Differentiated effects of reformulation versus reconstruction task on EFL high school students' writing performance within the context of Genre Based instruction

.

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I certify my authorship of the thesis submitted today entitled:

DIFFERENTIATED EFFECTS OF REFORMULATION VERSUS

RECONSTRUCTION TASKS ON EFL STUDENTS’ WRITING

PERFORMANCE

in terms of the statement of the Requirements for the Theses in Master’s Program issued

by the Higher Degree Committee. The thesis has not been submitted for the award of any

degree or diploma in any other institutions.

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2016

NGUYỄN THỊ NGỌC CHÂU

i

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I hereby state that I, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Chau, being the candidate for the degree of Master

of TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of

Master’s Thesis deposited in the Library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library

should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal

conditions established by the Library for the care, loan or reproduction of thesis.

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2016

NGUYỄN THỊ NGỌC CHÂU

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express her sincere appreciation and gratitude to those who have

advised and assisted throughout this research project.

First of all, I send my greatest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Nguyen Thu Huong, for his

encouragement and guidance throughout the research. I owe him for his resources and

time reading the drafts, helping with the statistical analyses of the data as well as

discussing the results with me. His kind support, explanation, and comments have

encouraged me to complete this project. Without his excellent academic guidance and

support, my thesis would not have been possible.

Secondly, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all lecturers in the Ho Chi Minh

City Open University who provided me with invaluable sources of knowledge during my

study there and all the staff members of the Department of Post Graduate Studies for their

help during the course. Especially, I would like to express my great thanks to Dr. Pham

Vu Phi Ho as a devoted counsellor for my class TESOL7 whose advice, support and

encouragement are significant to us.

Thirdly, I am very grateful to the Board of Directors of Nguyen Quang Dieu Gifted High

School for creating all the best conditions for me to take this MA course and finish the

thesis.

Also, I would like to thank all of my English-majored students from Cohort 4, who took

part in this research, for their great efforts to complete various tests and questionnaires.

This thesis would not have been completed without their outstanding cooperation.

iii

I also would like to acknowledge my colleagues and friends who directly or indirectly

contributed to my thesis. My deep gratitude goes to Mr. Nguyen Dang Hoang Duy, for

his invaluable supports in sharing the challenges at work so that I could devote time to

completing the thesis. I owe my thanks to Mr. Nguyen Dang Hoang Duy, Mr. Le Xuan

Ho, Ms. Mai Hong Ngoc who helped me with grading the post-tests.

Finally, I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to my parents, family members whose

prayers, love and best wishes were a source of inspiration, encouragement and motivation

for me as I was successfully completing this study.

iv

ABSTRACT

Written communication is an issue that EFL teachers have to address within the setting of

internationalization. Genre-based writing instruction has been suggested after some

inadequacies have been found concerning the product and process-based approach to

writing teaching. Different methods of genre-based writing instruction have been

introduced; however, few studies have focused on the effects of the application of

reformulation and reconstruction tasks. An experimental study was attempted to find out

the differentiated impacts of the two types of tasks on EFL high school students’ writing

performance on their attitudes to writing in the light of genre-based writing instruction.

A single group of students with a stratification of three levels of proficiency were

conveniently selected to join two phases of the study. The reformulation tasks were

introduced in Phase 2, experimental time while reconstruction tasks were implemented in

the control time in Phase 1. The quantitative data from the pretest and the post-test of the

two phases were analyzed to find out whether or not students made progress over ten

weeks in their writing ability. Also, the qualitative data acquired from a questionnaire￾based survey after the treatment and students’ written feedback were considered to get

more insights into the extent of confidence and challenge experienced by the students

when the tasks were applied. The study shed light into the role of noticing in introducing

the different aspects of discourse types (genres) in teaching writing to high school

students.

v

TABLE OF CONTENT

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY ...................................................................................i

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS.......................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................iii

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS AND FIGURES ...............................................................xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 1

1.1. Background of the Problem ...................................................................................... 1

1.1.1. An overview of writing approaches proposed by theorists and practitioners.... 1

1.1.2. Writing Teaching and Curriculum in the Study Setting .................................... 4

1.2. Aims of the Study ..................................................................................................... 6

1.3. Research Questions................................................................................................... 7

1.4. Research Hypothesis................................................................................................. 7

1.5. Significance of the Study.......................................................................................... 8

1.6. Organization of the Study ......................................................................................... 8

1.7. Definition of Terms................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................... 10

2.1. Views and Trends in Teaching Writing................................................................. 10

2.2. Writing Approaches in the History of L2 Composition Teaching ......................... 11

2.2.1. Product approach.............................................................................................. 11

2.2.2. Process approach.............................................................................................. 12

2.2.3. Genre-based approach..................................................................................... 15

2.2.3.1. The concept of genre in the SFL view ....................................................... 15

2.2.3.2. The properties of three approaches to genre ............................................. 16

2.2.3.3. Characteristics of genre properties............................................................. 18

vi

2.2.3.4. The positive and negative sides of the genre-based approach ................... 20

2.3. A comparison of writing approaches...................................................................... 20

2.4. Reconstruction and Reformulation. ....................................................................... 23

2.4.1. Reconstruction.................................................................................................. 23

2.4.2. Reformulation .................................................................................................. 24

2.4.3. Properties of “Focus on Form” ( RF) and Focus on Forms (RC) ................... 25

2.4.4. Studies on RC and RF..................................................................................... 26

2.4.5. Explicit and Implicit Instruction ...................................................................... 30

2.4.5.1. A distinction between implicit and explicit instruction ............................. 30

2.4.5.2. An overview of formal instruction from previous studies ......................... 31

2.4.5.3. The correlation among implicit and explicit instruction, implicit and

explicit learning, implicit and explicit knowledge .................................................. 33

2.5. The genre-based approach applied in the study...................................................... 35

2.5.1. Writing teaching in the study setting ............................................................... 35

2.5.2. The Sydney School applied in the study setting .............................................. 35

2.5.3. The argumentative essays in the study............................................................. 38

2.5.4. The application of genre-based approach to teaching English writing at the

study setting ............................................................................................................... 39

2.6. The conceptual framework ..................................................................................... 40

2.7. Chapter summary.................................................................................................... 42

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY..................................................................................... 43

3.1. Research Design...................................................................................................... 43

3.2. Research Site........................................................................................................... 43

3.3. Teaching Materials.................................................................................................. 44

3.4. Research Participants.............................................................................................. 44

3.5. Data Types and Methods of data collection............................................................ 45

3.5.1. Experiment ....................................................................................................... 45

3.5.2. Tests ................................................................................................................. 46

vii

3.5.2.1. Proficiency test........................................................................................... 46

3.5.2.2. Writing post-test 1 and post-test 2.............................................................. 46

3.5.3. Journals ............................................................................................................ 47

3.5. 4. Questionnaires................................................................................................. 47

3.5. 5. Reliability of the questionnaire ....................................................................... 49

3.6. Experimental teaching process ............................................................................... 50

3.6.1. Pre-treatment stage........................................................................................... 52

3.6.2 Treatment stage ................................................................................................. 52

3.6.21. Reconstruction............................................................................................. 52

3.6.2.2. Reformulation............................................................................................. 52

3.6.2.3. Speaking-writing activities........................................................................ 53

3.6.3. Post-treatment stage ......................................................................................... 54

3.6.4. A comparison between RC’ s and RF’ s procedures ...................................... 54

3.7. Data collection ........................................................................................................ 56

3.8. Methods of analysis ................................................................................................ 56

3.8.1 Descriptive values............................................................................................. 57

3.8.1.1 Frequency (f) ............................................................................................... 57

3.8.1.2 Percentage (%) ............................................................................................ 57

3.8.1.3. Mean........................................................................................................... 57

3.8.1.4. Standard deviation (S.D.) ........................................................................... 58

3.8.1.5. Bivariate Correlation .................................................................................. 58

3.8.2. Analysis of students’ essays.............................................................................. 58

3.8.3 Descriptive data analysis of post-tests .............................................................. 59

3.8.4. Descriptive data analysis of questionnaire...................................................... 60

3.8.5. Textual analysis of journals ............................................................................. 60

3.9. Scoring criteria........................................................................................................ 62

3.9.1. Scoring for the OPT ......................................................................................... 62

viii

3.9.2. Scoring for writing post-tests........................................................................... 62

3.10. Chapter summary.................................................................................................. 63

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ....................................... 64

4.1. Results in the writing tests...................................................................................... 64

4.1.1. Statistical analysis of test results among the three groups............................... 64

4.1.1.1. Statistical analysis on group High level during Post-test 1 and Post-test2.65

4.1.1.2. Statistical analysis on group Middle level during Post-test 1 and Post-test2.

................................................................................................................................. 66

4.1.1.3. Statistical analysis on group Low level during Post-test 1 and Post-test2. 67

4.1.1.4. Statistical analysis of test results among the three groups......................... 68

4.1.2. Statistical analysis of writing abilities among three groups............................. 70

4.1.2.1. High level group......................................................................................... 70

4.1.2.2. Middle level group ..................................................................................... 71

4.1.2.3. Low level group.......................................................................................... 72

4.1.2.4. Statistical analyses on three groups’ writing abilities after three tests....... 72

4.2. Results on the relationship between language proficiency and writing

performance ................................................................................................................... 78

4.3. Results from journals and questionnaire................................................................. 81

4.3.1. Participants’ background.................................................................................. 82

4.3.2. Students’ attitudes toward RC and RF............................................................. 83

4.3.3. Students’ affection, confidence and challenges on RC phase.......................... 84

4.3.3.1. Students’ keenness and confidence on RC phase....................................... 84

4.3.3. 2. Students’ anxiety and challenges on RC phase ......................................... 86

4.3.4. Students’ affection, confidence and challenges on RF phase .......................... 88

4.3.4.1. Students’ keenness on RF phase ................................................................ 88

4.3.4.2. Students’ confidence on RF phase ............................................................. 89

ix

4.3.4.3. Students’ anxiety and challenges on RF phase ......................................... 90

4.3.5. Reasons for students’ priority in Reconstruction phase................................... 93

4.3.6. Reasons for students’ priority in Reformulation phase.................................... 94

4.4. Chapter summary.................................................................................................... 97

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS.......................................................... 98

5.1. Findings on research questions............................................................................... 98

5.1.1. Students’ writing achievement......................................................................... 98

5.1.2. The relationship between language proficiency and writing performance ...... 99

5.1.3. Students’ reflection on the innovation ............................................................. 99

5.2. Findings on writing notification to teaching writing ............................................ 103

5.2.1. The “ visibility” of the sample essays in RF tasks......................................... 103

5.2.2. The role of implicitness in RF tasks............................................................... 103

5.3. Findings on the innovative roles........................................................................... 104

5.3.1. New teaching approach .................................................................................. 105

5.3.2. New teacher’s role.......................................................................................... 105

5.3.3. New learners’ role and opportunity ............................................................... 106

5.3.4. New curriculum designer’s role ..................................................................... 107

5.4. Chapter summary.................................................................................................. 107

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....... 108

6.1. Summary of key findings ......................................................................................... 108

6.2. Implications........................................................................................................... 109

6.3. Limitations............................................................................................................ 111

6.4. Recommendations for further research................................................................. 112

6.5 Chapter summary................................................................................................... 112

REFERENCE .................................................................................................................. 114

APPENDIX 1: MARKING SCALE FOR GRADERS’ EVALUATION....................... 119

APPENDIX 2: A SUMMARY OF WRITING TASKS AND GENRES INVOLVED . 122

APPENDIX 3A: PROFICIENCY TEST......................................................................... 124

APPENDIX 3B: PROFICIENCY TEST SCORES......................................................... 132

x

APPENDIX 4A: POST-TEST 1...................................................................................... 133

APPENDIX 4B: SCORES OF POST-TEST 1................................................................ 133

APPENDIX 4B: POST-TEST 2 ...................................................................................... 134

APPENDIX 4B: SCORES OF POST-TEST 2................................................................ 134

APPENDIX 5A: POST-TEST ESSAYS FROM HG...................................................... 136

APPENDIX 5B: POST-TESTS FROM MG................................................................... 141

APPENDIX 5C: POST-TESTS FROM LG.................................................................... 146

APPENDIX 6A: (ENGLISH VERSION) ...................................................................... 152

APPENDIX 6B: (VIETNAMESE VERSION)............................................................... 159

APPENDIX 7: THE RECAST ........................................................................................ 166

APPENDIX 8: IN-CLASS WRITING............................................................................ 167

APPENDIX 9: CLASSROOM HANDOUTS................................................................. 168

xi

LIST OF TABLES, CHARTS AND FIGURES

TABLES

Table 2.4.5.1: Imlicit and explicit instruction…………………………………………27

Table 2.4.5.2b: Some characteristics of formal instruction …………………………...29

Table 2.4.5.3: Typical tasks for investigating two types of learning ………………... 30

Table 3.4: Group Attribution according to proficiency test scores……………………41

Table 3.8a: Structure and aim of the questionaire……………………………………. 50

Table 3.9b: Description of Reliability Statistics of the Questionnaire……………….. 51

Table 3.13.2: Writing scores in the study…………………………………………….. 58

Table 4.1.1.1.a: High level group statistics of three test results…………………… . 60

Table 4.1.1.2a: Description of test scores from Middle level among three tests….... 61

Table 4.1.1.3.a. Description of test scores from Low level among two tests…… .... 62

Table 4.1.1.4a: Description of test results among three groups……………………… 63

Table 4.1.2.1.Description of writing abilities in High-proficiency Group……… 65

Table 4.1.2.2: Description of writing abilities in Middle level Group……………… .. 66

Table 4.1.2.3: Description of writing abilities in Low level Group………………… .. 66

Table 4.1.2.4: Summary of the table and chart on three groups’ writing abilities after

three tests …………………………………………………………………………… .. 67

Table 4.1.2.10: Correlations on the relationship between port-test 1 and post-test 2…71

Table 4.2.1: Pearson correlation coefficient results between proficiency and post-test 2

........................................................................................................................................ 73

Table 4.2.2: Spearman correlation coefficient results between proficiency and post-test

2……………………………………………………………………………………… . 73

Table 4.2.3: Skewness correlation coefficient results between proficiency and post-test

2……………………………………………………………………………………… . 74

Table 4.3.1. Students’ extra classes…………………………………………………... 77

Table 4.3.2.a: Students’ preference for RC and RF………………………………….. 77

Table 4.3.2.b. Students’ affection, confidence and anxiety towards RC and RF…….. 78

xii

Table 4.3.3.1a: Students’ keenness on RC…………………………………………… 80

Table 4.4.3.1b: Students’confidence on RC………………………………………… 80

Table 4.3.3.2: Students’ anxiety and challenges on RC phase……………………….. 81

Table 4.3.4.1. Students’ keeness on RF phase………………………………………... 83

Table 4.3.4. 2. Students’ confidence on RF phase……………………………………. 84

Table 4.3.4.3. Students’ anxiety and challenges on RF phase……………………… 85

Table 4.3.5: Reasons for Reconstruction phase………………………………………. 87

Table 4.3.6: Reasons for Reformulation phase………………………………………. 89

Table 4.3.7: Students’ feedback and recommendation on RC and RF……………….. 90

FIGURES

Figure 2.2.2: The process wheel proposed by Harmer ……………………………… 12

Figure 2.4.5.2a: Types of formal instruction ………………………………………… 28

Figure 2.5.2: Demonstration of Teaching and learning cycle ……………………… .. 34

Figure 2.6: The conceptual framework……………………………………………….. 37

Figure 3.6.2.3: The Discussion Clock ……………………………………………… .. 46

Figure 4.1.1.1.b: High-proficiency group’s writing scores between two post-tests….. 61

Figure 4.1.1.2b: Middle-proficiency group’s writing scores between two post-tests…62

Figure 4.1.1.3b: Low-proficiency group’s writing scores between two post-tests……63

Figure 4.1.1.4.b: Summary of students’ achievement among three groups ………… . 64

Figure 4.2.4:Scattergram showing relationships between proficiency and post-test 2

........................................................................................................................................ 75

Figure 4.2.5: Scattergram showing groups’ performance at proficiency test………75

Figure 4.2.6: Scattergram showing groups’ performance at post-test 2…………… 76

CHARTS

Chart 4.1.2.5. Improvements of content ………………………………………………68

Chart 4.1.2.6. Improvements of organization ………………………………………... 69

Chart 4.1.2.7. Improvement of vocabulary ………………………………………… 69

Chart 4.1.2.8. Improvement of language use ………………………………………… 70

Chart 4.1.2.9. Improvements of mechanics………………………………………… . 71

xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CEFR : Common European Framework Reference

EAP : English for Academic Purpose

EFL : English as a Foreign Language

ELT : English Language Teaching

ESA : Engage-Study- Activate

ESP : English for Specific Purpose

FFI : Form-focused instruction

L1 : First language

L2 : Second language

LG : Low-proficiency group

M : Mean

MA : Master of Arts

MOET : Ministry of Education and Training

MG : Mid-proficiency group

HG : High-proficiency group

OPT : Oxford Placement Test

RC : Reconstruction

RF : Reformulation

SD : Standard Deviation

SFL : Systemic Functional Linguistics

SPSS : Statistical Package for Social Sciences

WTO : World Trade Organization

xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Sir Francis Bacon, in the Essays or Counsels Civil & Moral of Francis Bacon (1625)

wrote, “ Reading makes a full man; Conference a ready man and Writing an exact man”.

Writing is in deed an essential skill for students of English as a Second Language (ESL)

and English as a Foreign Language ( EFL), which is not restricted to a particular age

group. Also, writing proves its pivotal role not only in school curriculum, in currently

required examination but also in real life. Writing in high school curriculum is regarded

as one of the four required language skills so as to serve as a foundation for acquiring

English competence in tertiary education. To meet the requirement of written

communication in the setting of internationalization and globalization, high school

teachers in Vietnamese context have applied lots of writing approaches proposed by

theorists and practitioners. However, the effectiveness of writing approaches in

Vietnamese context has not been distinctly confirmed so far. Similarly, students in

Nguyen Quang Dieu gifted high school have often encountered such difficulties as idea

development, organization and other writing problems though they have been presented

plenty of linguistic knowledge and experienced various writing approaches. This reason

has incited the researcher to get involved in the study to seek for the application of the

innovation tasks in writing teaching which might respond the satisfaction of learners’

needs and expectation.

1.1. Background of the Problem

1.1.1. An overview of writing approaches proposed by theorists and practitioners

The two last decades witnessed the major changes in the teaching of writing. The three

major movements were brought out to meet the new requirements: “ Focus on Form”, “

Focus on the writer” and “ Focus on the reader” (Tribble, 2006, p.44 ) and lots of studies

were done to shed some light on writing practicality. Both process approach and genre

1