An investigation into teachers perceptions and practice of applying discourse based activities in teaching writing skills to english majors at hucfl

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES, HUE UNIVERSITY --- NGUYEN HOANG BAO KHANH AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND PRACTICE OF APPLYING DISCO

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES, HUE UNIVERSITY

-

NGUYEN HOANG BAO KHANH

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’

PERCEPTIONS AND PRACTICE OF APPLYING DISCOURSE-BASED ACTIVITIES

IN TEACHING WRITING SKILLS TO ENGLISH MAJORS AT HUFL

MA THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY

OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts,

Hue University of Foreign Languages

HUE, 2019

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES, HUE UNIVERSITY

-

NGUYEN HOANG BAO KHANH

AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’

PERCEPTIONS AND PRACTICE OF APPLYING DISCOURSE-BASED ACTIVITIES

IN TEACHING WRITING SKILLS TO

ENGLISH MAJORS AT HUFL

MA THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY

OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

CODE: 8140111

SUPERVISOR: DO THI XUAN DUNG, Ph.D

HUE, 2019

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO

ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ

-

NGUYỄN HOÀNG BẢO KHANH

ĐIỀU TRA VỀ NHẬN THỨC CỦA GIÁO VIÊN

VÀ THỰC TẾ ỨNG DỤNG CÁC HOẠT ĐỘNG DỰA VÀO DIỄN NGÔN TRONG DẠY VIẾT CHO SINH VIÊN CHUYÊN NGÀNH TIẾNG ANH

TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ,

ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ

LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC

BỘ MÔN TIẾNG ANH

MÃ SỐ: 8140111

NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN KHOA HỌC:

TS ĐỖ THỊ XUÂN DUNG

HUẾ, 2019

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP

The work contained in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, my thesis contains no material previously published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself

Signed:

Date:…… /………/…

ABSTRACT

For long, Discourse competence has been considered a constituent part of different models of Communicative competence, and developing learners' knowledge of discourse is crucial in teaching language communicatively Strong evidence regarding the positive impacts of discourse pedagogy on English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' overall English proficiency has accumulated in different contexts worldwide However, in Vietnam, there is a dearth of studies that look into the integration of discourse knowledge and implementation of discourse-based activities in teaching EFL writing This paper presents an investigation into teacher's perceptions and practice of applying discourse-based activities in teaching writing to English majors at University of Foreign languages, Hue University (henceforth HUFL) It was conducted following the mixed methods design, with the participation of 30 teachers from different departments of the school, mainly English Department and Department of English for Specific Purposes Data were collected by means

of questionnaire, interview, and class observation, and then analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively Results of the study reveal that teachers hold

an overall positive perception about the benefits of discourse-based activities in teaching writing communicatively to English majors, especially in the Organizational and Communicative aspects Furthermore, the research points out that teachers utilize discourse-based activities on a relatively frequent basis, and the purpose of using these activities is mainly to teach the Organizational and Communicative aspects of writing, which is in line with the aforementioned finding, suggesting a firm correlation between teachers’ perceptions and practice The conclusion and implications drawn from the findings emphasize the role of different agents (teachers, curriculum developers, course book writers, and educational institution) in promoting the integration of discourse-based activities in EFL teaching

Keywords: EFL writing, Discourse, Discourse-based activities

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Do Thi Xuan Dung With her professional experience and wide knowledge about the field of research conducting in general and Discourse-based teaching in particular, she has constantly pr5ovided me with attentive guidance, insightful comments, and constant encouragement throughout all stages of the research Had it not been for her inexhaustible patience and invaluable advice, this research paper could not have been successfully completed

Secondly, I would also like to express my profound gratitude towards the teachers of Hue University of Foreign Languages who participated in the data collection stages Thanks to their active and enthusiastic participation, I was able

to obtain the valuable data needed for this research

My heartfelt thanks also go to Ms Truong Thanh Bao Tran, Ms Ton Nu Hoang Minh Tam, and Ms Ho Thi Nhu, who spent their precious time discussing with me, and offering me substantial assistance throughout

Last but not least, I am deeply indebted to my loving family Their unconditional love and support has been a huge source of motivation for me during the tough time of conducting the thesis

Hue, October 15th, 2019 Nguyen Hoang Bao Khanh

TABLES OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP i

ABSTRACT ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

TABLES OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Research background 1

1.2 Research rationale 2

1.3 Research aims 2

1.4 Research questions 3

1.5 Research scope 3

1.6 Significance of the study 3

1.7 Research structure 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 4

2.1 Writing as a communication skill in language learning 4

2.1.1 The nature and importance of writing skills 4

2.1.2 Teaching and learning writing skills in the EFL context 5

2.2 Discourse in linguistics 9

2.2.1 Discourse 9

2.2.2 Discourse competence as an integral part of communicative competence 10

2.2.3 Discourse knowledge in teaching writing 14

2.2.4 Previous studies on the application of discourse-based activities in ELF classroom 19

2.3 Chapter summary 21

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 21

3.1 Research approach and design 22

3.2 Participants 22

3.3 Data collection instruments 23

3.3.1 Questionnaire 23

3.3.2 Interview 25

3.3.3 Class observation 25

3.4 Data collection procedure 25

3.4.1 Administering the questionnaire 25

3.4.2 Administering the interview 26

3.4.3 Observing classes 26

3.5 Data analysis methods 27

3.6 Chapter summary 27

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 28

4.1 Teachers’ perceptions towards the implementation of discourse-based activities in teaching writing skills to English majors 28

4.1.1 Teachers’ evaluation of students’ difficulties in learning writing 28 4.1.2 Teachers’ level of familiarity and theoretical understanding about the concepts of discourse and discourse-based activities 31

4.1.3 Teachers’ level of familiarity with different discourse-based activities 33

4.1.4 Teachers’ evaluation of the necessity to integrate different aspects of discourse knowledge in teaching writing skills 34

4.1.5 Teachers’ perceptions of the possible use of different discourse-based activitites in teaching writing skills 37

4.2 Teachers’ practice of applying discourse-based activities in teaching writing skills for HUFL English majors 39

4.2.1 Teachers’ frequency of using discourse-based activities in teaching the four skills 39

4.2.2 Teachers’ frequency of using different discourse-based activities in teaching writing 39

4.2.3 Teachers’ reflections on the benefits brought by the practice of using discourse-based activities in teaching and learning to write 44

4.2.4 Teachers’ reflections on the difficulties brought by the practice of

using discourse-based activities in teaching and learning to write 45

4.3 Teachers’ suggestions on ways to effectively integrate discourse-based activities in teaching writing skills for HUFL English majors 47

4.4 Chapter summary 50

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 51

5.1 Summary of the key findings 51

5.1.1 Teachers’ perceptions of using discourse-based activities in teaching writing 51

5.1.2 Teachers’ practice of using discourse-based activities in teaching writing 52

5.2 Research Implications 53

5.2.1 Implications for teachers 53

5.2.2 Implications for students 54

5.2.3 Implications for administrators 54

5.3 Limitations and suggestions for further research 55

REFERENCES 56

APPENDICES 62

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Demographic information of the questionnaire participants 23 Table 3.2: Description of Part B of the questionnaire 24 Table 3.3: Detailed information of the observed samples 27 Table 4.1: Teachers theoretical understanding of the concepts of discourse and discourse-based activities 32 Table 4.2: Teachers’ level of familiarity with different discourse-based

activities 34 Table 4.3: Teachers’ suggestions on ways to effectively integrate discourse-based activities in teaching writing skills for HUFL English majors 48

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: What does a person learn when writing in a second or foreign language 6 Figure 2.2: Schematic Representation of Communicative Competence 13 Figure 4.1: Teachers’ evaluation of students’ difficulties in learning writing 29 Figure 4.2: Teachers’ level of familiarity with the notions of discourse and discourse-based activities 31 Figure 4.3: Teachers’ evaluation of the necessity to integrate different aspects

of discourse knowledge in teaching writing skills 35 Figure 4.4: Teachers’ evaluation of the relevance of discourse knowledge in teaching specific writing skills 36 Figure 4.5: Teachers’ perceptions of the possible use of different discourse-based activitites in teaching writing skills 38 Figure 4.6: Teachers’ frequency of using discourse-based activities in

teaching the four skills 39 Figure 4.7: Teachers’ frequency of using specific discourse-based activities in teaching writing 40 Figure 4.8: Teachers’ frequency of using discourse-based activities in teaching specific writing skills 42 Figure 4.9: Teachers’ reflections on the benefits brought by the practice of using discourse-based activities in teaching and learning to write 45 Figure 4.10: Teachers’ reflections on the difficulties brought by the practice of using discourse-based activities in teaching and learning to write 46

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

First of all, this chapter provides the readers with an introduction to the background and rationale that highlights the need for the present research Next, the research objectives are presented along with the questions it set out to answer Then, the chapter elaborates on the research scope and how it would contribute to the field Lastly, a brief description of the paper’s structure is presented

1.1 Research background

The role of English has become increasingly prominent in today’s world Particularly in Vietnam, a good command of English opens doors for a multitude of opportunities in terms of employment, business, and higher education This has led to a growing demand for English language learning among Vietnamese In academic settings, Vietnamese EFL learners’ competence in writing is strongly emphasized, yet this productive skill has long poses great challenges to learners

Writing has always been considered a challenging task in language production, even for native speakers of the language In the case of foreign language learning, particularly in the EFL context, student writers have to face with a multitude of problems, which makes the process of writing even more daunting to them According to Celce-Murcia and Yoo (2014), one of the central problems that hinder EFL learners’ development in writing is their lack of knowledge in discourse, i.e the use of language in context That is, at a sentence-level, they might be able to construct correct sentences on the basis of their existing knowledge about grammar and vocabulary However, when the whole written product is examined at a discourse-level, weaknesses such as lack

of coherence, incorrect use of lexical items, or monotonous repetition of grammatical structures, can be observed

Vietnamese EFL learners are not exceptions to this situation Although the communicative approach to teaching has been adopted for years, it can be observed from the actual teaching and learning practices in Vietnamese EFL classrooms that language forms are still given more focus as compared to language meanings Generally, important factors that need to be considered in the writing process such as contexts, audience, and purposes for writing, seem

to be inadequately addressed by teachers It is often the case that students practice writing with the mindset that a text without grammatical mistakes is a good one As a result, even EFL students at tertiary level suffer from apparent weaknesses that hinder them from composing meaningful texts at length Hence, for teaching and learning practices to truly reflect the communicative

approach, modern Vietnamese EFL teachers have to assist learners in

developing other aspects of writing besides the grammatical one

1.2 Research rationale

Many researchers have stressed the importance of knowledge of discourse

in the teaching and learning English communicatively Birjandi, Alavi, and Salmani-Nodoushan (2004) underlined that while it is important for learners to master micro skills in writing (grammar rules and vocabulary), these are just the elementary prerequisites to be a competent writer In order for one to write well

in English, he or she also needs to obtain an operational system of macro skills (knowledge of discourse structure and of background information related to the topic)

In the past, knowledge of discourse did not use to receive a sufficient amount of attention in EFL classrooms Instructions in class normally focused more on language forms rather than language meanings, which consequently resulted in learner’s inability to put what they learn in context Additionally, as noted by Celce-Murcia & Olshtain (2000), it was often the case that EFL learners received instructions of grammar and vocabulary which were at sentence-level

In these days, the matter of how to effectively integrate discourse knowledge into the teaching and learning process has become of utmost importance in EFL writing pedagogy with various attempts being made by researchers worldwide to justify the impacts of applying discourse knowledge

in ELF writing lessons To date, however, no studies in the context of Vietnam have investigated the ways teachers perceive as well as practice using discourse-based activities that focus on language use at the text level Thereby, the present

paper AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND

PRACTICE OF APPLYING DISCOURSE-BASED ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING WRITING SKILLS TO ENGLISH MAJORS AT HUFL is

needed to fill the gap

1.3 Research aims

The research sets out to accomplish the following 3 objectives:

(1) To explore the teachers’ perceptions of applying discourse-based activities in teaching writing to English majors at HUFL

(2) To discover the teachers’ practice of applying discourse-based activities in teaching writing to English majors at HUFL

(3) To recommend the efficient ways to integrate discourse-based activities into teaching and learning EFL writing at tertiary level

(2) How do the teachers of HUFL make use of discourse-based activities

in teaching writing skills for HUFL English majors?

1.5 Research scope

The research aims to investigate teachers’ perceptions and practice of employing discourse-based activities in teaching writing to English majors at HUFL, hence, it was carried out with the participation of EFL teachers from different departments of the university

1.6 Significance of the study

It is the researcher’s hope that through this study, new insights are gained regarding how Vietnamese EFL writing teachers, particularly those at HUFL, perceive and practice using discourse-based activities in their teaching Both advantages and difficulties of using discourse-based activities are reflected through the findings of this study, hence contributing to raise teachers’ awareness of how Discourse pedagogy can enhance language competence of learners, and of the problems that might arise in the application process Furthermore, findings of this research can act as a useful source of reference for educational administrators, researchers, or students who are interested in the fields of Discourse pedagogy and EFL writing

1.7 Research structure

Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION sets up the context that gives rise to the

need for this research, stating the aims and questions of the research, and

outlining its’ significance Chapter 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW summarizes

and analyzes previous work on the field of Discourse pedagogy and its interface with teaching EFL writing, addressing in detail what has been done and what

will be done with this research Chapter 3 – METHODOLOGY describes the

design, participants, instruments, as well as procedure used in this study

Chapter 4 - FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION presents the analyses and

discussion of the data collected Chapter 5 - CONCLUSION AND

IMPLICATIONS gives closure to the study by providing concluding answers

to the research questions, suggesting practical applications and outlining ideas for future studies

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents an overview of previous work in the fields of ELF teaching of writing skills and of Discourse in linguistics Through this, the interface of Discourse and EFL Writing skills is revealed, as well as the knowledge gap that motivates the present paper is highlighted

2.1 Writing as a communication skill in language learning

2.1.1 The nature and importance of writing skills

Writing is a sophisticated mental process exclusive to human beings Through writing, we are capable of recording our ideas and thoughts on paper, allowing for later reading and revision Chakraverty and Gautum (2000) defined writing as “a reflective activity that requires enough time to think about the specific topic and to analyse and classify any background knowledge Then, writers need a suitable language to structure these ideas in the form of a coherent discourse” (p.286) It is widely accepted that writing is the most demanding aspect of language production To articulate a good piece of writing, one needs

to go through a multi-stage process According to Hedge (2000), writing

“involves a number of activities: setting goals, generating ideas, organising information, selecting appropriate language, making a draft, reading and reviewing it, then revising and editing” (p 124)

Perhaps the most defining characteristic of writing is that it is a learnt skill that demands thorough understanding and hard practice (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996) This feature distinguishes writing from the other productive skill – speaking While an exellent command of speaking skills can be acquired via living in one’s home country, the ability to produce good written texts does not come naturally (Zinsser, 2006) According to Zinsser, “good writing does not come naturally [ ] Writing is hard work A clear sentence is no accident Very few sentences come out right the first time, or even the third time” (p.9) In writing, the written language is the only resource with which one can employ to get his or her ideas across Without the aid from other media such as prosody or body language, it is inevitable that great attention must be paid on the use of written language while composing a text Ur (1996) opined that when compared

to speaking, much higher standards of language use is demanded in the writing process She then elaborated on those standards, which include “more careful construction, more precise and varied vocabulary, and more correctness of expressions in general” (p.163)

Practicing writing yields a broad array of advantages to us Along with the ability to listen, read, and speak, being able to compose written texts appropriate for different purposes is an essential skill to master for both native speakers and language learners Besides being an effective means to express ideas, writing also serves as an opportunity to develop one’s overall language command

Alfaki (2015) held the view that through practicing writing, we learn the

language and have a chance to adventure with what have been learnt Particularly, in the field of teaching and learning English as a foreign language (henceforth EFL), the role of writing skills has become more and more preponderant Previous research has provided strong evidence in support of the view that writing competence of an EFL learner takes a decisive role in his or her competence in other skills (Carson, Carrell, Silberstein, Kroll, & Kuehn, 1990; Heffernan, 2006; Fageeh, 2011; Williams, 2012) In the section that follows, the teaching and learning of this important productive skill in the EFL

context shall be elaborated further

2.1.2 Teaching and learning writing skills in the EFL context

2.1.2.1 Aspects of EFL writing skills

Learning to write in a foreign language does not merely mean learning to compose strings of sentences using the language’s linguistic resource (Berninger, Garcia, & Abbott, 2009) EFL writers have to equip themselves with skills from different aspects in order to produce texts that are linguistically correct, semantically meaningful, and culturally appropriate

According to Kantor (2012), the quality of written compositions is measured on 3 distinctive levels: word, sentence, and discourse; hence, one must learn how to simultaneously satisfy the criterion of these 3 aspects when learning to write At the most minimal level- word level, student writers are assessed based on the range and accuracy of their lexical resources and writing mechanics At the sentence level, they must learn syntactic rules and intra-sentential connectives, to produce correct and meaningful single sentences Finally, at the discourse level, emphasis is put on how ideas are organized, how different sentences are connected in a fluent manner, as well as how conventions

of writing samples are conformed to

In his article Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research, Cumming (2001, p.3) systematically outlined the key aspects of

learning to write in a second or foreign language that he had accumulated from previous work on the field of writing pedagogy His system of writing aspects

is described in Figure 2.1 as follows

Figure 2.1: What does a person learn when writing in a second or foreign language

According to Cumming (2001), the integral aspects of learning to write in

a second or foreign language are threefold, including “(a) features of the text that people produce, (b) the composing processes that people use while they write, and (c) the sociocultural contexts in which people write” (p.2) With each aspect, he asserts that learners need to adopt both micro and macro perspectives, which views the written products either as relatively local or more global and holistic respectively

2.1.2.2 Main approaches to teach EFL writing

In the context of foreign language production, learners’ mastery of writing skill requires not only enormous efforts on the part of the learners but also effective teaching approaches on the part of the teachers Various approaches to teach writing have been put forward and applied in the EFL writing classroom, each with different focuses and aims The reviewed literature has narrowed down 3 major approaches of teaching writing skills to EFL learners, which are briefly described below

The product approach: A product-driven writing classroom puts the major

emphasis on accuracy, that is, students are expected to produce written texts that are error-free Gabriellatos (2000) defined this approach as “a traditional approach, in which students are encouraged to mimic a model text, which is usually presented and analyzed at an early stage” (p.5) Steele (as cited in Hasan

Attention to ideas & language Revising concurrently

community

& Akhand, 2010, p.78) described a typical product-oriented writing session as consisting of four steps:

Step one: The teacher draws learners’ attention on targeted features of the lesson through provided model texts that contain those features

Step two: Controlled practice is carried out individually

Step three: Learners practice organizing ideas in a coherent manner Step four: Learners use the linguistic features and ideas organization draft from the previous stages to compose the final product

The process approach: As its name suggests, this approach focuses more

on the process of writing rather than merely on the final written product During the process, the teacher acts as a facilitator, assisting learners throughout different stages from planning ideas, drafting, and revising the texts This approach differs from the product one in the sense that the final product is not preconceived, and producing perfectly correct pieces of writing is not the ultimate goal (Hasan & Akhand, 2010) In discussing the definition of this concept, Kroll (2001) opined that:

What the term captures is the fact that student writers engage in their writing tasks through a cyclical approach rather than a single-shot approach They are not expected to produce and submit complete and polished responses to their writing assignments without going through stages of drafting and receiving feedback on their drafts, be it from peers and/or from the teacher, followed by revision of their evolving texts (p.220-221)

The genre approach: Audience and context are the 2 focal points of genre

approach in teaching writing Proponents of this instructional approach hold the view that “writing is a social and cultural practice” (Hasan & Akhand, 2010, p.81) Written texts are essentially communicative events between writers and readers, composed to achieve certain communicative purposes Munice (2002) argued that in order for a piece of writing to be accepted by its intended readers, the writer must inform himself about the conventions of his target readership The work of EFL teachers following this approach, then, is to familiarize student writers with the conventional discourse patterns of different text types (Myskow & Gordon, 2009) Ahlsén and Lundh (as cited in Al-Hammadi & Sidek, 2015) opined that “In order to successfully implement the genre-based approach, English teachers must suggest several exemplary example texts that show particular examples of the particular text-type to learners in the class” (p.64)

2.1.2.3 EFL students’ difficulties in learning to write

Similar to writing in one’s mother tongue, writing in a foreign language

is, without doubt, the most challenging facet of language learning to more or less all learners Due to its great complexity as discussed above, this productive skill is often reserved for students whose levels are above elementary However, even to an advanced language learner, it is often the case that writing is the most laborious skill to master Several problems that hinder EFL students’ writing process have arisen due to the complex nature of writing itself, classified into psychological, linguistic, and cognitive difficulties (Byrne, 1988)

Psychological difficulties: Communication via speech allows speakers and

listeners to simultaneously interact with each other, as well as to give immediate feedback when necessary (either by verbal means such as questions or comments or non-verbal means such as facial expressions) Communication via written texts, on the other hand, is a solitary activity undertaken by the writer Byrne (1988) explained that the psychological problems of writing stemmed from the readers’ absence in the process Especially, in the case of writing in a language that is not one’s mother tongue, the impossibility of exchaging immediate interactions and feedbacks with the readers is even more daunting to learners

Linguistic difficulties: The linguistic features involved in the composition

of written texts include grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and writing mechanics, all of which belong to the Lexico-grammatical aspect of writing (Solikhah, 2017) Knowledge about these features plays a fundamental role in one’s ability

to write It is often the case that instructions on grammar and vocabulary take

up a large amount of EFL writers’ in-class time, especially those of elementary and intermediate levels Despite this, Mohamed and Zouaoui (2014, p.154) highlighted that “there is a gap between “know what” and “know how”” regarding the learners’ actual use of what have been taught to them in their writings Examples of EFL writers’ most frequently reported linguistic mistakes include subject-verb agreement, run-on or fragmented sentences, and the overuse of sophisticated vocabulary

Cognitive difficulties: The last category of challenges faced by EFL

student writers concerns with one’s ability to organize ideas on paper in a coherent manner so that the written products can be understood by its readers (Byrne, 1988) Nunan (1993) pointed out that writing is a cognitive activity that

is highly complex as learners are expected to be able to control quite a few factors during the process Collins and Gentners (1980) listed out four requirements in terms of structure in a written text; those are word structure,

sentence structure, paragraph structure, and overall text structure They asserted that all of these structural rules are of equal importance; and since learners have

to make efforts to comply with these rules at the same time, the process of writing in a foreign language is made even more complicated Paragraph structure and overall text structure go beyond the level of individual sentences, and even to EFL learners who have good control over linguistic features, these factors can pose considerable challenges (Rico, 2014) West (as cited in Tasi,

2006, p.17) identified students’ most common problem in organizing information within a written text, which is “either the paragraph is not limited

to a single topic or the single topic is not developed or exemplified adequately.” This error in information selecting and structuring would result in fauty interaction between the writers and the readers, a situation when readers cannot decipher the content of the written product (Mohamed & Zouaoui, 2014) Besides the difficulties suggested by Byrne (1988), there is also another task most EFL learners struggle with: that of how to effectively communicate with the targeted readers According to Ivanič (2004), writing events are inseparable from their social factors including purpose, context, and audience Thus, learners need to use their linguistic and organizational knowledge to produce texts appropriate for its targeted readers, achieving the set communicative goals Muncie (as cited in Kim & Kim, 2005) maintained that failure to produce texts which fulfill the expectations of its targeted readers vis-à-vis grammar, organization, and context would cause students to be considered incompetent

2.2 Discourse in linguistics

2.2.1 Discourse

Traditionally, language is perceived as a system of syntactic rules, and the analysis of language is limited to individual, decontextualized sentences The emergence of systemic-functional linguistic (SFL), a theoretical framework devised by Halliday (1994), however, has marked a shift in how language is regarded According to SFL, language is used to serve different functions A competent user of a language, hence, is capable of both constructing well-formed sentences and manipulating sentences at a text level so as to convey meaning that can be comprehended in the intended contexts

In line with Halliday’s model, it can be said that when analyzing language, the relationship between language and the context in which language production takes place is of pivotal importance To refer to the manifestation of language

in its context of use, the term “discourse” is used Particularly, Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) defined the term “discourse” as:

an instance of spoken or written language that has describable internal relationships of form and meaning that relate coherently to an external communicative function or purpose and a given audience/interlocutor Furthermore, the external function or purpose can only be determined if one takes into account the context and participants (i.e., all the relevant situational, social, and cultural factors) in which the piece of discourse occurs (p 4)

From this definition, we can conclude that for a particular stretch of language to be considered a piece of discourse, it must serve a communicative purpose, aiming at a certain group of audience In this sense, language forms and language meanings are inseparable from the context that generates the production of language The relationship between language and its context of use is encompassed in the notion of discourse As Cameron and Kulick (2003) defined it, discourse is “the use of language in specific contexts” (p 29)

When discussing the role of discourse in language production, Hall (2001) maintained that discourse acts as a framework that shapes the conventional way language users express themselves through words To be more specific, he asserted that observation of a collection of discourse offers insights into “certain ways of talking about a topic, defining an acceptable and intelligible way to talk, write or conduct oneself” (p.72) What is more, it also “limits and restricts other ways of talking, of conducting ourselves in relation to the topic or constructing knowledge about it” (p.72)

2.2.2 Discourse competence as an integral part of communicative competence

To have a thorough understanding of the relationship between discourse competence and communicative competence, it is crucial that two concepts of

communicative competence and discourse competence are discussed in some

depth

In the field of modern linguistics, the original introduction of the term

competence is often associated with Chomsky In his influential book Aspects

of the theory of syntax, Chomsky (1965) proposed and made distinctions between the two notions of competence and performance According to Chomsky, competence is defined as “the speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language” (p.4) while performance is “the actual use of language in concrete

situations” (p.4) In other words, from Chomsky’s point of view, the competence of a language user indicates the extent to which he or she understands about the grammatical rules of that language

Chomsky’s viewpoint was later challenged by other linguists who were proponents of the communicative movement in linguistics Hymes (1972) was amongst those who showed a certain extent of disapproval of Chomsky’s ideas

In his paper On communicative competence, Hymes (1972) proposed the concept of communicative competence, which takes into account the

sociolinguistic aspect besides the grammatical aspect According to him, there

are two constituent components of communicative competence: tacid

grammatical knowledge of the language and the ability to use that knowledge

in a diversity of communicative situations He argued that:

The engagement of language in social life has a positive, productive aspect There are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would

be useless Just as rules of syntax can control aspects of phonology, and just as semantic rules perhaps control aspects of syntax, so rules of speech acts enter as a controlling factor for linguistic form as a whole (p.60) Hymes’ initial ideas on the constituents of communicative competence were supported by Canale and Swain (1980), who later developed their own theoretical framework of communicative competence It is in this framework that the concept of discourse competence was first introduced Canale and Swain (1980) identified three kinds of competence, i.e grammatical competence, strategic competence, and sociolinguistic competence, as the elementary components in their framework of communicative competence Grammatical competence is defined by the authors as “knowledge of lexical items and of rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics, and phonology” (p.29) Strategic competence refers to “verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or to insufficient competence” (p.30)

The third component in Canale and Swain’s model is sociolinguistic competence This competence, in its turn, consists of knowledge about sociocultural rules of use and rules of discourse They asserted that knowledge

of sociocultural rules allowed language users to encode and decode utterances appropriate for different communicative events As for knowledge of discourse,

or discourse competence, Canale and Swain originally explained that this concept refers to knowledge of “cohesion (i.e grammatical links) and coherence (i.e appropriate combination of communicative functions) of groups of utterances” (p.30) It should be noted that at that point, the authors realized the necessity for more clear-cut theoretical statements in order to arrive at a concise definition for the concept of discourse competence

Since its first appearance in the literature, the term discourse competence has been redefined by many researchers One of the most prevalent definitions

of the concept is that of Usó-Juan and Martínez-Flor (2006) According to them, discourse competence is “the selection and sequencing of utterances or sentences to achieve a cohesive and coherent spoken or written text given a particular purpose and situational context” (p 17) Over time, discourse competence has gradually gained recognition as one of the major components

of communicative competence in language (Marta & Mureșan, 2016) Just as how there are various models of communicative competence proposed by different researchers, there is also a diversity of opinions regarding the position

of discourse competence in the model of communicative competence

Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurrell (1995) proposed their own model of communicative competence, which realizes discourse competence as the core component In their model, there are five subcompetencies: linguistic, actional, sociocultural, strategic, and discourse The first element – linguistic competence – is defined by the authors to be knowledge of the language’s lexico-grammatical resources including syntax, morphology, phonology, and lexis Actional competence, according to them, is the aptitude to perform as well as understand communicative intention through speech acts The third component – sociocultural competence - takes into account the cultural and social contexts

of communication and refers to the ability of language users to express themselves appropriately within those contexts The concept of strategic competence is explained to be language users’ understanding of different communication strategies and their ability to apply those strategies in actual communication Lastly, discourse competence is defined by Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurrell (1995) as “the selection, sequencing and arrangement of words, structures and utterances to achieve a unified spoken or written text” (p 13) The relationships between these five subcompetencies of communicative

competence are depicted in Figure 2.2 (Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, & Thurrell,

1995, p 10)

Figure 2.2: Schematic Representation of Communicative Competence

As can be seen above in Figure 2.2, the model is envisioned to have an

outer circle surrounding a triangle, with another smaller circle in the center The subcompetencies of linguistic, actional, and sociocultural occupy the three corners of the triangle Discourse competence is positioned in the central circle The three double-headed arrows connecting the central circle with each corner

of the triangle indicate the reciprocal relationship between discourse competence and linguistic, actional, and sociocultural competencies As explained by Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurrell (1995), their communicative competence model “places the discourse component in a position where the lexico-grammatical building blocks, the actional organizing skills of communicative intent, and the socio-cultural context come together and shape the discourse, which, in turn, also shapes each of the other three components” (p 9) Finally, the outer circle surrounding the whole structure is the domain of strategic competence This competence, according to the authors, is an inventory of skills that is ever-present Strategic competence allows a language user to “negotiate messages and resolve problems or to compensate for deficiencies in any of the other underlying competencies” (p.9)

Irrespective of how it is defined and positioned in different models of communicative competence, discourse competence has been widely acknowledged as a crucial part of communicative competence of a language In the domain of second and foreign language learning, the development of discourse competence is argued by Bruce (2008) to be “a key element of an individual’s overall communicative competence” (p.5) In line with this view, Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000) asserted that “it is in discourse and through discourse that all of the other competencies are realized And it is in discourse and through discourse that the manifestation of the other competencies can best beobserved, researched, and assessed" (p.16)

2.2.3 Discourse knowledge in teaching writing

Given the fact that discourse competence is an integral part of communicative competence, the communicative approach to teaching a second/foreign language inevitably involves developing learners’ discourse knowledge Throughout the literature, different researchers have discussed the components of discourse knowledge in a variety of ways For example, Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurrell (1995) suggested that there are five aspects of

discourse knowledge, i.e cohesion, coherence, deixis, genre, and conversational structure Elkouti (2017) maintained that the key aspects to be

focused on in discourse-based teaching of a language comprise knowledge

about background knowledge, context, pragmatics, and discourse analysis It is

beyond the scope of this study to examine different frameworks of discourse skills Therefore, in the following sections, the focus is on the three

sub-most commonly-taught aspects of discourse knowledge, namely Cohesion and Coherence, Genre, and Discourse Structure, as well as on how these aspects are

related to the development of learners’ writing skills

2.2.3.1 Cohesion and Coherence

Perhaps the study of how parts of a text are held together is one of the most familiar aspects of discourse study The properties of discourse-level relations are called Cohesion and Coherence

Cohesion is an inter-sentential property of a text which is achieved through

a resource of grammatical and lexical features The first and widely accepted taxonomy of cohesive devices is that of Halliday and Hasan (1976) According

to the authors, cohesive devices of a text can be grouped into five categories:

Reference: A reference item is a word or phrase whose identity can be

discovered by referring to other parts within the written discourse (endophoric reference) or to the situation (exophoric reference) In English, cohesive devices

of this type include demonstratives, the definite article the, personal and

possessive pronouns, and possessive adjectives

Substitution: For the sake of conciseness, substitute words such as

ones/does/so are used to replace other words or phrases

Ellipsis: Defined by Halliday and Hasan (1976) as a variation of

substitution, ellipsis is the omission of a clause or part of a clause to avoid repetition Along with substitution, ellipsis is more pervasive in spoken discourse than in written texts (Witte & Faigley, 1981)

Conjunction: Conjunctions are the devices that directly link together

clauses and sentences in a discourse Since the literal meaning of each conjunction entails the nature of the relation it reflects, Christiansen (2011)

asserted that conjunctions are “perhaps the most explicit and obvious cohesive devices in a text” (p.161) Halliday and Hasan (1976) sorted conjunctions into four sub-groups: adversative (e.g although, but, yet), additive (e.g additionally, furthermore, and), temporal (e.g next, the, finally), and causal (e.g since, because, therefore)

Lexical cohesion: Besides the four aforementioned grammatical ties,

cohesion of a text can also be established by means of lexical ties Repetition of

a word, synonym, near synonym, superordinate, general class words, or words from the same semantic field are used to achieve cohesion of this type

Along with Cohesion, Coherence is another fundamental property through which discourse organization is established To be considered a unified, meaningful piece of discourse, a set of sentences has to be coherent (Davies, 2005) While cohesive devices can be easily identified on the surface level in a written discourse, the presence of coherence in a text is revealed by the underlying semantic relationships between parts of the discourse Because of this nature, the concept of Coherence is much more abstract and harder to be construed than that of Cohesion

De Beaugrande and Dressier (1981) considered coherence as "not a mere feature of texts, but rather the outcome of cognitive processes among text users" (p 6) In the same vein, McCulley (1985) opined that “coherence is derived from factors within the text and extra-textual factors operating within the reader” (p.270) The factors within the text comprise of cohesive devices as well

as the logical sequencing of propositional structures A reader-centered definition of coherence by Hughes and Duhamel (1962) indicated that “A work

is considered coherent when the sequence of its parts is controlled by some principle which is meaningful to the reader Coherence is the quality attributed

to the presentation of material in a sequence which is intelligible to its reader” (p.18-20)

With regard to the classification of coherence strategies, Lautamatti (1990) proposed the Topical Structure Analysis, which describes how topics of successive sentences relate with each other to gradually establish discourse topic According to Lautamatti’s model, coherence of a written text is achieved

by three kinds of topic sequencings: parallel progression (adjacent sentences share the same topic), sequential progression (successive sentences have different topics, with comments from a preceding sentence being the topic of its subsequent sentence), and extended parallel progression (some sequential progression is positioned between the text’s first and last topics, which are the same)

The need to integrate knowledge of Cohesion and Coherence has been acknowledged by many researchers (Lautamatti 1990; Palmer 1999; Medve & Takač 2013, McCulley 2015) For instance, Connor (1984) conducted a study

to investigate the difference in the use of cohesive devices and coherence strategies between L1 and L2 writers Six argumentative essays (three written

by native speakers and the other three by advanced English learners) were chosen for coherence and cohesion analysis The results obtained from the cohesion anaysis revealed that: the frequency of cohesion use is not a distinguishing factor between L1 and L2 writing; however L2 writers lack the variety of cohesive devices, with the most frequenly used device in their essays being lexical reiteration The author concluded that explicit teaching of other types of cohesion such as reference and conjunctions is needed to improve learners’ overall writing quality As for the coherence analysis, it was found that when compared with those of English speakers’, writing products of L2 learners still fall short of two vital features of coherence These features are: “1) adequate justifying support for claim statements and 2) linking of concluding inductive statements to the preceding subtopics of the problem” (p.311)

2.2.3.2 Genre

Traditionally, the term genre is used to refer to “a classification system of texts based on shared formal characteristics” (Devitt, 2004: p.6) The notion of genre is defined by Hyland (2007) as “abstract, socially recognised ways of using language” (p.149) He explained that as a member of a particular discourse community, one has frequent exposure to stretches of language of the same kind These repeated experiences allow one to gradually build up a repertoire of similar discourse features that are easily identified and expected

by other members of the community A genre cannot be separated from the social context within which it takes place It is through genres that the relation between social purposes of the text and language use is revealed Flowerdew (2013) defined the concept of genre as “different communicative events which are associated with particular settings and which have recognised structures and communicative functions” (p.138)

In spite of the variety of ways to classify genres, communicative purpose

of the discourse has remained the key criterion for distinguishing one writing genre to another McCarthy and Carter (1994) argued that written texts can be grouped into two prototype generic categories, which are the expository genre and the narrative genre While the former genre serves the purpose of describing

or explaining, the latter one aims at reporting about events happening to a character or chracters The authors also elaborated on the characteristic features

of those two genres: any texts belonging to the expository genre would have a factual, objective nature and a logical organization, whereas those of the narrative genre would be individualized and developed in a chronological order More recently, Sidaway (2006) proposed that writing genres can be classified into seven categories based on what the writers seeks to achieve socially through their pieces of writing These generic categories are: narrative, exposition, discussion, procedure, recount, explanation, and information report

Why is knowledge of genre necessary to EFL learners’ development of writing skills? According to Muncie (as cited in Kim & Kim, 2005), “all texts conform to certain conventions, and if a student is to be successful in joining a particular English-language discourse community, the student will need to be able to produce texts which fulfill the expectations of its readers in regards to grammar, organization, and context” The more familiar one is with the typical writing genres, the easier it is for one to process and produce written texts of those genres In the same vein, Ivanič (2004) stated that “Learning to write involves learning the characteristics of different types of writing which serve specific purposes in specific contexts” (p.225) In his view, knowledge of genre aids learners in understanding the specific linguistic requirements of particular text types and in reproducing written texts that are linguistically appropriate to the communicative purpose and context of the texts Flowerdew (2013) stressed that if one participates in a genre without adequate knowledge about that genre,

he or she would be “recognised as either incompetent or an outsider” (p 148) With regard to the principles of teaching genre knowledge in EFL writing classroom, Flowerdew (2013) stressed on the importance of frequent exposure and practice opportunities in developing learners’ knowledge of genre Hyland (2007) opined that prime focus should be paid on familiarizing students with the social context in which their written products would take place Only after students’ awareness about social context has been raised can teacher continue with teaching the rhetorical linguistic features and the schematic structures of the genre Hyland also suggested the five-staged model of genre teaching and learning, which he believed to “ensure repeated opportunities for students to engage in activities which require them to reflect on and critique their learning” (p.158) The stages of Hyland’s model are as follows:

a) Setting the context: discussions are hold to explore the genre’s

communicative purposes and social settings

b) Modelling: representative samples of the target genre are selected for

analysis Through sample analysis, schematic structures and linguistic features

of the genre are revealed

c) Joint construction: knowledge of the genre explored in the previous

stage is reinforced through teacher-guided activities

d) Independent construction: gradually, students are given more

independence in writing tasks

e) Comparing: comparisons between the target genre and other previously

learnt genres are made to help students understand how each genre is designed

to serve particular social purpose

2.2.3.3 Discourse structure

According to Connor and Kaplan (1987), a written text is a complex structure that is made up of various levels of language They opined that there are three structural levels of language that form a written text: intra-sentential structure, inter-sentential structure, and discourse structure It can be inferred from this viewpoint that the act of composing a written text requires the writer

to gradually progress from creating grammatically correct sentences with their existing linguistic resource to eventually binding sentences and paragraphs together into one unified discourse Discourse structure, or text structure, is defined as the organizational pattern used to connect ideas logically in a written text

Stressing on the importance of discourse structure awareness, Smagorinski (1991) opined that being cognizant with the rhetorical discourse structures is realized as a contributing factor in one’s ability to compose well-organized written texts It has been well established that explicit instructions of discourse structure can facilitate learners’ development of writing competency both in L1 and L2 (Watson, 1992; Raphael, Kirschner, & Englert, 1998; Grabe, 2000;Cronin, Sinatra, & Barkley, 2002; Dymock, 2005) Moreover, for learners of a foreign language, there are cases when their L1 conventions of discourse structure transfer into their L2 writing, resulting in texts written in L2 yet display rather inappropriate organizational features derived from L1 (Kaplan, 1992; Hinds, 2000;Hirose, 2001; Kohro, 2009)

Since different types of discourse structures are limited in number and have a recurring nature across texts written by native speakers, Grabe (2000) argued that it is posible to familiarize students with the available commonly used patterns He highlighted the need to regularly demonstrate the organizational patterns of sample written discourse, maintaining that as students internalize how text information is organized in consistent ways, they would have a better idea of how to logically connect ideas while hierarchically arranging them

2.2.4 Previous studies on the application of discourse-based activities

in ELF classroom

Even though the theoretical benefits of discourse-based pedagogy have been discussed frequently in the literature, thus far, only a relatively limited number of attempts have been made with a view to investigating the actual implementation of discourse-based teaching in the EFL writing classroom and its impacts on learners’ writing peformance

Collin and Norris (2017) examined the effects of teaching contextualized grammar using authentic discourse on students’ writing skills Six weeks of instruction were given to the participants, who were divided into two groups of Discrete Grammar Instruction (DGI) and Embedded Grammar Instruction (EGI) While the DGI group only received grammar lessons using worksheets present-ed separately from other reading and writing activities, the EGI group was taught grammar with the contextualized approach, using contextualized, discourse-based reading and writing activi-ties The written products of the participants in the pre-test and post-test were assessed on the two criteria: the level of grammatical complexity and the correctness of writing mechanics The two written tests revealed that the students of the EGI group outperformed their DGI counterparts in terms of grammatical complexity, suggesting evidence for the effectiveness of using discourse and related activities in teaching grammar and writing

Aidinlou (as cited in Elkouti, 2017) conducted an experimental study to measure the extent to which explicit teaching of discourse knowledge affects writing quality amongst Iranian EFL learners The participants of the study were

60 tertiary-level students majoring in Teaching English as a foreign language, divided into the exprimental and control groups Prior to and after the treatment period, both groups were assigned with writing pre-test and post-test repectively Over the course of 10 two-hour teaching sections, only the experimental group received explicit instructions on 3 aspects of discourse knowldege including Cohesive devides (reference, conjunctions, lexical relations), Register (field, tenor, mode), and Genres (exposition, exploration, report, description, discussion) The teaching procedure in this study closely followed the SFL-oriented teaching-learning cycle: Firstly, backgound knowledge of the field was elicited After that, the targeted grammar knowledge was explicitly taught This stage was followed by having students jointly do tasks The teaching session then ended with individual practice Results collected from the pre-test and post-test revealed that the overall quality of

compositions by the group who received instructions on discourse knowledge was significantly higher than that of the control group

A more recent experimental research measuring the effects of based teaching on writing peformance is that of Farrokhi, Ajideh, Zohrabi, and Panahi (2018) The researchers set out to discover the impacts of two different methods to teach grammar, namely the traditional method and the discourse-based method The grammar rules chosen as target knowledge for this research were those concerning “tense–aspect-modality choice, reference, subordinate clauses (full and reduced), passive versus active voice, use of marked construction types (wh-clefts & it-clefts) and choice of logical connectors” (p.63) 50 participants who were upper-intermediate Iranian EFL learners were tested to ascertain homogeneity and assigned into the control and experimental groups During 10 teaching sections, while the former group received decontextualized conventional grammar instructions, the latter one was treated with the discourse-based teaching of grammar in context Results from the post-test administered after the treatment period attested that the group who was taught grammar with the discourse-based method produced considerably less grammtical errors in their written compositions than the one taught in the conventional method The researchers reached the conclusion that decontextualized teaching of language forms is insufficent to meet the needs of EFL learners, and that by immersing discourse into the classroom, not only students but also teacher can benefit in their teaching and learning process

discourse-A preliminary research investigating the integration of discourse-based writing activities in ELT coursebooks was carried out by Belmonte and McCabe (2004) According to them, discourse-based writing activities are those that

“raise learners’ awareness of and allow them practice in: A adaptation of texts

to different contexts and situations, B awareness of possible readers’ cultural and situational specific schemata, C the structuring of text at different levels,

D the different linguistic choices which construe degrees of formality and politeness in written text, and E typical lexico-grammatical choices for construing the subject matter of given genres and text types” (p 36) With those aforementioned criterion, the authors selected several widely-used ELT materials in Spain for analysis These materials include File, Cutting Edge, English File, Inside Out, English Panorama, and Chadesinging Skies, designed for learners of intermediate to advanced levels The authors identified the discourse-based writing activities in selected materials according to each of the five criterion, analyzing in details their purposes, procedure, and frequency of appearance The evidence collected from this analysis showed that activities which focus on the teaching of overall text organization through writing samples

are the most popular that in terms of frequency of appearance The next two commonly-used activity types includes those that focus on the degree of formality such as writing formal/ informal letters, and those that emphasize on the use of cohesive devices The researchers also concluded that there was a scarcity of activities of the other criterion As a final remark, they highlighted the need to fully develop learners’ discourse competence through more relevant activities in coursebooks with higher frequency

2.3 Chapter summary

As can be seen from the summaries of significant previous studies on the field of the interrelationship between discourse and teaching English writing, researchers thus far have only looked into the effects of discourse-based teaching on writing outcomes or the application of discourse-based activities in teaching materials Whether or not EFL writing teachers, especially those in Vietnam, have positive perceptions towards discourse-based activities and actually use them in their classes is yet to be discovered For this reason, the present study seeks to unravel how EFL teachers of HUFL perceive and practice integrating discourse-based activities to develop English majors’ writing competence

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, detailed descriptions regarding the following aspects are given: (1) Research approach and design, (2) Participants, (3) Data collection instruments, (4) Data collection procedure, and (5) Data analysis methods

3.1 Research approach and design

According to Creswell (2014), “research approaches are plans and the procedures for research that span the steps from broad assumptions to detailed methods of data collection, analysis, and interpretation” (p.4) There are three perennial research approaches: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods In this research, the mixed methods approach was employed, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative approaches in the process of data collection, analysis and interpretation The justification for using such approach is the fact that it can optimize the distinctive strengths while alleviating the limitations of qualitative and quantitative approaches One the one hand, although the quantitative method can result in findings which can be generalized into a larger group, this method limits the researcher’s observations and understanding of the participants’ behaviors in actual setting On the other hand, while the qualitative method can address the previous issue, it can bring about difficulties in generalizing findings Thus, this method is optimal for this research, whose aims are to investigate the participants’ both perceptions and practice As postulated

by Creswell (2014), “the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches provides a more complete understanding of a research problem than either approach alone” (p.4)

Research design is defined by McMillan and Schumacher (2001) as an indicator of “how the research is set up: what happens to the subjects and what methods of data collection are used” (p.31) The convergent parallel design, which involves collecting and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data

in a single phase, was employed for this study Accordingly, quantitative data were collected through questionnaire and qualitative data through interview and class observation

3.2 Participants

A total of 30 teachers were selected through purposive network sampling: basing on the initial participants’ referrals, other teachers who have given writing lessons for HUFL’s English majors were asked to join the research This ensures that the participants are experienced in teaching writing skills, which is

a prerequisite if insightful data are to be gained Although probability sampling with a higher number of participants could have yielded better external and internal validity for the research, non-probability sampling with the population

of 30 teachers was employed in this research on the grounds that it is much more feasible According to Cohen and Arieli (2011), the use of network sampling is effective in both qualitative and quantitative research settings because it can help the researcher locate, access, and involve information-rich populations

Nevertheless, the researcher is aware that due to the limitations of probability sampling, generalizing the results to larger contexts would call for greater caution

non-Table 3.1 below illustrates the demographic backgrounds of teachers who

participated in the questionnaire As regards the participants’ teaching experience, 36.7% of the teachers have taught at HUFL from 1 to 10 years, 40% from 11 to 20 years, and 23.3% have worked for more than 21 years Such heterogeneity in terms of experience on the part of the participants allows the researcher to obtain divergent views, hence increases the representativeness of the results The majority of the participants are teachers of the English Department and the English for Specific Purposes Department It can be seen that although they were not selected randomly from a larger population, these teachers possess charateristics that are representative for the population

Table 3.1: Demographic information of the questionnaire participants

teachers

Percentage (%) Teaching

5 teachers from the initial pool of 30 were invited randomly as participants

of interview and class observation sessions via email or phone In response to the researcher’s invitation, all of them agreed to cooperate Throughout the interviews and observations, these teachers were coded as Teacher A, Teacher

B, Teacher C, Teacher D, and Teacher E

3.3 Data collection instruments

3.3.1 Questionnaire

As mentioned earlier, questionnaire is utilized in this research to obtain quantitative data This instrument, according to McMillan and Schumacher (2001), is relatively affordable, highly representative and is most likely to encourage greater honesty in answers

There are 2 parts in the questionnaire: Part A inquiring about the demographic information of those surveyed and Part B about the information

needed to answer the research questions (See Appendices A and B) The latter

part is composed of 14 questions, both closed-ended and open-ended ones, divided into 3 main categories Detailed description of Part B is provided in

Table 3.2 below

Table 3.2: Description of Part B of the questionnaire

2, 3, 5

Teachers’ evaluation of the necessity to integrate different aspects of discourse knowledge in teaching writing skills

4,7

Teachers’ perceptions of the possible use of different discourse-based activitites in teaching writing skills

6

PRACTICE

Teachers’ frequency of using discourse-based

Teachers’ frequency of using different discourse-based activities in teaching writing 9, 10 The benefits and difficulties of using discourse-

based activities in teaching and learning to write

11, 12

SUGGESTION

Teachers’ suggestions on ways to effectively integrate discourse-based activities in teaching writing skills for HUFL English majors

be ideas that the participants could potentially have, but since such opinions are not mentioned in the questionnaire, the participants did not feel the need to expand on them Consequently, if questionnaire were the only data collection instrument used, the validity and reliability of this research would not be

ensured On this ground, two other instruments, namely interview and class observation, are also employed besides questionnaire to compensate for its potential drawbacks

3.3.2 Interview

Semi-structured interview is another data collection tool of this study, allowing the collection of valuable data at an in-depth level Adams (2015) opined that in mixed methods approach, semi-structured interview can act as

“an adjunct to supplement and add depth to other approaches” (p.494) The set

of tentative questions used in interview sessions contains both closed-ended and open-ended ones Though the combination of both types of questions, extended probing and further clarification are achieved, and a substantial level of objectivity and uniformity is maintained in the qualitative dataset (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001) As can be seen on the agenda for interview sessions (See

Appendix C and D), the set of tentative questions is also divided into 3 main

categories, i.e teachers’ perceptions, teachers’ practice, and their suggestions for the integration of discourse-based writing activities Through the interview sessions, the interviewees could elaborate more on their viewpoints

3.3.3 Class observation

To obtain further insights that help shed light on the research questions, particularly relating to the teachers’ actual integration of discourse-based activities in writing classroom, class observation is the third teachnique of data collection used in this study The major benefit of this method, according to McMillan and Schumacher (2001), is that “the researcher does not need to worry about the limitations of self-report bias, social desirability, or response set, and the information is not limited to what can be recalled accurately by the subjects” (p.257) Prior to the observation sessions, an observation sheet was constructed, outlining the predetermined categories to be observed (See

Appendix E) These categories include: Name of the activity, Stage of the

activity, Procedure of the activity, and Purposes of the activity Basing on this sheet, the researcher took relevant field notes to describe what happened during the actual class observations

3.4 Data collection procedure

3.4.1 Administering the questionnaire

Transmittal letters were sent to 36 HUFL teachers via email In the letter, the researcher clearly explained the purpose of the research and the importance

of the recipients’ contribution, as well as requested cooperation from the

teachers by filling out the questionnaire forms attached to the mail For the convenience of the teachers, both Vietnamese and English versions of the questionnaire were attached to each email In the end, the researcher collected

30 responds, with the return rate of more than 80%

3.4.2 Administering the interview

Out of 30 questionnaire respondents, 5 were randomly selected and invited

to participate in the interview via email or phone calls With their consent, the researcher arranged 5 one-on-one interview sessions at the teachers’ workplace Based on the respondent’ preference, each interview session was carried out in either English or Vietnamese The questions were addressed to the teachers following the interview agenda, and answers were tape-recorded by the researcher After that, the answers were transcribed by the researcher for later analysis

3.4.3 Observing classes

Arrangements regarding time and location for the sessions with the teachers who agreed to be observed were made from 1 to 2 weeks in advance The researcher attended 5 periods of writing class of different levels, each lasting for 45 minutes During class time, the researcher remained detached from the students and recorded information using the observation sheet

Background information of the observed classes is presented in Table 3.3

below

Table 3.3: Detailed information of the observed samples

Observation

session

No of students

3.5 Data analysis methods

Both qualitative and quantitative methods were utilized to analyze information gathered from the 3 data collection instruments On the one hand, information from the questionnaire were analyzed and reported by means of descriptive statistics Data analysis was carried out with the aid of Excel, and statistics were presented via visuals such as charts and tables Qualitative information from interview and class observation, on the other hand, was organized into categories through inductive analysis, resulting in emerging patterns that help clarify statistical results

3.6 Chapter summary

Through this chapter, the methodology used in the entire process of data collecting and analysis has been carefully explained The following chapter would take the information gained through this process into consideration

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the answers to 2 research questions raised in Chapter

1 Through the qualitative and quantitative analysis of data collected from the questionnaire, interview, and class observation, insights into the following 3 aspects were obtained: (1) Teachers' perceptions towards the implementation of discourse-based activities in teaching writing skills to HUFL English majors, (2) Teachers' practice of applying discourse-based activities in their writing classrooms, and (3) Some practical solutions in order to promote the integration

of these activities in teaching writing to EFL students

4.1 Teachers’ perceptions towards the implementation of based activities in teaching writing skills to English majors

discourse-4.1.1 Teachers’ evaluation of students’ difficulties in learning writing

Learning to write in English is inevitably a process that demands assiduous efforts on the part of EFL learners During this learning proccess, students constantly meet with a raft of hindrances, from linguistic difficulties such as how to construct grammatically correct sentences, to cognitive difficulties such

as how to logically organize ideas (Byrne, 1988) Teachers’ understanding about students’ struggles when practicing this complex productive skill is the prerequisite for successful application of any teaching approaches In the first item of the questionnaire, 10 subskills of writing are listed out, categorized into the following aspects: Lexicogrammatical, Organizational, and Communicative The basis for this classification was established using the works previously mentioned in Chapter 2 (Collins & Gentners, 1980; Cumming, 2001; Ivanič, 2004; Mohamed & Zouaoui, 2014; Rico, 2014; Solikhah, 2017) The purpose of this question is to examine teachers’ viewpoints on the degree

of difficulty that each writing subskill causes for their students The results were

reported in Figure 4.1 below

Figure 4.1: Teachers’ evaluation of students’ difficulties in learning writing

As can be observed in Figure 4.1, the top 3 problematic areas for most

student writers are Syntax, Paragraph coherence and cohesion, and Text coherence and cohesion Apart from the subskill of Syntax, the other components belonging to the Lexicogrammatical aspect were rated as the least challenging factors to the participants’ students, with Writing mechanics being deemed “Difficult” by only 23.3% of the teachers It is apparent that as compared to the Lexicogrammatical aspect, the Organizational and Communicative ones were perceived to be much more complicated for EFL student writers

Many interview respondents shared the belief that cognitive-related issues pose the biggest challenges to their students in the writing process:

“What I've always considered the focal point of better writing is effective idea organization The majority of my students tend to write in an instinctive manner, without paying much attention to idea planning Another weakness I've noticed is their insufficient knowledge about the world This inevitably leads to unconvincing and weak arguments in their writings.” (Teacher C, April 3 rd , 2019)

53.3 70

46.7 23.3 63.3

63.3 63.3 60 50 50

46.7

16.7 43.3

16.7 10 20 26.7 26.7

10 10

6.7 10 10 6.7 6.7

Extremely difficult Difficult Neutral Easy Extremely easy

Notes: A Grammar; B Syntax; C Vocabulary; D Writing mechanics; E Selection

of relevant ideas; F Paragraph coherence & cohesion; G Text coherence & cohesion;

H Use of appropriate patterns according to genres; I Fulfillment of target readers'

expectations; J Achievement of communicative goals