Ảnh hưởng của quá trình làm tập bài viết đối với kĩ năng viết của sinh viên: Nghiên cứu điển mẫu trong bối cảnh trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội

Tiu ban 1: Đào to chuyên ng 198 ẢNH HƯỞNG CỦA QUÁ TRÌNH LÀM TẬP BÀI VIẾT ĐỐI VỚI KĨ NĂNG VIẾT CỦA SINH VIÊN: NGHIÊN CỨU ĐIỂN MẪU TRONG BỐI CẢNH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ, ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI Nguyn Th Nhung Trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ, ĐHQG Hà Nội Tóm t t: Nhiều học giả đã nghiên cứu tập bài viết dưới góc độ một công cụ đánh giá thay thế hoặc nhận xét theo cặp, nhưng chưa có nhiều công trình chuyên sâu về ảnh hưởng của quá trình làm tập bài viết đến khả năng viết của sinh viên. Do đó, nghiên cứu này nhằm (1) tìm hiểu tác động của quá trình làm tập bài viết thông qua đánh giá của chính sinh viên và (2) chỉ ra ảnh hưởng thực sự của quá trình này qua việc phân tích bài viết của sinh viên. Đây là một nghiên cứu, sử dụng hai công cụ nghiên cứu: phng v n (interview) và phân tích tài liu (document analysis). Nghiên cứu cho thấy sự tiến bộ rõ rệt trong các mảng coverage of main points và vocabulary trong khả năng viết của sinh viên. Việc phân tích tài liệu đã chỉ ra những thay đổi tích cực trong các phiên bản viết của sinh viên nhờ vào nhận xét của giáo viên, bạn cùng lớp và việc tự sửa lỗi của chính bản thân người viết. Đáng chú ý, có sự không thống nhất trong kết quả của hai câu hỏi nghiên cứu. Một số khía cạnh trên thực tế chỉ ra từ bài viết lại có những thay đổi tích cực hơn rất nhiều so với nhận định ban đầu của sinh viên và ngược lại. T khóa: portfolio, portfolio writing process, writing abilities, CAE marking scheme Abstract: A vast body of research has studied writing portfolio as a form of assessment tool or in terms of peer written feedback. However, the influence of portfolio writing process on students’ writing ability has still been awaiting for thorough investigation.To fill in the gaps, this paper will purport to (1) identify the effects of portfolio writing process from students’ self-reflection and (2) to shed light on the actual influence through their writing pieces. Multiple-case-study design was employed; in which interview and document analysis served as two data collection instruments. Together with face-to-face-semi-formal interviews, three portfolios of three participants were chosen for analysis. For each portfolio, the researcher randomly chose two writing pieces of different genres to analyze. Findings from two research questions revealed a similarity of the most tremendous progress in coverage of main points and vocabulary. Document analysis proved that positive changes were made from version to version thanks to the teacher’s and peers’ comments and the writer’s self- correction. Remarkably, there also existed noticeable discrepancy between the findings of the two research questions. Some writing abilities reported as moderately improved turned out to be more positively progressed than the students had thought and vice versa. Key terms: portfolio, portfolio writing process, writing abilities, CAE marking scheme Chi
n lc ngoi ng trong xu th
hi nhp Tháng 11/2014 199 THE EFFECT OF PORTFOLIO WRITING PROCESS ON STUDENTS’ WRITING ABILITY: A CASE STUDY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY 1. Statement of research problem and rationale for the study Recently, many researchers and educators have mentioned the inclusion of portfolio in writing assessment as one of the innovative and effective methods for restructuring traditional composition courses (Kieffer & Faust 1996). In the studies of several researchers such as Herter (1991) and Ballard (1992), they have successfully proved the improvement of students’ writing skills with the application of writing portfolio. Realizing the benefits which portfolio brings about, the Fast Track Program at the Falculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE), University of Languages and International Studies (ULIS), Vietnam National University (VNU) started to include portfolio as an assessment tool for third-year-fast-track students from the school year of 2005 – 2006. Aiming at level C1 for those targeted students with reference to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), the writing program puts central focus on the Certificate in Advanced English design (CAE). Thus, portfolio as an assessment tool also involves elements of CAE marking descriptors. There have been a certain number of studies related to the topic of portfolio in the scope of ULIS, VNU. Several papers and articles have investigated portfolio from the angle of an alternative assessment tool for traditional assessment (Tran et al. 2008). Unfortunately, they only gave theoretical backgrounds without studying on any particular group of students. Besides, many other theses exploit portfolio in the aspect of peer written feedback such as Pham (2007), Le (2009) and Hoang (2012). As a matter of fact, students’ writing portfolios are to be assessed by specific marking criteria. However, there has not been any study which offers an insight into students’ self- assessment of their own writing ability as a result of portfolio writing process, guided by those criteria. Particularly, the specific impacts of portfolio writing process on students’ practical writing ability with all factors considered together still remains cryptic. All the aforementioned reasons motivated the researcher to conduct a research paper entitled “The effect of portfolio writing process on students’ writing ability: a case study in the context of the University of Languages and International Studies” to fill in the identified gaps in the local literature. 2. Aims of the study This paper is conducted to address the two following research questions: Question 1: What is students’ self-assessment of their writing ability as a result of portfolio writing process, as guided by CAE marking descriptors? Question 2: To what extent does the portfolio- writing process affect students’ writing ability, as guided by CAE marking descriptors? a) What changes are made from version 1 to version 2? b) What changes are made from version 2 to version 3? 3. Scope of the study Portfolio is used in various fields, but within the frame of this paper, the researcher only approaches it in educational field. The population of the study are second-year- fast-track students whose writing course includes the use of portfolio. Tiu ban 1: Đào to chuyên ng 200 4. Methods of the study 4.1. Research design: Multiple case study design In this study, the researcher applied the multiple case study design to seek answers to the two research questions because it is an approach, which - according to Baxter and Jack (2008) - can ensure that the issue is not explored through one lens, but rather a variety of lens. This ‘allows multiple facets of the phenomenon to be revealed and understood’ (Baxter & Jack 2008, p.544). 4.2. Sampling Because of the researcher’s limited time and human resources, the study applied purposive critical-case sampling process, in which the researcher chose a small number of important cases who ‘displayed the issue or set of characteristics in their entirety or in a way that was highly significant for their behavior’ (Cohen, Manion & Morrison cited in Vu 2012, p. 16). Motivation, attitudes and learning strategies are three discernible determiners affecting learning progress (Gadner 1968; O’Malley & Chamot 1990). Second-year students are assumed to have developed certain learning strategies in this skill after more than three terms of exposure. Additionally, the three aforementioned indexes are shown more significantly clearly among fast-track students than main-stream ones. Therefore, for the convenience in case selection, second-year-fast- track students were targeted as the population, which helped increase the validity and reliability of the data amassed. The following diagram illustrates the participant selection process: Records of students’ marks played a pivotal role in singling out students who exhibited clearest improvements in writing results of the two successive semesters. Questionnaire for case selection involves (A) Assessments of attitudinal and motivational variables associated with writing learning and (B) Writing strategies (adapted from Gardner, 1985). The case choosing decision was reaffirmed based on the results of questionnaire for Motivation & Attitude and Learning Strategies. Chi
n lc ngoi ng trong xu th
hi nhp Tháng 11/2014 201 Diagram 2.3: Scores for motivation & attitude and learning strategies The diagram showed one common characteristics among three cases - strong motivation and positive attitude towards learning writing. Nonetheless, S2 and S3 appeared to have relatively good learning strategies whilst the other gained very low score for this category (99). Understandably, there is more likelihood for students with both strong motivation and positive attitudes together with good learning strategies to make progress in the process of doing the portfolio. Additionally, with the target shot at learners demonstrating not-so-good learning strategies, the progress could be clearly highlighted. 4.3. Data collection instruments 4.3.1. Semi-structured interview (RQ 1) Interviews were utilized in both the case choosing stage and the data collection stage to answer Research Question 1. Interview is rightfully seen as one of the most widely used and most fundamental research technique since it allows the researcher to investigate the phenomena that are not directly observable such as learners’ self-reported perceptions or attitudes. Furthermore, researchers could elicit additional data if initial answers are vague, incomplete, off-topic, or not specific enough. However, the researcher was also aware of some caveats of interviews. Therefore, face-to- face retrospective semi-structured interview was employed with concerted attempts being made to revive students’ remembrance of their previous semester’s portfolio by several techniques (letting them see the writing syllabus and their own portfolio again as well as familiarizing themselves with the criteria to assess writing ability). Clarifications were also given and questions could be asked right away if necessary. The interview guidelines for the students followed strictly the skeleton of the framework for document analysis. There were four main sections: (1) Content; (2) Communicative achievement; (3) Organization; and (4) Language. In each section, there are specific discriptors which are synthesized from the CAE marking scale and the Glossary for this scale. 4.3.2. Document analysis (RQ2) Three portfolios of three student cases were chosen to investigate the effect of portfolio on students’ writing performance. For each portfolio, the researcher randomly chose two writing pieces of different genres to analyze. Document analysis framework: In order to ensure the objectivity when analyzing writing pieces in students’ portfolio, there was also a bad need to follow CAE marking rubric. 4.4. Data analysis method and procedure 4.4.1. For interviews: Qualitative analysis strategies Tiu ban 1: Đào to chuyên ng 202 The method and procedure of analyzing data collected from interviews are shown in the diagram below: 4.4.2. For document analysis: Qualitative analysis strategies Following is the diagram visualizing the qualitative analysis method and procedure of students’ writings. 5. Findings As the ultimate goal of case study is to understand the complexity of a case in the most complete way possible, each case was analyzed and discussed respectively instead of in cluster, guided by the CAE marking descriptors. This helps increase the possibility of attaining the richest understanding of a case. Moreover, it should first be noticed that several aspects in the CAE marking scheme for writing were not reported to be improved much, as a result of the portfolio writing process. Therefore, the following presentation of data analysis and discussion pays particular attention to the writing abilities which have gone through the most considerable progress. 5.1. Research question 1 The answer to this question was received from interview data. 5.1.1. Case 1 In case 1’s perception, she made almost no or just marginal improvements in such writing abilities as target reader, communicative achievement, organizational pattern and Chi
n lc ngoi ng trong xu th
hi nhp Tháng 11/2014 203 grammar. She explained: Before assigning any task, theory on specific genres such as brochure or leaflet was delivered by our teacher and samples are analyzed thoroughly... Moreover, when I come home, before writing any task, I always revise the theory. Hence, there can’t be any misleading in the content or mistake in the conventions of the communicative task from the beginning (S1.21). Moreover, case 1 self-assessed herself as competent in grammar, so rarely could grammatical mistakes occur. Hereinafter, the researcher focuses on only the most radical changes in terms of cohesive devices and vocabulary. Cohesive devices Positive changes could be seen through the ability “to link two simple sentences to make a complex or compound one” (S1). She added, when writing frequently, she tended to use cohesive devices more regularly and correctly. From mistakes in former versions, she could draw valuable experience for her own. Vocabulary This participant expressed a tremendous satisfaction with her vocabulary derived from conducting the portfolio. There was a big improvement in terms of vocabulary range, appropriacy and accuracy. S1 felt deeply contented when talking about what she could learn: It [portfolio writing process] offers me a good chance to exploit extra resources such as dictionaries, thesauri, internet, etc and my friends’ comments. In fact, I could learn and apply a wider range of synonyms, antonyms, collocations and low-frequency lexis also! [S1.28] 5.1.2. Case 2 Among the three cases, S2 was the one to reflect the most obvious progress. Except for some aspects with no or little improvements, she claimed that the rest were positively adjusted not only from version to version but also throughout the portfolio writing process. Target reader and coverage of main points Firstly, S2 reported “Portfolio writing process sharpened my critical thinking in choosing the target reader”. She admitted that sometimes the readers of her writing were not focused in first versions. Nonetheless, with constructive comments and suggestions from the teacher and her classmates, she could shoot target at particular readers more precisely. Secondly, for coverage of main points, S2 reflected radical improvements in the quality of the main points. Her first draft occasionally contained vague arguments. Notwithstanding, when it came to latter versions, such weaknesses were overcome to make the content more lucid. As a result, the final versions were always the ones she was most contented with. Cohesive devices Among all the aspects, the competence in using cohesive devices was perceived to have the most substantial enhancement in S2’s case. In the previous previous semesters, I had a lot of difficulties and shortcoming in using linking words. I did not often use connectors among sentences as well as paragraphs, so the text sounds desultory. Through the portfolio writing process, I gradually pay more attention in using such devices to enhance the coherence and cohesion. [S2.37] Not only linking words, but also grammatical devices were reported to be paid greater attention. Positive changes could be seen through the ability “to repeat key words a certain times to highlight the writing topic”. Vocabulary and grammar Despite showing a keen appreciation of the teacher and peers’ feedback and how much she learned from them, S2 claimed that “sometimes Tiu ban 1: Đào to chuyên ng 204 comments from friends are vague, too general or even wrong”, so she needed to consider these very carefully before revising. 5.1.3. Case 3 In general, S3’s self-assessment of her writing ability as a result of the portfolio writing process more or less shared the same features with S2’s. A lot of improvements were perceived to be present in terms of coverage of main points, format and register, cohesive devices, vocabulary and grammar. 5.2. Research question 2 5.2.1. Case 1 Throughout the content analysis of her portfolio, the improvement in coverage of main points, format and function, vocabulary and grammar were reflected vividly, which will be thoroughly discussed in the following part. Coverage of main points Although the writer claimed that there were only few adjustments in the writing content, the changes in the three versions of leaflet, by contrast, showed ample progress. Firstly, in latter drafts, the WHAT and WHERE parts were combined into one with the restructuring of content, which increased the logicality in comparison with version 1. Secondly, in the first version, the HOW part seemed rather verbose with four complicated steps to access the learning resource centers. Thanks to her self- correction, they were shortened into three more lucid ones. Furthermore, contact information, which was absent from the first and second drafts were timely added in the last version. From version 2 to version 3, there was almost no change. Vocabulary Generally, S1’s language ability underwent significant betterments as she reported. In former versions, the writer often made mistakes in word forms, word choices and expressions though such slips had very little impact on communication. However, adjustments were made to correct the errors and diversify the vocabulary, which can be seen as follows: Writing 1 – Love Version 1 Version 2 Version 3 Apology shows the respect Unchanged Apologizing shows the respect An apology plays a means of expressing Unchanged An apology means expressing That can lead to more damage Unchanged That can lead to more severe damage Writing 2 – Leaflet Flexible opening hour Unchanged X (Note: sign “X” means the word/ phrase/ sentence does not appear in the version) And here comes the changes in grammatical items Writing 1 – Love Version 1 Version 2 Version 3 The one we love Unchanged The ones we love This way helps keep relationship going on Unchanged This way helps keep a relationship going on People just apologizing to avoid Unchanged People just apologize to avoid (Note: sign “X” means the word/ phrase/ sentence does not appear in the version) From the above two tables, it is conspicuous that all existent mistakes in version 1 were not corrected after receiving peers’ comments. In fact, some suggestions were worth considering and if Chi
n lc ngoi ng trong xu th
hi nhp Tháng 11/2014 205 they had been fully taken into consideration, correction could have been seen right in the second version. As stated earlier in answers for RQ1, S1 often thought that she hardly ever made such kinds of errors and sometimes peers gave unconvincing comments. This could partly explained for the late correction until the last version, after the teacher provided her feedback on both her writings and her viewpoints on peers’ comments. 5.2.2. Case 2 Among the three ca