Paper presented at University of Malaya Conference on Discourseand Society 2012, 27-29 June 2012.

Sub-theme: Discourse and Academic Practices.

From school to university: Students’ preparedness foracademic writing

Muriatul Khusmah binti MusaUniversiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Pulau Pinang

13500 Permatang Pauh, Pulau Pinang Malaysiamuriatul557@ppinang.uitm.edu.my

013-458 0318

Dr Su-Hie TingUniversiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia

shting@cls.unimas.my, suhieting@yahoo.com.au+060-82-58-1760

Abstract

From generic writing skills, the teaching of academic writing hasmoved on to value socialisation of university students intoacademic norms and practices. However, the development ofacademic literacies is dependent upon the students’ priorknowledge of academic writing and the inculcation of awareness ofacademic writing norms peculiar to the discipline or field. Thestudy examined students’ preparedness for academic writing atuniversity by surveying the kinds of writing done in secondaryschool in the Malaysian education system. The specific aspectsexamined were the prevalent types of academic writing insecondary school, the focus of teacher feedback to essays writtenin English, and the nature of academic writing required inuniversity writing assignments. The survey of school writinginvolved 235 students enrolled in English courses in twoMalaysian universities and the analysis of university writingtasks was across faculty in the universities. The results

indicated that the main types of writing done in school wereexpository writing and narratives whereas the university writingencompasses expositions, explanations and classification essays.In addition, the emphasis in school essays was grammaticalaccuracy and general writing skills rather than shaping of textcontent to suit the communicative purpose and the context inwhich the language is used. The survey highlights theconceptualisations of academic writing that needs to be addressedbefore dealing with the particularities of contextual and socialmeanings in academic writing.

Introduction

Academic writing differs from general writing. General writing skills are required for communicative purposes in both the oral and written mode but it is often for interpersonal and transactional exchanges and may not deal with specialised contentknowledge. On the other hand, academic writing is usually needed in university contexts for students to share or demonstrate knowledge within individual subject disciplines. Some common types of academic writing include student assignments, project reports and research articles. When students make a leap from school writing to academic writing at university, they move from compilation to critical evaluation of information. Their audiencealso changes from a general audience to subject specialists. Theymove in and out of their own voice and intertextuality, failure to do so effectively would result in plagiarism issues.

Academic writing may pose additional difficulties for students who do not use English as a first language as they may need help with “both the language of academic disciplines and the specific “study skills” required of them during their academic courses” (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998, p. 34) (see also Heffernan, 2006 on Japanese students). It was because of this need that English for Academic Purposes (EAP) began as a course for international students in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to help them reach their full academic potential (Flowerdew & Peacock, 2001). The early developments in the teaching of academic writing began with remedial writing courses

in the United States in the 1960s. By mid-1980s, attention was given to student writing in higher education in the UK (Lea, 2008). In the late-1980s to early 1990s, the interest in academicwriting and writing pedagogy in higher education spread to Europe(Cleary, Graham, Jeanneau, & O’Sullivan, 2009).

Ting’s (2010) survey of EAP courses in higher education showed that the focus was mainly on general characteristics of academic writing. For this survey, Ting focused on online course synopses for EAP courses, also given labels such as Academic Reading and Writing. The EAP courses tended to focus on the following generallanguage skills to enable students to participate effectively in an academic setting:

(1) language skills (e.g. oral presentation) – but more emphasis is given to reading and writing;

(2) Specialised vocabulary and grammar(3) Study skills (e.g., note-taking, library use)(4) Citation and referencing(5) Others – editing, critical thinking and research

writing

Only one to two universities give some attention to specific types of academic writing, usually research and report genres. Based on this analysis, Ting concluded that the current focus in EAP courses in higher education is reflective of the skills model (Lea & Street, 1998) approach to academic writing. The skills model is primarily concerned with surface features of text and assumes that linguistic mastery ensures student competence in academic writing (Lea & Street, 1998). Poor writing of students is considered a personal failing, to be treated through remedial support. In addition, there is also the academic socialisation model of academic writing which is not widespread. In this model, students learn about academic norms and conventions through immersion in the culture of higher education but two questions which arise is whether students will be acculturated into discourses of particular disciplines and whether the norms are clear and homogeneous for students to learn. It can be counter-argued that EAP courses can scaffold students in their learning of the discourses of particular disciplines rather than letting

them learn through trial and error. However, the development of academic literacies is dependent upon the students’ prior knowledge of academic writing and the inculcation of awareness ofacademic writing norms peculiar to the discipline or field.

Situated in the academic socialisation model is a pedagogical framework which can be used to socialise students into academic norms and conventions – the genre-based approach to the teaching of academic writing. “A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes” (Swales, 1990, p. 58).

• Research genre: thesis, research article, conference presentation

• Argument genre: debate, letter to editor, complaint letter

The world of genres is very big. The focus of this paper is on the application of the genre-based approach in the teaching of university academic writing (see also Baker, 2010 - Chile).

Genre-based pedagogy views language as an open dynamic system, where knowledge about language is taught in an explicit manner; and genres (types of texts) are used as the starting point for modelling, deconstructing and understanding language (Martin, 1999). The pillars of a Genre-based EAP course are as follows:

1. How we conceive of language - Different disciplines have different purposes and employ different genres to achieve thesepurposes; these genres are characterized by different types of language functions, structures and words. Students are introduced to genres characteristic of their particular discipline and explicitly taught how meanings of the disciplineare coded in the lexicogrammar.

 2. How we conceive of learning - Learning is a social, interactive linguistic activity involving modelling, joint negotiation of meanings and instructional scaffolding (Cullip &Carol, 2002). To embody the notion of scaffolding in an EAP course, the activities in the teaching-learning cycle need to

encompass: (a) Field building - students’ background knowledge on the genre and topic is built through provision of related reading and audio-visual materials; (b) Text deconstruction (Modelling) - students learn the generic structure and languagefeatures of the genre, sometimes through comparing with other texts; (c) Joint construction - instructor guides students to brainstorm for ideas, asks questions to help them organise the content and make linguistic choices; and (d) Independent construction - students write.

The genre-based approach to academic writing is a holistic approach to teaching academic writing which sees language in context. Students are made aware of how a particular type of textfunctions in real life. They learn to write texts which achieve their purpose through careful choices of lexicogrammar and text structure.

The effectiveness of the genre-based approach in teaching academic writing is evident from research. The genre-based approach has been found to be effective in sensitising learners to the structure and language features of specific types of textssuch as brochures (Osman, 2004), essay introductions (Henry & Roseberry, 1998; Henry & Roseberry, 1999) and sales promotion andjob application letters (Swami, 2008). (See also Firkin, Forey & Sengupta, 2007 on procedural texts).

University students cannot handle academic writing well. Some studies have pointed out that students are not prepared for university writing based on the kinds of writing expected in secondary school and university (Cullip & Carol, 2002). Others have sought empirical evidence and found a mismatch (e.g. Zhu, 2004 in the U.S.). In the Malaysian context, research has shown that university students may not have the necessary skills to handle academic writing in the higher education setting. For example, Ting and Tee (2008) found that undergraduates in the Teaching of English as a Second Language programme were familiar with discussion and argument genres but the explanation was the most difficult. The study also found that language features such as modality, conditional clauses and connectors were not

appropriately used to achieve communicative goals. In another study, Ting and Tee (2009) examined the ability of Biology undergraduates to write explanations of a molecular biology technique. Some students wrote information reports instead. Half of those who wrote explanation texts did not state technique to be explained and the sequencing of steps lacked coherence, partlydue to the omission of sequence connectors and reference to show the relationship between steps. There were also frequent deviations from the use of the timeless present tense. In anotherstudy, Ting and Puteh (2010) examined student discussions in an online forum for students on given issue, initially in an informal discussion, and then in a formal discussion text. The formal texts showed the generic structure and language features of a discussion text because they were reminded of these in an editing process. On the basis of the findings, Ting and Puteh concluded that the students were aware of changes in formality oflanguage use in different modes of academic discourse and this awareness is important in the process of becoming successful writers in the academic setting. Besides discussion, Ting and co-researchers also studied university students’ writing of the argument genre. The form of argument texts analysed was a Letter to the Editor. Ting, Raslie and Jee (2011) found that less proficient students lacked the ability to state the stance at thebeginning and restate the stance at the end of the text. Use of connectors, modal verbs and passives was satisfactory but both groups were unable to capitalise on the use of conditionals and nominalisations to move their arguments forward. These studies have shown that the Malaysian university students under study generally have some problems producing the generic text structureand language features of text-types required in their written coursework assignments.

However, little is known whether the students have been exposed to the kinds of writing required in university when they were in school. Instead of merely characterising the academic writing problems shown by university students, we dwell into the possiblebackground knowledge in writing that may account for the academicwriting problems. The insights from the study will allow EAP courses to be better targeted.

Purpose of Study

The study examined students’ preparedness for academic writing atuniversity by surveying the kinds of writing done in secondaryschool in the Malaysian education system. The specific aspectsexamined were the prevalent types of academic writing insecondary school, the focus of teacher feedback to essays writtenin English, and the nature of academic writing required inuniversity writing assignments.

Method of Study

The 235 participants of the study were from two publicuniversities in Malaysia (Uni 1 and Uni 2). Uni 1 is located inthe Malaysian state of Sarawak whereas Uni 2 is located in PulauPinang. Both universities comprise students from all overMalaysia. The students were in their early 20s and registered ingeneric English courses. Their proficiency in English is average,as their SPM English scores was mainly credit and MUET bands weremainly 2 and 3. Students who score Band 2 in MUET are describedas limited users of English who lack expressiveness, fluency andappropriacy in using English. Their limited comprehension andinaccurate use of English causes communication gaps. Students whoscore Band 3 in MUET are described as modest users of English.They are able to function modestly in the language with theinaccuracies are noticeable. These are in contrast to studentswho score Band 4 in MUET because they are considered competentusers of English with a satisfactory command of the language andinaccuracies in the use of the language are occasional.

A questionnaire on the students’ background in academic writingwas distributed to students in the two universities (Appendix A).The questionnaire obtained demographic information of theparticipants such as gender, faculty and English proficiencyscores. The first item in the questionnaire elicited thestudents’ reasons for taking up the English course. Another fouritems were on previous experiences in writing essays – gradesobtained for written assignments in universities, grades obtained

for essays written in schools, focus of teacher correction andresponse to teacher correction. The items on teacher correctionsought to determine the areas that students had been sensitizedto in their writing. The final section addressed the text-typesfrequently focused on in school: narratives, discussion,argument, explanation, classification and review. This is toobtain direct information on their students’ familiarity with thepurpose, structure and language features of these types ofwriting. In the analysis of the questionnaire responses, thefrequencies for each of the responses were noted and patternswere generated.

In addition to the survey of students’ background in academicwriting, another technique of data collection employed in thestudy was the lecturers’ reports of the coursework assignmentquestions given to students. Based on the questions given, thetypes of writing required in the assignment was determined. Onelecturer in each faculty was interviewed to obtain theinformation. The same procedure was followed in bothuniversities. Frequencies of the text-types required by theassignment was computed for comparison to find out whether thereis a match between students’ background knowledge and focus ofuniversity writing.

Results and Discussion

1. Students’ background in academic writing

The tables below show the results of students’ grades inuniversity assignments and school essays, the focus of teachercorrection in school essays and students’ response to teachercorrection. The school essays refer to the essays written inEnglish and Bahasa Malaysia.

Table 1 shows that similar results were obtained from Uni 1 andUni 2. Hence, the presentation of results will focus on thecumulative results. The majority (68.09% or 160 out of 235students) reported that they only managed to score B for theirassignments. Similarly for school essays, the most common grade

reported was B (66.48% or 156 out of 235 students). Incomparison, about one-quarter of the students reported that theyscored C for their university written assignments and schoolessays (58 and 56 respectively). Only a small number of studentsclaimed that they usually scored A for their universityassignments and school essays (14 and 23 students respectively).Based on these results, it is clear that the most common gradewas B for written work submitted at both school and universitylevel.

Table 1. Students’ grades in university assignments and school essays

Type University A B C D Total

University written assignments

Uni 1 7 85 30 0 122

Uni 2 7 75 28 3 113Total 14 160 58 3 235

School essays

Uni 1 11 80 31 0 122Uni 2 12 76 25 0 113Total 23 156 56 0 235

To understand more of whether students took on feedback on theiressays to improve their writing, the questionnaires elicitedtheir reports of their teachers’ focus when correcting schoolessays and their responses to the feedback. Table 2 shows that itis most school teachers corrected their grammar (87.29% or 206out of 236). The total number is not 235 because one studentticked two options, and it could be possible that the teacher hasgiven a balanced focus on grammar and organisation of ideas. Incomparison to grammar, appropriateness of ideas and organisationof ideas tend to be ignored.

Table 2. Focus of teacher correction in school essaysUniversity Grammar Appropriaten

ess of ideasOrganisation of ideas

Total

Uni 1 106 10 7 123*Uni 2 100 6 7 113Total 206 16 15 236

*The total may not add up to 235 because the students may tick more than one

However, despite teachers’ feedback on their assignments, only 64of them claimed that they always made the correction (27.23%).The majority (65.96% or 155 out of 235 students) reported thatthey sometimes made the corrections while 6.81% (or 16 students)admitted that they did not make the corrections. The focus ongrammar in the teachers’ correction of school essays, regardlessof whether students made corrections, indicate that the studentscould be primed to think that grammatical accuracy is the mark ofa well-written essay and may not have paid attention to thedevelopment or organization of ideas.

Table 3. Student response to teacher correctionUniversity Always make

corrections

Sometimesmake

corrections

Do not makecorrections Total

Uni 1 40 78 4 122Uni 2 24 77 12 113Total 64 155 16 235

2. Exposure to text-types in school

The second part of the results focuses specifically on theuniversity students’ exposure to various text-types when theywere in school to find out whether they were prepared for thekinds of writing required of them at university. In the study,the university students’ exposure to six text-types wereexamined, namely, recount, discussion, argument, explanation,classification and review. See Appendix B for characteristics ofthe text-types. Table 4 shows that the two text-types theuniversity students are more familiar with discussion andrecount. A total of 39.83% and 37.76% of the students reportedthat these are the two types of writing that they do bestrespectively. Recounts reconstruct past experience and describethe unfolding of a sequence of events over time and the purpose

is to tell what happened (Derewianka, 1991). Derewianka furtherdivides recount into personal counts in the form of stories,factual recount (e.g. reporting particulars of an incident) andimaginative recount which may also be in the form of a story. Incomparison, the university students are not as familiar withwriting argument, explanation, classification essays and reviews.

Table 4. Types of writing that students do bestUni 1 Uni 2 Total Percentage

Discussion 58 38 96 39.83 Recount 29 62 91 37.76Argument 12 6 18 7.47Explanation 13 2 15 6.22Classification 9 5 14 5.81Review 7 0 7 2.90Total 128 113 241* 99.99*The total may not add up to 235 because the students may tick more than one

Table 5. Frequency of text-types written in English school essays

NeverAt leastonce aweek

Oncein 2weeks

Oncein amonth

Once ina

semesterOnce a year

Recount 21 49 59 47 30 24Discussion 7 57 65 66 31 8

Argument 18 28 49 75 39 15Explanation 18 33 50 66 40 27

Classification 41 20 47 71 30 26

Review 44 30 34 67 34 25

Figure 1. Frequency of text-types written in English schoolessays

Table 5 shows the raw data obtained from the university studentswho were asked to report the frequency of writing the sixdifferent text-types in English lessons (see also Figure 1).Based on the conservative estimate of 30 teaching weeks in a yearafter deducting holidays, examinations and school events, Table 6is compiled to show the estimated frequency in which studentswrite these types of essays in a school year. For example, if 49students reported writing recount at least once a week, then thegroup of 235 students is estimated to have written 49 x 30recount essays in a year.

Table 6 shows that the two most frequently written text-types ina school year are discussion and recount. The results concur withTable 5 where students reported these are the two text-types theywrote best. Although very few students reported that they werefamiliar with argument, explanation, classification and review(Table 5), Table 6 shows that the estimated frequency of writingthese types of texts in English essays did not fall far fromdiscussion and recount. The university students wrote a fairamount of explanation and argument texts in their English essaysbut they were seldom asked to write reviews and classification

essays in school. Based on these results, it can be concludedthat the university students would have less problems withwritten assignments which require reporting of events anddiscussion of issues since they have more exposure to these twotypes of texts in school. The students would likely be unfamiliarwith the structure and language features of reviews andclassification essays as they had less exposure to these twotypes of texts in school.

Table 6. Estimated frequency of text-types written in a school yearAt leastonce aweek

(30 in ayear)

Once in2 weeks (15 in ayear)

Once ina month(6 in ayear)

Once ina

semester

(2 in ayear)

Once ayear

(1 in ayear)

Total Percentage

Discussion 1710 975 396 62 8 3151 22.58

Recount 1470 885 282 60 24 2721 19.50 Explanation 990 750 396 80 27 2243 16.07

Argument 840 735 450 78 15 2118 15.18Review 900 510 402 68 25 1905 13.65Classification 600 705 426 60 26 1817 13.02

3. Frequently required text-types in university assignments

A survey of the types of academic writing required in writtencoursework assignments in the two public Malaysian universitiesshowed that a variety of text-types were required but the twomain types of writing required at university level was researcharticle and explanation, followed by classification essay (Table7). General essay is not a specific text-type but there were someassignments which do not reflect one particular text-type. Mostof the general essays require students to present facts ondifferent aspects of a given phenomenon. On the other hand, othertypes of writing such as recount, discussion and procedure werenot very common among the written coursework assignments.

Table 7. Frequency of text-types required in university assignmentsText Types Uni 1 Uni 2 Total PercentageResearch article 5 12 17 25.76

Explanation 8 8 16 24.24Classification 9 2 11 16.67

General essay 2 6 8 13.11Recount 3 2 5 7.58Promotional 2 2 4 6.06

Discussion 0 4 4 6.06Procedure 1 0 1 1.52Total 30 36 66 100.00

Examples of written coursework assignments based on text-typesare given in Table 8. One example is taken from a science courseand another example is taken from an arts course. This is becauseno noticeable polarisation by broad disciplines is evident fromthe analysis, with the exception of explanation which is usuallyconfined to courses in the science disciplines.

Table 8. Written coursework assignments categorised by text-typeText-type Course Examples of assignmentsResearch article

Project management

Report the findings of a site investigation.

Marketing Strategy Write a business plan.

Explanation Basic medical science

Explain how glands function.

Environmental pollution and monitoring

Describe the effects of pollutants produced in the industry and suggest preventive and control measures for these pollutants.

Classification Hematology

Describe the characteristics of myeloblast, promyelocyte and myelocyte.

Music Appreciation

Describe the music composition from middle age to 20th century.

General essay Bioinformat

ics

Describe the background, features andsimulation of an online tool database.

Environmental Health

Make a summary of any article about environmental health issues from magazine, newspapers or journals.

Recount Construction Technology

Report on a site visit to any construction site and include recommendations of new technology

Introduction to SocialScience

Break a norm in attire. Talk to people and observe people’s behaviour. Report how people feel.

Promotional Social Pharmacy & Public Health

Develop a health promotion campaign in a community pharmacy in an urban area.

Fundamentals of marketing

Take any product brand and create an advertisement to make the customers aware of the brand. Explain the

rationale of the advertisement.Discussion Psychology Use the personality theory to discuss

innate and learned behaviour. Pediatric nursing

Discuss issues of parental smoking and child abuse.

Procedure Microcontroller

Write a report on application of using PIC 1684A general board.

A comparison of the university students’ background in writingacquired when they were in school compared to the requirements ofwritten coursework assignments in terms of text-types shows thatstudents are not prepared for the kind of academic writing thatis needed at university. In school, they develop familiarity withdiscussion and recount through the frequent writing tasks of thisnature which are given. For example, the advantages-disadvantagesessays are common. Students are also asked to write imaginativerecounts (e.g., one day in the life of …) and personal recounts(e.g. what I did during the holidays). However, at universitylevel the written coursework assignments require students toproduce writing in the form of research articles and explanationsand, to some extent, classification essays. The purposes of thesetext-types are different and, hence, the text structure ororganisation of the content differs. In the same way, thelanguage features of the text-types also differ but students maynot be aware of the particular significance of certain languagefeatures for fulfilling the purpose of the text. For instance,using connectors to sequence events in explanations ornominalisations “to make the argument sound more objective and tohelp structure the text” (Derewianka, 1991, p. 78).Nominalisations change actions (e.g. explore) into nouns(exploration). Without the use of the appropriate text structureor language features, the meaning cannot be effectively conveyed.Awareness of the textual and language features of the text-typescan be developed through either explicit teaching of the genericfeatures of text-types or students’ immersion in the universityenvironment. However, the realisation that develops from exposureto frequently used text-types in the academic environment maytake a longer time and some students may not be alert to thedifferences.

Conclusion

The study showed the school writing does not adequately preparestudents for the kind of academic writing required at universitylevel.

Majority of the students reported that they were only ableto get grade B for most of the assignments that they hadwritten either at school or university level. The study alsohighlights that, even though almost all students had someexposure on the different types of writing such as argument,explanation, classification and review, most of the studentsdid not think that they were good at writing them. Thisindicates that in general, students’ writing ability wasonly at an average level.

They also claimed, when they were in school, the focus ofteacher correction on their essays would be on grammar. Thismight be due to the fact that in schools, essays in Englishor writing in English was only carried out in Englishclasses. Thus, teacher or the language teachers were morefocused on the accuracy and the appropriateness of thelanguage used, rather that the ideas or the organization ofthe essay.

Students also admitted that they were better in writingdiscussion and story types of essays as compared to othertext-types due to high frequency of exposure to these typesof essay when they were in schools. In contrast,classification and review were the most unfamiliar types ofessay to them. In fact quite a number of the studentsclaimed that they had never had any practice on these twotypes of writing during their school years.

Finally, the finding on what is required by universitywriting assignments reveals that research article,explanation and classification types of essays were the mostpopular types of essays given by the lecturers at universitylevel. Thus, it clear that, the types of writing: storiesand discussion which were very familiar to students whenthey were in schools might not prepare them to do the types

of academic writing which they are required to do atuniversity level.

References

Baker, T. Genre matters in academic writing. International Journal of Education and Development, 28. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from http://ihjournal.com/genre-matters-in-academic-writing

Cabral, A. P. (2008). Reading and writing in higher education: A Portuguese case study. The Reading Matrix, 8(1), 64-77.

Cleary, L., Graham, C., Jeanneau, C., O’Sullivan, I. (2009). Responding to the writing development needs of Irish higher education students: A case study. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), doi: 4.1-4.16. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/4

Cullip, P. F., & Carol, D. (2002). Tailoring an EAP course to disciplinary needs: The UNIMAS effort. The English Teacher, XXVIII [Electronic version]. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://www.melta.org.my/ET/2002/wp05.htm

Derewianka, B. (1991). Exploring how texts work. Newtown, New South Wales: Primary English Teaching Association.

Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. (1998). Development in English for Specific Purposes: A multi- disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.

Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (Eds.). (2001). Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Firkins, A., Forey, G., & Sengupta, S. (2007). A genre-based literacy pedagogy: Teaching writing to low proficiency EFL students . ELT Journal, 61(4), 341-352.

Heffernan, N. (2006). An integrated approach to teaching academicwriting. Asian ESL Journal, 8(3).

Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1998). An evaluation of a genre-based approach to the teaching of EAP/ESP writing. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 147-156.

Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1999). Raising awareness of the generic structure and linguistic features of essay. Language awareness, 8(3&4), 190-200.

Hewings, M. (2006). Academic writing in context. London: Continuum. Lea, M. R. (2008). Academic literacies in theory and practice. In

B. V. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Literacy (2nd ed., Vol. 2), (pp. 227-238). Springer Science.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.

Osman, H. (2004). Genre-based instruction for ESP [Electronic version]. Malaysia: Universiti Teknologi MARA. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from http://www.melta.org.my/ET/2004/2004-13.pdf

Rothery, J. (1989). Learning about language: Working with genres.Papers from the 1989 LERN Conference. Sydney: University of Technology, 89-119.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swami, J. A. (2008). Sensitizing ESL learners to genre. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 12(3). [Electronic Journal].Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://tesl-ej.org/ej47/a9.pdf

Ting, S. H. (2010, September 24). Teaching of Academic Writing in Higher Education: A Holistic approach. Keynote address delivered at 3rd International Online Language Conference (IOLC 2010).

Ting, S. H., Raslie, H., & Jee, L. J. (2011). Case study on persuasiveness of argument texts written by proficient and less proficient Malaysian undergraduates. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 8.

Ting, S. H., & Puteh, F. (2010, May). Using MyLinE Online resources as a platform to develop university students’ academic writing skills. Proceedings of 7th International Language for Specific Purposes Seminar,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Ting, S. H., & Tee, P. F. (2008). TESL undergraduates’ ability tohandle academic text-types at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. Asiatic Journal of Languages and Literatures, 2(2), 85-100.

Ting, S. H., & Tee, F. P. F. (2009, April). Organisational and grammatical features of explanations written by Biology undergraduates.

Proceedings of 4th International Conference on English Language Learning Conference (ELT-CON 2009), Georgetown, Malaysia.

Appendix A: Questionnaire

Finding out your background in Academic Writing

Name _______________

Gender: Male/Female

Faculty: _____________ Year: _____

Name of secondary school: _____________________ Town:

_______

SPM English: _____

MUET Band: _____

1. Why do you take up this course (Academic Reading and Writing)?[ ] It is the only slot that does not clash with other courses[ ] I want to improve my writing[ ] I want to improve my English [ ] Faculty requires me to[ ] Seniors/ friends ask me toOthers ………………………………………………………………………………………

2. If you are in the 2nd year or above, how well do you do in your written assignments? [ ] Usually A[ ] Usually B[ ] Usually C[ ] Usually D[ ] Usually F

3. How well did you write essays in school? I often get: [ ] 80-100% [ ] 60-79% [ ] 40-59%

[ ] 0-39%

4. When my teachers corrected my essays in school, they often corrected? Tick (√) ONE only.[ ] Grammar[ ] Ideas – whether they are good or not[ ] Organising of ideas

5. Did you use those corrections to improve your writing[ ] Always [ ] Sometimes [ ] Not

really

6. Which types of writing do you do best? Tick (√) ONE only.[ ] Stories[ ] Discussion (e.g. Advantages and Disadvantages of …)[ ] Argument (e.g. Animal abusers should be jailed)[ ] Explanation of a process (e.g. Lab experiment steps)[ ] Classification (e.g. types of forest)[ ] Review of books and movies

7. How often did you do these types of writing in school?

English BMa. Stories [ ] At least once a

week[ ] Once in 2 weeks[ ] Once in a month[ ] Once in a

semester[ ] Once in a year[ ] Never

[ ] At least once aweek

[ ] Once in 2 weeks[ ] Once in a month[ ] Once in a

semester[ ] Once in a year[ ] Never

b. Discussion [ ] At least once a week

[ ] Once in 2 weeks[ ] Once in a month[ ] Once in a

semester[ ] Once in a year[ ] Never

[ ] At least once aweek

[ ] Once in 2 weeks[ ] Once in a month[ ] Once in a

semester[ ] Once in a year[ ] Never

c. Argument [ ] At least once a week

[ ] Once in 2 weeks[ ] Once in a month[ ] Once in a

semester[ ] Once in a year[ ] Never

[ ] At least once aweek

[ ] Once in 2 weeks[ ] Once in a month[ ] Once in a

semester[ ] Once in a year[ ] Never

d. Explanation of a process

[ ] At least once a week

[ ] Once in 2 weeks[ ] Once in a month[ ] Once in a

semester[ ] Once in a year[ ] Never

[ ] At least once aweek

[ ] Once in 2 weeks[ ] Once in a month[ ] Once in a

semester[ ] Once in a year[ ] Never

e. Classification

[ ] At least once a week

[ ] Once in 2 weeks[ ] Once in a month[ ] Once in a

semester[ ] Once in a year[ ] Never

[ ] At least once aweek

[ ] Once in 2 weeks[ ] Once in a month[ ] Once in a

semester[ ] Once in a year[ ] Never

f. Reviews of books and movies

[ ] At least once a week

[ ] Once in 2 weeks[ ] Once in a month[ ] Once in a

semester[ ] Once in a year[ ] Never

[ ] At least once aweek

[ ] Once in 2 weeks[ ] Once in a month[ ] Once in a

semester[ ] Once in a year[ ] Never

Appendix B: Characteristics of selected text-types

Text-type

Purpose Generic Structure

Language features

ArgumentTo argue for or against an issue

Thesis ^ arguments ^ reinforcement of thesis

Language showing writer’s position

Reference

Discussion

To weigh up two or more sides ofan issue

Issue ^ Arguments for and against ^ Assessment/ recommendation

Causal and comparative conjunctions

ModalityConditional clauses

Explanation

To explain why or how a phenomenon happens

Phenomenon ^ sequenced explanations

Generalised participants

Cause-and-effect relationships

Present tenseAction verbs

Information Report

To classify and describe the phenomena objectively

Identification of topic ^ information

Generalised participants

Present tenseLanguage for defining, classifying, comparing

Recount To tell what happened

Orientation ^ Series of events ^ Personal comment

Specific participants

Simple past tenseAction verbsLinking items to do with time

Use of first person pronoun for personal recount and third person pronouns for factual recount

Passive voice may be

used in factual recounts

Instructions

To tell someone how to do or make something

Goal ^ Materials ^ Method

Generalised participants

Imperatives (“you” is not mentioned)

Linking words to do with time

Mainly action verbsSimple present tenseDetailed, factual description

Detailed informationon how (adverbs), where, when

Sources: Derewianka, B. 1991, pp. 10-46.Feez, S. 1998, pp. 86-101.