Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
(Special Issue on Applied Sciences)
Vol. 3(9) September 2013, pp. 53-63
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
Evaluation of Writing Skills and the
Levels of Difficulty
Zohreh Tahvildar, Ali Emamjome Zade
Department of Linguistic, Shabestar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shabestar,Iran
Abstract
To develop writing competence necessitates developing its sub-skills and its constituents concurrently.
The present study endeavored to find a) the levels of difficulty of various writing skills for Iranian EFL
students, and b) the possibility of any difference between males' and females' performances as far as
their writing skills are concerned. Randomly selected 106 students from Tabriz Islamic Azad
University and Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University (53 males, 53 females) were given two TEOFL
topics to write. Statistical analysis of the participants' performance indicated that a) the five writing
skills pose different levels of difficulty for Iranian EFL learners; the ability to address the writing task
the easiest and the ability to display facility in language use the most difficult one, and b) female
students support the thesis with more appropriate details while male students organize and develop
their essays more appropriately.
Key words: Writing competence, writing task, facility in language use
1. Introduction
This paper is an enquiry into the practical credentials of writing among EFL students.
Although there is a good deal of impressive efforts and studies in the field, it does not always
seem to be directed by a clear understanding of the aims of the enterprise and the most
effective means of achieving them. Practical work on writing skills, for some, seems to be
contingent modifications of general principles made by reference to administrative necessities
and the requirement of direct liability, but not demanding any new conceptualization of
language teaching pedagogy as such. Others take a contrary view, insisting that writing
necessitates a reformulation of principles of approach for special enterprise in specific
language description and in course preparation and teaching. But in the absence of any actual
and clear status quo of the EFL students' language ability, it is very difficult to assess the
clarity and logic of the opposing arguments. This is what the present paper endeavors to
achieve.
Writing is a very complex process. We write differently at different times, depending on
whom our readers are and what conditions are. That is, we write about a definite topic, to a
particular reader, with a specific purpose in mind, using appropriate language we prefer for
that occasion. Alsamadani (2010) stipulates EFL/ESL writing as a difficult, complex and
challenging process. Langan (2005), too, reiterates this complexity and states that writing
contains different stages and sub-processes including discovering and developing a thesis,
organizing, revising, and editing what is written to have an effective, error-free piece of
writing. What makes this multifaceted process more challenging in practice, as Lee (2003, p.
112) affirms, is that “it is likely that most business and technical writing in the world is done
53
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
(Special Issue on Applied Sciences)
Vol. 3(9) September 2013, pp. 53-63
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
in a second language.” It is so because ESL/EFL writing is one of the most important aspects
of language teaching. In fact good ESL/EFL writing probably, as Lee, (2003) states, is the
key concern for teachers, researchers, textbook writers and program designers in the domain
of Foreign Language Teaching.
The ability to write a text for most ESL/EFL students, then, is actually a difficult task for the
reason that the writing process necessitates a wide range of cognitive, interpersonal, and
linguistic strategies of which ESL/EFL students are mostly unaware (Luchini, 2010). At the
same time, as research on EFL/ESL writing has grown considerably over the last 40 years
chiefly between the late 1980s and the early 1990s, writing has become an interdisciplinary
field of inquiry now (Matsuda, 2003). Reviewing the related literature, we may identify three
major types of ESL/EFL writing approaches. Product approach (Brown, 2001; Harmer, 2007;
Hyland, 2002; Silva; 1990), process approach (Brown, 2001; Raimes, 1985; Silva, 1993;
Wang, 2004; You, 2004) and genre-based approach (Casanave, 2004; www.ccsenet.org/elt
English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 5; May 2012 108 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-
4750 Deng, 2007; Harmer, 2007; Hyland, 2003a; Hyland, 2003b;Leki, 2003).
In the product approach, students should produce an acceptable textual form that conforms to
the model presented to them by their teacher. In this approach, the final result is the first
priority. Students, in this approach, have to “develop competence in particular modes of
written communication by deconstructing and reconstructing model texts” (Christmas, 2011,
p.1). Many ESL/EFL teachers have used this approach all around the world. Robertson
(2008) for instance, emphasizes that, “teacher-centeredness is often amplified if instructors
organize their curriculum by means of a „product approach‟ where instructors teach to and
evaluate from sample, „ideal” texts‟” (p.53). Brown (2001) reiterates, too, that in product
approach, successful learning is evaluated by how well-structured and grammatically correct
a composition is. Anyhow, we have to recognize that in product-based approach, students
hardly ever obtain the required skills necessary for creating and shaping their work because
of the overemphasis on linguistic forms (Robertson, 2008).
On the other hand, the process approach centers typically on the stages of writing; such as
planning, drafting, revisiting and editing (Harmer, 2007). The process approach has a
constructivist view of the writer; it considers the writer as a communal learner and
communicator (Murray, 1980). The constructivist theory focuses on the significance of social
interaction on learning. Lev Vygotsky (1978) introduced this social effect. He actually, used
Piaget‟s (1969) cognitive-constructivists view of learners to develop his own theory. Moffett
(1992), in order to present his own discourse genre theory, combined Vygotsky‟s and
Piaget‟s theories. This theory focuses on the act of writing from the perspective of writer (and
reader) in relationship to experience, measuring the rhetorical distance at which a writer
describes, reports, generalizes and/or theorizes about a specified situation or event”
(Robertson, 2008). In the process approach, learning is regarded as non-linear and discursive.
The genre-based approach focuses on social contexts (Widodo, 2006). Writing is not merely
a linguistic and social activity in this approach; it is actually a social act (Santoso, 2010).
Students, in this approach, should present their work to a specific audience in a specific
context, and with a specific purpose (Santoso, 2010). In this approach, success or failure in
54
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
(Special Issue on Applied Sciences)
Vol. 3(9) September 2013, pp. 53-63
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
communication is evaluated by the degree to which a type of written structure and design is
recognized by the members of a discourse community (Paltridge, 2006). It is so because the
community members have the same language conventions, principles, and norms (Harmer,
2007).
Writing can be seen from two different perspectives. Firstly, writing can be divided into
discrete levels, e.g., grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation, and these elements can
be taught and assessed separately. Secondly, more direct extended writing tasks of various
types could be adopted which, naturally, would have more construct, content, face validity. In
this approach, we can incorporate items which show the learner's ability to perform certain of
the functional tasks required in the performance duties in the target situation. For doctors in
hospital this might involve writing to a local GP about a patient. On the other hand, for a
student in an academic context, it might involve search reading of an academic textbook or
paper to extract particular information for use in a written summary.
One of the analytical approaches to writing is the NWREL Model–a writing instruction and
assessment model constructed by the researchers of the Northwest Regional Education
Laboratory–which assesses a variety of performance across six+1 „traits‟ of writing, namely
„ideas‟, „organization‟, „voice‟, „word choice‟, „fluency‟, „conventions‟, and finally
„presentation‟ (see the appendix).
These six traits of writing ability have been specified in NWREL (2001). Following is a
summary of them:
a. Ideas (including details, development, and focus) are the most important
part of the message, the subject matter of the piece, the central theme, plus
all the details that supplement and develop that theme.
b. Organization is the internal arrangement and pattern of a piece of writing
so long as it fits the central idea.
c. Voice (including tone, style, purpose, and audience) is the writer's personal
engagement with the topic, the way he communicates and what makes him
different from others.
d. Word choice (specific language and phrasing) is the use of affluent, vivid,
accurate language that communicates not just in a functional way, but also
in a way that moves and informs the reader. Strong word choice is typified
not so much by a special vocabulary that impresses the reader, but more by
the skill to use everyday words well.
e. Sentence fluency (accuracy, rhythm, and tempo) is the flow of the
language, the sound of word patterns, the way in which the writing plays
to the ear, not just to the eye. How does it echo when read aloud? That's
the test. Smooth and flowing writing has power, rhythm, and movement. It
is free of awkward word patterns that illustrate the reader's advancement.
Sentences fluctuate in length and style, and are so well manipulated that
the writer moves through the piece with ease.
f. Conventions are the mechanical accuracy of the piece–spelling, grammar
and usage, paragraphing, use of capitals, and punctuation. Writing that is
strong in principles has been proofread and edited with care. Handwriting
55
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
(Special Issue on Applied Sciences)
Vol. 3(9) September 2013, pp. 53-63
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
and orderliness are not part of this trait. As this trait has so many pieces to
it, it's almost an integrative trait within an analytic system. As you evaluate
a piece for convention or principle, ask yourself. Conventions and
principles are the only trait where we make specific grade level
accommodations.
1. The present study
The aim of the current study is to utilize analytic techniques to learn more about EFL
teaching/assessing of writing and to develop a contour for an effective writing teacher in an
EFL setting.
Research questions
1. Are the various writing skills equally difficult for Iranian EFL students?
2. Is there any difference between Iranian males' and females; performances as far as
their writing skills are concerned?
Method
Participants
The current research was administered in two universities, i.e. Tabriz Islamic Azad
University and Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University. The participants majored in English
TEFL, English translation, and English literature for their bachelor's degree. Half of the
participants were females and half of them were males. The learners fell within the age range
of 20 to 27. 59 of the participants were TEFL students, 25 English translation students, and
22 English literature students. All students were native speakers of Turkish and all were in
their final year of study.
Instrumentations
A TOEFL Essay test was used in this study. Students' performances were evaluated
according to their ability in a) addressing the writing task, b) organizing and developing their
essay, c) supporting their theses with appropriate details or illustrating their ideas, d)
displaying consistent facility in the use of language, and e) demonstrating syntactic variety
and appropriate word choice. The rating scale ranged from zero to six.
2. Discussion
Lack of access to graduate students made us rely on undergraduate students. Statistical
analyses of the participants' performances are illustrated in the following tables.
56
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
(Special Issue on Applied Sciences)
Vol. 3(9) September 2013, pp. 53-63
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
Writing Task 106 4.93 .397 3 6
Organization of Ideas 106 3.45 .852 2 6
Appropriate Details 106 3.43 .862 2 5
Appropriate Language Use 106 1.00 .676 0 3
Syntactic Variety and Appropriate Word Choice 106 3.97 .639 3 6
Gender 106 1.50 .502 1 2
The means of various writing skills for Iranian EFL students, as shown in Table one, are
different. In order to have a valid comparison of the results, we conducted the t-test analysis.
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Writing Task 4.93 106 .397 .039
Organization of Ideas 3.45 106 .852 .083
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Writing Task & Organization 106 .117 .231
of Ideas
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Appropriate Details 3.43 106 .862 .084
Facility in Language Use 1.00 106 .676 .066
57
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
(Special Issue on Applied Sciences)
Vol. 3(9) September 2013, pp. 53-63
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Appropriate Details & Facility 106 .768 .000
in Language Use
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Appropriate Details - Facility 2.434 .552 .054
in Language Use
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper t df
Pair 1 Appropriate Details - Facility 2.328 2.540 45.366 105
in Language Use
Paired Samples Test
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1 Appropriate Details - Facility .000
in Language Use
Table 2 and 3 indicate that males' and females' performances differ from each other. Female
students provided more appropriate details to support the theses while male students provided
more general ideas and showed better ability to organize their essays.
Table 2: Test Statistics
Writing Organization of Appropriate Appropriate Syntactic Variety and
Task Ideas Details Language Use Appropriate Word Choice
Mann-Whitney 1273.500 703.000 807.000 1261.000 1274.500
U
Wilcoxon W 2704.500 2134.000 2238.000 2692.000 2705.500
58
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
(Special Issue on Applied Sciences)
Vol. 3(9) September 2013, pp. 53-63
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
Z -1.564 -4.875 -4.018 -1.056 -.951
Asymp. Sig. .118 .000 .000 .291 .341
(2-tailed)
a. Grouping Variable: gender
Table 3: Ranks
gender
N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Writing Task male 53 55.97 2966.50
dimension1 female 53 51.03 2704.50
Total 106
Organization of Ideas male 53 66.74 3537.00
dimension1 female 53 40.26 2134.00
Total 106
Appropriate Details male 53 42.23 2238.00
dimension1 female 53 64.77 3433.00
Total 106
Appropriate Language Use male 53 50.79 2692.00
dimension1 female 53 56.21 2979.00
Total 106
Syntactic Variety and Appropriate Word male 53 51.05 2705.50
Choice
dimension1 female 53 55.95 2965.50
Total 106
3. Conclusion
The results of present study (1. writing skills pose different levels of difficulty for Iranian
undergraduate students, and 2. females provide more details in comparison with males while
males organize their theses and ideas better than females) bring about changes in our
conception of writing competence. Writing skills seem to function at two distinct levels.
They, therefore, should be divided into two sub-categories; systemic knowledge and
schematic knowledge– how information is ordered and communication is managed. These
two categories are not necessarily interrelated. Writing is, in its actual form, a mixture of
these two. None of these issues can alone guarantee the accomplishment of a successful
writing. Learners need, from the very beginning, to develop these two diverse competences
concurrently. And since schematic knowledge seems to be a culture-dependent construct,
which may vary from one group or gender to another, course designers, teachers, and teacher
trainers need to adapt the specifications of writing objectives and program to the learner's
personal characteristics, socio-cultural circumstances and perspectives in order to have an
effective and efficient writing class.
59
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
(Special Issue on Applied Sciences)
Vol. 3(9) September 2013, pp. 53-63
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
Acknowledgement:
"This research project with the code number 51952901222015 was funded and financially
supported by Islamic Azad University, Shabestar Branch, Iran."
References
Alsamadani, H. A. (2010). The Relationship between Saudi EFL Students‟ Writing
Competence, L1 Writing Proficiency, and Self-regulation. European Journal of Social
Sciences, 16(1), 53-63.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy
(2nd ed). California: San Francisco State University.
Casanave, C. P. (2004). Controversies in second Language writing: Dilemmas and decisions
in research and instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Christmas, B. (2011). The role of brainstorming in improving students writing performance
in the EFL classroom [Online] Available:
http://sydney.edu.au/cet/docs/research/The%20Role%20of%20Brainstorming%20in%20Impr
oving%20Students%2 0Writing.pdf (October 12, 2011).
Deng，X. (2007). A pedagogical response to the different approaches to the teaching of
ESL/EFL Essay writing. STETS Language & Communication Review, 6(1), 15-20.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. (4th edition). Harlow:
Longman.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003368820103200109
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. New York: Longman.
www.ccsenet.org/elt English Language Teaching Vol. 5, No. 5; May 2012 Published by
Canadian Center of Science and Education 115
Hyland, K. (2003a). Second language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251
Hyland, K. (2003b). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 12,1-29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8
Langan, J. (2005). College Writing Skills. Atlantic Cape Community College: McGraw Hill.
Lee, S. (2003). Teaching EFL Writing in the University: Related Issues, Insights, and
Implications. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 16(1), 111-136.
Leki, L. (2003). Coda: Pushing L2 writing research. Journal of second Language Writing, 12,
103-105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00128-5
Luchini, P. L. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of a complimentary approach to teaching
writing skills. International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), 4(3), 73-92.
60
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
(Special Issue on Applied Sciences)
Vol. 3(9) September 2013, pp. 53-63
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated
historical perspective. In B.Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing
(pp. 15-34). Cambridge: Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series.
Moffett, J. (1992). Detecting growth in language. New Hampshire: Boynton/Cook.
Murray, D. M. (1980). Writing as a process: How writing finds its own meaning. In Timothy
R. Donovan and Ben W. McClelland (eds), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp.
90-100). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Murray, D. M. (1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning. In T.R.
Donovan & B.W. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp. 3-20).
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English
NWREL Group (2001). 'Writing Assessment in North West Regional Education Laboratory'.
NWREL Organization.
NWREL Group (2002) “6 Trait Writing Assessment: A report on Introduction grades (3-
12) Institute”. Austin, TX.
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis: an introduction. London : Continuum.
Piaget, J. (1969). Science of the education and the psychology of the child. New York:
Viking.
Raime, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of
composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-258.
Robertson, C. (2008). Integration of Moodle Course Management System (CMS) into an EFL
Writing Class. The JALT CALL Journal, 4(1), 53-59.
Santoso, A. (2010). Scaffolding an EFL effective writing class in a hybrid learning
community. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Queensland: Queensland University of
Technology.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and
directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 11-23). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Silva, T. (1993). Towards an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL
research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 756-777.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587400
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, X. (2004). Encouraging self-monitoring in writing by Chinese students. ELT Journal,
58(3), 238–246.
Widodo, H. P. (2006). Extensive reading in an ESL class in the United States: some good
points. Retrieved from http://www.nus.edu.sg/celc/publications/RELT71/71to76-widodo.pdf
You, X. (2004). The choice made from no choice: English writing instruction in a Chinese
university. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 97–110.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.11.001
61
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
(Special Issue on Applied Sciences)
Vol. 3(9) September 2013, pp. 53-63
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
APPENDIX
Six-Trait Scoring Rubrics (1)
CATEGORY 4 3 2 1
All sources used for All sources used for Most sources used for quotes Many sources used for quotes
quotes and facts are quotes and facts are and facts are credible and cited and facts are less than credible
Sources (Content) credible and cited credible and most are correctly. (suspect) and/or are not cited
correctly. cited correctly. correctly.
The conclusion is strong The conclusion is The conclusion is recognizable, There is no clear conclusion,
and leaves the reader with recognizable and ties up but does not tie up several the paper just ends.
Conclusion
a feeling that they almost all the loose ends. loose ends.
(Organization)
understand what the writer
is "getting at."
Details are placed in a Details are placed in a Some details are not in a Many details are not in a
logical order and the way logical order, but the way logical or expected order, and logical or expected order.
Sequencing they are presented in which they are this distracts the reader. There is little sense that the
(Organization) effectively keeps the presented/introduced writing is organized.
interest of the reader. sometimes makes the
writing less interesting.
The introduction is The introduction clearly The introduction states the There is no clear introduction
inviting, states the main states the main topic and main topic, but does not of the main topic or structure of
Introduction topic and previews the previews the structure of adequately preview the the paper.
(Organization) structure of the paper. the paper, but is not structure of the paper nor is it
particularly inviting to the particularly inviting to the
reader. reader.
Relevant, telling, quality Supporting details and Supporting details and Supporting details and
details give the reader information are relevant, information are relevant, but information are typically
Support for Topic
important information that but one key issue or several key issues or portions unclear or not related to the
(Content)
goes beyond the obvious portion of the storyline is of the storyline are topic.
or predictable. unsupported. unsupported.
There is one clear, well- Main idea is clear but the Main idea is somewhat clear The main idea is not clear.
focused topic. Main idea supporting information is but there is a need for more There is a seemingly random
Focus on Topic
stands out and is general. supporting information. collection of information.
(Content)
supported by detailed
information.
The conclusion is strong The conclusion is The conclusion is recognizable, There is no clear conclusion,
and leaves the reader with recognizable and ties up but does not tie up several the paper just ends.
Conclusion a feeling that they almost all the loose ends. loose ends.
(Organization) understand what the writer
is "getting at."
Every paragraph has Almost all paragraphs Some sentences vary in length. Sentences rarely vary in length.
Sentence Length sentences that vary in have sentences that vary
(Sentence Fluency) length. in length.
CATEGORY 4 3 2 1
62
Journal of Academic and Applied Studies
(Special Issue on Applied Sciences)
Vol. 3(9) September 2013, pp. 53-63
Available online @ www.academians.org
ISSN1925-931X
Writer makes no errors in Writer makes 1-2 errors in Writer makes 3-4 errors in Writer makes more than 4
grammar or spelling that grammar or spelling that grammar or spelling that errors in grammar or spelling
Grammar & Spelling distract the reader from distract the reader from distract the reader from the that distract the reader from the
(Conventions) the content. the content. content. content.
Paper is neatly written or Paper is neatly written or The writing is generally Many words are unreadable
typed with no distracting typed with 1 or 2 readable, but the reader has to OR there are several distracting
Penmanship corrections. distracting corrections exert quite a bit of effort to corrections.
(Conventions) (e.g.,dark cross-outs; figure out some of the words.
bumpy white-out, words
written over).
The writer successfully The writer successfully The writer attempts to make The writer made no attempt to
uses several uses one or two the reader care about the topic, make the reader care about the
reasons/appeals to try to reasons/appeals to try to but is not really successful. topic.
Commitment (Voice) show why the reader show why the reader
should care or want to should care or want to
know more about the know more about the
topic. topic.
Writer makes no errors in Writer makes 1 or 2 errors Writer makes a few errors in Writer makes several errors in
Capitalization & capitalization or in capitalization or capitalization and/or capitalization and/or
Punctuation punctuation, so the paper punctuation, but the paper punctuation that catch the punctuation that catch the
(Conventions) is exceptionally easy to is still easy to read. reader's attention and interrupt reader's attention and greatly
read. the flow. interrupt the flow.
All sentences sound Almost all sentences Most sentences sound natural The sentences are difficult to
natural and are easy-on- sound natural and are and are easy-on-the-ear when read aloud because they sound
Flow & Rhythm
the-ear when read aloud. easy-on-the-ear when read read aloud, but several are stiff awkward, are distractingly
(Sentence Fluency)
Each sentence is clear and aloud, but 1 or 2 are stiff and awkward or are difficult to repetitive, or difficult to
has an obvious emphasis. and awkward or difficult understand. understand.
to understand.
All sentences are well- Most sentences are well- Most sentences are well- Sentences lack structure and
Sentence Structure
constructed with varied constructed with varied constructed but have a similar appear incomplete or rambling.
(Sentence Fluency)
structure. structure. structure.
63
