Peoples' Democratic Republic of Algeria Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research ...

359 Pages·2017·5.13 MB·English

Peoples’ Democratic Republic of Algeria
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

University of Mohamed Lamine Debaghine Sétif 2

Faculty of Letters and Languages

Department of English Language and Literature

Thesis

submitted for the requirements
of Doctorat En-Sciences
in Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching.

By: Fadhila Aliouchouche

Developing the Writing Skills through Reading and
Writing Workshop Strategy: The Case of First Year LMD
Students at the University of Bejaia

Supervisor : Prof. Zahia Mebarki
University Sétif 2
Board of Examiners:
Chairman: Said KESKES Professor University of Sétif 2
Supervisor: Zahia MEBARKI Professor University of Sétif 2
Examiner : Amel BAHLOUL Professor University of Batna
Examiner : Salima MAOUCHE M.C.A University of Bejaia
Examiner : Abdelhak HAMOUDI M.C.A ENS El Eulma

Academic Year 2016-2017
Declaration

I hereby declare that this doctoral thesis entitled:
Developing Students‘ Writing Skills through Reading/ Writing Workshop
Case of Second Year LMD students Department of English University of Bejaia
and supervised by Professor Zahia Mebarki from the University of Mohamed Lamine Debaghine,
Setif 2, is my own work and, to the best of my knowledge, all the sources that I have used and/ or
quoted have duly been indicated and acknowledged by complete reference.

Mrs. Fadhila KACI Date:

(Signature)

I
Acknowledgments

Praise to Allah, the Almighty for His great help and blessings.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Pr. Zahia Mebarki, for her
constant support, patience and encouragement throughout the journey of this thesis. Without her
extremely constructive feedback and guidance, this work would not have been completed.
I am deeply grateful to the honorable members of the jury who accepted to examine this present
work. Their insightful suggestions and precious comments will certainly be of great assistance in
improving my research.
My thanks are in particular extended to my dear colleague Dr. Salima MAOUCHE for her
invaluable advice.
In addition, my appreciation goes to Second Year LMD, students of English who accepted to
participate in the current study.
I owe special debts, love, appreciation, and heartfelt thanks, to my husband Abdallah and my
children Amina, Dalissia and Elyas for their moral support, their patience and understanding
throughout this process.
Last but not least, I wish to express my thanks to my dear parents. I am grateful for the education I
received from them.

II
Dedication

To my dear parents
To my beloved husband Abdellah
To my lovely children: Amina, Dalissia, Elyas
To my brother and my sisters

III
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

E F L: English as a Foreign Language
E S L: English as a Second Language
ESP: English for Specific Purposes
L 1: Mother Tongue / First Language
L 2: Second Language
LMD: Licence/ Master/ Doctorat
N: Number of Teachers / Students
TL: Target language

IV
ABSTRACT

This study investigates the effectiveness of teaching writing through a reading/writing workshop
approach to develop students‘ writing abilities and skills. It is worth mentioning that for practical
reasons, the researcher made an adjustement in the choice of the population under study. Thus,
the participants are second year LMD students at the department of English, Faculty of Letters and
Languages, University of Bejaia. To carry out the research, a quasi experimental design is adopted.
For this purpose, two groups displaying similar performance in the writing proficiency pre-test
were randomly assigned into an experimental group and a control groups. The experimental group
(n=16) was taught writing through a reading/writing workshop approach while the control group
(n=16) received no manipulation. The treatment phase took place during the first semester of the
academic year: 2013-2014 and lasted 16 weeks. During this period, the experiment group was
exposed to different types of texts for which a variety of activities was designed. At the end of the
experiment, both groups were administered a writing proficiency post-test. Statistical analysis
procedures were applied to the test scores of both groups. The results demonstrated that the
treatment group achieved significant progress, which was reflected in post-test scores which were
higher than both their pre-test scores and the pre- and post-test scores of the control group.
Moreover, in order to test the validity of the obtained results, the researcher relied on a t test
analysis which demonstrated that they are statistically significant. On the basis of this analysis, the
two hypotheses have been confirmed, thus teaching writing through a reading/writing workshop
approach can help students develop their writing abilities. Therefore, in the light of the obtained
results, pedagogical implications have also been drawn. Finally, the present study concludes with a
set of suggestions for further researches.
Key words: reading, writing, reading/writing workshop, students‘ writing abilities, pretest,
posttest, experimental and control groups, statistical analysis, pedagogical implications.
List of Tables
Table1Themaindifferences betweentheproduct andprocess approach ......................................26
Table2TheTenPrinciples ofExtensiveReading ..........................................................................44
Table3Advantages ofextensiveandintensivereading ...................................................................46
Table4TwentyMajorReadingStrategies .......................................................................................51
Table5 CognitiveStrategies ofReadingandWriting......................................................................63
Table6 ScoringStudents’Paragraph .............................................................................................83
Table7Procedures forCollectingDataBefore,Duringand Afterthe Manipulation.....................84
Table8TimeforCompletingtheQuestionnaire Items ...................................................................88
Table9ClarityoftheQuestions …………………………….……………………….…………….89
Table10Comment orSuggestionConcerningthePresent Questionnaire………........…………...89
Table11Students’Age ……………………………………………...………….………….............91
Table12Students’choiceofEnglish Studies ……………………………….…………………….92
Table13TheMost Difficult Skill.…………………………………………………………............93
Table14 Importanceof Writing…………………………………………….……………………..94
Table15Students’AttitudeTowards Writing…………………………………………………….95
Table16TheMost Used LanguageinWriting…………………………………..………………..97
Table17Students’AttitudeTowards Writingin English.…………………..……………………..98
Table18Students’EvaluationoftheirWritingSkill.……………………………..……………… 99
Table19Students’MotivationtoWrite.……………………………...…………………………..100
Table20Students’Viewabout GoodWriting ................................................................................102
Table21TimeAllottedforWriting.…………………………………….………………………...103
Table22Students’Viewabout SecondYearWritingProgram……………….…………………..104
Table23WritingHomework.…………………………………..………………………………….106
Table24Students’WritingFrequency.............................................................................................107
Table25Students’Difficulties inWriting………………………………………………………..108
Table26TheMost Difficult Aspect inWriting……..……………………………………………..109
VI
Table27Importanceof Reading………..…………………….……………………………….….110
Table28Students’AttitudeTowards Reading…………………………………………………... 111
Table29TheMost Used LanguageinReading.…..……………..………………...……………...113
Table30Students ‘Viewabout Reading/WritingRelationship.…………………..……………..114
Table31Students’UseoftheirReadingSchemata.……………...…………………………..…...115
Table32EncouragingStudents toRead…….…………………………………….….…………...116
Table33Text-Types SelectedfortheReading/WritingWorkshop ……………………………....131
Table34DescriptiveStatistics…………………….……………………………………………….....162
Table35ThePairedt-test Results forbothExperimental andControl Groups…..……………….163
Table 36 The Independent t-test Results for both Experimental and Control Groups in the Pre
test…………………………………………………………………………………………....….....165
Table 37 the Independent t-test Results for the Experimental and Control Groups in the Post test
………………………………………………………………………………………………….......167
Table38 Descriptive Statistics for the Experimental and Control Group in the
Posttest.……………………………………………………………………………………………..168
Table39Tests ofbetween-Subjects Effects ……………………………………………..………..169
Table40TheAdjustedPosttest Means afterControllingtheCovariate (Pre-test Scores)………...170
Table41Results oftheDependent t-test Results forVocabulary ...................................................170
Table42Results ofDependent t-test Results for Grammar.............................................................171
Table43Dependent t-test Results forContent ................................................................................172
Table44Results oftheDependent t-test Results forOrganizationandMechanics........................174
Table45QualitativeAnalysis ofthePretest Results ......................................................................176
Table46Pretest ControlGroup: CopyN°7.....................................................................................179
Table47PosttestControl Group: CopyN°7....................................................................................181
Table48Pretest Experimental Group: Copy9.................................................................................183
Table49Posttest Experimental Group: Copy9...............................................................................185
Table50 LiteracyPortfolios BasicFeatures ....................................................................................202
VII
List of Figures
Figure1Components ofWriting ...........................................................................................11
Figure2Product ApproachModel ……………………………………………………..…...18
Figure3TheRecursiveNatureofWriting……………………….…………………….....….22
Figure4The Bottom-upModel ofReading…………………………………………………..34
VIII
List of Graphs
Graph 1Students’Age …………………………………………………………………………......92
Graph 2Students’ChoiceofEnglish Studies ...................................................................................93
Graph 3…Students’Classificationofthe FourSkills inTerms ofDifficulty……………….........94
Graph 4 Importanceof Writing……………………………………………………………….........95
Graph 5Students’AttitudeTowards Writing…………………….……………………………......96
Graph 6TheMost Used LanguageinWriting………….……….……………………………........97
Graph 7Students’AttitudeTowards WritinginEnglish.……………...…………………….........99
Graph 8Students’EvaluationoftheirWritingSkill.………………………….....…………….......100
Graph 9Students’MotivationtoWrite………..……………………………………………..........101
Graph 10…Students’Viewabout GoodWriting………………………………..…………...........103
Graph 11TimeAllottedforWriting.………………………………………………………….........104
Graph 12Students’Viewabout SecondYearWritingprogram …..…………………………........105
Graph 13WritingHomework.…………………………… …………….…….……………….......106
Graph 14Students’WritingFrequency………………………………………………………........107
Graph 15Students’Difficulties inWriting…………………………………………………...........108
Graph 16TheMost Difficult Aspect inWriting………………………………………………........110
Graph 17ImportanceofReading………………………………………..………………………..........111
Graph 18Students’Attitudetowards Reading.……………………….……………..……….........112
Graph 19TheMost Used LanguageinReading ……………………………...…………................113
Graph 20Students’Viewabout Reading/WritingRelationship.……………………………….......114
Graph 21Students’Use oftheirReadingSchemata.………………..……………...………….......116
Graph 22EncouragingStudents toRead …………………………..…………………………........117
Graph 23 Mean Difference Between the Control and Experimental Groups in Pre and Post
Tests.……………………………………………………………………………….……………......164
Graph 24 Mean Difference Between the Control and Experimental Groups in Pre
Test………………………………………………………………………………………………......166
Graph 25 Mean Difference Between the Control and Experimental Groups in Post
Test.…………………………………….………………………………………………………........167
IX