A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis Of Thematic Structure Of Dissertation Abstracts

Iranian EFL Journal 1
The Iranian EFL Journal August 2013 Volume 9 Issue 4
ISSN On-line: 1836-8751
ISSN Print: 1836-8743
The Iranian EFL Journal
August 2013
Volume 9
Issue 4
Chief Editors
Dr. Paul Robertson
Dr. Rajabali Askarzadeh Torghabeh

Publisher
Dr. Paul Robertson
Time Taylor International Ltd.
Senior Associate Editor
Dr. Rajabali Askarzadeh Torghabeh
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
Mashhad, Iran
Dr. Roger Nunn
The Petroleum Institute
Abu Dhabi
UAE
Dr. John Adamson
Shinshu Honan College
Japan
Professor Dr. Z.N. Patil
Central Institute of English and
Foreign Languages
Hyderabad,
India
Senior Statesmen
Professor Rod Ellis
University of Auckland
New Zealand

Associate Editors
Professor Dr. Dan Douglas
Iowa State University
USA
Dr. Reza Pishghadam
Ferdowsi university of
Mashhad
Mashhad, Iran
Dr. Behzad Ghonsooly
Mashhad, Iran
Prof. Dr. Rana Nayar
Panjab University
India
Dr. Abdolmahdy Riazi
Shirza University
Iran
Dr. Mahmood Reza Atai
Tarbiat Moallem University
Tehran, Iran
Editorial team
Dr. Pourya Baghaii
Islamic Azad University, Mashhad
Branch, Iran
Dr. Zohre Eslami Rasekh
Texas A & M University
USA
Dr. Azizullah Fatahi
Shar-e Kord University
Iran
Dr. Mohammad Reza Hashemi
Mashhad, Iran
Dr. Parvaneh Tavakoli
University of Reading,
Humanities and Social Sciences
Building Whiteknights England
Dr. Seyyed Ayatollah Razmju
Shiraz University
Iran
Dr. Shamala Paramasivam
University of Putra
Malaysia
Dr. Manizheh Yuhannaee
University of Isfahan
Iran
Dr. Antony Fenton
Soka University
Japan
Dr. Esma’eel Abdollahzadeh
Iran University of Science and
Technology
Iran
Dr. Ingrid Mosquera Gende
Bettatur University College of
Tourism
Tarragona, Spain
Dr. Rajabali Askarzadeh
Torghabeh
Mashhad, Iran
Dr. Christopher Alexander
University of Nicosia
Cyprus
Dr. Robert Kirkpatrick
Shinawatra International
University, Thailand
Dr. Abbas Zare’ee
Kashan University
Iran
Dr. Masoud Sharififar
Shahid Bahonar University
of Kerman
Kerman, Iran

The Iranian EFL Journal Press
A Division of Time Taylor Publishers
QC Pavilion
Cebu
http://www.Iranian-efl-journal.com
Iranian.efljournal@yahoo.com
This E book is in copyright.
No reproduction may take place without
the express written permission of the
Iranian EFL Journal
No unauthorized copying
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means
electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of the Iranian EFL Journal.
Chief Editor: Dr. Paul Robertson
Senior Associate Editor:
Dr. Rajabali Askarzadeh Torghabeh,
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad,
Mashhad, Iran.
ISSN On-line: 1836-8751
ISSN Print: 1836-8743

Table of Contents
Foreword: Dr. Paul Robertson and Dr. Rajabali Askarzadeh Torghabeh 7 - 8
1- An Investigation of Speaking-associated Problems from Students and Instructors Perspectives
Alireza Hojati and Akbar Afghari 9 - 31
2- Consciousness-Raising on Preposition-Stranding
Jabar Mirani and Khosro Soleimani 32 - 41
3- Writing Skill in ESP Classes and Genre-based Approach
Nayereh Bedad Fard 42 - 51
4- The Effect of Gender on EFL Achievement Testing Pre-university Schools in Iran
Gholamreza Akhoondali 52 - 70
5- Contrastive Analysis of English Language and Persian Language Prepositions
Farzaneh Aminzadeh Arkhodi 71 - 82
6- A Student-Centred Literature Class: A Step towards a Less Stressful Literary Experience
in Language Classes
Parviz Birjandi and Sarvenaz Khatib 83 - 93
7- A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of Thematic Structure of Dissertation Abstracts
Saleh Arizavi, Hossein Shokouhi and Seyyed Ahmad Mousavi 94 - 112
8- English Globalization Issues, Impacts and Challenges as to Culture and Language in
Islamic contexts especially Iran
Abbas Paziresh, Fereshteh Shojaie and Rana Shokrollahi 113 – 126
9- Epistemic Modality in Academic Discourse: A Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Study
Motahareh Sameri and Manoochehr Tavangar 127 - 147
10- On the Relationship among Language Learning Attitude, Academic Motivation and
language Proficiency of Iranian EFL learners
Jahanbakhsh Langroudi and Nasibeh Amiri 148 - 166
11- The Effect of Different Text Types on Cognitive and Metacognitive Listening
comprehension Strategy Use among Iranian EFL Learners
Anis Behzadi 167 - 183
12- Text Linguistics and Systemic Functional Grammar: Platforms of Reform in Literacy
Maryam Eftekhari 184 - 193
13- The Effects of Brain Compatible Vocabulary Learning Strategy Instruction on EFL Students
Seyed Mahdi Araghi and Alireza Navid Moghaddam 194 - 206

14- Sacrificed Elements of TEFL in Secondary Education of Iran
Fatemeh Poorebrahim and Mohammad Reza Talebinejad 207 - 219
15- The Use of Annotations and Pictures in Storytelling Classes and Their Impacts on Critical
Thinking and Writing Abilities of Young Iranian EFL Learners
Mojgan Rashtchi and Samaneh Gorji 220 - 240
16- A Comparative Genre Analysis of English and Persian Business Letters
Moharram Sharifi and Ali Sharifi 241 - 258
17- A Study of Low and High Proficiency EFL Learners’ Preferences for Teacher Talk
Mojtaba Soleimani Karizmeh and Mahdi Taherkhani 259 - 279
18- Process-Product Approach to Writing: the Effect of Sampling on EFL Learners' Writing
Performance, Measures of Complexity and Fluency
Parastou Gholami Pasand 280 - 286
19- The Role of Cultural Nativization in Comprehension of Short Stories in Intermediate EFL Learners
Farzaneh Emadian Naeini and Razie Alishvandi 287 - 298
20- The Relationship between Verbal Creativity and Speaking Skill of IELTS Candidates
Samira Baghaei and Mohammad S. Bagheri 299 - 310
21- The Effect of Task Types (Static and Dynamic Contexts) on Listening Comprehension
in an Information Processing Perspective among Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners.
Anis Behzadi and Gholam Reza Haji Pour Nezhad 311 - 324
22-The Effect of Different Online Planning Conditions on EFL Learners' Writing test Performance
in Terms of Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency: The Concept Mapping Strategy in Focus
Najmeh Farshi, Mansoor Tavakoli and Saeed Ketabi 325 - 345
23- Translation of Idiomatic Expressions in Subtitling
Sima Ferdowsi 346 - 365
24- A Survey of Definite Article Usage Errors among Faculty Members of Shiraz University
of Medical Sciences
Marjan Gholami and Maryam Gholami 366 - 382
25- The Relationship among EFL Learner’s Critical Thinking, Tolerance of Ambiguity
and Reading Comprehension
Nasim Shangarffam and Hedyeh Hosseinnejad 383 - 397
26- Translation of English Epistemic Modals in Orwell’s Animal Farm
Habibollah Mashhady and Masoumeh Yazdani Moghadam 398 – 411

Foreword
Welcome to volume nine and the fourth edition of 2013. Statistically, readers of our journal are coming from
almost eighty countries; and The Iranian EFL Journal has had strong growth over the last few years with a
monthly readership now exceeding 2500 readers. For a journal examining the topics of EFL/ESL, Literature and
Translation studies, the growth and readership has been pleasing. The bi-monthly Iranian EFL Journal has
attracted many readers not only from the Middle East but also from different parts of the world and in this way;
the number of our reviewers has also increased. We have increased the number of our reviewers and now, more
than ninety five reviewers are cooperating with the journal and evaluate the articles. In this edition, we have
presented twenty six articles, discussing different issues of EFL/ESL, literature and translation studies. In the
first article, Alireza Hojati and Akbar Afghari present an investigation of speaking-associated problems
from students and instructors perspectives. In the second article of the issue, Jabar Mirani and Khosro
Soleimani have studied consciousness-raising on preposition-stranding. In the third article of the issue,
Nayereh Bedad Fard presents writing skill in ESP classes and genre-based approach. In the next article, the
effect of gender on EFL achievement testing pre-university schools in Iran is presented by Gholamreza
Akhoondali. In the fifth article of the issue, Farzaneh Aminzadeh Arkhodi presents contrastive analysis of
English language and Persian language prepositions. The next article which is about a student-centred
literature class: a step towards a less stressful literary experience in language classes is done by Parviz
Birjandi and Sarvenaz Khatib. In the seventh article of the issue, Saleh Arizavi, Hossein Shokouhi and
Seyyed Ahmad Mousavi have presented a cross-disciplinary analysis of thematic structure of dissertation
abstracts. In the eight article of the issue English globalization issues, impacts and challenges as to culture
and language in Islamic contexts especially Iran is done by Abbas Paziresh, Fereshteh Shojaie and Rana
Shokrollahi. In the next article, epistemic modality in academic discourse: a cross-linguistic and cross-
disciplinary study is studied by Motahareh Sameri and Manoochehr Tavangar. In the tenth article of the
issue, Jahanbakhsh Langroudi and Nasibeh Amiri have studied on the relationship among language learning
attitude, academic motivation and language proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. In the eleventh article of the
issue the effect of different text types on cognitive and metacognitive listening comprehension strategy use
among Iranian EFL learners is studied by Anis Behzadi. In the twelfth article of the issue, text linguistics and
systemic functional grammar: platforms of reform in literacy is presented by Maryam Eftekhari. In the next
article, Seyed Mahdi Araghi and Alireza Navid Moghaddam have presented the effects of brain compatible

vocabulary learning strategy instruction on EFL students. In the fourteenth article of the issue, sacrificed
elements of TEFL in secondary education of Iran is studied by Fatemeh Poorebrahim and Mohammad
Reza Talebinejad. In the fifteenth article of the issue, Mojgan Rashtchi and Samaneh Gorji present the use
of annotations and pictures in storytelling classes and their impacts on critical thinking and writing
abilities of young Iranian EFL learners. In the next article, a comparative genre analysis of English and
Persian business letters is studied by Moharram Sharifi and Ali Sharifi. In the seventeenth article of the
issue, Mojtaba Soleimani Karizmeh and Mahdi Taherkhani have presented a study of low and high
proficiency EFL learners’ preferences for teacher talk. The next article which is about process-product
approach to writing: the effect of sampling on EFL learners' writing performance, measures of
complexity and fluency is presented by Parastou Gholami Pasand. In the next article of the issue Farzaneh
Emadian Naeini and Razie Alishvandi have presented an article entitled the role of cultural nativization in
comprehension of short stories in intermediate EFL learners. In the twentieth article of the issue, the
relationship between verbal creativity and speaking skill of IELTS candidates is presented by Samira
Baghaei and Mohammad S. Bagheri. In the next article, the effect of task types (static and dynamic
contexts) on listening comprehension in an information processing perspective among Iranian
intermediate EFL Learners is done by Anis Behzadi and Gholam Reza Haji Pour Nezhad. In the next
article of the issue Najmeh Farshi, Mansoor Tavakoli and Saeed Ketabi have studied the effect of
different online planning conditions on EFL learners' writing test performance in terms of complexity,
accuracy and fluency: the concept mapping strategy in focus. In the twenty third article of the issue,
translation of idiomatic expressions in subtitling is presented by Sima Ferdowsi. In the next article,
Marjan Gholami and Maryam Gholami have presented an article entitled a survey of definite article usage
errors among faculty members of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. In the next article of the issue,
the relationship among EFL learner’s critical thinking, tolerance of ambiguity and reading
comprehension is presened by Nasim Shangarffam and Hedyeh Hosseinnejad. In the last article of the
issue, translation of English epistemic modals in Orwell’s Animal Farm is studied by Habibollah
Mashhady and Masoumeh Yazdani Moghadam.
We hope you enjoy this edition and look forward to your readership.

Title
An Investigation of Speaking-Associated Problems from Students
and Instructors Perspectives
Authors
Alireza Hojati (M.A)
Amin Higher Education Institution, Fouladshahr, Iran.
Akbar Afghari (Ph.D)
Sheikhbahaee University, Isfahan, Iran.
Biodata
Alireza Hojati M.A in TEFL and is currently a lecturer at Amin Higher Education
Institution, Fouladshahr, Iran. He has taught reading comprehension, ESP, teaching
methodology and grammar courses at university level. His research areas include error
analysis, euphemisms and critical discourse analysis.
Akbar Afghari Ph. D in applied linguistics, and is currently an associate professor at
Sheikhbahaee University, Isfahan, Iran. He has taught various courses at under-graduate and
post-graduate levels. His areas of research interest include language testing, pragmatics,
discourse analysis and sociolinguistics.
Abstract
The skill of speaking in English as a non-native language is arguably an important
and challenging one which is affected by a substantial number of linguistic and
non-linguistic factors. This study sought to elicit and compare perspectives of a
group of Iranian EFL students from three Iranian universities and their professors
teaching them an advanced lab course on some linguistic problems facing students
in lab classes. To this end, a number of data-collection tools including open-ended
and close-ended questionnaires were employed by the researcher. Having
collected the data, the researcher reported them in percentage terms, tabulated and
then analyzed them based on statistical figures. The comparison of opinions of the

two groups revealed notable points, including the convergence of professor and
student opinions on one linguistic area, i.e. grammar, and the divergence of
opinions of the two groups on other linguistic areas. To further investigate the
linguistic area on which opinions were convergent and collect some objective data
on it, a standardized test of grammar and IELTS interviews were administered to
one-third of the students. The exam results were analyzed with the help of two
TEFL professors and a statistician. The analysis revealed that, while some scores
were notably high and some notably low, most scores were close to the average
score. The speaking interviews were conducted using topics and questions of
previously-administered IELTS tests and their contents were rated by two
professors. The agreement between the two raters was calculated using Kendall's
Coefficient of Concordance, which yielded the figure 0.40. The interview results
illustrated that most students were either limited or modest in their English
speaking skills.
Keywords: EFL Speaking Problems, Learner/Instructor Perspectives
I. Introduction
1.1. Background
Speaking is arguably one of the elemental ways of communication between human
beings and plays a crucial role in maintaining social bonds between people inhabiting
the Earth. Levelt (1993) has summed up the importance of speaking as an often taken-
for-granted entity as follows; "Talking is one of our dearest occupations. We spend hours
a day conversing, telling stories, teaching, quarreling … and, of course, speaking to
ourselves. Speaking is, moreover, one of our most complex cognitive, linguistic and motor
skills" (1993, p. xiii).
The position of the English language in the modern era in a unique one. One
recurring theme around which many debates on the status of English revolve is the
global spread of English. This theme is so outstanding that a good deal has been
written about it. For instance, Seidlhofer (2003), Ferguson(2006), Cummins and Davison
(2007), Goss(2009) and McKenzie(2010) have dedicated substantial portions of their
recently-published books to the transformation of English into a global language.
There are different linguistic and non-linguistic factors which influence learners’
speaking

in English as a non-native language. Each factor can constitute a facilitating factor or
a problem for learners’ speaking in English. Different learners from different
geographical entities and linguistic backgrounds face different problems in their efforts
aimed at achieving a measure of proficiency in the skill of speaking in English.
Farsi-speaking EFL learners and students in the Iranian context face their own
unique set of linguistic and non-linguistic problems while striving to come to grips
with English language skills, including the skill of speaking. In the area of grammar,
Yarmohammadi (2005) , in an apparent critique of the status of English language
education in Iran, has suggested that Iranian high school graduates entering Iranian
universities have numerous problems in different areas of grammar including gerunds,
infinitives, conjunctions, subordinations, relatives, prepositions and affixes (2005, p.13).
Also, Golshan and Karbalaei (2009) have reported the existence of a large number of
both major and minor grammatical errors falling into the categories of prepositions,
articles, tenses, verb groups, word order, tense sequences, incorrect use of plural
morphemes, parts of speech, Persian constructions and relative clauses in the
compositions produced by subjects of their study, all of whom undergraduate students
of English in the Islamic Azad University.
2.1. Purposes of the Study
The primary purpose of the study was the elicitation of the views of both EFL
students and their university instructors in relation to speaking-related problems in order
to have two separate sets of accounts which can then be juxtaposed and compared with
each other. Another purpose of the study was determining the extent to which the
most frequently- cited speaking-associated problem reported by student participants of
the study is serious and in need of academic attention.
3.1. Research Questions
1. What is/are the most frequently-reported linguistic problem/s facing Iranian EFL
student participants of the study from their own perspective?
2. What is/are the most prevalent and frequently-reported linguistic problem/s facing
the student participants of the study from the perspective of their Lab(4) professors?,
3. How deep is one of the most frequently-cited linguistic problems facing participants
of the study?,
4. What level of English speaking proficiency do the participants of the study have?,
5. How do the views of students and professor participants in the study compare?

2. Methodology
1.2. Participants
1.2.1.Student Participants
A total of 120 Iranian students specializing in TEFL in three universities of Isfahan
Province were randomly selected and included in the initial phase of data collection. The
vast majority of the participants, 102 out of 120, were females. All the participants were
sophomores taking lab courses entitled ‘Language Laboratory(4), rendered into Persian
as ‘(۴) ‫شنود‬ ‫و‬ ‫’گفت‬ , in English departments of their affiliated universities during the
second semester of 1389-90 academic year. The three universities from which subjects
were selected were Sheikhbahaee University, Isfahan University and the Islamic Azad
University of Najafabad. As relates to the institutional affiliations of participants, 40
students were selected from each of the above-mentioned universities.
With regard to the level of English language proficiency of participants, one
criterion, the length of exposure to English at the tertiary level, viz. roughly three
semesters and two months, was taken into account. 90 students, who had completed
and delivered their copies of the open-ended questionnaire to the researcher, were
included in the second phase of data-collection. 30 students, 27 females and 3 males,
from among the 90 participants were randomly selected and included in the third phase
of data elicitation. 8 of the randomly-selected students were from Isfahan University, 13
of them were from Sheikhbahaee University and the remaining 9 students were from
the Islamic Azad University of Najafabad.
1.2.2. Professor Participants
Five EFL professors from the above-mentioned universities participated in the study.
Two of them were affiliated with the Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch, one
of them with Sheikhbahaee University and another two with Isfahan University. All the
five professors in question were females and were engaged in the teaching of the
course ‘Language Lab(4)’ to student participants of the study during the second
semester of 1389-90 academic year.
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Questionnaires
Three types of questionnaires, one open-ended and two close-ended, were used in the
study. The following sub-section gives detailed data on the questionnaires constructed
and used in the research.

2.2.1.1. Open-ended Questionnaire
The open-ended questionnaire was designed and used by the researcher as a tentative
instrument for eliciting data from student participants. Prior to his embarking on the task
of preparing the questionnaire, the researcher had hoped he would find a validated and
standardized open-ended questionnaire for his initial data-collection. But, having failed
to find a questionnaire meeting the necessary standardization and validation criteria, he
started the task of preparing the questionnaire himself.
2.2.1.2. Close-ended Questionnaires
Data derived from the open-ended questionnaire were subjected to statistical analysis and
the frequencies of responses to questionnaire items were reported in percentage terms.
After analyzing the percentages, the researcher noted that six questionnaire items had
frequencies of less than 30%. Having consulted a statistician, he decided to remove
items with frequencies of less than 30% from the questionnaire. After eliminating low-
frequency items, the format of the open-ended questionnaire was changed in order to
develop close-ended questionnaire.
2.2.3. Grammar Sub-test of Oxford Placement Test
In order to objectively examine and document some of the problems reported by the
student participants, the researcher used the trusted and recognized grammar sub-test of
Oxford Placement Test(OPT) as another tool with which to collect relevant data.
2.2.4. IELTS Interview Topics
Another set of data-elicitation tools used in the research was a group of 20 IELTS
interview topics and related questions. Given the unreliability of some commercially
developed test materials, the researcher used speaking topics and questions of some
previously-administered IELTS examinations published by Cambridge University Press.
2.3. Procedures
2.3.1. The Administration of Questionnaires
2.3.1.1. Administration of Open-ended Questionnaire
Having developed the open-ended questionnaire, 120 copies of it were produced and
then distributed to 120 students with the institutional affiliations cited in the
‘Participants’ sub-section of this chapter. In two out of the three universities from
whose students data was collected, viz. Isfahan University and the Islamic Azad
University of Najafabad, the questionnaire copies were given to students between the
10th
and 15th
of Esfand, 1389 (1th and 6th
of March, 2011). In Sheikhbahaee University,

however, the distribution of open-ended questionnaire was delayed till the 15th
of
Farvardin, 1390 (4th
of April, 2011).
All the students receiving questionnaire copies were asked by their lab(4)
professors to complete them and then deliver them in a week’s time. However, most
of them, particularly those of Sheikhbahaee University, failed to deliver questionnaire
copies on time and the researcher had to wait for two more weeks to receive the
questionnaire copies from them.
2.3.1.2. Administration of Student Version of Close-ended Questionnaire
The student version of the close-ended questionnaire, which had 21 items, was
distributed to 90 students between the 5th
and 11th
of Ordibehesht, 1390 (25th
April and
1th May, 2011). Given that, unlike the open-ended questionnaire, answering items of the
close-ended questionnaire did not take a lot of time, the researcher asked the
respondents to complete their questionnaire copies within 30 minutes.
2.3.1.3. Administration of Professor Version of Close-ended Questionnaire
Copies of the close-ended questionnaire developed for eliciting data from professors
were submitted to the five professors between the 7th
and 11th
of Ordibehesht,
1390(27th
April and 1th May, 2011) during their office hours. The researcher asked the
professors to deliver questionnaire copies to him at the earliest possible time. Three of
the professors delivered the completed questionnaire copies to him less than three
hours after receiving them. Two of them, however, cited their being busy dealing with
affairs relating to mid-term examinations at that time and delivered the completed
questionnaire copies to the researcher roughly a week after receiving them.
2.3.2. Administration of Grammar Sub-test of OPT
In an attempt to objectively examine whether grammar was a common and notable
source of speaking-related problems facing student respondents, the researcher
administered the grammar sub-test of grammar to his sample of 30 students. The
examination was conducted on three separate occasions as it was not possible for the
researcher to bring all the 30 students with three different institutional affiliations
together in one place for the exam. The test was administered in the presence of the
researcher in English Departments of Sheikhbahaee University, Isfahan University and
the Islamic Azad University of Najafabad on the 20th
, 24th and 27th
of Ordibehesht,
1390(10th
, 14th
and 17th
May, 2011) respectively.
2.3.3. The Use of IELTS Interview Topics

In order to have objective data on the overall speaking ability of the 30 students
included in the third phase of data collection, the researcher conducted interviews with
them using twenty IELTS speaking topics included in ‘Cambridge IELTS 3-7’ books.
Given the practical difficulties of the task of conducting a 14-minute interview with
each of the 30 sample members, the researcher conducted the interviews during a two-
week period commencing on the 31th of Ordibehesht (21th of May).
3. Results
Table(1). Cross-tabulation of students’ and professors’ responses to items of close-ended questionnaires
Insufficiency of students’
vocabulary knowledge for
speaking
Item(1) Total
1 2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
0
.0%
2
40.0%
3
60.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 3
3.3%
17
18.9%
59
65.6%
11
12.2%
90
100.0%
Total Count 3
3.2%
17
17.9%
61
64.2%
14
14.7%
95
100.0%
Students’ problems relating to
speaking about some vogue topics
Item(2) Total
2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
1
20.0%
4
80.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 9
10.0%
25
27.8%
56
62.2%
90
100.0%
Total Count 9
9.5%
26
27.4%
60
63.2%
95
100.0%
The failure of students to retrieve
needed vocabulary items
Item(3) Total
1 2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
1
20.0%
1
20.0%
3
60.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 32
35.6%
21
23.3%
25
27.8%
12
13.3%
90
100.0%
Total Count
32
33.7%
22
23.2%
26
27.4%
15
15.8%
95
100.0%
Students’ confusing of words with
spelling, semantic and
phonological similarities
Item(4) Total
1 2 3 4

G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
0
.0%
2
40.0%
3
60.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 25
27.8%
23
25.6%
31
34.4%
11
12.2%
90
100.0%
Total Count 25
26.3%
23
24.2%
33
34.7%
14
14.7%
95
100.0%
Problems with the past and past-
participle forms of some irregular
verbs
Item(5) Total
1 2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
0
.0%
0
.0%
5
100.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 6
7.3%
15
18.3%
42
51.2%
19
23.2%
82
100.0%
Total Count 6
6.9%
15
17.2%
42
48.3%
24
27.6%
87
100.0%
Problems with complex
grammatical structures including
relative clauses and phrases
Item(6) Total
2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
0
.0%
5
100.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 8
8.9%
54
60.0%
28
31.1%
90
100.0%
Total Count 8
8.4%
54
56.8%
33
34.7%
95
100.0%
Problems associated with English
tenses, specially progressive,
continuous and perfect ones
Item(7) Total
3 4
G 1.00 Count 1
20.0%
4
80.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 22
24.4%
68
45.6%
90
100.0%
Total Count 23
24.2%
72
75.8%
95
100.0%
Problems with English articles
and prepositions of high
frequency
Item(8) Total
2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
0
.0%
5
100.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 10
11.1%
15
16.7%
65
72.2%
90
100.0%

Total Count 10
10.5%
15
15.8%
70
73.7%
95
100.0%
Problems with type(3)
conditionals
Item(9) Total
2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
0
.0%
5
100.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 6
6.7%
15
16.7%
69
76.7%
90
100.0%
Total Count 6
6.3%
15
15.8%
74
77.9%
95
100.0%
Problems with countable and
uncountable nouns
Item(10) Total
2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 1
20.0%
1
20.0%
3
60.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 16
17.8%
28
31.1%
46
51.1%
90
100.0%
Total Count 17
17.9%
29
30.5%
49
51.6%
95
100.0%
Problems with English causative
constructions
Item(11) Total
3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
5
100.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 26
28.9%
64
71.1%
90
100.0%
Total Count 26
27.4%
69
72.6%
95
100.0%
Problems with indirect questions Item(12) Total
3 4
G 1.00 Count 1
20.0%
4
80.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 19
21.1%
71
78.9%
90
100.0%
Total Count 20
21.1%
75
78.9%
95
100.0%
Problems with the assignment of
primary word stress
Item(13) Total
1 2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
1
20.0%
1
20.0%
3
60.0%
5
100.0%

2.00 Count 4
4.4%
10
11.1%
23
25.6%
53
58.9%
90
100.0%
Total Count 4
4.2%
11
11.6%
24
25.3%
56
58.9%
95
100.0%
Problems with the pronunciation
of words whose spelling and
pronunciations vary significantly
Item(14) Total
2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
0
.0%
5
100.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 18
20.0%
29
32.2%
43
47.8%
90
100.0%
Total Count 18
18.9%
29
30.5%
48
50.5%
95
100.0%
Problems with the pronunciation
of consonant clusters
Item(15) Total
1 2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
1
20.0%
1
20.0%
3
60.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 6
6.7%
40
44.4%
16
17.8%
28
31.1%
90
100.0%
Total Count 6
6.3%
41
43.2%
17
17.9%
31
32.6%
95
100.0%
Problems with the observing of
intonation patterns of English
sentences
Item(16) Total
2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
1
20.0%
4
80.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 32
35.6%
21
23.3%
37
41.1%
90
100.0%
Total Count 32
33.7%
22
23.2%
41
43.2%
95
100.0%
The negative influence of Farsi
on students’ pronunciation of
English words and sentences
Item(17) Total
1 2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
0
.0%
1
20.0%
4
80.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 58
64.4%
14
15.6%
11
12.2%
7
7.8%
90
100.0%
Total Count 58
61.1%
14
14.7%
12
12.6%
11
11.6%
95
100.0%
Halting the flow of speaking Item(18) Total

when facing a linguistic problem 2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
0
.0%
5
100.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 13
14.4%
22
24.4%
55
61.1%
90
100.0%
Total Count 13
13.7%
22
23.2%
60
63.2%
95
100.0%
Making short pauses which last
2-3 seconds when speaking
Item(19) Total
1 2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 0
.0%
0
.0%
0
.0%
5
100.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 10
11.1%
38
42.2%
31
34.4%
11
12.2%
90
100.0%
Total Count 10
10.5%
38
40.0%
31
32.6%
16
16.8%
65
100.0%
Making long pauses which last
more than 3 seconds when
speaking
Item(20) Total
2 3 4
G 1.00 Count 2
40.0%
2
40.0%
1
20.0%
5
100.0%
2.00 Count 6
6.7%
25
27.8%
59
65.6%
90
100.0%
Total Count 8
8.4%
27
28.4%
60
63.2%
95
100.0%
Table(2). Scores of 30-student sample on grammar sub-test of OPT(0-100) and their frequencies
Scores Frequencies
43 1
44 1
45 1
46 2
47 1
48 1
49 2
50 1
51 2
52 2
53 1
54 2
55 2

56 1
58 1
59 3
60 2
62 1
64 1
65 1
68 1
Table(3). Mean, standard deviation and range of scores on the grammar sub-test of OPT
Mean Standard Deviation Range
53.80 6.58 25
Table(4). Scores given to 30-student sample on IELTS interviews by the first rater and their
frequencies
Scores Frequencies
4 7
4.5 8
5 7
5.5 6
6 2
Table(5). Mean, standard deviation and range of scores given to students by the first rater
4.8 0.62 2
Table(6). Scores given to 30-student sample on IELTS interviews by the second rater and their
frequencies
Score Frequency
4 4
4.5 6
5 11
5.5 5
6 3
6.5 1
Table(7). Mean, standard deviation and range of scores given to students by the second rater
5 0.64 2.5

Graph(1). Scores of the 30-student sample on grammar sub-test of OPT(0-100)
Scores
70.00
65.00
60.00
55.00
50.00
45.00
40.00
5
4
3
Frequencie
s
1
0

Graph(2). Scores of the 30-student sample on IELTS speaking interview by the first grader
Scores
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
Frequenci
es
10
8
6
4
2
0

Graph(3). Scores given to 30-student sample on IELTS interview by the second rater
4. Discussion and Conclusions
This chapter focuses on answering the above-presented questions by invoking
statistical data presented in the preceding chapter. Regarding the first research question,
as Table (1) indicates, student participants of the study reported having problems with
all the four categories of vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation and fluency. However,
notable differences can be observed in the percentages of responses which correspond
to different problems falling into different categories.
As Table (1) indicates, the most frequently-reported problems in the area of
vocabulary were those associated with the insufficiency of lexical knowledge for having
flexible oral communication, and the inadequacy of lexical knowledge for speaking
about a number of vogue topics such as environmental issues. As relates to the first
problem, 65.6% of the respondents indicated they partly agreed they had the problem
and 12.2% strongly agreed they faced the problem. Regarding the second problem,
62.2% of respondents strongly agreed it was a problem facing them and 27.8% of the
them partly agreed it constituted a vocabulary-related problem facing them.
Scores
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
Frequencies
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Table (1) also shows that the majority of student respondents reported having
problems with all the grammatical points included in the close-ended questionnaire.
51.2% of respondents partly agreed that they had problems with the past and past
participle forms of some irregular verbs, and 23.2% of them strongly agreed they had
such problems. As relates to the area of complex grammatical structures, 60% of
respondents partly agreed they had problems with such structures and 31.1% of them
strongly agreed complex structures were problematical for them. With regard to
countable and uncountable nouns, 51.1% of respondents strongly agreed they had
problems with countability and 31.1% of them partly agreed they had problems with
the countability of nouns.
As relates to other grammar-related points included in the questionnaire, the
frequencies of responses provided by student respondents were notably higher than
those of previously-cited grammar points. 75.6% of respondents strongly agreed that
they had problems with English tenses and 24.4% of them indicated they partly
agreed they had such problems. Regarding the area of prepositions and articles, more
than two-thirds (72.2%) of respondents strongly indicated they had problems with
English articles and prepositions and 16.7% of them partly agreed they had problems
with them. Further, 76.7% of student respondents strongly agreed they had problems
with type(2) and type (3) conditional sentences and 16.7% of them indicated their
partial agreement with having problems with the foregoing English conditionals. In
relation to English causative structures, 71.1% of student respondents strongly agreed
that they found them problematic and 28.9% of them partly agreed they faced
problems with such structures. With respect to the last grammar point included in the
close-ended questionnaire, as Table(1) shows, 78.9% of respondents strongly agreed that
they faced problems with indirect questions and 21.1% of them partly agreed they
found them problematical.
In relation to pronunciation-associated items of the questionnaire, Table (1) shows
that the most frequently-reported problem falling into this category was the assignment
of primary stress to English words. As the table indicates, 58.9% of the student
respondents strongly agreed they had difficulty with the assignment of primary stress
and 25.6% of them partly agreed they had problems corresponding to the foregoing
point.
Another frequently-reported problem in this category was the pronunciation of
words with challenging orthographies which are sharply different from their

pronunciation. Roughly half of the respondents (47.8%) indicated they strongly agreed
having problems with such words and roughly a third of respondents (32.2%)
indicated they partly agreed they had problems with them. Regarding the last
category of questionnaire items, viz. fluency, figures presented in Table (1) illustrate that
the most frequently-reported problems were those relating to halting one’s flow of
speech when coming across a linguistic problem and making long pauses of more than
three seconds while speaking. Figures in Table (1) indicate that roughly two-thirds
(61.1%) and roughly a quarter (24.4%) of respondents indicated their strong and partial
agreement with the point respectively. In relation to making long pauses, 65.6% and
27.8% of respondents indicated their strong and partial agreement with the point
respectively.
As Table (1) and the enumeration of high-frequency responses presented above
reveal to us, all grammar-related items of the close-ended questionnaire were reported
by the majority of student respondents as problematic points. This illustrated to the
researcher the need to devote particular attention to his linguistic area by examining
the responses of students’ lab professors and administering a credible test of English
grammar to students. In regard to the second research question, it has to be noted
that the responses provided by professor respondents were more or less convergent on
most questionnaire items.
The most frequently-reported vocabulary-related problem of students reported by
professor respondents was the insufficiency of students’ lexical knowledge as relates to
a number of vogue topics commonly talked about in lab classes. Table (1) shows that
80% of professor respondents strongly agreed with the point and 20% of them partly
agreed with it.
In the area of grammar, the convergence of professors’ opinions is striking. As
Table(1) illustrates, all the professors unanimously agreed that their students had
problems with the past and past participle forms of some irregular verbs, complex
structures including clauses and phrases, tenses, prepositions and articles, type(2) and
type(3) conditionals and causative structures. Moreover, broad agreement can be
observed in professors’ responses to items relating to countability and indirect
questions. The responses elicited indicate that 80% of professors strongly agreed the
foregoing points were problematic for their students and the rest of them partly agreed
they were troublesome for their students.

In the area of pronunciation, opinions were to some extent divergent on
mostitems. However, complete agreement can be observed between professors’ opinions
as relates to the pronunciation of words whose pronunciation and orthographies vary
considerably. Further, broad agreement can be observed in professors’ opinions on
students’ problems with English intonation patterns and the role of their mother
tongue in giving rise to pronunciation-related problems. 80% of professor respondents
indicated their strong agreement with the above-cited points and 20% of them
indicated that they agreed with them up to a point. As to the area of fluency,
professor respondents had complete agreement on two problems facing their students,
namely halting one’s oral communication to ask for help from professors and
classmates, and making short pauses lasting less than three seconds.
As relates to other fluency-related points, however, as table(1) shows, professor’s
opinions were sharply divergent. With respect to the third research question, as
Graph(1) and Tables(2) and(3)illustrate, the mean of students’ scores on the test of
grammar was 53.8 and the standard deviation of scores was 6.5. What these two
figures tell us is the average performance of students on the grammar test was neither
too good nor too bad as the mean,53.8 , indicates that, on average, more than half of
the questions were answered correctly by most students. They also tell us that the
mathematical distance between the mean and most scores was substantial with some
scores notably lower than the mean and some notably higher than it. Further, as
Graph(1) indicates, half of the scores were below the mean and half of them were
above it. Therefore, it can be said that the distribution of scores around the mean was
even. One noticeable point touched on earlier is the mathematical distance between the
scores achieved by students. The distance between the lowest score,43, and the highest
one, 68, which is 25, shows that the distance between some scores is appreciable and
this point deserves more academic attention. The following paragraph focuses on the
examination of the foregoing point.
As Table (2) shows, the lowest scores achieved on the test of grammar were 43,
44 and 45 and the highest scores were 64, 65 and 68. The numerical distance between
these figures 25, the range, 21 and 19 respectively, can highlight the existence of a
substantial distance between the lowest and highest scores. What this point and the
ones presented above serve to draw attention to is that in order to have a truly
interpretative picture of the performance of students on the grammar test, we need to

pay attention not only to the mean of their scores, but also to their standard deviation,
range and the distance between them.
The final point regarding the third research question is that, although most scores
achieved by students on the test of grammar were not very high and only four out
the total of thirty scores were above sixty out of one hundred, we need to take into
account the level of English language proficiency of students before being tempted to
leap to the conclusion that, broadly speaking, students’ level of grammar knowledge
was not very high. The fact of the matter is that, as far as the researcher is aware,
more than three quarters of students were doing an advanced-level grammar course
during the second semester of the 1389-90 academic year, when the grammar test was
administered to them, and, therefore, they were not expected to score very high on the
test. Their lab professors also predicted that students’ scores on the grammar test
would not be very high and indicated to the researcher that they would regard scores
higher than 55 as satisfactory.
However, scores lower than 50, namely 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, illustrate that
roughly one-third of students were weak in the area of grammar. Bearing in mind that
all students had done two grammar courses prior to taking the grammar test of OPT,
it can be cautiously stated that grammar-related problems facing one third of students
were serious and in need of academic attention. In relation to the fourth research
question, as stated earlier, two raters graded the speaking test and, therefore, there were
two separate sets of scores which ought to be examined here.
The scores given to the 30-student sample by the first rater ranged from 4 to 6
out of nine. As Graph(2) and Tables(4) and (5) show, score 4.5 had the highest
frequency, viz. 8, and score 6 had the lowest frequency, viz. 2 among the scores.
Further, scores 4 and 5 had the second highest frequency, namely 7, and score 5.5 had
a frequency of 6. Further, as Graph(2) illustrates, the mean of scores given to students
by the first rater was 4.8 and the standard deviation of scores was 0.62.
The mean of scores shows that most students were modest in their English
speaking skills, whilst five of them were notably weaker than the rest in their
speaking and another two were notably stronger than the rest with respect to their
speaking. The standard deviation and range of scores, 0.62 and 2.5 respectively, show
that most scores hovered around the mean, while some were relatively distant from it.
The scores given to the thirty students by the second rater ranged from 4 to
6.5. As figures presented in Graph(3) indicate, score 5 had the highest frequency, while

score 6.5 had the lowest frequency among scores given to students by the second
rater. Also, as the graph illustrates, scores 4.5 and 5.5 had frequencies of 6 and 5
among respectively and score 6 had a frequency of 3. As Tables (6) and(7) show, the
mean of this batch of scores was 5, which is slightly higher than the mean of the
first batch of scores. Likewise, the table shows that the standard deviation of the
second group of scores, viz. 0.64 is slightly higher than that of the first group of
scores.
Given the subjectivity involved in the scoring of the speaking test, something the
above-mentioned figures attest to, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance formula was
used to mathematically determine the degree of agreement between the two raters. The
calculation yielded the figure 0.40. What the figure shows is that the degree of
agreement between the two raters was relatively low, though the two sets of scores,
their means and standard deviations were not widely different from each other.
As to the qualitative analysis of speaking scores, score interpretation information
presented on the official website of IELTS and in books ‘Cambridge IELTS 3-
7’indicates that the band score 4 on the speaking test of IELTS shows the candidate
is a “limited user” of English, the band score 5 shows the candidate is a “modest
user”, the band score 6 shows the candidate is a “competent user” and the band
score 7 shows the candidate is a “good user”.
Invoking the above-presented interpretation-related data, it can be stated that the
scores given the 30-student sample by the first rater illustrate that 7 students were
limited users, 8 were between limited and modest levels, 7 were modest users, 6 were
between modest and competent levels and 2 were competent users. Further, it can be
said that, based on the scores given to students by the second rater, 4 students were
limited users, 6 were between being limited and modest users, 11 were modest users, 5
were between being modest and competent levels, 3 were competent users and only
one was between being a competent and a good user.
As Graphs (2), (3) and explanations presented earlier show, most participants were
neither limited nor competent users and were either modest users or between levels of
being limited-modest/competent users. The point which must be borne in mind is that,
although both sets of scores relating to the speaking ability of students tell us the
vast majority of them did not have highly developed speaking skills, one should not
be tempted to jump to the conclusion that they were necessarily weak in speaking.
The reason is that all the students were in the fourth term of their studies and some

of them, who had failed to pass one advanced grammar course, were doing a grammar
course during the second semester of 1389-90 academic year, when they took the
speaking test. Therefore, realistically speaking, there were not expected to achieve high
scores on the speaking test and their professors believed the score of 5.5 should be
seen as a good one for most of them. However, it has to be noted that given that
students were doing the last lab course of their BA programme and were expected to
be able to deal with more advanced courses from the fifth term on, their speaking
needed to be given more attention and emphasis in the lab class.
As to the fifth and final research question, responses provided to the first and
second research questions help us discern and statistically compare areas of
convergence and divergence of opinions of student and professor participants of the
study. In the area of vocabulary, as Table(1) illustrates, while student and professor
opinions had a large degree of convergence on the first two questionnaire items,
namely the insufficiency of students’ vocabulary in for speaking in general and for
speaking about a number of vogue topics in particular, they were sharply divergent on
other items, viz. the confusion of words and the failure to remember needed lexical
items.
The point which deserves more attention in relation to convergent responses is
that the opinions of students and professors were more convergent on the inadequacy
of students’ lexical knowledge for speaking about trendy topics than they were on the
overall insufficiency of students’ lexical knowledge. What this point highlights is that
the speaking problems of students relating to speaking about vogue topics such as
environmental ones need to receive more attention by lab professors and lexical items
needed for speaking about them ought to be brought together by consulting different
sources and presented to students.
Another notable point regarding the area of vocabulary is that opinions of students
and professors were least convergent on the failure of students to retrieve needed
lexical items. Admittedly, the complex and somewhat murky nature of the problem in
question and its multiple possible causes contributed to the low degree of concordance
of responses to this point. What this divergence suggests is that this point can be
picked over and scientifically examined by other researchers involved in memory
research. As relates to the area of grammar, both student and professor respondents
believed that all the points included in their questionnaires were problematical for
students in lab classes. In this relation, the unanimity of professors’ opinions on five

out of eight points is particularly notable. The comparison of percentages corresponding
to responses of students and professors in the area of grammar reveals that opinions
were more convergent on questionnaire items 7, 8, 9,11 and 12, which dealt with
English tenses, prepositions and articles, type(2) and type(3) conditionals, causative
structures and indirect questions respectively.
One other point relating to the area of grammar is that student and professor
opinions were least convergent on the fifth questionnaire item, which dealt with
problems relating to English irregular verbs. While there was unanimity on the part of
professor respondents that students had problems with some irregular verbs, student
respondents were far from unanimous in their responses with less than a quarter of
them completely agreeing with the point, roughly half of them partially agreeing with
it and roughly a quarter of them disagreeing with it.
In the area of pronunciation, as Table(1) shows, student and professor opinions
were notably divergent on many points included in the questionnaire. The most
convergent opinions of the two groups related to the assignment of primary stress to
English words, while the most divergent opinions were related to the role of students’
mother tongue in both facilitating and impeding the pronunciation of English words
and sentences. In relation to the most convergent opinions, 60% of professors and
58.9% of students strongly agreed with the point respectively. Further, 20% and 25.6%
of professor and student respondents partly agreed with the point respectively. As for
the most divergent opinions, while 80% of professors strongly agreed that students’
mother tongue was both beneficial and detrimental to their English pronunciation, only
7.8% of students gave their strong backing to this point. Further, while 20% of
professors partly agreed with the same point, 12.2% of students gave their partial
backing to it. What the variance of opinions of two groups on the role of mother
tongue in relation to pronunciation indicates is that more research is needed in order
to delve into some of the reasons behind the differences of opinion on this point.
In the area of fluency, notable differences between student and professor opinions
can be observed. The most convergent opinions were the ones dealing with the halting
of speech and asking for help from lab professors and classmates by students, while
the most divergent opinions dealt with the making of short pauses by students while
speaking in the lab class. Regarding the most convergent opinions, all professor
respondents strongly agreed that their students stopped their flow of speech in the
face of a linguistic problem. 61.1% of student respondents agreed with the same point

and 24.4% of them partially agreed with it. In regard to the most divergent opinions,
while all the professor respondents strongly agreed that their students made short
pauses in their speech, only 12% of students strongly agreed with the same point and
34.4% of them partially agreed with it. Given the sharpness of difference between
professor and student opinions regarding short pauses, this point requires more
academic attention and the researcher hopes that other researchers will pick over it.
References
Chastain, K.(1971). The development of modern-language skills: theory and practice. Center for
Curriculum Development.,
Cummins, J., Davison, C.(2007). International handbook of English language teaching,
Part1.Springer.,
Elkhatib, Abdelwahab, A.(1984). A Classification of the Lexical Problems of EFL/ESL. Students.
Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov on October 1th, 2011.,
Figueroa, C., Gárate, T.(2006). Studies in contrastive linguistics: Proceedings of the 4th International
Contrastive Linguistics Conference: Santiago de Compostela, September 2005. Univ Santiago
de Compostela.,
Golshan, M., Karbalaei, A.(2009). Grammatical Problems in the Writings of EFL Undergraduate
Learners. Retrieved from journalsalr.com/Documents/Alireza Gol2009.pdf. on 2th August,
2011.,
Goss, D.(2009). The global spread of English: threat or opportunity? Soka University of America.,
Heaton, J.(1975). Writing English language tests: a practical guide for teachers of English as a
second or foreign language. Longman.,
Hinkel, E.(2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar.
Routledge.,
Juan, E., Flor, A.(2006). Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills.
Walter de Gruyter.,
Levelt, W.(1993). Speaking: from intention to articulation. MIT Press., McKenzie, R.(2010). The
Social Psychology of English as a Global Language: Attitudes, Awareness and Identity in the
Japanese Context. Springer.,
Richards, C., Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: an anthology of current
practice. Cambridge University Press.,
Seidlhofer, B. (2003). Controversies in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.,
Yarmohammadi, L.(1995). A Contrastive Phonological Analysis of English and Persian. Shiraz:
Shiraz University Press.,

Title
Consciousness-Raising on Preposition-Stranding
Authors
Jabar Mirani (Ph.D candidate)
Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
Khosro Soleimani (Ph.D candidate)
Payam Noor University, Javanroud, Iran
Biodata
Jabar Miran is a Ph.D. Candidate of General Linguistics at Tehran University, Tehran, Iran
and has an M.A in TEFL from Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. His research interests include
TEFL studies, phraseology, dialectology, cognitive linguistics, and discourse analysis.
Khosro Soleimani is a Ph.D. Candidate of TEFL at Payam Noor University, Javanroud, Iran.
His research interests include psychology of language learning, TEFL studies, and
biolinuistics.
Abstract
Within the framework of UG model, Consciousness Raising (C-R) as a technique
through form-focused instruction or error correction has been suggested and
sometimes experimentally tested. Therefore, based on recent communicative and
cognitive approaches and returning to fashion of grammatical teaching, it was the
main concern of this study to experimentally examine the technique of C-R
regarding focusing students’ concentration toward the similarities and differences
of unmarked and more acceptable preposition stranding (P-S), marked and less
acceptable pied-piping(P-P) of wh-question movements and lexical knowledge of
some verbs subcategorized for special prepositions in English and Persian. 57
basic science and engineering students were chosen and assigned randomly to two
groups; 29 students in the experimental group and 28 students in normal grammar
practicing class as control group. A .81-index reliable test was administered to
them as a pre-test which showed no significant difference between them at the
beginning of the study. After the presentation of the treatment, the results
indicated that there is a statistically significant difference between the two groups
on P-S and lexical knowledge to the advantage of the experimental group. Thus

C-R as a tactic for teaching language points such as P-S and phrasal verbs can be
utilized by teachers in their classrooms.
Keywords: Consciousness-raising, Wh-question movements, Preposition
stranding, Pied-piping
1. Introduction
Grammatical points have been taught through various schools of thoughts in applied
linguistics including the traditional, structural, functional and recent cognitive approaches.
However, the current paper puts a particular stress on the cognitive approach to grammatical
instruction, known as grammatical consciousness-raising. Like other theories or models, it
has both its supporters and opponents, whose arguments are presented. Ellis (1997) defines
grammar consciousness-raising tasks as ‘arising tasks (in) pedagogic activity where the
learners are provided with L2 data in some form and required to perform some operation on
or with it, the purpose of which is to arrive at an explicit understanding of some linguistic
properties of the target language". Rutherford and Sharwood Smith (1986, p. 274), in their
attempt to define C-R, stated, "by consciousness raising we mean the deliberate attempt to
draw the learners’ attention specifically to the formal properties of the target language".
Following the ‘anti-grammar movement’ of the 1980s, the place of grammar in language
teaching changed from habit formation into grammar awareness activities and there was a
major theoretical shift from ‘how teachers teach grammar’ to ‘how learners learn grammar’
(Celce-Murcia 1991). Other researchers and theorists like Ur (1988), Nunan, (1991), Ellis
(1993), Hopkins and Nettle (1994), Cook (1996), Kao (2001), Nitta, R. and Gardener, S
(2005), Bursztyn, M. A. and Klepadski G. A. (2008) have suggested or experimentally
showed the usefulness of C-R on teaching grammatical points in learning foreign or second
languages. In this line, the current study aimed generally to investigate the impact of raising
the student's consciousness toward the similarities or differences between their first language
and English to set and learn more acceptable P-S cases and lexical knowledge. Thus, the
findings of the present study would be useful for the foreign or second language teachers in
teaching grammatical aspects similar to those of this study.
2. Review of Related Literature
Ellis (1993) stated that the popularity of grammar practice is generally supported by the belief
that more practice leads to greater proficiency; nonetheless, his criticism is that due to

psycholinguistic constraints, practice does not necessarily contribute to autonomous ability to
use the structure in real contexts and he challenges the conventional wisdom that ‘practice
makes perfect’ in favor of a series of C-R tasks including grammar consciousness-raising
tasks, interpretation tasks, and focused communication tasks. Hopkins and Nettle (1994)
argue against Ellis's position and say Ellis’s consciousness-raising activities does not meet
the student's expectations and they are not something new. Based on Ellis (1993), there are
five types of form-focused tasks including consciousness-raising tasks, interpretation tasks,
focused communication tasks, grammar exercises, and grammar practice activities. The first
three types are based on the concept of C-R, taking into account the nature of language
development as, "an organic process characterized by backsliding, leaps in competence,
interaction between grammatical elements, etc." (Nunan, 1991). The fourth, a traditional type
of grammar task, is called ‘grammar exercises’. The last type, as exemplified by Ur (1988), is
a communicative grammar practice. In contrast to C-R features in the first three tasks, these
last two types are categorized as practicing tasks.
Teachers can expect formal linguistics to contribute to this sort of pedagogical grammar
hypothesis (PGH). Thus, in this regard, contrastive analysis hypothesis (CAH) made its
contribution and there are a lot of pedagogical grammars (PG) written in the framework of
CA. However, what the current linguistic theory has to offer to language pedagogy is rather
different and it has been put forward under the term of C-R. C-R is a sort of PG which results
from UG principles and parameters theory and its corollaries like markedness theory. There
are many suggestions for the inclusion of Consciousness Raising Tactic in teaching
grammatical rules. Sharwood Smith (1981) recommended that in certain conditions, C-R
increases the rate of learning a second language. Rutherford (1980) also pointed to the role
which C-R plays in language acquisition. In addition, Cook (1996) put it forward as a
pedagogical technique for helping learners set parameters in a second language. Also White
et al (1991) studied input enhancement on question formation with three experimental classes
of French students learning English within a two-week period. Wh-movement occurs in
marked question forms in French. But its occurrence is unmarked in English. Therefore, this
may result in negative transfer in learning English by French students. Thus, it should be
unlearned by providing positive evidence in English. In White et al (1991) the students’
attention was focused on explanations and examples that this form is present in French, and
this leads to inappropriate construction in learning it in English. In this way, their
consciousness was raised toward the inaccuracy of this form in English. At the end of the
experiment, they tested their participants on a preference task and other means of examining

wh-question formation in English. They found that the C-R group statistically outperformed
the uninstructed group. They finally concluded "instruction on the formation of questions had
an immediate impact on syntactic accuracy" (p. 428).
Kao (2001) highlights the effect of formal instruction on the learner's performance on
preferred structures such as P-S compared to marked P-P in the second language. That being
the case, Nitta, R. and Gardener, S (2005) analyzed and reviewed some standard textbooks
focusing on grammar teaching; they concluded that although there are more theoretical
arguments in favor of C-R usefulness than against it, the well-known English language
textbooks involve more practice parts than C-R communicative based tasks. They state that
most general ELT course books currently include grammar tasks, suggesting a common view
in ELT that learners benefit from form-focused tasks to improve their L2 accuracy. To
investigate the nature of such tasks, they developed a framework of consciousness-raising
and practice task types, applied it to nine contemporary ELT course books, and thus
identified a number of current trends. All of them included more presentation and practice
parts introduced through both inductive and deductive grammar practicing approaches and
less C-R tasks. Moreover, according to Bursztyn, M. A. and Klepadski G. A. (2008),
grammar teaching called " gramticography" as a part of the language teaching process has
returned to fashion and is discussed under the name of the technique of grammatical
conciousness-raising with due attention to the role of comprehensible input in second
language acquisition.
Following the aforementioned trends, since there are no studies conducted on acquiring
grammatical points such as P-S and lexical knowledge of English in Iran, the purpose of this
study is to investigate the impact of raising the student's consciousness toward the similarities
or differences between their first language and English to set and learn more acceptable P-S
cases and lexical knowledge in the following ways:
1. It examines lexical knowledge of some special verbs requiring some strict prepositions as
their complements such as wait for as shown in the following example (i):
(i). The young girl is waiting for the school bus now.
2. It deals with the corresponding wh-question movement of the statements like (i) above in
two forms of less acceptable pied-piping parameters as (ii) and more acceptable preposition
stranding parameters as (iii) in the following:
( ii). For which bus is the young girl waiting now?
( iii). Which bus is the young girl waiting for?

Therefore, in the case of Iranian L2 learners of English, students’ attention must be
focused on two kinds of contrasts between their native language and English in wh-question
movement conditions:
(i)The L2 allows P-S parameter more acceptably than PP.
(ii)It is not a non- movement language, i.e. wh-question stays in situ.
3. Method
The 57 participants in this study were chosen out of 122 basic sciences and engineering
students in Kurdistan University. Later on, they were randomly assigned to two groups, 29
students in the experimental C-R group and 28 in the normal grammar practicing control
group. The instrument used for this study is a 40-item Grammaticality Judgment Test (GJT)
and Grammatical Correction Task (GCT) constructed and adapted following Klein (1995b).
The test included 20 items based on wh-movement question parameters (pied-piping and
preposition-stranding) in English and 20 statements including verbs which are necessarily
subcategorized for their specific prepositions. Pied-piping is set in Iranian languages but
preposition stranding does not exist. Participants judged a sentence as correct or incorrect
with GJT; however, with the GCT, they rewrote the correct form of incorrect items. The
reliability of the test was calculated through the split-half method in a pilot study which was
carried out before the real study at Shiraz University. It thus showed a 0.81 index of
reliability. Furthermore, the questionnaire included a question to check the participants'
previous knowledge of English before the study.
In this study, the test was given to a group of students assigned randomly to an
experimental C-R group and a normal grammar practicing control group. Their test scores
were subjected to SPSS independent t- test analysis. The result indicated a t- value which
meant that there were no statistically meaningful differences between the experimental C-R
and control group at the onset of the study. The result of this test was considered as the pre-
test of the study for both experimental and control groups. After a week interval,
experimental group was given C-R treatment for an hour in three sessions in every other day
during a week. A week later, both control and experimental groups judged the items of the
instrument of the study as the post- test of the study within just 40 minutes.
The students’ correct judgment of the P-S items, correctly subcategorized verbs and
correctly rewritten items received one point. In the case of incorrect judgment (P-P and null-
prep) or not answering the item, they got no points. Based on the results of the participant’s

judgments, their scores were collected in the form of interval data and subjected to statistical
analysis. Therefore, an independent t-test was run to compare the results of the experimental
C-R and normal grammar practicing control groups’ correct judgments to support or reject
the hypothesis of the study at 0.05 level of significance.
4. Results and Discussion
The participants’ performance on the instrument of the study was analyzed using the SPSS
package for windows. The results of an independent t-test presented in table 1 compares the
experimental C-R group with a control group on GJT and GCT. It thus tries to find out
whether C-R treatment was effective for learning (setting) the parameters of P-S which is an
unmarked and more acceptable property in English and lexical knowledge of some special
phrasal verbs.
As can be found in the following table, the experimental C-R group exhibited a t-value of
9.89 which means that there is a significant difference between the means of the two groups
on P-S and lexical knowledge to the advantage of the experimental group (P< .05).
Table 1 The analysis of t test for the comparison of control and experimental group on P-S & lexical
knowledge
Variables No. Mean SD DF t-value a
p-value
Control 28 9.28 3.90
27 9.89 0.5
Experimental 29 16.28 2.09
a
p value for independent t test comparing the two groups
After the presentation of the C-R treatment, as the above table indicates, treatment has
increased the amount of correct and appropriate responses and decreased the amount of null-
prep and P-P occurrences in the experimental group.
Consciousness raising as a way of life is the foundation for all kinds of learning and
knowledge of human beings especially in pedagogy. Therefore, this study aimed to examine
whether C-R has any impact on correct judgment on preposition stranding and lexical
knowledge on the part of the EFL learner. As the results showed, the experimental group
outperformed the control group on P-S parameter and lexical knowledge, and this leads to the
conclusion that C-R is a helpful tactic used by the English language teachers to improve the
students' performances on grammatical and lexical knowledge in situations like the present
study. Further, these results are in line with Rutherford and Sharwood Smith (1986) in
claiming that the learners will trigger the parameters of a second language if they are exposed

to enough input which may be in explicit (conscious), or implicit (unconsciousness) form in
that language. In the same way, it provides further support for White et al (1989) and (1991)
who applied C-R experimentally and reported successful results in ESL situations.
Accordingly, the findings also complies with Kao (2001) who cites suggestions for the vital
role of formal instruction, Nitta and Gardeners (2005) and Bursztyn and Klepadski (2008)
who suggested that C- R in the form of exposure to L2 parameters can influence the course or
the rate of learning language forms such as P-S setting and lexical knowledge.
5. Conclusion
The experimentally significant results and positive findings of this study provide further
support for theoretical background underlying C-R technique in the fields of cognitive
pedagogy and applied linguistics. Furthermore, as the implications of this study, the
following conclusions and suggestions can be arrived at:
 C-R tactic can enhance the participants' performance in lexical knowledge and P-S
parameter; hence it is suggested that teachers utilize this technique in teaching these
structures and other similar grammatical points in EFL situations.
 C-R technique should be experimentally tested for teaching other parameters in different
languages and with other better instruments.
 The results cannot be generalized beyond the situation of this study until more studies are
done with improved instruments in other conditions.
References
Bursztyn, M. A. & Klepadski, G. A. (2008). Grammatical Consciousness Raising and Grammar
Typology. Studio Anglica Resoveus
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy insecond and foreign language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly 25/3, 459–80.
Cook, V. J. and Newson, M. (1996). Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Blackwell
Publishers
Ellis, R. (1993). ‘Talking shop: second languageacquisition research: how does it help teachers? An
interview with Rod Ellis’. ELT Journal 47/1: 3–11.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopkins, D. and M. Nettle. (1994). ‘Second language acquisition research: a response to Rod Ellis’.
ELT Journal 48/2: 157–61.

Kao, R. (2001). Where have the preposition gone? A study of English prepositional verbs and input
enhancement in instructed SLA. International Review of Applied linguistics
Nitta, R. and Gardener, S. (2005). Consciousness Raising & Practice in ELT Coursebook. ELT
Journal 59(1).
Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: ATextbook for Teachers. New York: Prentice
Hall.
Rutherford, W. and Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Consciousness Raising and Universal Grammar.
Applied Liguistics6(3):274-281.
Rutherford, W. (1980). Aspects of Pedegogical Grammmar. Applied Linguistics 1(1):60-73.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). ‘Consciousness-raising and the second language learner’ [in:]
AppliedLinguistics 2, pp. 159–168.
Ur, P. (1988). Grammar Practice Activities. Cambridge: Cambridge
White,L., Spada,N. Pasty, M.& Rantal, L. (1991). Input Enhancement and L2 Question Formation.
Applied Linguistics 12(4):416-432.
Appendix
Name: Major of Study:
Dialect: Farsi Turkish Kurdish Luri Baluchi Arabic
How many semesters have you studied in an English institute?
Choose each sentence as good (syntactically correct) or bad (syntactically wrong. If you choose a sentence
as bad, correct it in the space provided.
1. The young girl waited the school bus yesterday morning.
a)good b) bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Which bus did the young girl wait yesterday morning?
a)good b) bad
……………………………………………………………………………………………
3. The girls are sitting on the park bench now.
a)good b) bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. On which bench are the girls sitting now?
a)good b)bad
……………………………………………………………………………….......................
5. The tall nurse worked the doctor last year.
a)good b)bad
………………………………………………………………………………………………
6. Who(m) did the tall nurse work last year?
a)good b)bad
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
7. The man is knocking on the kitchen door right now.
a)good b)bad
……………………………………………………………………………………………
8. Which door is the man knocking on right now?

a)good b)bad
……………………………………………………………………………………
9. This small boy sleeps this cradle every day.
a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………
10.What does this small boy sleep every day?
a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
11.The children are looking at the tall trees right now.
a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………
12.Which trees are the children looking at right now?
a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………
13.The little boy danced his friends in the hall yesterday.
a)good b)bad
………………………………………………………………………………………….
14.Who(m) did the little boy dance in the hall yesterday?
a)good b)bad
……………………………………………………………………………………….
15.The small boys are laughing at the funny pictures now.
a)good b)bad
……………………………………………………………………………………
16.At which pictures are the small boys laughing now?
a)good b)bad
………………………………………………………………………………………….
17.The small girls are playing the yellow doll now.
a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………….
18.Which doll are the small girls playing now?
a)good b)bad
………………………………………………………………………………………
19.The two friends talked about the film last night.
a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………….
20.About what did the two friends talk last night?
a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………
21.The boys are reading in the school library now.
a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………
22.Which library are the boys reading in now?
a)good b)bad
………………………………………………………………………………………….
23.My best friend are coming a small village near the city.
a)good b)bad
………………………………………………………………………………………………
24.Where are your best friends coming?
a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………
25.The children went after their mother into the room.
a)good b)bad
………………………………………………………………………………………
26.After whose mother did the children go into the room?

a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………
27.The English students listen the B.B.c news every night.
a)good b)bad
……………………………………………………………………………………….
28.What do the English students listen every night?
a)good b)bad
……………………………………………………………………………………
29.The English students worried the difficult test last night.
a)good b)bad
………………………………………………………………………………
30.Which test did the English students worry about?
a)good b)bad
……………………………………………………………………………………………
31.My brother is teaching in a new school this year.
a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………
32.In which school is your brother teaching this year?
a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………
33.The students pointed the world map yesterday.
a)good b)bad
……………………………………………………………………………………………
34.What did the students point yesterday?
a)good b)bad
………………………………………………………………………………………………
35.They spoke to the young man yesterday afternoon.
a)good b)bad
……………………………………………………………………………………………
36.Who(m) did they speak to yesterday afternoon.
a)good b)bad
……………………………………………………………………………………………
37.The mother was looking her lost child last night.
a)good b)bad
…………………………………………………………………………………………
38. Which child was the mother looking last night?
a)good b)bad
……………………………………………………………………………………………
39. These students are thinking their lessons right now.
a)good b)bad
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
40. What are these students thinking about right now?
a)good b)bad
………………………………………………………………………………………………

Title
Writing Skill in ESP Classes and Genre-based Approach
Author
Nayereh Bedad Fard (M.A student)
Islamic Azad university, Shahreza Branch, Esfehan, Iran
Biodata
Nayereh Behdad Fard is TEFL MA student at Islamic Azad university of Shahreza,
Esfehan, Iran. She is an English teacher and has a TESOL certificate. Her research interests
include teaching issues and metadiscourse and genre analyses.
Abstract
Writing is the most difficult skills learners are expected to master. An ability to
write appropriately is a task that ESL learners faced in spite of the years spent
learning their writing skills. Writing is complex and multifaceted in nature.
Tribble (1996, p.57) posed a question pertaining to writing, “What makes one
piece of writing more acceptable than another?” Hopefully, through the
understanding of genre-based approach, taking the communicative purpose as the
key characteristic feature of a genre, this question can be answered. Learners use
language purposefully by using model text designed for specific professional
context which is referred to as modeling is investigated in this paper. It is a
common technique used for teaching genre where learners are presented with a
model text that can be imitated while they are writing their texts through
modeling; learners duplicate the defining characteristic of its genre but using a
different content. Writing for professional purposes presents many challenges to
learners because it involves many different areas of knowledge and skills.
Learners who have average proficiency of the English language still perform
poorly in their writing tasks, and most of them exhibit difficulties in expressing
themselves in writing. In writing, it is essential that learners do not just know how
to write grammatically correct text but also know how to apply their knowledge
for particular purposes and contexts. A focus on genres in writing instruction can
provide the learners with a frame that enables them to interpret particular
communicative events. A genre-based approach aims to make the learners more

aware of the concept of genre and the way it affects texts and increase their ability
to differentiate their language and text structure through the use of greater
linguistic choices.
Key words: Writing skill, Genre approach, Genre process approach
1. Introduction
L2 writing researchers have recently begun to emphasize the relevance of the concept of
genre to L2 writing and to argue that the generic properties of different texts written by
members of different discourse communities are to be mastered by L2 writers before they can
write successfully in their second language (Hyland,2004). Writing is now viewed as a social
activity because of the influences from such recent notions as communicative competence in
linguistics, social constructionism in philosophy, and situated learning in education
(Canagarajah,2002). Because of the social nature of writing, second language writers need to
learn to participate and function in different speech communities. In the genre-based
approach, “each group constructs discourses that suit its social practices, historical
experiences, and interests” (Canagarajah, 2002, p. 36). Such a view acknowledges the
dynamic nature of interpersonal interactions where people can have multiple community
memberships in social life. In this relatively new approach, writing is seen as conforming to
the norms of a discourse community. By gradual exposure to and involvement in a new
academic discourse community, students try peculiar ways of knowing, selecting, evaluating,
reporting, concluding, and arguing which define the discourse of that community and thereby
learn to write through collaborative (student-student) apprenticeship, tutor-tutee
apprenticeship, and direct engagement with the broader academic community (Warschauer,
2002). In the genre-based approach to L2 writing, the conventions of discourse and properties
of written language in different contexts of use play a central role. Atkinson (1990) regards
conventionalized properties of written language as important for the better understanding of
the writing process. To him, conventions of written discourse are socially ratified solutions to
past or present coordination problems of written communication.
Genre study within English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is a field that bridges linguistic
and rhetorical traditions. Positioned within the overarching category of Language for Specific
Purposes (LSP), English for Specific Purposes focuses on studying and teaching specialized
varieties of English, most often to non-native speakers of English, in advanced academic and
professional settings.ESP is often used as an umbrella term to include more specialized areas

of study such as English for Academic Purposes (EAP), English for Occupational Purposes
(EOP), and English for Medical Purposes (EMP). Although ESP has existed since the 1960s
and although ESP researchers began to use genre analysis as a research and pedagogical tool
in the 1980s, it was John Swales’ groundbreaking book Genre Analysis: English in Academic
and Research Settings that most fully theorized and developed the methodology for bringing
genre analysis into ESP research and teaching. It is largely due to Swales’ work and the
research it has inspired over the last twenty years that ESP and genre analysis have become in
many ways synonymous.
Research on teaching writing in a second language was initiated in the late 1960s, and
most early efforts were centered on techniques for teaching writing. These efforts led to the
process approach, which helps students to work through several stages of the writing process.
Later, more attention was paid to the nature of writing in various situations. This then brought
popularity to the genre approach, which focuses on models and key features of texts written
for a particular purpose. In the process approach, a teacher typically has students follow the
steps of prewriting, writing, revising, and editing before achieving the final product, and this
sequence teaches students how to write. In the genre approach, samples of a specific genre
are introduced, and some distinctive characteristics of the given genre are pointed out so that
students notice specific configurations of that genre. Next, students attempt to produce the
first draft through imitating the given genre.
2. Genre-based instruction in L2 context
Henry & Roseberry (1998) examined the effect of explicit genre instruction on first-year
management students’ acquisition of tourist information genre. The instruction was primarily
based on analysis of genre moves by reading a variety of text models. The results indicated
that the treatment group did show significant improvement in motivation and texture
(cohesion and coherence) scores and their gain scores were significantly higher than the
control group. Interestingly, students who have received explicit instruction on genre moves
showed no significant improvements in this variable in their pre-/post-tests, although they did
make certain progress. Furthermore, they also failed to gain significantly higher gain scores
in the move variable than the control group who were asked to read the model texts in the
absence of any explicit explanation. However, their research indicated that exposure to model
texts in the absence of explicit instruction did not help students acquire genre knowledge
since there were no differences in the pre-/post-tests move scores among the control group. It

is still unknown why explicit instruction on genre moves failed to yield any significant
progress in move scores for the experimental group. Hyon’s study (2002) assessed the effects
of an EAP genre-based reading course on building genre knowledge and developing L2
reading ability. The instructional focus was primarily a text-based analysis of rhetorical
moves, language style and discourse purpose. Based on post instructional naming tasks and
interviews, the findings indicated that the course facilitated a better understanding of texts’
rhetorical elements but failed to provide all skills essential for effective L2 reading, such as
reading strategies and vocabulary knowledge. In a follow-up study on the long-term effects of
this course, Hyon (2001) found out that one year later after the course, the L2 graduate and
undergraduate students were able to recognize specific genre features taught in the course.
Yet, some participants over-generalized and misapplied some prototypical genre features.
Hyon’s studies showed that genre instruction can help L2 students acquire L2 reading-related
abilities to a certain extent and may need to incorporate other complementary instruction to
be an effective approach to L2 reading training.
2.1. Genre-based instruction for ESP
Research in language education includes new or improved forms of instruction for the four
skills. One of these is genre-based instruction (GBI).Students pursuing a university degree
require competency in both written and spoken language to handle academic discourse and to
excel in the programme.Academic or professional discourse or genre is a specialist discourse
with specific rules and conventions (generic structure) which can vary across genres.
Students who are linguistically proficient may still not be able to handle specialist genres and
require the assistance of the ESP teacher. GBI is teaching language based on results of genre
analysis. Genre analysis is the study of how language is used within a particular setting
(Swales 1990) and is concerned with the form of language use in relation to meaning (Bhatia
1993). Genre analysis is a tool to examine the structural organization of texts by identifying
the moves and strategies, and to understand how these moves are organized in order to
achieve the communicative purpose of the text. Genre analysis also examines the text
patterning or textualisation in genres to show statistical evidence of a particular linguistic
feature in a specific genre and the specific features of the genre that the evidence textualises.
Finally genre analysis examines the lexico-grammatical features of genres to identify the
linguistic features chosen by expert users of the genre to realize the communicative purpose,
and to explain these choices in terms of social and psychological contexts (Henry &
Roseberry, 1998). Other considerations in genre analysis include the communicative purpose
of the target genre, the roles of the writer and the audience, and the context in which the

genre is used. The results from analyzing a genre serve as the instructional materials in
GBI.Based on the model by Cope and Kalantzis (1993), there are four stages in GBI
including modeling, guiding, practicing and finally independently writing the genre.GBI is
actually an integration of the product approach and the process approach resulting in a
process-genre approach(Badger and White, 2000) Genres inform the organizational structure
for the skills and activities in teaching ESP and therefore deserve a clear and perhaps even
critical understanding on the part of the teacher (Mavor and Trayner, 2001). For teachers to
be effective ESP practitioners, particularly in universities offering interdisciplinary academic
programmes, they need to be well-versed in the requirements of the disciplines and to
understand the discursive practices of the professions at the receiving end of the academic
programmes. To understand the discursive practices of the disciplines or the profession is
first of all to acquire knowledge of the code (Bhatia, 1997). This knowledge requires the
teacher to know the repertoire of genres used in a profession and the occasions when they are
used. Assuming that a person who has linguistic competence is able to naturally acquire
knowledge of the code is totally wrong as research has shown that there are fundamental
differences in the use of lexico-grammatical, semantic pragmatic and discoursal resources
between everyday language and specialist language Secondly, one needs to acquire generic
competence or at least some genre knowledge in the profession in order to participate in a
specialist communicative event. Generic knowledge includes understanding the
communicative purpose(s) of genres and the communicative goal-oriented purposes
associated with the specific use of these genres. Knowledge in the discursive practices of the
profession and knowledge in the generic structure of target genres will be a powerful
pedagogic tool for teachers and will definitely benefit students. In this respect, teachers play
an important role in acquiring genre knowledge and then imparting that knowledge to the
students. GBI prepares students for real world writing (Mansfield, 1993) which will
consequently create interest in the ESP classroom and provide students with the confidence to
handle specialist genres. This has prompted many ESP practitioners to embark on this
procedure within both the ESL and the EFL contexts (Henry and Roseberry, 1998; Mavor
and Trayner, 2001). Students also benefit from genre knowledge. Students need to know the
discursive practices in their profession because understanding the genres of written
communication in their field is necessary to professional success. By being able to examine
the pattern of the structural organization of a genre, students will acquire the specialist culture
(Bhatia, 1997). By being able to identify the obligatory and the optional moves of that genre,
students can characterize the typical or conventional textual features of the genre and

understand the rationale behind such characteristics. Students are also able to study the
institutionalized context, including the system and methodology in which the genre is used
and the rules and conventions, such as the social, academic and professional conventions that
govern the use of language in such settings. Finally, with genre knowledge, students can
manipulate and exploit the moves to construct the genre based on their creativity.
Genre approach to teaching writing since the mid-1980s, considerable attention has been
paid to the genre approach to teaching writing. In terms of writing in a second language, The
Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning has defined the genre approach
as “a framework for language instruction” (Byram, 2004, p. 234) based on examples of a
particular genre. The genre framework supports students’ writing with generalized,
systematic guiding principles about how to produce meaningful passages. Swales (1990)
identified a genre as “a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set
of communicative purposes”
2.2. Differences between the Process Approach and the Genre Approach
In the process approach, the steps or stages are illustrated and practiced from the generation
of ideas and compilation of information through a series of activities for planning, gathering
information, drafting, revising, and editing (Campbell, 1998, p. 11). This sequence of
activities typically occurs in four stages: “prewriting, composing/drafting, revising, and
editing” (Badger & White, 2000, p. 154).
However, none of the process writing procedures of the past sufficiently dealt with
linguistic knowledge, such as grammar and the organization of content, as much as necessary.
Even though the final stage of editing addressed some mechanical features of language, they
were mainly concerned with the skills of processing ideas like planning and drafting.
Furthermore, the process approach has a very restricted view of writing, in that the approach
presumes that writing proficiency takes place only with the support of the repeated exercise
of the same writing procedures. In the genre approach, on the other hand, the knowledge of
language is intimately attached to a social purpose, and more focus is on the viewpoint of the
reader than on that of the writer. Writing is mostly viewed as the students’ reproduction of
text based on the genre offered by the teacher. It is also believed that learning takes place
through imitation and exploration of different kinds of models. Accordingly, learners should
be exposed to many examples of the same genre to develop their ability to write a particular
genre. Through exposure to similar texts, students can detect the specialized configurations of
that genre, and they also can activate their memories of prior reading or writing experiences
whenever they encounter the task of creating a new piece in a familiar genre (Badger &

A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis Of Thematic Structure Of Dissertation Abstracts

A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis Of Thematic Structure Of Dissertation Abstracts

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis Of Thematic Structure Of Dissertation Abstracts

Similar to A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis Of Thematic Structure Of Dissertation Abstracts (20)

More from Maria Perkins

More from Maria Perkins (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis Of Thematic Structure Of Dissertation Abstracts