Teaching EFL Writing: Scaffolding Instructional Theory and Practice

EFLTeaching EFL Writing: Scaffolding Instructional Theory and Practice Sumalee Chinokul

i Teaching EFL Writing: Scaffolding Instructional Theory and Practice Sumalee Chinokul

ii Teaching EFL Writing: Scaffolding Instructional Theory and Practice Sumalee Chinokul สมุ าลี ชโิ นกุล จัดพมิ พโ์ ดย รองศาสตราจารย์ ดร.สุมาลี ชโิ นกุล พิพม์ครั้งที่ 1 กนั ยายน 2564 จำนวน 200 เลม่ ขอ้ มลู ทางบรรณานกุ รมของสำนกั หอสมุดแห่งชาติ National library of Thailand Cataloging in Publication Data สุมาลี ชโิ นกลุ , Teaching EFL Writing: Scaffolding Instructional Theory and Practice._ _ กรุงเทพมหานคร: สุมาลี ชโิ นกุล คณะครุศาสตร์ จฬุ าลงกรณม์ หาวิทยาลยั , 2564. 145 หนา้ 1. Teaching EFL Writing 2. Scaffolding I ชอื่ เรอื่ ง ISBN (e-Book): 978-616-586-617-0 สงวนลิขสิทธต์ิ ามพระราชบญั ญตั ลิ ขิ สทิ ธ์ หา้ มทำซ้ำ ดัดแปลง หรอื นำข้นึ ไปเผยแพร่ ไม่ว่าส่วนใดส่วนหน่ึงของหนงั สอื เลม่ นี้ นอกจากจะได้รับ อนุญาตเปน็ ลายลกั ษณ์อกั ษร ผรู้ ับผดิ ชอบการพิมพ์ รองศาสตราจารย์ ดร.สมุ าลี ชโิ นกลุ คณะครศุ าสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณม์ หาวิทยาลยั 254 ถนนพญาไท แขวงวงั ใหม่ เขตปทมุ วัน กรุงเทพมหานคร 10330 ออกแบบปก บริษัท กราฟฟคิ สเปซ จำกดั ราคา 140 บาท

iii Contents Preface .......................................................................................................................................v Chapter One: Introduction to the Conceptual Framework of the Book............................ 8 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 The conceptual framework .............................................................................................. 8 1.3 Overview of the book .................................................................................................... 10 1.4 References: .................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter Two: Challenges from the Three Corners of Writing Process: The Student Writers, the Writing Teachers, and the Texts as Evidence of Students’ Writing Production.............................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Challenges from the first corner: The student writers ................................................... 12 2.3 Challenges from the second corner: The writing teachers ............................................ 16 2.4 Challenges from the third corner: The writing texts...................................................... 18 2.5 Suggested tasks for this chapter .................................................................................... 20 2.6 Chapter summary .......................................................................................................... 36 2.7 References ..................................................................................................................... 37 Chapter Three: Teachers’ Beliefs about EFL Writing Instructional Approaches.......... 40 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 40 3.2 Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and writing teaching approaches................................... 40 3.3 Lesson plan to teach EFL writing.................................................................................. 64 3.4 Feedback and assessment in EFL writing ..................................................................... 67 3.5 Chapter summary .......................................................................................................... 74 3.6 References ..................................................................................................................... 74 Chapter Four: Sociocultural Theory and the Notion of Scaffolding as a Solution for the Challenges from the Three Corners of EFL Writing Instruction..................................... 77 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 77 4.2 Conceptualize the notion of scaffolding employed in EFL writing context from the sociocultural theory ............................................................................................................. 77 4.3 Design-in support in scaffolding learning environments .............................................. 79 4.4 Contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility ...................................................... 80 4.5 Applying the concepts of design-in macro and micro scaffolding support with the OTOP unit ........................................................................................................................... 84

iv 4.6 Chapter summary .......................................................................................................... 99 4.7 References ................................................................................................................... 100 Chapter Five: From the Concept of Scaffolding to Classroom Application: The EFL Scaffolding Writing Instruction Models............................................................................ 102 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 102 5.2 Design-in scaffolding macro level and micro scaffolding support.............................. 103 5.3 Tracing of design-in scaffolding macro level and micro level scaffolding in the teacher training workshop: New Perspectives on Teaching Writing (Chinokul, 2012)................. 107 5.4 Tracing of design-in scaffolding macro level and micro level scaffolding in the M. Ed. thesis entitled Effects of Fisher and Frey’s gradual release of responsibility model on writing ability of tenth grade students (Kumpawan, 2014) ............................................... 121 5.5 Chapter summary ........................................................................................................ 131 5.5 References ................................................................................................................... 131 Chapter six: Conclusion...................................................................................................... 133 References ......................................................................................................................... 134 Subject Index ....................................................................................................................... 135 References ............................................................................................................................ 137

v Preface English writing is known to be one of the most challenging language skills that EFL students need to master as well as it is quite exhausting for the teachers to push the EFL students to the expected standard required by the curriculum and society. In Thailand, there are many factors that affect—and obstruct—the quality of teaching and learning English writing. Such factors include, but are not limited to large class size with mixed-ability students, which is often found in lower and upper secondary schools (Amkham, 2010), low motivation on the part of students, unconducive classroom environment, student-teacher interaction, and feedback (Dhanya & Alamelu, 2019). Despite the challenges and exhaustion, teachers remain the key contributors to the improvement of this situation. With lesson designs that incorporate interesting tasks, stronger and more positive relationship between teachers and students can be forged. This in turn can help teachers manage the class so as to reduce anxiety and boost motivation of the students toward English writing. As such, scaffolding is customarily employed as an approach to help students learn how to write. It is an approach that has been widely research. Yet, most studies are experimental, aiming to claim achievement of students after the treatment. Only few studies have focused on how the whole scaffolding process is actually being carried out to date. In writing this book, it is my aim to contribute to the professional development of pre-service and in-service teachers teaching writing at the secondary school level. The book starts off with challenges from the three corners of EFL writing process-- the student writers, the writing teachers, and the writing texts as evidence of writing production. Then, I discuss how scaffolding can help tackle the main concerns from the challenges posed by the three corners, reviewing and referencing the sociocultural theory and scaffolding approaches. For the classroom application, I revisited past projects on scaffolding EFL writing instruction. These projects that I was involved with years back as a language teacher educator. Here I review, analyze, and synthesize the models and artifacts used in those past projects in the context of recent approaches and principles, so as to exemplify how scaffolding can be used to support EFL students in the writing process. I have also reviewed some relevant core concepts of scaffolding strategies to be used in EFL writing instruction. These concepts include: designed-in (Wilson, 2014), contingent support, fading, and transfer of responsibility (Van de Pol et al., 2010; 2018), the potential of designing teaching activities to scaffold learning (Taber & Brock, 2018); and refining scaffolding materials (Mitchell & Gomez-Laich, 2021). I have found that it is very challenging to apply similar concepts to instruction EFL writing in lower and upper secondary school classes in Thailand. My attempt, therefore, is to make the scaffolding process and the design of related tasks and materials visible and approachable. To achieve this. I re-examine my previous works related to scaffolding EFL writing instruction through new angles, focusing on the following two aspects:

vi 1) the main structure of the scaffolding--how my thesis student and I applied Wilson’s (2014) design-in and Van de Pol et al.’s (2010; 2018) contingent support, fading, and transfer of responsibility in our projects; and 2) the design of tasks and materials—how my thesis student and I designed the activities to engage our students so that they are motivated and continue learning English writing. This book then is my attempt to put new perspectives on past projects and highlight the characteristics of the scaffolding process that are done imperatively yet generally in an implicit way. It is my hope that this book will provide writing teachers with more insights into the application of scaffolding in EFL writing instruction and help ease the challenges faced by both the students and the teachers in the process. The objectives of this book are: 1) to explore challenges from the three corners of writing process: the student writers, the teaching writers, the writing texts in the context of EFL writing classroom. 2) to review the foundation of preparing preservice teachers to teach writing in an English as a foreign language context and teachers’ beliefs about EFL teaching writing, 3) to explore and conceptualize the notion of scaffolding in EFL writing context, 4) To discuss and examine the main core scaffolding elements (designed-in and contingent support, fading, and transfer of responsibility) of the two projects: scaffolded writing instruction model (Chinokul, 2012), and Fisher and Frey’s Gradual Release model applied to enhance students’ writing ability (Kumpawan, 2014), and 5) to explore the potential of teacher researchers to design inspiring activities and refining scaffolding materials. The structure of this book is conceptualized by the framework of scaffolding writing instruction as a solution to challenges from the three corners of writing: student writers, writing teachers and the writing texts this is framework is introduced in chapter one. Each chapter provides a self-contained content, specifically underlining principles and relevant tasks for the readers to follow and visualize how the scaffolding writing instruction can be a solution to the main challenges from the three corners of writing process. Although the sample tasks and teaching models are focused on teaching EFL secondary school students in Thailand, it may be applied and adjusted to be used with intermediate EFL students at other levels of education. Sumalee Chinokul August 2021

vii References: Amkham, C. (2010). Effect of differentiated writing instruction by tiered assignments on writing ability of ninth grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis. Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Chinokul, S. (2012). Teachers’ manual for module 6: New perspectives on teaching writing for upper secondary education level. Thai Khem Khang Project. Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University. Dhanya, M. & Alamelu, C. (2019). Factors influencing the acquisition of writing skills. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(7), May 2019, 1399-1404. Kumpawan, P. (2014). Effects of Fisher and Frey’s gradual release responsibility model on writing ability of tenth grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis. Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Mitchell, T.D. & Gomez-Laich, M. P. (2021). Know your roles: Alleviating the academic-professional tension in the case analysis genre. English for Specific Purposes, 61, 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.10.002 Taber, K.S. & Brock, R. (2018). A study to explore the potential of designing teaching activities to scaffold learning: Understanding circular motion. In Abend, M. (Ed.), Effective Teaching and Learning: Perspectives, Strategies and Implementation (pp. 45-85). New York: Nova Science Publishers. (This is the author’ manuscript copy.) Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 Van de Pol, J, Mercer. N. & Volman, M. (2018). Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small- Group Interaction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 206–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258 Wilson, K. (2014). Scaffolding Theory: High Challenge, High Support in Academic Language Learning (ALL) Contexts. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 8(3), A91-A100.

8 Chapter One: Introduction to the Conceptual Framework of the Book 1.1 Introduction The framework of this book “Scaffolding writing instruction as a solution of challenges from the three corners of writing process: the student writers, the writing teachers and the writing texts” is aimed at visualizing the overall picture of the whole book. Following the framework, the book begins with an exploration of challenges posed by the three corners of the writing process. It then introduces and proposes scaffolding writing instruction as the solution to help respond to such challenges. 1.2 The conceptual framework Writing in English is quite a complex task for student writers in an EFL context. As illustrated in Figure 1.1 student writers struggle in the process due to several factors involving linguistic and psychological factors when trying to produce writing texts that are both comprehensible and acceptable to the readers. Therefore, the writing teachers need to help the students to successfully produce such texts. In the process, the teachers can use the writing texts as a source to better understand the difficulties faced by the students when they write. Thus, the writing texts do not simply serve as evidence of the students’ writing production. On a personal note, I would also like to mention about Yang and Gao’s (2013) statements, which refer to the work of Clarke (1994), pointing out that teaching writing is a decision-rich, intellectual, social, and moral enterprise, but above all, it is a highly individual personal undertaking. The two authors further emphasize that the core of education for writing teachers should be to help them engage with but also challenge their beliefs, as this will promote ongoing critical reflection which will result in improvement in the teacher’ practices. I find these statements quite impressive, and I have devoted the whole chapter 3 in this book to discuss such matters. Scaffolding writing instruction is an approach that teachers employ to tackle the challenges faced by the student writers. Referring to Figure 1.1 the teachers can provide scaffolding writing instruction to help the student writers move from their actual level of writing performance to the potential level writing performance that the writing require (Vygotsky, 1978). The scaffolding writing instruction provided by the teachers falls in the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and are forms of scaffolded assistance that the teachers can provide to help the students break through the interference of the first language (L1) and use their second language (L2), which in this context is English, successfully in their writing.

9 The notion of scaffolding, focusing on contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility is employed, within the sociocultural theory. Contingency refers to the support facilitated by the teachers and/or the more knowledgeable other (MKO) to help the students adapt to their self-progress (Van de Pol et al., 2010; 2018). According to Welch (2014), contingency consists of three elements. The first one is instructional contingency—how the teacher supports the activity. Domain contingency refers to the direction provide by the teacher to guide how the students could develop further to achieve the goals. Finally, temporal contingency focuses on the fact that the teacher knows when and how to intervene. Fading is the step to gradually withdraw the teacher’s role to enable the students to be more competent. The last element is the transfer of responsibility where the students could do the task themselves to achieve the goals. The sociocultural theory is used to facilitate the environment of diversity in the environment of the EFL context where the instruction deals with L1 and L2. Figure 1.1: Scaffolding writing instruction as a solution to challenges from the three corners of writing process: the student writers, the writing teachers and the writing texts

10 1.3 Overview of the book This book consists of six chapters as listed below. The first three chapters discuss the challenges and foundation of EFL writing and the last three chapters highlight the concepts of sociocultural theory and the notion of scaffolding and how scaffolding writing instruction is applicable in the classroom. • Chapter One: Introduction to the conceptual framework of the book • Chapter Two: Challenges from the three corners of EFL writing process: The student writers, the writing teacher, and the text as evidence of students’ writing production • Chapter Three: Teachers’ beliefs about EFL writing instructional approaches • Chapter Four: Sociocultural theory and the notion of scaffolding as a solution for the challenges from the three corners of EFL writing instruction • Chapter Five: From the concept of scaffolding to classroom application: The EFL scaffolding writing instruction models • Chapter Six: Conclusion 1.4 References: Clarke, M. A. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 9–26. Van de Pol, J. Mercer. N. & Volman, M. (2018). Scaffolding Student Understanding in Small-Group Work: Students’ Uptake of Teacher Support in Subsequent Small-Group Interaction, Journal of the Learning Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1522258 Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Welch, K. R. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185-195 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.011 Yang, L. & Gao, S. (2013). Beliefs and practices of Chinese university teachers in EFL writing instruction. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(2), 128-145, https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2013.794817

11 Chapter Two: Challenges from the Three Corners of Writing Process: The Student Writers, the Writing Teachers, and the Texts as Evidence of Students’ Writing Production 2.1 Introduction “Many ESL classrooms still rely on writing textbooks which stress paragraph models, grammar, and usage rules, and vocabulary development as their entire curriculum. The large majority of these textbooks, while advertised as process oriented, do not typically emphasize purposeful writing activities” (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; p. 31). The statement by Grabe and Kaplan above reflects the pedagogical problem of ESL/EFL writing class. The teacher must think carefully about the approach they will use to arrange for students to write for meaningful purposes. Rather than being a slave to the textbooks, teachers should be flexible to help their students and meet instructional goals. The students’ learning needs and motivation to write should be explored and responded to. The writing text as evidence of students’ learning of writing should be used for improving the learning and teaching. In this chapter, I begin with exploring challenges encountered by the student writers who are non-native speakers of English in their attempt to write in English. The difficulties that they face mostly are their lack of English proficiency, their lack of ability to express themselves and the lack of content in English, their low motivation and their anxiety in writing in a second language. Subsequently, the exploration of challenges from the corner of writing teachers who have to respond to the needs of their EFL student writers will be presented. The problem of the teachers’ underprepared training to cope with the actual situation, their beliefs about EFL writing instruction and the skills of designing relevant, meaningful and interesting tasks for their classes and their teaching strategies to encourage the students to write with enthusiasm will be discussed. The last corner of the writing process deals with the writing text as evidence of the writing process. How can the product be a source of shared knowledge of L1 and L2 so that the audience who are the readers will understand the message that the student writers have tried to present in their writing.

12 2.2 Challenges from the first corner: The student writers Writing in a second/foreign language is admittedly a challenging task for the students, contributing to the complexity of the writing process. Nunan (2003, p. 88) portrays the difficulties from physical and mental acts: “Writing is both a physical and mental act. At the most basic level, writing is the physical act of committing words or ideas to some medium. On the other hand, writing is the mental work of inventing ideas, thinking about how to express them, and organizing them into statements and paragraphs that will be clear to a reader.” Writing is a way to produce language that comes from our thought and in the writing process, the writer tries to develop their ideas and feelings to produce in words a good sentence, in order to inform others. There is evidence that L2 students transfer of L1 into L2 writing skills and strategies to L2 writing (Cumming, 1989, 1990; Krapels, 1991). Proficient L2 students are found not to depend heavily on the L1 to drive the writing process as they have a sufficient level of L2 knowledge in handling the process while lower L2 proficiency are likely to rely more heavily on their L1 during the writing process in order to complete their writing tasks (Cumming, 1989, Cohen & Brooks-Carson, 2001). Hedgcock (2012) contends that L2 students may learn to acquire second language differently and this may influence their L2 proficiency and their academic performance and literate competencies that include writing. He further explains that “germane to L2 writing development are aspects of students’ knowledge and prior linguistic and educational experiences that shape global L2 proficiency, including reading and writing skills.” (p. 223). Student writers who are non-native speakers of English may face difficulties in terms of linguistic, cognitive and psychological aspects. In terms of linguistics, student writers need to master a certain level of L2 language proficiency to be able to complete the writing tasks. Effective writing requires several things: a high degree of organization regarding the development and structuring of ideas, information and arguments. In addition, student writers need to use features such as: a high degree of accuracy, complex grammar devices, careful choice of vocabulary and sentence structures in order to create style, tone and information appropriate for the readers of their written text (Hedge, 2005). Writing correctly and logically, the students need to apply how to use appropriate language and style in their studies and work in the future (Dwivedi & Chakravarthy, 2015). Parichat and Chinokul (2014) found that linguistic factors and aspects, cognitive factors dealing with writing, and affective factors were among the top three factors causing the anxiety of the Thai eleventh grade students in writing. Research conducted in EFL writing context revealed similar results about the difficulties with the English language, lack of adequate guidelines, and motivation issues in writing. Take for example Hourani’s study (2008) which was conducted in an Emirati secondary school. The findings showed that most common grammatical errors were: 1) prepositions, 2) subject-verb agreement, 3) articles, and 4) verb tense. Similarly, Huwari and Al-

13 Khasawneh (2013) explored the causes of EFL writing errors. The researcher reported that the reasons for students’ writing weakness were their lack of knowledge of grammar and understanding of the meaning of English vocabulary words. Tarnopolsky (2000) stated that demotivation in learning writing emerges from the absence of an immediate need for acquiring writing skills or the lack of fun in the content of the writing assignments. These aspects was confirmed by the student writers’ voices in the study conducted by Ly Thi Tran (2007). Her Vietnamese students reported they needed guidance in ‘brainstorming ideas’, ‘making an outline’, ‘providing genre of writing through a sample’, ‘assigning lively topics for them to write on instead of following the suggested exercises from the textbook’, ‘creating an enjoyable writing classroom atmosphere with games, riddles, and extra-curricular activities related to writing’, and feedback from the teacher is necessary to motivate them to write.’ Students need their teacher to explicitly point out weaknesses and strengths of their writing so that they will know how to improve their writing. Student motivation for a task is dependent on the personal value of the task they feel attached to (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). In order for students to commit and get involved with the task, they must find personal benefit to participate in it. Steiner (2016) conducted the strategy project: promoting self-regulated learning through an authentic assignment. The project was successful in helping the students’ transition from high school to college level. One of the students reported, “I am so gracious that I was assigned this project. I learned so much about myself and gained an enormous amount of self-confidence by committing myself to this assignment.” Another student added, “It has efficiently changed my study habits and strategies throughout my college career. For that, I am extremely grateful that you chose this project to help us adapt to college.” (p. 274). Thai students usually struggle to translate from their own language into English word by word while writing English compositions. Without realizing the constraints between the two languages, the students make numerous errors continuously. These problems can be divided into two different types: micro level or lexicon-grammatical errors (Ferris, 1996), and macro level or rhetorical organizational patterns (Hirose, 2003). At the micro level, errors are identified as surface problems which EFL/ESL learners are supposed to face first while writing in English. Sometimes, it is called sentence-level grammatical errors. In other words, micro level errors deal with a variety of lexical errors, problems with sentence structures, missing words, unnecessary words, word order problems, word forms, extra words, spelling, singular-plural, capitalization, incomplete sentence, unclear meaning, repetitions, redundancy, pronouns, verb tenses, and verb voices (active versus passive), etc. (Ferris, 1999).

14 Micro level errors refer to word choice and sentence construction such as subject-verb agreement, run-ons, comma splices, missing articles, verb form and punctuation marks errors. At the macro level, problems are called macro-level features, macrostructures, the macro-level of discourse, or rhetorical patterns in written discourse. Frequently, a number of EFL/ ESL students fail to be aware of these differences in English structures. As a result, they are unable to organize, generate, and develop their ideas in terms of coherence in text logically (Hirose, 2003). Pongsiriwet (2001) found that the use of subject and verb agreement, verb formation, and tense is problematic for Thai students because the grammatical errors in their written English are influenced by Thai sentence structures. Grammar seems to obstruct the way they express their opinions. At macro level L1 discourse interference lies in writing certain text structure e.g. narrative component. Indrasuta (1988) explained that when Thai students wrote in L2 (English), they use their L1 rhetorical style in which they put moral themes and moral values into narrative writing. That is to say, Thai L2 writers follow a Thai rather than a Western narrative model. Bennui (2008) pointed out that the contrastive rhetoric of Thai students, minoring in English, has a positive view of L1 discourse interference, especially when writing supporting details. For example, Thai students expressed their values and thought patterns specific to Thai culture by using Thai proverbs in their English content. Findings at a micro level Analysis of the errors was based on the morphological, lexical, syntactic and discourse categories. The findings show 33 types of written errors associated with different analytical levels: 1) syntactic (25 categories – the most frequent); 2) lexical (4 categories); 3) morphological (2 categories); and 4) discourse (2 categories). The findings of the study are essential to English teaching practitioners in Thailand for their pedagogical implications when teaching writing to Thai EFL learners.

15 Table 2.1: Written errors of Thai students at syntactic level Syntactic Level Numbers of Errors Made Incorrect spelling issues 51 Incorrect punctuation issues 47 Issues with loanwords 34 Issues with independent clauses either being used as subjects 27 or objects Incorrect verb form issues 27 Issues with inappropriate case selection with mismatched 22 contexts Issues with incorrect utilization of word types, classes, and 18 functions Issues with missing copulas in sentences 17 Incorrect conjunction issues 15 Incorrect preposition issues 14 Incorrect subject issues 13 Incorrect prepositional phrase issues 11 Incorrect transitivity issues 10 Incorrect serial verb issues 9 Incorrect adverbials or adverb issues 8 Issues with the use of be followed by -ed-form verbs 7 Issues with the use of be followed by base-form verbs 6 Incorrect relative clause issues 5 Incorrect pseudo issues 3 (Source: Bordin, W., Yusop, B., Eric, A., & Jeharsae, F. (2019). An Analysis of the Written Errors of Thai EFL Students’ Essay Writing in English. Songklanakarin Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(3), 55-82.) Findings at a macro level Thai students face difficulty in some certain writing of text types; i.e., argumentation, narration, and problem solving. They have difficulties writing formal documents required in the areas in English for academic purposes, English for specific purposes, and writing research reports. In addition, Thai graduate students were facing difficulties in their thesis writing, writing academic articles to be published in national and international journals where English is a medium. For cognitive and psychological aspects, student writers may need to go through affective factors; such as, dealing with their self-esteem to increase their motivation to express the content that they have at acceptable patterns and at the same time manage to decrease the anxiety for failure to achieve their goals. Grabe and Kaplan (1996) indicated that “since writing does not come naturally but rather gained through

16 continuous effort and much practice, it becomes a complex skill”. Nunan (1999) stated that “the most difficult task to do in language learning is to produce a coherent, fluent, extended piece of writing, which is even more challenging for second language learners”. The students need guidance from the teacher in supporting them with the skills for producing and crafting a text, directing thought and actions through strategies to achieve writing goals and providing feedback that helps them see how they can improve their writing. The teacher may allow multiple drafts before grading as this might decrease their anxiety. The students deal with a different language and a different way to express ideas and feelings on a paper. When writing in English, they encounter not only the struggles that writers usually face, but also the challenges for working in a language in which they are not proficient. These students, therefore, are often afraid to write and are reluctant to write particularly in examination because they are marked. With reference to the sample of tasks with suggested feedback and assessment it is illustrated in Task 4 in the teacher section. Dang Thi Ngoc Anh (2019) found that 82% of students find it hard to convey their thoughts, indicating that students with good grammar and vocabulary range may not be able to successfully complete a writing task. Synthesizing information and organizing ideas are considered important skills when learning writing skills but are a major obstacle to 68% of the students who answered the questionnaire. Brainstorming ideas is also a big challenge for 59% of the students, which leads to the fact that students often do not complete the task on time. This becomes more complicated when students are asked to write formal correspondence or academic texts. This refers to the strategies employed by the teacher in prewriting stage. It is reported that the students are motivated to write if they are to write on topics that are relevant, challenging and interesting for them. Thus, teachers should survey the topics that they are passionate to write on, not just stick to the topics from the curriculum and textbooks. 2.3 Challenges from the second corner: The writing teachers The challenges for the writing teachers teaching EFL writing are two folded: 1) the lack of teachers’ experience teaching writing and so their students become demotivated in learning and the lack of teaching strategies to solve EFL students’ writing problems; and 2) their beliefs and values as teachers may sometimes face conflicts with the external constraints posed by the curriculum policy and the workload assignment by the school. This may affect their choices of teaching approach for the writing lessons and the feedback provision. Many pre-service and some in-service teachers have reported that they are not sufficiently trained to teach writing (Nguyen et al, 2008). The teachers should learn and

17 conceptualize to plan and deliver a writing course with solid theoretical background and be ready to employ various techniques and approaches in teaching writing to respond to the EFL students’ learning needs (Hyland, 2003). The main purpose of the instruction should be for the EFL students to be able to use writing to communicate and interact with a meaningful purpose (Hedge, 2000). The teachers must keep the positive classroom environment where the students become engaged and motivated in learning. The teachers should explore meaningful topics and assign challenging writing tasks to students. The tasks should not be too difficult so the students can still be able to deliberately stay on task. As teachers of writing, they need to be more careful to lead their students to the task of writing in a smooth and acceptable way in order for them to be enthusiastic and willing to continue the process of writing. The teachers can adapt their pedagogic approaches and can mutually design such tasks that could motivate and encourage students by giving them the liberty of choosing their topics of interest. A concern of teachers may be on how to design meaningful tasks and assessments in EFL writing instruction. In addition, the teachers should be able to use their teaching strategies to observe the class and collect some information from the students’ learning so that the instruction can be adjusted to suit them. Problems of EFL writing teaching may probably occur because of a gap between theories of writing instruction and actual practices of classroom teaching (Hedgcock 2012). Clarke (1994) and Hedgecock (2012) comment that theory is often regarded as the work of scholars and researchers but actual practice is the work of teachers. In many cases, there is a mismatch between theory and practice. It is a fact that EFL students are in need for effective use of English language communication. One of the skills which is important is writing. To meet their writing demands, students definitely need good writing instruction, for which qualified and experienced writing teachers are necessary. However, scant attention has been given to how teachers actually teach and learn to teach L2 writing in real classrooms (Leki, Cumming & Silva, 2008). In the EFL context, students may use the writing conventions, vocabulary, and grammar from their L1 as they may not have sufficient knowledge and L2 language to construct the writing in L2 in an appropriate way (Dwivedi & Chakravarthy, 2015). These may cause difficulties in carrying their intended message across to the L2 readers. In case of the Thai context, the teachers’ role then is to familiarize themselves with different techniques and try to use one which will help raise the students’ awareness of the problem of the influence of Thai interference on their English writing and how to avoid transferring the structure of Thai to English. If the writing teacher wants to help the students to become aware of the problems, the teacher may start using scaffolding tasks for. 1) to enable the Thai students to edit the grammar structures for communication. Task 1 is designed for encouraging self-monitoring in writing, and 2) in Task 2, the use

18 of corpus can be a good resource for data driven tools to help develop language awareness; 2) to raise the awareness of the Thai students of the differences between writing in L1 and L2 in text types. A suggested task is illustrated in Task 3: Identifying text structure. The issue of the beliefs and values of teachers and the conflict they may have caused when the teachers are teaching in a real context. The heavy teaching workload and other assignments at schools may affect teachers’ use of teaching approaches and strategies, their designed writing tasks, as well as their feedback provision (Wang, 2011). Yua et. al. (2020) found that the writing teachers often experience ‘external constrains’ stemming from their application of translating the policy prescribed in the curriculum and by the schools. This is a complex issue and sometimes leads to ‘dissonances in their beliefs and practices’ (p. 1). This concern will be further discussed in chapter 3. There has been a concern that the teaching belief of EFL writing teachers should be more widely investigated (Yang & Gao, 2013) as writing teachers are the most important factor in helping the students learn how to write more effectively in English, especially in line with the scaffolding theory. 2.4 Challenges from the third corner: The writing texts The challenges from the EFL writing texts involve the need for a clear understanding on the part of writing teachers when dealing with EFL writing texts. There are salient features of the differences in writing texts produced by EFL student writers. These distinctive writing features appear in the composing process of the writing, the features of the writing texts, and structures (Silva, 1993). Hedgcock (2012) highlights the differences of L1 and L2 writing drawing on the synthesis of EFL writing specialists presented in Figure 2.1 below. • Divergent approaches to constructing arguments (e. g., explicit, direct development of the writer’s position through deductive reasoning, in contrast to indirect development of a position via inductive reasoning) • Different methods of integrating source material into writing (e.g. paraphrase, quotation, stylistic imitation, and so on) • Different assumptions about reader expectations and background knowledge (e.g. presuppositions about how much or little information the reader will require, and so on). • divergent strategies for using markers of cohesion (textual unity) and coherence narrative and expository “logic,” or sequencing and devices (e.g. less subordination, more conjunction, less passivization, less noun modification, more commonly used vocabulary items, narrower vocabulary range, predictable variation in grammatical structure, simpler style, and so on). Figure 2.1: Differences between L1 and L2 student writing taken from Hedgcock (2012:226)

19 The writing texts, as evidence of students’ learning, if they are polished and well-crafted, can be considered masterpieces of the student writers. The students’ learning ownership can be the focus of their attempts (Chan et al., 2014; Brookhart et.al, 2009). Teachers should keep the record of the students’ multiple draft processes to keep track of their improvement and use this to promote their learning (see Task 4). However, in a context of EFL writing, before the EFL student writers can produce their writing masterpieces in English, they may have to go through the struggling processes which need assistance from their caring teachers (Marhaeni, et al., 2019). As non- native speakers of English, the students cannot be expected to become aware of conventions as required by writing in English and the way they write may be influenced by their L1 (Li, 1999; Reid, 1990; Kaplan, 1988). In some cases, there may be interference and constraints of the target language (Li, 1999). The problems that students face are widely spread from lexical, syntactic levels to rhetorical and cultural levels. EFL writing, constrained at almost every level of the language, plus suffer from linguistic and cultural transfers (Soter, 1988) from the first language. Matsuda (1997) proposed that in the EFL context, L1 writers and L2 readers have to be involved and must deal with their whole past experiences and background variation of the three main salient aspects of language, culture, and education when he discussed the dynamic model of writing (see Figure 2.2) as a method to help understand the way to help EFL writing complex situation. These elements influenced the way L1 writers and L2 readers in a shared discourse community. Figure 2.2: Dynamic model of writing (Matsuda, 1997: 52)

20 The teacher may help the students to understand the situation where they have to deal with the differences and so they may be able to communicate with a shared discourse community when producing EFL texts as illustrated in the sample in Task 5: The Story of Nang Nak Phrakanong. Take note on the sequencing of tasks with carefully designed step-by-step series of activities to help the students achieve the goal of the task. With the thorough understanding of EFL writing characteristics and problems, Yueh- miao Chen (2002) proposed the these suggestions for EFL teachers can do to help students cope with these obstacles: 1) using extensive reading of authentic materials and various rhetorical patterns as texts for students to learn and increase their lexical inventory and knowledge of syntactical variations and discourse patterns while learning about social issues and cultural differences; and 2) contrastive rhetoric (Soter, 1988) and error analysis should be analyzed to identify students’ weaknesses and cope with those patterns. 2.5 Suggested tasks for this chapter The tasks suggested in response to the discussion of the challenges from the three corners of the writing process are as follows: Tasks at a micro level • Task 1: Encouraging self-monitoring in writing. The task is inspired by the concepts that allowing students the opportunity to correct themselves could strengthen their critical thinking and reasoning power which is a major step toward writer autonomy. The task helps them to become more self-reliant writers (Bartholomare, 1980) • Task 2: Using corpus for developing language awareness. The corpus data in the form of concordance lines are examples of words or phrases uniquely presented in the way that the words or phrases under investigation are aligned in the middle of the page with their left and right contexts. It is a good tool for students to learn how to solve the problem in language used by data driven analysis. The task demonstrates how the corpus can be used in writing instruction (Tribble & Jones, 1990). Task at a macro level • Task 3: Identifying text structure. Text structure helps the students to visually get the organization patterns of how sentences are sequenced t in a particular type of discourse. There are some key features and vocabulary to suggest a particular type of paragraph (Dymock, 2005). • Task 4: Students’ multiple draft submission and feedback. The multiple draft submission allows for students to have a chance to learn from feedback. From the sample task a student learned to interact with peer feedback and later learned to use the feedback given by the teacher. Their final draft then improved a great deal from the first draft. • Task 5: The Story of Nang Nak Phrakanong. The purpose of writing sometimes involves the EFL students to write about their L1 cultural-related issue. The students need to explain some key words and phrases in L1 content in English. In many cases it is very difficult to find the exact translated words in English to be used or occasionally. Students have to do some research whether the content and concepts actually exist or are known in the western culture. In other words, students need to find shared discourse of L1 and L2 (Matsuda, 1997). The task demonstrates one possible way for the writing teacher to conduct such a lesson.

21 Task 1: Encouraging self-monitoring in writing Instruction: Based on Ferris (2005)’s explanation of writing error types which students most frequently misunderstood at micro level, teachers should create a self- correction task for students to be aware of their errors. Use the sample task and follow the directions below to make student practice noticing and editing their writing mistakes. Spotting My Writing Errors LEVEL 1: IDENTIFYING YOUR CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION Directions: Read the written paragraph again and use the following checklists to check content and organization. Write comments on each question if it is possible. Items Questions Yes No Identifying sentence Topic 1. Does the paragraph have a topic sentence sentence? If yes, please write the sentence number of the topic sentence on the Supporting comments. details 2. Are there any controlling ideas? If yes, please write it on the comments. Concluding 3. If there are controlling ideas, are they sentence clear? 4. Are there enough supporting details to Organization explain the topic sentence? 5. Does each support clearly relate to or develop the topic sentence? 6. Is the relationship between supporting sentences clear? 7. Is there a concluding sentence? If yes, please write the sentence number of the concluding sentence on the comments. 8. Does a concluding sentence refer back to the topic sentence? 9. Does the concluding sentence tie the paragraph together? 10. Does the paragraph have the required organizational pattern? LEVEL 2: SPOTTING ERRORS Directions: Read the written paragraph again and find errors. Put the tick on the error types and write down the mistakes in the provided space. TYPES OF ERRORS Word choice/ word order mistakes: ______ (line…..) _____ (line…..) ______(line…..) Noun mistakes: _______ (line…..) ______ (line…..) _______(line…..)  Verb tense mistakes: _______ (line…..) _______ (line…..) _______ (line…..) Agreement mistakes: _______ (line…..) _______ (line…..) _______ (line…..) Article mistakes: _______ (line…..) _______ (line…..) _______ (line…..) -ing/participle form mistakes: _____ (line…..) ______ (line…..) ______ (line…..) Punctuation mistakes: _______ (line…..) _______ (line…..) _______ (line…..) 

22 LEVEL 3-9: SPOTTING ERRORS IN DETAIL Directions: Use the following checklists to check the grammar points in detail. Write comments on each question if it is possible. Items Questions Yes No Identifying sentence LEVEL 3 1. Do all verbs belong to one time zone (Past or Verb tense Present/ Future)? 2. Look at each verb again. Does the tense you have LEVEL 4 used match up exactly with verbs? Agreement 3. Does each verb convey precisely the time you had in mind, the relationship to other times or actions, and the idea of an action completed or in progress? 4. Is the verb a present form (-s form or no -s form), or does the verb phrase begin with one of the following auxiliaries: does/ do, has/have, am/ are/ is or was/ were? 5. Can you identify the head noun of the subject? 6. Can you determine if the head noun of the subject is singular or plural? 7. If the head noun is singular, have you used the -s form of the verb? 8. If the head noun is plural, have you used the no -s form? Note: Go on to the next verb phrase and ask the same sequence of questions. Remarks: This task presents practical checklists of only particular grammar points as a model on how a writing teacher can improve students’ writing ability at micro level, implementing self-monitoring strategies in the form of a checklist to enhance autonomous writing in learners. Teachers are required to create questions for other grammar points which are frequently found incorrect in students’ writing.

23 Task 2: Using corpus for developing language awareness Errors Hunter! Directions: Reread your written paragraph. Identify the grammatical errors or misuse of grammatical and lexical collocations, complete the table below and then correct the mistakes. Before you start, read the paragraph again and circle the errors… An example of a student’s writing Word/ Parts of Meaning phrase speech My sister is the person that I am closest to in my family, we are growing Sample sentences (from concordance lines) up together. We are not polite like the - other relatives because I always fell out - with her. But basically, she is a kind - person she is selfless and takes care of - everyone around her. I am comfortable - staying with her. And I going to say she From the sample sentences is a creative person, especially in writing. She has written a novel and up What sort of word nearly always comes to the block and she has a lot of immediately before followers it is crazy, and I am surprised by that her ability. On the other hand, this word? _________________________ she is over-thinking she cares too much What sort of word nearly always comes about what others say and it is made her immediately after low confidence. And definitely, I so take this word? _________________________ after her because I over-thinking too. We need to changes it but not easy at all. Revised version Remarks 1. To promote self-monitoring strategies, this task, in the revising stage, will be assigned after the students have finished their writing to help them check errors or inappropriate language use in a particular writing by typing the beginning of one or more words from the corpus named in http://www.lextutor.ca/concordancers/concord_e.html. The software will present sample uses of words or phrases in context for students to analyze word frequency and collocation that come before or after search words and ultimately revise their writing. 2. In case students find more than one error in their paragraph, a teacher should have students duplicate tables according to the number of errors made.

24 Task 3: Identifying text structure Activity 1 Previewing and checking students’ understanding based on the text Directions: Read the passage and follow the instructions below. Astronauts face many challenges in space caused by weightlessness. One of these obstacles is floating around the cabin. To solve this problem, astronauts wear shoes that are coated with a special adhesive. This adhesive sticks to the floor of the cabin. Serving food is another problem. It won't stay put on the table! Experts overcame this problem by putting food and drinks in pouches and tubes. It only needs to be mixed with water. Weightlessness also causes problems when an astronaut tries to work. The simple task of turning a wrench or a doorknob can be difficult. Since there is no gravity to keep him down, when he exerts a force in one direction, the opposite force may flip him over completely. To resolve this challenge, he must be very careful about how much force he uses to do these simple tasks. Here on earth, life is much simpler, thanks to gravity. Source: Ningsih, N. A. (2018). UNDERSTANDING READING TEXT IN ENGLISH FOR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS. CV. AE MEDIA GRAFIKA. a) Determine the text structure. Description Sequence Compare/Contrast Cause/Effect Problem/Solution b) Underline signal words and clues that help you determine the structure of text. c) Write the main idea of the passage: The problems are _____________, _____________ and ______________and the solutions are _______________, ______________ and _______________ . d) Based on the passage above, explain how the author structured his writing or content. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ e) Draw a graphic organizer to summarize the key information of the text.

25 Activity 2 Information transfer Directions: Plan your writing using the graphic organizer and write a problem- solution paragraph. Topic sentence:_____________________________________________________. Solution 1: Problem: Solution 2: ___________ Solution 3: Answer key: Activity 1 a) problem/ solution b) many challenges, caused by, One of these obstacles is…, To solve this problem, another problem, X overcame this problem by …, X also causes problem when …….,To resolve this problem c) The major problem is weightlessness in space and the solutions are wearing shoes that are coated with a special adhesive, putting food and drinks in pouches and tubes and being careful about how much force is used to do simple tasks in space. d) The author presents the major problem that needs to be solved at the beginning and supports his paragraph by providing three solutions with examples. e) Solution 1: Astronauts wear shoes that are coated with a special adhesive to avoid not to float around the Problem: cabin. weightlessness Solution 2: Experts put food and drinks in pouches and tubes. Solution 3: Astronauts must be very careful about forces used to do the simple tasks.

26 Activity 2 Students’ answer will vary. Task 4: Student’s multiple draft submission and feedback Writing assignment: Task description: ‣ Type of writing: ‣ Level of students: Writing an argumentative essay about Grade 12 a married vs single life. Directions: Write an argumentative essay about ‘Married vs Single: Which one is really better for you?’ Choose one of the two topics and provide specific examples and details to develop the essay. The length of the essay should be about 2 4A pages long. Guidelines for developing the essay: Follow the guidelines below to help you write an effective essay. 1. Write how you discover the point to write (prewriting stage: 5 points) 2. Write how you develop solid support for the point—write sentence outline (prewriting stage: 5 points) 3. Organize the supporting material and write it out in a first draft. (drafting: 15 points) 4. Ask a friend and a teacher to check your first draft. Use the correction codes and guidelines for checking your writing. (editing: 10 points) 5. Revise and then edit carefully to ensure an effective, error-free paper. (revising: 10 points) 6. Write the final draft. (publishing: 15 points) Pre-writing stage: Generating ideas through a concept map

27 Peer editing

28 Teacher’s comment

29

30

31 Student’s final draft (publishing stage)

32

33 Task 5: The Story of Nang Nak Phrakanong Activity 1 Activating background knowledge about the story Directions: Look at the words and pictures below. Write down what you have known or heard about them as many as possible in the space around each picture.    Wat Mahabut a lime Wat Mahabut’s port    Ta Khian Khoo Bai Nad a holy knife Directions: Before reading a story of Nang Nak Phra Khanong—a well-known Thai folklore about a female ghost waiting for her husband Mak to come home from the war, work in a group of 3-4 students and write a short paragraph predicting about the story by using all of the 6 phrases above. ______________________________________________ Have you ever ______________________________________________ heard about my ______________________________________________ love story? ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ D_e_a_li_n_g_w_i_th__T_h_a_i _te_c_h_n_ic_a_l_te_r_m_s_! While reading Thai folklores, the readers may experience some technical terms or expressions that make you not understand the story. To help you comprehend and enjoy the reading activity, work in pair and try to write Thai words or phrases that represent the following expressions. 1. …a woman died with a baby in her womb… What does this phrase mean in Thai?………………… 2. … spreading the holy water … What does this phrase mean in Thai? ………………… 3. He put her and her baby into a pot and threw it into the water. What does this sentence mean in Thai? ………………

34 Activity 2 Reading comprehension Directions: Read the story of Nang Nak Phrakanong and complete the story map. Nang Nak Phrakanong It is believed by Thai people that “Phi Tai Hong” is the most horrible ghost, especially the person died by accident. A woman died with a baby in her womb can give the people extremely horrible and exciting feeling. The ghost called “Nang Nak Phrakhanong” popularly narrated by people until the present is an example. It was narrated by villagers in Phrakhanong district that, near the canalwhich was next to Mahabus temple, there was a garden belonging to a rich man called “Phoo Yai Suk”, the leader of village. At the end of the garden, the way to the temple, there was a small house which was far from people. A couple of husband and wife lived there. The husband named Tid Mak was a man in Klong-Toey district. The wife was called Mae Nak who was a beautiful woman in Phrakhanong district. Even though, they worked in the garden and poor, they loved each other very much. Tid Mak was sent to be a soldier during Mae Nak was pregnant. Tid Mak could, at first time, come back to visit his wife. Later on, he was sent to join army in the north of Thailand for months. The army finished after Mae Nak’s baby had been born for two months. When Tid Mak came back from army, he, near the night time, took a boat to Wat Mahabut’s port to see Mae Nak suddenly. That night was Wan Phra’s night,15 Khum (full moon shine). The moon’s light was enough for him to find the way to his house. When he arrived at his house, he called Mae Nak and saw her with a baby. He was very glad and hurriedly went to her. Then he had a little bit shock when touching the unusual-cool and thin wife’s body, also the baby. Mae Nak brought him favorite food as if she knew her husband was hungry. While a little bit eating, cool wind coming touched him and made him felt cold and a spoon fell down the ground floor. Suddenly, Mae Nak could lengthen her hand to keep it. When Tid Mak wondered, she cried and told him she already died. When the baby heard her mother talking, he ran to her mother and jump to a beam, which is under the roof to show his father. Suddenly, Tid Mak knew his wife and baby were ghosts, he hurriedly ran out to his sister’s house, her name was Wan, while the lamp’s light did not work anymore. After that, Nang Nak followed and called him. Tid Oum protected him by spreading the holy water around the house and asked her to go. Mae Nak extremely horrified the villagers because she was buried under trees called “Ta Khian Khoo”. Before Tid Mak arrived at his house, she went to ask food from a young monk. While lengthening her hand to him, her hand was cut by a monk’s holy knife. An old monk took him to Kuti, the place for him surrounded by leaves of tree called “Bai Nad” and slept near him. Nevertheless, he was killed by Mae Nak. It was rumoured that Nang Nak with her baby always gave extremely horrible feeling to the villagers, travelers and monks. Men often got the horrible feelings from her and ran out when they knew a beautiful lady coming to them became Mae Nak. Tid Mak could not go to the other place because he was always followed by Mae Nak. Finally, Mae Nak’s soul and her baby was defeated by Mor Phi (exorcist). He put her and her baby into a pot and threw it into the water. Tid Mak donated her some food through a monk. After that, she disappeared. By the way, Mae Nak Phrakhanong was legendary narrated until the film called “Mae Nak Phrakhanong” is made for the public. Source: http://www.thaifolk.com/doc/nangnak_e.htm

35 Activity 3 Story map Directions: Fill the required information in each section below as indicated. Be as specific as you can in each section. Title Antagonist Main Events :Genre: s: Write down the number in order from Major 1-8 to complete the story. chaPrraocttaegornsi:st Tid Mak was sent to be a soldier during Mae Nak was s: pregnant. Settings: Places After Tid Mak saw his wife’s hand, he was told that : Mae Nak already died. time : who Mae Nak brought him favorite food as soon as her husband arrived. \\ How was the main conflict Mae Nak and her baby followed her husband What is the resolved? everywhere he went. main conflict? Mae Nak and her baby were defeated by put into pot and threw it into water. Tid Mak came back from army to see his wife and baby at his home. During eating time, Mae Nak lengthened her hand to keep spoon. Tid Mak ran out his sister’s house after he knew that his wife and baby were ghost. Activity 4 Writing a summary Directions: Write the brief summary of Nang Nak Prakanong by using the information written in the story map as guidelines. __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ ____________________

36 2.6 Chapter summary This chapter highlights the challenges found from the three corners of writing process: the student writers, the writing teachers, and the writing texts. From the EFL students’ perspective, the obstacles in writing in English are mostly from the lack of their confidence in English and their writing skills. Their writing motivation may be increased if they are to write the topics which are of interest to them. They need guidance and feedback from the teachers to improve their skills. The writing teachers should not take for granted the students’ L1 interference which may impede the success of their L2 writing. They may need to respond to the learners’ needs in assigning interesting topics, providing feedback and assessment to help the students to reach their writing goals. The writing texts as evidence of the students’ production can be used as a source to motivate and increase their self-esteem and be valued of their ownership. The writing texts producing via multiple drafts can be a good resource for learning to cope with the L1 and L2 issues of writing. Suggested tasks were presented as the sample tasks the EFL teachers may employed to help minimize the difficulties and focus on building their strength to learn to cope with the obstacles. These tasks are designed to scaffold the students to overcome difficulties of the L1 and L2.

37 2.7 References Bartholomare, D. (1980). The Study of error. College Composition and Communication, 31, 253-269. Bennui, P. (2008). A study of L1 interference in the writing of Thai EFL students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 4, 72-102. Brookhart, S.M., Moss, C.M. &Long, B.A. (2009). Promoting student ownership of learning through high-impact formative assessment practices. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(12), 52-67. Bordin, W., Yusop, B., Eric, A., Ambele and Fatimah, J. (2019). An Analysis of the Written Errors of Thai EFL Students’ Essay Writing in English. Songklanakarin Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(3), 55-82. Chan, P.E., Graham-Day, K.J., Ressa, V.A., Peters, M.T., & Konrad, M. (2014). Beyond involvement: Promoting student ownership of learning in classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(2), 105–113. Cohen, A., & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing: Students’ strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2),169- 188. Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81-141. Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482-511. Dang Thi Ngoc Anh. (2019). EFL student’s writing skills: Challenges and remedies. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 9(6.1), 74-84. Dwivedi, R.S. & Chakravarthy, R.V. (2015). Problems Encountered By Rural Students in Writing English–Role of English Teacher-Some Solutions. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 3(7), 27-38. Dymock, S. (2005). Teaching expository text structure awareness. The Reading Teacher, 59(2), 177-181. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11. Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R.B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspectives. London: Routledge. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Hedgcock, J.S. (2012). Second language writing processes among adolescent and adult learners.In Grigorenko, E.L., Mambrino, E. & Preiss, D.D. (Eds.), Writing: A Mosaic of New Perspectives (pp. 221-239). New York: Psychology Press Taylor & Francs Group. Hedge,T. (2005). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 181-209.

38 Hourani, T. M. Y. (2008). An analysis of the common grammatical errors in the English writing made by 3rd secondary male students in the Eastern Coast of the UAE. Unpublished master’s thesis. British University in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Huwari, I., & Al-Khasawneh, F. (2013). The reasons behind the weaknesses of writing inEnglish among pre-year students’ At Taibah University. English for Specific Purposes World, 38(14), 1-9. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Indrasuta, C. (1988). Narrative styles in the writing of Thai and American students. In A. C.Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures (pp. 206-226). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. ยอ่ หนา้ หาย Kaplan, R.B. (1988). Contrastive rhetoric and second language learning: Notes toward a theory of contrastive rhetoric. In A. Parves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 275-304). Newbury Park, CA: Stage. Krapels, A. R. (1991). An overview of second language writing process research. In B.Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research Insights for the classroom (pp. 37-56). Cambridge: Cambridge University. Leki, I., Cumming, A. & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. London: Routledge. Li, L.T. (1999). Revaluing EFL student writers from the perspective of literacy development. TheProceedings of the English international symposium on English Teaching. English Teachers’ Association, ROC, Taipei, 1999 (pp 441-452). Taipei: Crane. Ly, T., T. (2007). Learners’ motivation and identity in the Vietnamese EFL writing classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 6(1), 151-163. Marhaeni, A., Kusuma, I., Dewi, N., & Paramartha, A. (2019). Using performance assessment to empower students’ learning ownership and promote achievement in EFL writing courses. International Journal of Humanities, Literature & Arts, 2(1), 9-17.https://doi.org/10.31295/ijhla.v2n1.55 Matsuda, P.K. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: a dynamic model of l2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 45-60. Nguyen, T., M., H, Hudson, P., & Reedy, D. (2008). Preparing preservice teachers to teach EFL writing: Motivations, perceptions, expectations, and challenges. In JALT conference 2008: Shared Identities: Our Interweaving Threads, 31 October – 3 November, 2008, Tokyo, Japan. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. New York, NY: Heinle & Heinle. Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. Singapore: McGrawhill. Parichat, W. & Chinokul, S. (2014). English language writing anxiety among grade 11 Thai students. An Online Journal of Educational (OJED), 9(1), 657-671. Pongsiriwet, C. (2001). Relationships among grammatical accuracy, discourse features, and the quality of second language writing: The case of Thai EFL learners. Unpublished Dissertation. College of Human Resources and Education, West Virginia University.

39 Reid, J. (1990). Responding to different topic types: A quantitative analysis from a contrastive rhetoric perspective. In Kroll, B. (Ed), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 191-210). New York: Cambridge University Press. Silva, T. (1993). Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 Writing: The ESL Research and Its Implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677. Soter, A.O. (1988). The second language learner and cultural transfer in narration. In A. Purves (Eds.). Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 177-205). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Steiner, H. H. (2016). The strategy project: Promoting self-regulated learning through an authentic assignment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 28(2), 271-282. Tarnopolsky, O. (2000). Writing English as a foreign language: A report from Ukraine. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 209-226. Tribble, C. & G. Jones. (1990). Concordances in the classroom: A resource book for teachers. Harlow: Longman Group. Wang, Z. (2011). A case study of one EFL writing teacher's feedback on discourse for advancedlearners in China. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 6, 21-42. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy value theory of achievement motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81. Yang, L. & Gao, S. (2013). Beliefs and practices of Chinese university teachers in EFL writing instruction, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 26(2), 128-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2013.794817 Yua, S., Xu, H., Jianga, L. & Ian, I. K. (2020). Understanding Macau novice secondary teachers’ beliefs and practices of EFL writing instruction: A complexity theory Perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, 1-13. Yueh-miao, C. (2002). The problems of university EFL Writing in Taiwan. The Korea TESOL Journal, 5(1), 59-79.

40 Chapter Three: Teachers’ Beliefs about EFL Writing Instructional Approaches 3.1 Introduction Clark’s (1994) presents strong arguments to bridge the gaps between theory and practice in the second language teaching. He calls for the theorists “to cast teachers as central to the field and to reframe issues according to their impacts on classrooms. (p. 10). To claim success of the theory and principle, implication and applicability in the classroom context are important. The policy makers may need to listen to teachers and their beliefs and practices as this is important to bring about a real change in the classroom. Burn (1992) and Cumming (1989) contend that valuing teachers’ beliefs and practices is a fundamental ground for writing program development as the teachers’ wilingness, morality, and dedication is a big part when changes or alternative ways in improving the writing instruction need to be implemented. Belcher (2007) shares a similar view saying that “teachers are in a strong position to judge the relevance and transferability of researchers’ pedagogical suggestions” (p. 398). The purpose of this chapter; therefore, is to synthesize relevant literature review on writing teachers’ beliefs and practices in EFL writing instruction. With this information, it may be clearer to justify how the scaffolding writing instruction may be a solution for the writing teachers who care to assist their students to improve their English writing performance. 3.2 Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and writing teaching approaches Pajares (1992) conceptualizes teacher’s belief as “individual judgement of the truth or falsity of a proposition.” (p. 316). The concepts overlap with psychological terms such as ‘knowledge, attitude, opinion and ideology’. Teachers normally hold their beliefs about their work, their subject matter, their students, their own identity, roles and responsibilities (Borg, 2011). Teachers’ beliefs are drawn from their past experiences as students (Yero, 2002). Teachers’ beliefs sometimes are consciously or unconsciously held by teachers and serve as a guide to their thought and behavior (Borg, 2001). Pajares (1992) comments that teachers’ beliefs can influence the teachers’ lesson plans, decision making, and adjustments on students’ learning and behaviors. Johnson (1994) summarizes the assumptions of research on teachers’ beliefs: teachers’ beliefs influence perception and judgment of teachers in class; 2) they play a critical role in how they teach; and 3) understanding teachers’ beliefs is essential to improving teaching practices and professional teacher preparation programs. Teachers’ beliefs are shaped by cultural context and its societal values and norms. These influence teachers’ conceptions of how good teaching should proceed (Yero, 2002).

41 It is often the case for teachers to transfer their pedagogical beliefs into classroom practices. As for the teaching of EFL writing, language teachers’ pedagogical beliefs should focus on either distinctive language structures, creative expression, composing processes, content, genres, or contexts of writing. Language teachers often refer to approaches in writing instruction based on product and process. Teaching English as a product focuses on correct mastery of linguistic contents, such as grammar and vocabulary (Kroll, 2003). Writing as a product contributes to the teaching of skills which are controlled composition and genre-based approach (Matsuda & Silva, 2010). In the controlled composition teaching emphasizes habit formation in terms of language accuracy and the practices tend to be promoted by the primary and secondary school context. The genre-based approach combines the teaching of writing with identification and imitation of textual structures (Matsuda & Silva, 2010). Badger and White (2000) contend that genre-based approach is an extension of the product-oriented approach. The focus of this writing approach aims to integrate the knowledge of a particular genre and its communicative purpose by helping the students to produce the written products to communicate to others in the same discourse used in the community. The process approach, however, focuses on the development of the writing texts through successive stages emphasizing the use of language and construction of a comprehensible message (Hyland, 2003). The stages include: planning, writing, revising, and editing of the text. The writing production is recursive. This helps the students to develop writing and cognitive skills. They learn through feedback. The above theoretical explanation is in line with what teachers have stated in a study. The findings on teachers’ beliefs about teaching writing in Tagle et. al.’s (2017) study reveal the conceptual network associated with beliefs concerning the teaching of writing in English and their underlying approaches as illustrated in Figure 3 below: Planning (Controlled by graphic organizer) Figure 3.1: Teacher’s beliefs concerning teaching EFL writing

42 The sources of the beliefs concerning the teaching of the writing production skills in English associated with the controlled composition approaches were from the teachers at schools where genre-based instruction and process approach were applied by lecturers at a university Many pre-service teachers are not prepared to teach writing and so they lose confidence in teaching. In the study of Nguyen (2021) 74.5% of the Thai preservice admitted that they “have no sufficient knowledge about how to teach English writing” (p. 128). They “don’t have enough teaching strategies” (p. 127). They shared their view that it is necessary to prepare for teaching English writing with these statements “study writing instruction course well (74.5%)” “improve writing skills (66%)”, “observe my teachers teaching writing (63.8%)”, “practice different teaching techniques (57.4%)”, “practice teaching writing with friends (55.3%)”, and “prepare lesson plans to teach writing (36.2%)” (p. 130). These views reflect their unpreparedness to teach English writing and the following sections may provide a solid background for them to start the area of EFL writing instruction. Let us now review the three EFL teaching writing approaches based on the following elements: background, the main principle, classroom procedures, benefits and constraints. Then sample teaching materials for each approach will be presented. Table 3.1: A summary description of product approach to writing Product writing instruction approach Background In the 1950´s and 1960´s, writing teachers focused their lessons on a specific product: a story, an essay, a report. This product is used to 1) demonstrate mastery of English rhetorical style, 2) demonstrate whether the writer is a proficient language user, and 3) whether the production is organized and conventional to the audience’s views (Brown, 2007). The Main principle Product writing focuses on students´ ability to use vocabulary, syntax and cohesive devices in their written outcomes (Pincas, 1982 cited in Badger & White, 2000). Based on a specific model, teachers are to lead students to produce, a ´well structured, coherent, rich content, grammatical essay´ (Shannon, 1994). Classroom procedures For product writing instruction, the lesson begins with familiarizing students with the target writing style. Then, the teachers move from controlled writing exercises to guided composition. The accuracy of the language is the focus. Finally the students will be asked to do free practice writing (Badger & White, 2000).

43 Benefits and constraints With product writing instruction, language accuracy is of major importance and the teacher focuses attention on the final outcome of the written work, that it is readable, grammatically accurate and that it follows the written conventions needed (Nunan, 1989; Li Wai Shing, 1992). The teacher’s role is simply a grammatical error pointer and a supporter of those grammatical points. One of the main benefits this approach may provide is that model texts can provide students with a clear idea of what is expected of them and how they can structure their texts. However, it may be questionable how students are producing their own texts or if they are merely imitating the model text. Additionally, a focus on language and vocabulary accuracy may ignore other important writing characteristics, such as organization, coherence, or audience awareness. In an extreme case, students´ creativity and capability to learn through writing may be ignored. Task 6: Writing as a product Task description: Instructions: Type of a writing: Suppose that you were a Martian just landing your Writing a postcard spaceship to explore the earth. Your mission is to observe humans’ behaviors, their daily routines, Purpose: and some other situations you have found on this To inform the readers about planet. Then, you are to write a postcard with a related picture to inform your alien friends. the situation students have Describe your experience in an extraordinary way. encountered through a picture *Do not forget to stick your postal stamp and and informal written language. write down the receiver’s address on your postcard. Objective: Students will be able to describe common situations through a postcard showing extraordinary expressions. Level of students: Grade 9

44 EXAMPLE Dear Fed, You know I have been here for 10 days on earth (30 Martian days). The dominant creatures here are called ‘human’. You will not believe me if I tell you that they are not green like us! Their yellowish skin is too bright to look at! They don’t feed on just plants and vegetables like we do. I think they eat almost all kinds of animals from cows to ants! How peculiar their lives are! I will send you some more incredible stories soon. Keep in touch! Love, Daniel Directions: Write a postcard with pictures to your alien friends on Mars and decorate it as you like.You can use the model postcard above as your writing example.

From: 45 stamp To: Dear…………………….., With love, ……………………………….

46 Scoring rubric for writing assessment Writing a postcard Score Description 5 Students write the postcard in letter format and use brief and simple language of which structures are grammatically correct in telling and describing the experiences to their friend. Students present personal and informal expressions on their postcard. The message and the picture are related, fit, and well-organized in the space given. Creative decoration can be noticed. 4 Students write the postcard in letter format using brief and understandable language which contains 1-2 grammatical errors in explaining what they have experienced on earth. Students present personal and informal expressions on their postcard. The text and picture are related, fit, and well-organized in the space given. The postcard is beautifully decorated. 3 Students create the postcard using letter format with understandable language containing 3-4 grammatical errors in telling their experiences and describing the events. Students show few personal and informal expressions on their postcard. The message and picture are related, fit, and organized in the space provided. 2 Students write the postcard in letter format with quite confusing message due to several grammatical mistakes in the description. The composition is more like written language. Students show few personal and informal expressions on their postcard. The text and picture are related, but not well arranged in the suitable position. 1 Students write the postcard in letter format but it is complicated to understand due to many grammatical errors found in the description. The written language can be noticed because students do not present friendly and personal expressions throughout their messages. The text and picture are not related and disorderly positioned.

47 Table 3.2: A summary description of process writing instruction approach Process writing instruction approach Background • In the 1970s, theories about L2 writing instruction started to shift from a focus on structures of language and of written texts towards an emphasis on the processes of composing. • Process writing instruction was initiated in L1 contexts in North American universities (Hyland & Hyland, 2006a) when writing teachers realized that their students needed guidance in their writing process. Process writing instruction emphasizes the importance of helping the students to develop their writing ability to plan, identify issues and analyze and implement possible solutions (Hyland, 2003, p. 10). • Writing teachers shifted their attention to train their students to become self-aware and reflect on the activities and strategies while they are writing (Hyland, 2003; Seow, 2002). The important part of the process writing instruction is to create the tasks or space where the discovery and thinking occur for meaningful learning (Hedges, 2000). The students are encouraged to find an effective way to present the writing text to meet their own purposes for writing. The text must also be comprehensible and reach the audiences’ expectation (Silva, 1987). • Teachers’ roles were no longer those of authorities or evaluators; instead, they are facilitators of knowledge, consultants, assistants and co-participators of students learning (Li Wai Shing, 1992). The main principle • The student writers, in the process writing instruction, are the center of attention and are involved in a positive, encouraging, and collaborative environment. Students are given time to work through their writing processes (Silva, 1987). • Theories about the processes of writing developed in three main strands: the expressive view, the cognitive view, and the social view. 1) The expressive view regards writing as a form of communicating personal ideas that is progressively learnt, not taught, so rather than focusing narrowly on correct grammar and usage, writers are encouraged to discover their own ideas while they compose. 2) The cognitive view regards writing as a, ‘non-linear, exploratory, and generative process whereby writers discover and reformulate their ideas as they attempt to approximate meaning’ (Zamel, 1983, p. 165). From a cognitive view, learning to write focuses on developing an efficient and effective composing process. 3) The social view regards writing as situated acts that occur within particular situations and groups of people, so learning to write is a process of socializing into an academic or other specialized community.

48 Classroom procedures for process writing. • Students will engage in following activities in process writing instruction: 1) Planning. • Students may focus on the gist and the overall organization they wish to give to their texts (Hedge, 2000). • The main purpose of planning or pre-writing activities is to aid students in generating ideas and in encouraging them to write (Brown, 2007; Seow, 2002) by activating any prior knowledge that can guide them in developing their written piece. • At the prewriting stage, the role of the teacher is to explain to students that writers use pre-writing ideas to help them explore topics about which to write. Planning also motivates students to consider the purpose of their text and to focus on the audience who will read their writing text. • Sample of activities in prewriting stage include brainstorming, constructing through webs and graphic organizers, asking the 5 Ws--who, what, where, when and why, listing and categorizing information, reflecting upon personal experience and an making outline. Pre-writing prompts or activities planned by the teacher can serve as writing scaffolds for inexperienced writers who have difficulty accessing their own feelings, ideas, experiences, and knowledge. • Teachers planned pre-writing activities give students a place to start and make them aware of places from which to get ideas in the future. Students who have a place to start will be more motivated to continue developing their ideas and their own writing voices. 2) Composing/drafting. • After the students have gathered the information they need in the pre-writing activities, they move on to produce their first draft. During this phase, the students should focus on producing the content rather than worrying about language accuracy (Seow, 2002, p. 317). • The strategy for organizing the ideas at this stage may involve the student writers to use appropriate graphic organizers, answer a set of questions, and generate ideas in detail. At this point in the process, the emphasis is on content and meaning rather than on mechanics and conventions. • The students learn the importance of an introductory statement that identifies the main idea of the paragraph (the topic sentence), how to support that sentence with examples or details (the body) and how to write a concluding statement that sums up the main idea in different words (the conclusion). • Multiple drafts encourage writing without the pressure of having to get it right the first time. However, drafting requires time, patience, and specific training (Brown, 2007). • Feedback can be employed as a guiding tool between drafts because it assists students in obtaining a better understanding of their writing production, their readers, and their writing processes (Hyland & Hyland, 2006a). The students may become aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their written language.

49 • Self-monitoring strategies may be employed at this stage to let the student edit their own work. • In addition, peer-editing is extremely valuable because it builds students’ awareness of what is relevant, accurate and appropriate when writing. Peer feedback, an example of the different types of delivery modes supports process writing with a focus on drafting and revision (Liu & Hansen, 2002). Rather than just focusing on receiving information, peer feedback activities encourage students to develop analytical skills and take up an active role in their learning (Liu & Hansen, 2002). This feedback on content and organization of their drafts not only provides additional opportunities for meaningful use of English, but also enables the students to begin to see how others (the audience) see their writing. Positive suggestions for improvement may then follow. This allows the students adequate time to work on the suggested changes after the writer/editor consultations. • Conferencing feedback sessions may be used to allow the teacher to provide support for obtaining ideas, organizing information and finding the appropriate language to express them. Additionally, it allows the teacher to be more explicit in the recommendations given and encourage opportunities for meaningful communication (Hedge, 2002). 3) Revising/Editing. • Drafting, revising and editing are the common practices in process writing. When they revise, the students are asked to not only check for grammatical discrepancies, but they should review the global meaning of the text and the organization of ideas that they intend to communicate (Seow, 2002). • Multiple drafts are used in the writing process to show that writing is a recursive process and that every writer is encouraged to use the process in a different way. Students experience less pressure to finish the perfect writing in one writing trial. They are more willing to experiment, explore, revise, and edit. • Writing teachers may consider various feedback techniques and strategies. 4) Publishing • Publishing is probably the least used aspect of the writing process. It emphasizes finishing a complete work and producing a quality product and recognizing writing as a social process – an exchange of ideas between authors and readers, not just a performance for the teachers. • Having feedback from actual readers provides motivation for writing and emphasizes higher level thinking such as creativity and organization. Benefits and constraints • While the product approach focuses on language forms and the final draft (Liu & Hansen, 2002), a process-oriented approach focuses on how writers compose in a non-linear way and how they manage to get meaning across to their reader. If writers wish to communicate their ideas fluently, process writing allows teachers to focus their attention on improving students´ writing activities to assure a meaningful and communicative final product.