of the topic that how I will set the direction in
writing
2. What kinds of argument components are commonly used in your writing
argumentative essay?
The argument components that I used are Thesis statement (claim) and evidence.
3. What is the main problem when you conducting think aloud protocols?
I feel that it’s unnatural because when I write in English I have to stop thinking and
speaking for a while then continues thinking and speaking.
4. How do you begin your argumentative writing essay?
It is common to write Introduction and Thesis statement after that I write the body
three paragraphs and find out for the reasons to support the Thesis statement.
Finally, I write the conclusion.
5. What kinds of evidence are commonly used in your argumentative essay?
Evidence that has been used is feelings, personal opinions and experiences
6. Do you face the problem of writing off-topic when you write an argumentative
essay? Why?
I never write out off the topic.
7. Which area of the problems (grammar, the structure and component of writing
argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you find it the main problem when you
write an argumentative essay? Why?
The structure of writing argumentative essay is the main problem in writing
because writing to convince the readers to believe in what I write is difficult.
8. Do you think it is important to follow the writing process when writing
argumentative essay?
It is essential to follow the process in writing argumentative essays.
9. Do you have any recommendations for teaching strategies to help you write
argumentative essay more effectively?
Students have to practice by themselves as “Practice makes progress” and ask the
teacher gives the feedback
S5
1. What are the main problems you face when producing an argumentative essay?
The problem that I face is how to organize the content in the sequence in writing. I
cannot control the ideas.
2. What kinds of argument components are commonly used in your writing
argumentative essay?
The argument components that I used are Thesis statement (claim) and evidence.
3. What is the main problem when you conducting think aloud protocols?
Doing three things at the same time makes my thinking confused. I think in Thai
and speak out loud then I have to write in English. Whereas I am writing in
English, thinking and speaking need to be stopped for a while which it is not
natural.
4. How do you begin your argumentative writing essay?
I always write Introduction and Thesis statement after that I write the three body
paragraphs and find out for the reasons to support the Thesis statement. Finally, I
write the conclusion.
5. What kinds of evidence are commonly used in your argumentative essay?
Evidence that has been used are personal opinions, direct experiences that used to
face, facts from the internet.
6. Do you face the problem of writing off-topic when you write an argumentative
essay? Why?
I used to write out off topic. This causes from the lack of putting the idea in the
sequence and plotting the content
7. Which area of the problems (grammar, the structure and component of writing
argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you find it the main problem when you
write an argumentative essay? Why?
The structure of writing argumentative essay is the main problem in writing
because writing to convince the readers to believe in what I write is difficult.
8. Do you think it is important to follow the writing process when writing
argumentative essay?
It is essential to follow the process in writing argumentative essays.
9. Do you have any recommendations for teaching strategies to help you write
argumentative essay more effectively?
Students have to practice by themselves and ask the teacher gives the feedback.
S10
1. What are the main problems you face when producing an argumentative essay?
The problem that I face is that it takes long time to interpret the question and I am
not sure whether I interpret it correctly or not. I think in Thai and then I write in
English.
2. What kinds of argument components are commonly used in your writing
argumentative essay?
The argument components that I used are Thesis statement (claim) and evidence.
3. What is the main problem when you conducting think aloud protocols?
My thinking is confused that I have to think, speak and write simultaneously. The
process of thinking and speaking I use Thai but when I write I have to write in
English. Therefore, when I write in English the process of thinking and speaking is
interrupted. It is unnatural.
4. How do you begin your argumentative writing essay?
Introduction and Thesis statement will be written after that I write the body three
paragraphs and find out for the reasons to support the Thesis statement. Finally, I
write the conclusion. I have to think of the evidence from internet journal to
support what I have written in order to convince the readers believe in what I wrote.
5. What kinds of evidence are commonly used in your argumentative essay?
Evidence that has been used are experiences in everyday life and facts from journal.
6. Do you face the problem of writing off-topic when you write an argumentative
essay? Why?
I never write out off topic because the question has explained the background
already.
7. Which area of the problems (grammar, the structure and component of writing
argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you find it the main problem when you
write an argumentative essay? Why?
Vocabulary is the important problem because if I do not know the vocabulary I will
use the wrong meaning that cannot convey the meaning that I want to write.
8. Do you think it is important to follow the writing process when writing
argumentative essay?
It is essential to follow the process in writing argumentative essays because it is
easier to write.
9. Do you have any recommendations for teaching strategies to help you write
argumentative essay more effectively?
The teacher has to teach the structure of arguments and give many styles of writing
examples.
S11
1. What are the main problems you face when producing an argumentative essay?
I have the problem of interpreting the question if we do not understand the
question; we cannot continue writing an essay.
2. What kinds of argument components are commonly used in your writing
argumentative essay?
The argument components that I used are Thesis statement (claim) and evidence.
3. What is the main problem when you conducting think aloud protocols?
I have the problem of L1 transfer. While I am writing English, I have to stop
thinking and speaking because doing three things at the same time it makes me
confused.
4. How do you begin your argumentative writing essay?
Introduction and Thesis statement will be written in the first paragraph after that I
write the body three paragraphs and find out for the reasons to support the Thesis
statement. Finally, I write the conclusion. I have to think of the evidence from
internet journal to support what I have written in order to convince the readers
believe in what I wrote.
5. What kinds of evidence are commonly used in your argumentative essay?
The evidence that I used are personal experiences, knowledge gained from reading,
facts and personal opinions.
6. Do you face the problem of writing off-topic when you write an argumentative
essay? Why?
I never write out off topic.
7. Which area of the problems (grammar,the structure and component of writing
argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you find it the main problem when you
write an argumentative essay? Why?
Vocabulary is the important problem because if I do not know the vocabulary I will
use the wrong meaning that cannot convey the meaning that I want to write.
8. Do you think it is important to follow the writing process when writing
argumentative essay?
It is essential to follow the process in writing argumentative essays because it is
easier to write.
9. Do you have any recommendations for teaching strategies to help you write
argumentative essay more effectively?
I want the teacher adds the examples of argumentative writing essay and teaches
the technique of writing the Thesis Statement.
S 12
1. What are the main problems you face when producing an argumentative essay?
The problem is how to find examples to convince the readers to believe in what we
write. Finding the research or research findings to support writing is very hard to
find.
2. What kinds of argument components are commonly used in your writing
argumentative essay?
The argument component that used are Thesis statement or claim and evidence to
support the writing.
3. What is the main problem when you conducting think aloud protocols?
It is uncomfortable because need to write without speaking out loud it makes my
writing more flow.
4. How do you begin your argumentative writing essay?
Introduction and Thesis statement are important to be mentioned in the first
paragraph after that I write the body three paragraphs and find out for the reasons to
support the Thesis statement. Finally, I write the conclusion. I have to think of the
evidence from internet journal to support what I have written in order to convince
the readers believe in what I wrote.
5. What kinds of evidence are commonly used in your argumentative essay?
The evidence that I used are facts and personal opinions.
6. Do you face the problem of writing off-topic when you write an argumentative
essay? Why?
I never write out off topic.
7. Which area of the problems (grammar, the structure and component of writing
argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you find it the main problem when you
write an argumentative essay? Why?
Grammar is an important problem. The problem of L1 transfers if I translate or
write incorrect grammar. It will make the writing cannot correctly communicate the
meaning.
8. Do you think it is important to follow the writing process when writing
argumentative essay?
It is necessary to follow the process of writing. We cannot propose the idea without
the process to convince the readers to believe in our writing.
9. Do you have any recommendations for teaching strategies to help you write
argumentative essay more effectively?
The teacher should find examples of essay writing for learners to read and give
many examples of writing pattern
S13
1. What are the main problems you face when producing an argumentative essay?
I have the problem how to communicate our belief to convince readers to believe in
what we write.
2. What kinds of argument components are commonly used in your writing
argumentative essay?
The argument component that used are personal opinions.
3. What is the main problem when you conducting think aloud protocols?
It makes my thinking interrupted and makes my brain paradoxical. I do not like
writing and speaking out as well.
4. How do you begin your argumentative writing essay?
First I interpret the question and divided into three phases, the first phase is opinion
that is facts that make the readers believe in our writing. The second phase is
recommendation of the information that used to support more which are positive
information. The third phase is the part that use citation of course if we write
without citation the readers do not believe at all if we have research or journal
articles that have written in journals, interview that have been broadcast on
Television will be supported our writing.
5. What kinds of evidence are commonly used in your argumentative essay?
I used the part that cited from research articles that I have read from the magazine.
It is the article that is broadcast on the television
6. Do you face the problem of writing off-topic when you write an argumentative
essay? Why?
I used to write out off topic because I cannot control the ideas
7. Which area of the problems (grammar, the structure and component of writing
argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you find it the main problem when you
write an argumentative essay? Why?
I think grammar is the main problem. If we write incorrect grammar, it cannot
communicate the meaning correctly. This makes readers cannot understand on what
we have written.
8. Do you think it is important to follow the writing process when writing
argumentative essay?
It is necessary to follow the process of writing. We cannot propose the idea without
the process to convince the readers to believe in our writing.
9. Do you have any recommendations for teaching strategies to help you write
argumentative essay more effectively?
Learners need to consider the structure of writing because the writing has a
specifically pattern.
S 14
1. What are the main problems you face when producing an argumentative essay?
The main problem that I found is putting the idea in the sequence. I cannot write a
well organized essay
2. What kinds of argument components are commonly used in your writing
argumentative essay?
The argument components that I used are Thesis statement (claim) and evidence.
3. What is the main problem when you conducting think aloud protocols?
My thinking is confused that I have to think, speak and write simultaneously. The
process of thinking and speaking are in Thai but when I write I have to write in
English. Therefore, when I write in English the process of thinking and speaking
are interrupted. It is unnatural.
4. How do you begin your argumentative writing essay?
I choose the topic that I am interested in and find the information or reasons to
support writing to make it believable.
5. What kinds of evidence are commonly used in your argumentative essay?
The evidence that I used are personal opinions.
6. Do you face the problem of writing off-topic when you write an argumentative
essay? Why?
I used to write to give examples out off the topic because there is no outline in
writing.
7. Which area of the problems (grammar, the structure and component of writing
argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you find it the main problem when you
write an argumentative essay? Why?
Vocabulary is the important problem because if I do not know the vocabulary I will
use the wrong meaning that cannot convey the meaning that I want to write.
8. Do you think it is important to follow the writing process when writing
argumentative essay?
It is very necessary to follow the process of writing argumentative essays because it
will help write more easily.
9. Do you have any recommendations for teaching strategies to help you write
argumentative essay more effectively?
I need the teacher explains how to write an essay deeper than this and provides
examples of writing in different patterns.
S 15
1. What are the main problems you face when producing an argumentative essay?
The problem that found is thinking to find the believable reasons for argument.
2. What kinds of argument components are commonly used in your writing
argumentative essay?
The argument components that I used are Thesis statement (claim) and evidence.
3. What is the main problem when you conducting think aloud protocols?
I feel confused because I have to think, speak and write. When I think I think in
Thai but when I write I have to write in English this makes me stop speaking and
thinking.
4. How do you begin your argumentative writing essay?
I will interpret the question first and then brainstorm how to write it and then find
the evidences to support.
5. What kinds of evidence are commonly used in your argumentative essay?
The evidence that used is a personal opinion.
6. Do you face the problem of writing off-topic when you write an argumentative
essay? Why?
I used to write to give examples out off the topic because there is no outline in
writing.
7. Which area of the problems (grammar, the structure and component of writing
argumentative essay or vocabulary) do you find it the main problem when you
write an argumentative essay? Why?
Grammar is the main problem in writing argumentative essay because if I use the
structure of grammar is incorrect, it cannot convey the meaning.
8. Do you think it is important to follow the writing process when writing
argumentative essay?
It is very necessary to follow the process of writing argumentative essays because it
will help write more easily.
9. Do you have any recommendations for teaching strategies to help you write
argumentative essay more effectively?
Learners should practice writing essay regularly.
APPENDIX J
Written Task
The Written Essay (Taken from IELTS, 2012)
Name:______________________________________________________________
University:__________________________________________________________
Date:_______________________________________________________________
Instructions: choose one of the topics below and write an argumentative essay.
You should spend about 1.30 hours on this task.
1) “... Nowadays, more and more young unmarried adults are choosing to study and
live outside their parents’ homes. Do you think this trend is positive? As the world’s
economies have grown, alternative living arrangements among young people have
become possible. This has led to the trend of young single people living apart from
their parents” (IELTS, 2012).
2) “...Many people choose to work or live abroad because of the higher standards of
living they can find outside their home country. Do you think this brings more
advantages or disadvantages to the people who follow this path? Often in today’s
world, people are attracted to countries that can offer those increased opportunities
and higher salaries” (IELTS, 2012).
Name:_________________________University____________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
APPENDIX K
Selected Sample of Students’ Written Essays
APPENDIX L
Argumentative Writing Difficulties Codes
Code
Description
Vocabulary
Difficulties in finding a “I cannot think of the right vocabulary that
proper vocabulary
I need to use”
Grammar
structure
Difficulties
structure
L1 transfer
Difficulties in translation “I have the problem in writing that I have to
from Thai into English
think in Thai and then translate into English
when I have to write in English. I cannot think
how to write in English and I am going to
write based on the Thai structure which it is
not convey the right meaning”
and
translating
Writing
process
Effective
conclusion
Example
in
grammar “The problem that found is the problem of
language in writing since I am weak in
grammar very much”
Difficulties in writing plan “The topic.. that.. I choose is… the first
topic. Young people prefer living apart from
their parents...Um….how I begin my
writing….um…..I….need….
planning….alright….first….I…need…um…
introduction…
second
three
body
paragraphs… what is next……oh I see….
I need…. supporting details in each
paragraph….and…. and conclusion. Um….I
am going to brainstorm what I am going to
write….but it is not easy for me to write the
outline in planning process of argumentative
writing”.
Difficulties to write
effective conclusion
37: “Yeh….now I come to conclusion.
Well….err…In brief,…. living apart from
parents…. can be a positive trend
because….err… it teaches teenagers…
how to make financial plan,…..err… how to
cope with…. their
own problems and….
how to…err… judge….err… what is right or
wrong.
However,….err….parents…should…
Code
Description
Example
monitor their children after, so that….err…
they can help ….their children in time when
they are…..err… in trouble. It is difficult for
me to write an effective conclusion.
Specific
supporting
details
Generating
ideas
Creative
thinking ability
Difficulties to write
specific supporting details
Difficulties in composing
ideas
Difficulties to think
creatively
After all, teenagers should also…. visit
and…. take care…. of their parents…. as
well. It is not easy for me to write a
conclusion in order to draw attention
of
the audience”.“What do I need to
write…um….advantage of living apart from
parents
are …(1)….teenagers learn
how to manage their own income….(2)…
um…..living apart from parents…. makes
teenagers…more mature…what…another
reason is…. Um….(3)….there is no rules
outside the home…based on these I need to
provide specific supporting details in each
paragraph which it was very difficult for me
to find out the evidence to convince the
audience to believe with the specific
supporting details”.
“Generating is important process of putting
ideas into rational expression.
Um…
I need to link the ideas in the coherent way.
What do I need to write…um….advantages
of studying and working abroad
are
…(1)….they can learn a language more
quickly….(2)… um…..they get a good
opportunity
and
get
a
high
salary…what…another
reason
is….
Um….(3)….working and
studying
abroad can change our life…It is difficult to
create the ideas to explain the logical
advantages of working and studying
abroad”.
“I can write a thesis statement..um…. but it
cannot draw attention of the audience
…err…because I write a thesis statement
without creative thinking ability to convince
the audience to agree with my ideas”.
Code
Description
Example
Thesis
Statement
Difficulties to write a
good thesis statement
“It is very difficult for me to write a good
thesis statement to draw attention to the
audience”.
Rhetorical
features
Difficulties in forming
argumentative essays
“The problem that I encounter is that I do
not have the pattern in writing essay to argue
or convince the readers to believe in what I
write. In the regard that I am not familiar
with writing argumentative essays”
Organised
ideas
Difficulties in generating “I do not know how to organize the idea of
organised idea
argumentative writing essays. I do not know
that I have to write the introductory or I have
to control the idea. I have to write
supporting details and then I have to write
the conclusion. I write down what I can
think of without controlling idea”
Interpreting the
questions
Difficulties in interpreting
the question
Solid evidence
Difficulties in finding a “Typically, I will use the intuition and belief
strong evidence
to answer the question. Personal opinions
are used to write the evidence in order to
support in the part of the thesis statement so
that the given reasons are not believable”
Awareness of
audience’s
expectations
and
motivational
elements.
Difficulties in the
awareness of audience’s
expectations and
motivational elements
“The problem in writing essay at this
moment is that I cannot interpret the
question because I do not know the
vocabulary, so it makes me have difficulty
in writing”
“I have to write Introduction and a thesis
statement…but.. I do not know
how to
write a good thesis statement…what I can
write… is to take my position….that I agree
that there are advantages to live apart from
their parents…because…um… I do not have
Code
Description
Example
the knowledge of audience’s expectation and
how to motivate the readers to believe in
what I write supporting details”.
Understanding
the questions
Fulfilling task
demand
Difficulties in
understanding the
questions
“The questions are very long so I need to
interpret the question. I have to read both
questions that use long time to make
understanding the topic”
“I don’t have a standpoint in taking stance
Difficulties in doing what and giving the reasons that can support. This
the task required
problem caused by the thinking system
when I cannot think, I cannot write. I do not
know how to project voice in the manner of
controlling idea and followed by backing up
the information”
Evaluation
Difficulties in evaluating the “Another thing is that I am not sure whether
quality of the writing
I interpret the question correctly or not”
Topic
choice
Difficulties in choosing a “The problem that I found is that the
topic
provided topics are not interesting so I
cannot think of the plot to write and I write
without interested introduction that can
convince the readers to read what I have
written”
APPENDIX M
Academic Writing Course Syllabus
Department of Western Languages and Linguistics
Mahasarakham University
Course: 0105405 Academic Writing (3 credits): Semester: 1/2013
Course description
In this course, you will learn how to write in academic English, which is
required for higher education. We will discuss and practice strategies to make your
writing clear, effective and formal. We will read exemplary writings and discuss
topic selection, thesis statement, essay organization, researching for information,
integrating and citing sources to avoid plagiarism. We will focus on accuracy as well
as fluency in writing by reviewing grammar and sentence structures periodically.
You will get a lot of practice by doing writing activities in class, in group and
individually. You will also give a group presentation in class which is an analysis of
a good piece of writing. At the end of the semester, you will have a collection of your
writings in a portfolio.
Content and activities:
We will use Study Writing: A course in writing skills for academic purposes
by Liz Hamp-Lyons and Ben Heasley published by Cambridge University Press as
the main text. We will focus only on some activities in the book. The list of contents
and activities for each week is as follows.
Tentative schedule
Meeting
Week 1
Contents & activities
Remarks
Introduction to the course
The writing process
Pre-writing activities
Week 2
Features of academic writing
Unit 1
Week 3
Researching and writing
Unit 2
Week 4
Language of comparison and
contrast
Unit 3
Work on draft of Paper 1
Week 5
Argumentative writing
One-on-one
conferences
Unit 4
writing
Week 6
Debate
Unit 5 group presentation starts
Week 7
Writing about arguments
Unit 6
Week 8
Work on draft of Paper 2
Week 9
Unit 10
Week 10
Submission of the practice
writing of the argumentative
essay and feedback on the
practice writing
Week 11
Writing about methods
Unit 7
Week 12
Writing results and discussions
Unit 8
&
Week 13
Week 14
One-on-one
conferences
writing
Week 15
Mini research paper draft due
Week 16
Summary and review
Hw: Prepare for presentations
Week 17
Presentation of your research
paper
Hw: Prepare portfolio
Week 18
Final exam week: Portfolio due
Done! Yay!
Evaluation breakdown
Class attendance and participation
15%
Two major papers
20%
A mini research paper
20%
Quizzes
Portfolio
10%
10%
Group Presentation
5%
Final exam
20%
Grading scale
A
=
85-100
C
=
60-64
B+
=
80-84
D+
=
55-59
B
=
70-79
D
=
50-54
C+
=
65-69
F
=
0-49
Writing requirements:
In this course, you will be completing two major papers and one mini research
paper, written peer responses, in-class writing assignments and a final reflection.
You must submit all writings in your portfolio.
1. The major papers
Paper 1: Expository essay (choose from ‘comparison and contrast or ‘cause and
effect’ or ‘process’)
Paper 2: Argumentative essay
Mini research paper: You will pick a topic and do survey research. Then, write a
report on it. More details will be given during the course.
Each paper will be evaluated on the basis of content, organization, and language use.
For each of the major papers, you will be required to write at least two drafts. On the
first draft, you will receive feedback from your peers (when designated) and
instructor to help you revise. Only the final drafts will be evaluated for a grade.
Complete all assignments to the best of your ability!
2. Written Peer Response/Review: You will be required to respond to your peers’
drafts during the semester. And at the same time, your drafts will be given feedback
from your peers. The peer response session will take place in class, and that means
you need to have your draft of each assignment done before the day the peer
response takes place. If you do not bring your draft on the peer response day, your
paper will be marked down one letter grade.
3. Final Reflection: You will be asked to evaluate yourself after completing the four
papers and other assignments. Detailed instruction will be given of how to write this
paper.
4. In-class writing assignments: You will be assigned to write in several activities in
class, sometimes individually, sometimes in pair or group. Keep a copy of your work
for your portfolio.
5. You will keep a notebook for this course to write down what you have learned. In
this notebook, you should take notes of any lectures, or presentations your classmates
make, write down any ideas you have for your papers, do pre-writing activities, write
down any homework assigned, and any new words you learn from the readings in
and outside of class. This notebook will be a part of your portfolio.