Writing Problems of EFL Learners in Higher Education: A Case Study of The Far Eastern University
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research primarily aims 1) To identify the problems in writing processes of L2 students, and 2) To analyse all written works with corpus linguistic analysis methods. The sampling used in this research mainly depends on the students who have registered the module in ENG214 English Writing (n = 27). Assign the students to write on the topic ‘My Special Places’. Then, score writing works each with the designated rubric criteria in Grammar Uses, Lexical Issues, and Coherency and Cohesion. The score were given between 1.0 (for the lowest performance) to 5.0 (for the highest performance) with 0.5 for increments. Then analyse the results by Microsoft Excel, SPSS, and Corpus Linguistic programmes. Moreover, the measurement of text readability, known as readability indices, namely, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Score, Coleman-Liau Index, SMOG Index, and Automated Readability Index, was calculated to see which reading level of the essay reflects. The results show that writing problems regarded to EFL higher educational learners: a case study of The Far Eastern University in Thailand, could be classified and divided into four facets: Grammar Uses, Lexical Issues, Writing Styles, and Practicing hours. Discussions and suggestions are also provided, as well as further development plans for fulfil the gap of students’ performance in English skills. Supposing that the problems this work presented have been corrected, the students would be ready to challenge their ability in the next advanced level.
Article Details
1. Any views and comments in the FEU Academic Review Journal are the authors’ views. The editorial staff have not to agree with those views and it is not considered as the editorial’s responsibility.
2. The responsibility of content and draft check of each article belongs to each author. In case, there is any lawsuit about copyright infringement. It is considered as the authors’ sole responsibility.
3. The article copyright belonging to the authors and the Far Eastern University are copyrighted legally. Republication must be received direct permission from the authors and the Far Eastern University in written form.
References
Adelian, M., Nemati, A., & Fumani, M. R. F. Q. (2015). The Effect of Iranian Advanced EFL Learners' Knowledge of Collocation on Their Writing Ability. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(5), 974.
Ahmadian, M., Rahimi, S., & Asefi, A. (2016). An Investigation of EFL Learners' Mental Processes in L2 Writing: The Case of Iranian EFL Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(5), 1011.
Apairach, S., &Vibulphol, J. (2015). Beliefs about Language Learning of Thai Upper Secondary School Students in Different Educational Contexts. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 50, 65-94.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of second language writing, 14(3), 191-205.
Black, D. A., &Nanni, A. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback: Preferences and Justifications of Teachers and Students in a Thai Context. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 16(3).
Boonkongsaen, N., Sujinpram, N., &Verapreyagoon, J. (2016). English Reading Strategies Used by Thai Students with Different English Exposures from Different Educational Institutions. ABAC Journal, 36(1), 47-67.
Brabeck, M., Jeffrey, J., & Fry, S. (2009). Practice for knowledge acquisition (not drill and kill). American Psychological Association. Web.
Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents, Englewood Cliffs.
Cedar, P., &Setiadi, A. (2016). Performance of Indonesian EFL Learners and Thai EFL Learners on Compliment Responses in English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(7), 63-76.
Chen, C. M., & Chung, C. J. (2008). Personalized mobile English vocabulary learning system based on item response theory and learning memory cycle. Computers & Education, 51(2), 624-645.
Cobb, T. Compleat Web VP! [Computer program]. Retrieved 15 Nov 2016 at http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/comp/
Cobb, T. Range for texts v.3 [Computer program]. Retrieved 15 Nov 2016 at http://www.lextutor.ca/cgi-bin/range/texts/index.pl.
Darus, S., &Subramaniam, K. (2009). Error analysis of the written English essays of secondary school students in Malaysia: A case study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(3), 483-495.
Dueraman, B. (2015). The Crucial Point in Time Where Thai Students Are Introduced English Language Writing. English Language Teaching, 8(9), 96.
Dulay, H. C., Burt, M. K., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Education First. (2016). EF English Proficiency Index (EF EPI). Retrieve 7 Feb 2017 at http://www.ef.com/epi
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Etae, S., Krishnasamy, P. K. N., &Hussin, S. (2016). Politeness strategies by Thai EFL tertiary learners in an online forum. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 24(February), 67-80.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996).Journal of second language writing, 8(1), 1-11.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language writing. Michigan, The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 81104.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?. Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 161-184.
Forman, R. (2016). First and Second Language Use in Asian EFL (Vol. 49). Multilingual Matters.
Fujiwara, T. (2015).Development of Thai University Students’ Beliefs about Language Learning: A Longitudinal Study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 1081-1087.
Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance
feedback for writing errors?. System, 32(3), 301-319.
Ghanbari, N., Dehghani, T., &Shamsaddini, M. R. (2016). Discourse markers in academic and non-academic writing of Iranian EFL Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(7), 1451.
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of second language writing, 16(1), 40-53.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251
Jinajai, N., & Rattanavich, S. (2015). The Effective of Computer-Assisted Instruction Based on Top-Level Structure Method in English Reading and Writing Abilities of Thai EFL Students. English Language Teaching, 8(11), 231.
Kasemsap, B., & Lee, H. Y. H. (2015). L2 Reading in Thailand: Vocational College Students’ Application of Reading Strategies to their Reading of English Texts. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 15(2).
Kaur, S. (2015). Teaching Strategies Used by Thai EFL Lecturers to Teach Argumentative Writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 208, 143-156.
Kaweera, C. (2013). Writing error: A Review of interlingual and intralingual interference in EFL context. English language teaching, 6(7), 9.
Khamkhien, A., & Kanoksilapatham, B. (2015). Assessment of TV Vocabulary Instruction Broadcast in Thailand Nationwide. The New English Teacher, 9(2).
Kihlstrom, J. F. (2011). How students learn and how we can help them. How Students Learn.
Kirkpatrick, R. (2012). English education in Thailand: 2012. Asian EFL Journal, 61, 24-40.
Kittigosin, R., & Phoocharoensil, S. (2015). Investigation into learning strategies and delexical verb use by Thai EFL learners. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 21(2).
Luo, Q., & Liao, Y. (2015). Using Corpora for Error Correction in EFL Learners’ Writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(6), 1333-1342.
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2016).Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda, 45, 185.
Namtapi, I., & Pongpairoj, N. (2016). The acquisition of L2 English non-null arguments by L1 Thai learners. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 37(3), 150-157.
Nayan, S., & Jusoff, K. (2009). A study of subject-verb agreement: From novice writers to expert writers. International Education Studies, 2(3), 190.
Panyawong-Ngam, L., Tangthong, N., & Anunvrapong, P. (2015). A Model to Develop the English Proficiency of Engineering Students at Rajamangala University of Technology Krungthep, Bangkok, Thailand.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 77-82.
Phoocharoensil, S., Moore, B., Gampper, C., Geerson, E., Chaturongakul, P., Sutharoj, S., &Carlon, W. (2016). Grammatical and Lexical Errors in Low-Proficiency Thai Graduate Students’ Writing. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 9(1), 11-24.
Phuket, P. R. N., & Othman, N. B. (2015). Understanding EFL Students' Errors in Writing. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(32), 99-106.
Pongsiriwet, C., Fakhri, A., Obenauf, P. A., Deaton, D. W. L., & Bower, W. S. (2001). Relationships among grammatical accuracy, discourse features, and the quality of second language writing: The case of Thai EFL learners. Ann Arbor, 1001, 48106-1346.
Prakash, L. K. (2016). A Call for Empowering the Non-Native EFL Teacher through Professional Development in Pragmatics: Focus on Thai-EFL. Asian Culture and History, 8(2), 57.
Puengpipattrakul, W., Chiramanee, N., & Sripetpun, W. (2007). The Challenge Facing Thai Graduates and Their Potential for English-Required Workforce. The Kasetsart Journal: Social Sciences, 28(2), 288-297.
Rattanadilok Na Phuket, P., & Bidin, S. J. (2016). Native Language Interference in Writing: A case study of Thai EFL learners. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4(16), 25-36.
Schneider, D., & McCoy, K. F. (1998, August). Recognizing syntactic errors in the writing of second language learners. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Computational linguistics-Volume 2 (pp. 1198-1204). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Selinker, L., & Lakshamanan, U. (1992). Language transfer and fossilization: The multiple effects principle. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 197-216). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stockwell, G. (2007). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 365-383.
Suwanarak, K. (2015). Learning English as Thai Adult Learners: An Insight into Experience in Using Learning Strategies. English Language Teaching, 8(12), 144-157.
Tananuraksakul, N. (2016). BLENDED E-LEARNING AS A REQUIREMENT FOR TEACHING EFL IN A THAI ACADEMIC CONTEXT. Teaching English with Technology, 16(4), 48-55.
Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of computer assisted learning, 21(3), 217-228.
Trakulkasemsuk, W. (2016, May). English in Thailand: From EFL to ELF. In The 7th International Conference on Language and Communication (p. 226). Osaka University, Japan.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Tseng, C. C. (2016). Subsumable Relationship among Error Types of EFL Writers: A Learner Corpus-Based Study of Expository Writing at the Intermediate Level. 英語教學期刊, 40(1), 113-151.
Vibulphol, J. (2016). Students' Motivation and Learning and Teachers' Motivational Strategies in English Classrooms in Thailand. English Language Teaching, 9(4), 64-75.
Wang, T., &Rajprasit, K. (2015). Identifying Affirmative Beliefs about English Language Learning: Self-Perceptions of Thai Learners with Different Language Proficiency. English Language Teaching, 8(4), 1.
Warin Phiwon. (2015). The Effects of Online Game-Based Programme ‘Quizlet’ As an Edutainmentional Tool to Consolidate Biological Vocabulary for Matthayom 5th Students, The Demonstration School of Naresuan University. Bachelor Degree’s Thesis (Unpublished).
Watcharapunyawong, S., & Usaha, S. (2013). Thai EFL students' writing errors in different text types: The interference of the first language. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 67.
Weerachairattana, R., & Wannaruk, A. (2016). Refusal Strategies in L1 and L2 by Native Speakers of Thai. วารสารเทคโนโลยีสุรนารี (Suranaree Journal of Social Science), 10(1), 119-139.
Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(4), 257-283.