The effectiveness of genre based approach in improving efl writing skills for non english major students at dong nai technology university

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY - THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GENRE- BASED APPROACH IN IMPROVING EFL WRITING SKILLS FOR NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT DONG NAI TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY Submitted to the Faculty of English Language in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in English Language Course code: 60220201 By HUYNH THUY NHIEN Supervised by LE XUAN QUYNH, Ph D HO CHI MINH CITY, JULY 2020 The thesis entitled “The Effectiveness of Genre- Based Approach in Improving EFL Writing Skills for Non-English Major Students at Dong Nai Technology University” was successfully defended and approved on 27th September 2020 at Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HUTECH) Academic supervisor: LE XUAN QUYNH, Ph D ……………………………………………………………… (full name, title, signature) Examination Committee NGUYEN THI KIEU THU, Ph D Chair TRUONG CONG BANG, Ph D Reader TRAN QUOC THAO, Ph D Reader LE DANG NGUYEN, Ph D Member LE VAN TUYEN, Ph D Secretary Member On behalf of the Examination Committee Chair HCMC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE HCMC, … ……………2020 MASTER’S THESIS REPORT Student name: HUỲNH THUỲ NHIÊN Sex: Female Date of birth: 28th October 1994 Place of birth: Dong Nai Province Major: English Language Student code: 1841900046 I- Thesis title: The Effectiveness of Genre- Based Approach in Improving EFL Writing Skills for Non-English Major Students at Dong Nai Technology University II- Objectives and contents: To investigate the effectiveness of this approach, this study has to achieve the major objectives that are (1) to determine the effectiveness of genre-based approach in improving writing skills for non-English major students at DNTU and (2) to explore their attitude towards this approach in learning writing III- Starting date: 30th October 2019 IV- Completing date: 27th September 2020 V- Academic supervisor: LE XUAN QUYNH, Ph D ACADEMIC SUPERVISOR FACULTY DEAN (full name, signature) (full name, signature) CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I certify my authorship of the Master’s Thesis submitted today entitled: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GENRE- BASED APPROACH IN IMPROVING EFL WRITING SKILLS FOR NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT DONG NAI TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY In terms of the statement of requirements for Theses in Master’s programs issued by the Higher Degree Committee of Faculty of English Language, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology Ho Chi Minh City, November 2020 HUYNH THUY NHIEN i RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS I hereby state that I, HUYNH THUY NHIEN, being a candidate for the degree of Master of Arts (English Language) accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my Master’s Thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Librarian for the care, loan, and reproduction for theses Ho Chi Minh City, November 2020 HUYNH THUY NHIEN ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my deep and heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Le Xuan Quynh, for his devotion, patience, guidance, insightful advice, and constant encouragement throughout the whole research process Without his professional guide and valuable comments, this thesis would never have been completed Next, I also would like to express my sincere appreciation to my colleagues at the Foreign Language Faculty of Dong Nai Technology University who gave me valuable advice to help my thesis be better and completed Then I would like to give my special thanks to the students at Dong Nai Technology University, all of whom enthusiastically participated in my study Further, I am also very thankful to all my instructors who have taught me in 18SNA11 class with their helpful and valuable lessons and my classmates at HUTECH University for their support during the whole course Last but not least, I would like to express my deep gratefulness to my family who always stands by me to share the difficulties with me by their love and mental support to help me complete my research work iii ABSTRACT This study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of Genre- Based Approach (GBA) in improving EFL writing skills for Non-English Major Students at Dong Nai Technology University (DNTU) and their attitude to GBA The participants of the study included 60 non-English major students at DNTU Data of the study were collected by two types of the quantitative research by the quasiexperimental design with the tests including pre-test and post-test for the control group and the experimental group The other was the questionnaire SPSS ver 25 was employed to analyse the quantitative data in this study The findings revealed that the learners in both groups had a positive change in their EFL writing after the experiment, but the improvement of the experimental group was greater than the control group in overall writing by GBA, specifically in five writing components of vocabulary, content, language use, mechanics, and organization However, the rate of GBA’s effects on which writing component was different in the experimental group The learners’ writing component of language use was improved the most while their writing component of content was less enhanced than the others with this approach In terms of students’ attitude towards learning English writing with GBA, the findings from the questionnaire revealed that the participants in the experimental group highly agreed that GBA can bring the positive effects to their EFL writing skills In brief, GBA had the effectiveness of enhancing EFL wiring skills for non-English learners This study once again examined the potential value of this approach in education based on the learners’ attitude Key words: Genre-based approach, genre pedagogy, EFL writing, non-English major students, teaching and learning cycle iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY i RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABSTRACT iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study 1.2 Statement of the problem 1.3 Aims and objectives of the study 1.4 Research questions 1.5 Scope of the Study 1.6 Significance of the study 1.7 Definitions of the key terms 1.8 Organization of the thesis CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Approaches to learning and teaching EFL writing 2.2.1 Product approach 2.2.2 Process approach 2.3 Genre-based approach 11 2.3.1 The Nature of Genre in Linguistic Study 11 2.3.2 The Properties of genre-based approach 12 2.3.3 The drawbacks of the genre-based approach 13 2.3.4 A comparison of writing approaches in Teaching EFL 14 2.4 Implementation of Genre-based Approach for Writing Instruction 16 2.5 Assessment of learner’s attitude towards applying the GBA 18 v 2.6 Previous Studies 19 2.7 Conceptual Framework 21 2.8 Chapter summary 24 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 25 3.1 Introduction 25 3.2 Research Design 25 3.3 Research Site 26 3.4 Sample and Sampling Procedures 26 3.5 Research Instruments 28 3.5.1 Teaching Material 28 3.5.1.1 The writing genre in the study: Descriptive Paragraph 28 3.5.1.2 Teaching Materials: Writing Sample Texts 29 3.5.1.3 The guide for the future lesson plan 29 3.5.2 The Training 31 3.5.2.1 The Training Plan 31 3.5.2.2 Experimental teaching process 35 3.5.3 Tests 36 3.5.3.1 Pre-tests 37 3.5.3.2 Post-tests 37 3.5.3.3 Scoring Rubric 37 3.5.4 Questionnaire 38 3.6 Data Analysis Procedures 39 3.6.1 Tests 39 3.6.2 Questionnaire 41 3.7 Data Collection Procedures 41 3.8 Validity and Reliability 42 3.8.1 Tests 42 3.8.2 Questionnaire 45 3.9 Ethical issues 46 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 47 4.1 Introduction 47 4.2 Results of Pre-tests 47 vi 4.2.1 Overall performance of CG and EG 47 4.2.2 Componential scores 48 4.2.2.1 Content 50 4.2.2.2 Organization 50 4.2.2.3 Vocabulary 51 4.2.2.4 Language Use 51 4.2.2.5 Mechanics 52 4.3 Results of Post-tests 52 4.3.1 Overall performance of CG and EG 52 4.3.2 Componential scores 54 4.3.2.1 Content 55 4.3.2.2 Organization 56 4.3.2.3 Vocabulary 57 4.3.2.4 Language focus 58 4.3.2.5 Mechanics 58 4.4 Summary of Test results 59 4.5 Questionnaire 59 4.5.1 Theme 1: The improvement of learning writing through GBA 59 4.5.2 Theme 2: The motivation of learning writing through GBA 62 4.5.3 Summary of Questionnaire findings 64 4.6 Discussion of findings 64 4.6.1 Participants’ writing skill 64 4.6.2 Participants’ attitude towards applying GBA 66 4.7 Summary 68 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 70 5.1 Summary of the main findings of the thesis 70 5.2 Implications of the research 71 5.3 Limitations of the research 72 5.4 Recommendations for further research 73 5.5 Summary 74 References 75 vii APPENDIX K4: CG’s post-test raw scores PARTICIPANTS Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student 10 Student 11 Student 12 Student 13 Student 14 Student 15 Student 16 Student 17 Student 18 Student 19 Student 20 Student 21 Student 22 Student 23 Student 24 Student 25 Student 26 Student 27 Student 28 Student 29 Student 30 CONTROL GROUP’S POST-TEST SCORES C1 7.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 6.5 7.0 4.5 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 5.5 6.0 C2 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.5 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 6.5 6.5 4.5 6.5 5.5 5.0 6.0 5.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 O1 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 6.5 7.0 4.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 O2 6.5 6.5 5.5 6.0 5.5 5.5 7.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 V1 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.5 6.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.5 C: Content O: Organization V: Vocabulary L: Language Use M: Mechanics OW: Overall writing Final: Average of two raters’ final scores V2 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 5.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 5.5 4.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.5 L1 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 L2 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 M1 M2 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.5 8.5 9.0 9.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.0 9.0 8.5 8.5 8.0 8.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 8.0 9.0 8.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 8.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 OW1 6.8 6.8 6.5 6.2 6.3 6.1 7.0 6.7 6.2 6.7 6.3 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.0 5.8 7.5 6.8 7.2 5.2 6.4 6.0 5.6 6.0 6.0 6.6 6.7 6.5 5.8 6.3 OW2 7.1 6.8 6.3 6.9 6.1 6.5 7.1 6.3 5.8 6.6 6.4 6.6 6.6 6.9 5.9 5.5 7.1 6.7 6.6 5.5 6.9 5.7 5.6 6.2 6.0 6.7 6.6 6.5 5.8 6.4 Final 7.0 6.8 6.4 6.6 6.2 6.3 7.1 6.5 6.0 6.7 6.4 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.0 5.7 7.3 6.8 6.9 5.4 6.7 5.9 5.6 6.1 6.0 6.7 6.7 6.5 5.8 6.4 1: Rater 2: Rater 128 APPENDIX K5: Frequency table of pre-test and post-test writing band scores EG Pretest C O V L M Final Band scores Frequency C O V L M Final Percent Band scores Frequency Percent 4.0-6.9 30 100.0 4.0-6.9 29 96.7 7.0-8.9 0 7.0-8.9 3.3 4.0-6.9 27 90.0 4.0-6.9 30 100.0 7.0-8.9 10.0 7.0-8.9 0 4.0-6.9 29 96.7 4.0-6.9 30 100.0 7.0-8.9 3.3 7.0-8.9 0 4.0-6.9 29 96.7 4.0-6.9 30 100.0 7.0-8.9 3.3 7.0-8.9 0 7.0-8.9 22 73.3 7.0-8.9 30 100.0 9.0-10.0 26.7 9.0-10.0 0 4.0-6.9 27 90.0 4.0-6.9 29 96.7 7.0-8.9 10.0 7.0-8.9 3.3 EG Posttest CG Band scores Frequency CG Percent Band scores Frequency Percent 4.0-6.9 27 90.0 4.0-6.9 28 93.3 7.0-8.9 10.0 7.0-8.9 6.7 4.0-6.9 25 83.3 4.0-6.9 28 93.3 7.0-8.9 16.7 7.0-8.9 6.7 4.0-6.9 27 90.0 4.0-6.9 30 100.0 7.0-8.9 10.0 7.0-8.9 0 4.0-6.9 25 83.3 4.0-6.9 30 100.0 7.0-8.9 16.7 7.0-8.9 0 7.0-8.9 12 40.0 7.0-8.9 26 86.7 9.0-10.0 18 60.0 9.0-10.0 13.3 4.0-6.9 15 50.0 4.0-6.9 27 96.7 7.0-8.9 15 50.0 7.0-8.9 3.3 Note: C for Content – O for Organization – V for Vocabulary – L for Language Use – M for Mechanics 129 APPENDIX K6: Descriptive Statistics of Pre-test scores EXPERIMENTAL GROUP – PRE-TEST Final C O V L M Valid 30 30 30 30 30 30 Missing 0 0 0 Mean 6.200 5.617 5.873 5.580 5.670 8.347 Std Error of Mean 0981 1201 1149 1301 1192 0911 Median 6.125 5.500 6.000 5.500 5.800 8.500 Std Deviation 5372 6576 6291 7126 6529 4988 Variance 289 432 396 508 426 249 Skewness -.037 040 100 -.074 -.620 -.571 Std Error of Skewness 427 427 427 427 427 427 Minimum 5.0 4.3 4.8 4.0 4.0 7.0 Maximum 7.4 6.8 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 N CONTROL GROUP – PRE-TEST Final C O V L M Valid 30 30 30 30 30 30 Missing 0 0 0 Mean 6.093 5.633 5.600 5.457 5.492 8.308 Std Error of Mean 0965 1524 0986 1234 1006 0664 Median 6.150 6.000 5.750 5.300 5.250 8.500 Std Deviation 5286 8349 5398 6760 5512 3637 Variance 279 697 291 457 304 132 Skewness -.227 -.526 -.580 220 335 -.580 Std Error of Skewness 427 427 427 427 427 427 Minimum 5.1 4.0 4.5 4.3 4.8 7.5 Maximum 7.1 7.0 6.5 6.8 6.5 8.8 N Note: C for Content – O for Organization – V for Vocabulary – L for Language Use – M for Mechanics 130 APPENDIX K7: Descriptive Statistics of Post-test scores CONTROL GROUP – POST-TEST Final C O V L M Valid 30 30 30 30 30 30 Missing 0 0 0 Mean 6.398 6.107 5.875 5.833 5.775 8.417 Std Error of Mean 0853 1141 1036 0998 0991 0660 Median 6.500 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 8.500 Std Deviation 4675 6247 5676 5467 5428 3616 Variance 219 390 322 299 295 131 Skewness -.392 -.667 559 -.565 -.397 119 Std Error of Skewness 427 427 427 427 427 427 Minimum 5.4 4.5 4.8 4.5 5.0 8.0 Maximum 7.3 7.0 7.5 6.8 6.8 9.0 N EXPERIMENTAL GROUP – POST-TEST Final C O V L M Valid 30 30 30 30 30 30 Missing 0 0 0 Mean 6.817 6.446 6.263 6.300 6.290 8.808 Std Error of Mean 0857 0943 1114 1041 1138 0545 Median 6.950 6.500 6.300 6.500 6.375 9.000 Std Deviation 4693 5166 6100 5701 6233 2986 Variance 220 267 372 325 389 089 Skewness -1.289 -1.600 -.534 -1.404 Std Error of Skewness 427 427 427 427 427 427 Minimum 5.4 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 8.0 Maximum 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 9.0 N -1.067 -1.655 Note: C for Content – O for Organization – V for Vocabulary – L for Language Use – M for Mechanics 131 APPENDIX K8: Independent Samples t-test of Pre-test scores Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means Variances F Final Equal variances assumed 180 Sig .673 Equal variances not assumed Content Equal variances assumed 1.625 207 Equal variances not assumed Organization Equal variances assumed 052 820 Equal variances not assumed Vocabulary Equal variances assumed 001 970 Equal variances not assumed Language Use Equal variances assumed 178 675 Equal variances not assumed Mechanics Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 2.633 110 t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean Std Error Difference Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper 775 58 441 1067 1376 -.1688 3821 775 57.985 441 1067 1376 -.1688 3821 -.086 58 932 -.0167 1940 -.4051 3718 -.086 54.982 932 -.0167 1940 -.4055 3722 1.723 58 090 2600 1509 -.0421 5621 1.723 56.575 090 2600 1509 -.0422 5622 688 58 494 1233 1793 -.2357 4823 688 57.839 494 1233 1793 -.2357 4823 1.007 58 318 1557 1557 -.1549 4682 1.007 56.313 318 1557 1557 -.1551 4684 222 58 825 02500 11245 -.20010 25010 222 53.129 825 02500 11245 -.20054 25054 132 APPENDIX K9: Independent Samples t-test of Post-test scores Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means Variances F Final Equal variances assumed 161 Sig .689 Equal variances not assumed Content Equal variances assumed 2.118 151 Equal variances not assumed Organization Equal variances assumed 432 514 Equal variances not assumed Vocabulary Equal variances assumed 179 674 Equal variances not assumed Language Use Equal variances assumed 006 941 Equal variances not assumed Mechanics Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 3.324 073 t df Sig (2-tailed) Mean Std Error Difference Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper 3.488 58 001 4208 1206 1793 6623 3.488 57.996 001 4208 1206 1793 6623 2.292 58 026 3392 1480 0429 6354 2.292 56.025 026 3392 1480 0427 6357 2.553 58 013 3883 1521 0838 6928 2.553 57.702 013 3883 1521 0838 6929 3.075 58 003 4467 1453 1559 7375 3.075 57.959 003 4467 1453 1559 7375 3.413 58 001 51500 15090 21294 81706 3.413 56.924 001 51500 15090 21282 81718 4.740 58 000 40333 08509 23300 57367 4.740 55.688 000 40333 08509 23285 57382 133 APPENDIX L: Questionnaire’s results APPENDIX L1: Item-Total Statistics of Questionnaire’s results Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Q1 56.833 21.385 513 826 Q2 56.267 25.099 496 828 Q3 56.233 24.461 496 825 Q4 56.233 24.185 560 822 Q5 56.200 24.234 443 827 Q6 56.300 25.528 307 834 Q7 56.567 21.771 509 825 Q8 55.967 25.551 185 841 Q9 56.333 24.023 615 820 Q10 56.400 24.524 411 829 Q11 56.867 22.120 538 821 Q12 56.633 21.964 651 812 Q13 56.300 22.010 662 812 Q14 56.200 24.166 400 829 Q15 56.267 25.099 311 834 No Alpha if Item Deleted *Q: Question 134 APPENDIX L2: Descriptive Statistics of Questionnaire’s results N Valid Missing Mean Std Error of Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum N Valid Missing Mean Std Error of Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum The improvement of learning writing through GBA Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 30 30 30 30 30 30 0 0 0 3.57 4.13 4.17 4.17 4.20 4.10 177 063 084 084 101 074 971 346 461 461 551 403 3 3 5 5 5 The motivations of learning writing through GBA Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 30 30 30 30 30 0 0 4.07 4.00 3.53 3.77 4.10 082 096 150 133 130 450 525 819 728 712 3 2 5 5 Q7 30 3.83 167 913 Q14 30 4.20 111 610 Q8 30 4.43 104 568 Q15 30 4.13 093 507 *1.00 – 1.79: Strongly disagree; 1.80 – 2.59: Disagree; 2.60 – 3.39: Undecided; 3.40 – 4.19: Agree; 4.20 – 5.00: Strongly agree 135 APPENDIX M: Presentative writing papers of the participants APPENDIX M1: Students’ writing papers in EG Student 15: Pre-test Post-test 136 Student 09: Pre-test Post-test 137 Student 19: Pre-test Post-test 138 APPENDIX M2: Students’ writing papers in CG Student 16: Pre-test: Post-test 139 Student 03: Pre-test: Post-test 140 Student 14: Pre-test: Post-test 141 APPENDIX N: The Institution Approval 142