2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

Cohesion and Coherence in English Essays Written by Malaysian and Thai Medical
Students
Bayatee Dueraman

Abstract
This study examined cohesion and coherence in narrative and argumentative English essays
written by 14 Malaysian and 14 Thai second year medical students at the National University of
Malaysia, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; and at Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand,
respectively. Examination of the essays written by the two subject groups aimed at answering four
research questions. 1.) Which group uses more cohesive devices? 2.) What types of cohesive devices
used are most prominent? 3.) What are the similarities or differences of frequencies and types of
cohesion and coherence in the essays written by these two groups? 4.) Is there a relationship between
the number of cohesive devices used and writing quality? Each student was asked to give his/her
demographic information and to write two essays, one narrative and one argumentative. In this
qualitative and quantitative mixed type of study, the essays7 quality was holistically rated and the
scores were grouped using high-low 27% technique followed by an analysis of the cohesive devices
used in each essay.
The series of T-tests performed on the cohesion analysis showed both similarities and
differences. Regarding the similarities, a case in point is that both the Malaysian and Thai writers
used more syntactic ties (reference & conjunction) than semantic ties (reiteration & collocation).
However, the Malaysian writers used more reiteration, than the Thai writers. Nevertheless, the Thai
writers used more references in their argumentative essays than the Malaysian writers. There were no
differences in the number of cohesive devices used between the high and low-rated essays written by
these two groups of writers.
It is suggested that ESL/EFL teachers, Thai teachers in particular, should teach coherence to
students via ideas and organizational emphasis, train students7 minds and thought processes with
reasonable argumentation through frequent writing practices.

English teacher at Southern College of Technology


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

Introduction
In Thai colleges and universities, students are required to write different genres including
summaries, term papers, research abstracts and proposals. In particular, medical students need to use
English in almost all of their courses. Therefore, they need to be equipped with this demanding
academic talent. In fact, Thai students have problems of connectedness in their writing as evidence in
Khongput7 s study (2005).
Although several studies which analyze ESL learners7 writing in terms of cohesion and
coherence have been carried out (Johnson, 1992 and Palmer, 1999), there is no evidence that any
researchers have conducted a study on cohesion and coherence of current medical Thai ESL students7
writings which otherwise, this study can help.
Also, researchers have widely acknowledged that students7 instructional backgrounds or
prior experiences, their linguistic knowledge and the writing strategies they use play very important
roles in L2 writing (Thongrin, 2002). Therefore, the researcher is interested in investigating cohesion
and coherence of Thai students7 writing with another Asian country (Malaysian), to discern
similarities and differences in these two groups of writers. By doing this, it allows this study to
promote education of the people in these 2 countries as it is one of the requirements of bilateral
cooperation between the Thailand-Malaysian Association and the Malaysian-Thailand Association in
1998 (National News Bureau).
Also, the previous studies confirmed that cohesion and coherence varied across topics
(Indrasuta, 1988). So, this study selected two different modes of writing as the research instrument,
namely: narrative and argumentative. The narrative mode was selected because this genre contains a
story line or plot which is most frequently used in real life and it is achieved in the writing with the
use of cohesive devices (Hew, 1994). Also, this type of writing is considered easy for students to
write when compared to other types of writings as it is reflections of the past events or an exploration
of the author7s values in a story form (Henley, 1988). On the other hand, the argumentative mode was
chosen because it is considered the most difficult writing which requires all the expository skills the
students have learned. Fahnestock and Secor (1983) believed that writing argument prepares students
for the kinds of writing tasks demanded in college courses and careers. Therefore, choosing these two
genre of writings would be appropriate mixture to elicit cohesion and coherence in data produced by
the subjects in this study.


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

To this end, thus, this study aimed specifically to examine cohesion and coherence in
compositions written by Thai medical learners of different cultural and educational backgrounds and
by Malaysian medical learners who had other different linguistic, cultural and educational
backgrounds. Therefore, the following four research questions were set forth in this study:
1) Between Malaysian and Thai learners, which group uses more cohesive devices in their
essays?
2) What types of cohesive devices are most prominent in essays written by Malaysian and
Thai students?
3) What are the similarities or differences of frequencies and types of cohesion and
coherence in essays written by these two groups of writers?
4) Is there a relationship between the number of cohesive devices used and textual coherence
in essays written by Malaysian and Thai students?
Based on the research questions above, it was hypothesized that:
1) Malaysian learners use cohesive devices as frequent as Thai learners.
2) Syntactic ties, particularly the use of reference, is the most prominent in essays written by
Malaysian and Thai students.
3) Malaysian and Thai learners share a similarity in the use of syntactic ties which is above
the use of semantic ties.
4) There is no relationship between the number of cohesive devices used and textual
coherence in essays written by these two groups of writers.
Prior Research on Cohesion and Coherence
The relationship between coherence and cohesion in a text has proven an essential element
for quality English writing and the writing process of non-native speakers of English. Empirical
studies on this relationship indicate some relationships between writing quality which depends on
overall coherence in content, organization and the quantity of cohesive devices used (Fitzgerald and
Spiegel, 1986; Neuner, 1987; and Johnson, 1992).
Fitzgerald and Spiegel (1986) examined the relationship between cohesion and coherence in
the 27 third grade and 22 sixth grade students7 writing and investigated the degree to which this
relationship would vary with quality of writing and grade level. Each child wrote two essays: one on


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

each two days (i.e. four days for 2 essays) whereby the brief story stems were given. Thirty minutes
were allotted for planning and writing, and three students couldn7t finish when time has run out but
were allowed to finish on another day. Fitzgerald and Spiegel used Halliday and Hasan7s (1976)
system for scoring cohesion. The result showed that there was some evidence of a significant
relationship between cohesion and coherence in children7s writing. This relationship varied according
to text content but didn7t vary according to grade level.
Next, Neuner (1987) studied cohesive ties and chains in 20 good and 20 poor essays written
by 40 college freshmen which were rated by a panel of 12 professors using a four point holistic
scoring scale. The essays were randomly chosen from a collection of over 600 papers written at
summer orientation session required of all new full-time students at a private college in New York.
No education or background data were collected for the participants. The researcher found that none
among the different types of cohesive ties were used more frequently by the good writers than poor
writers.
Later, Johnson (1992) carried out a study to investigate 3 types of Halliday and Hasan7s
(1976) cohesion categories (reference, conjunction and lexical cohesion) in good and weak essays
written in Malay and in English by native speakers of both languages and in ESL by Malaysian
writers. The essays were written under pressure in a specified time length and evaluated holistically
as Hgood7 or Hweak7 by the three groups of teachers. In other words, essays written in Malay were
evaluated by the Malay teachers, in English by American teachers, and in ESL by other groups of
American teachers. The result showed that good essays written in Malay had more semantic ties
through reiteration of words than in weak essays. In contrast, good essays in English had more
syntactic ties (conjunction and reference). However, the general findings suggested that the good
essays are not more cohesive than the weak ones.
Coherence
It is essential that ESL/EFL teachers have a clear understanding of the concept of coherence.
This is because coherence is a component of the writing skill which proves a crucial part of and a
virtual guarantee of writing quality. According to Lee (2002), coherence is defined as the
relationships of various ideas in a text that are linked together to create a meaningful discourse. Lee
identifies five features of a coherent text as follows:


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

1. The text has a macrostructure that provides a sense appropriate to its

communicative purposes and functions. The macrostructure is an outline of the main
categories or functions of the text, e.g. when the writer7s purpose is to tell a story, it is
common to arrange the events in a chronological order.
2. The text has an information structure that guides the reader in understanding how
information is organized and how the topic of the text is developed. This involves the giving
of old information before new information.
3. The text shows connectivity of the underlying content evidenced by relations
between propositions. A text is coherent if the propositions it contains are justified or
exemplified with detail.
4. The text has cohesive devices to establish a relationship between sentences and
paragraphs. This feature is associated with the surface structure of coherence which links
sentences and points being made.
5. The text contains appropriate metadiscourse features. Metadiscourse markers in
texts help readers organize, interpret and evaluate information. Some examples of these
markers are sequencers (first, second, finally), and certainty markers (certainly, no doubt),
etc.
Cohesion: Syntactic Ties & Semantic Ties
Cohesion is how words and expressions are connected using cohesive devices which can be
categorized into five groups: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion
Halliday and Hasan (1976). These cohesive devices Htie7 sentences together in order to create a
meaningful text.
In this study, the researcher examined the syntactic ties of reference and conjunction and the
semantic ties of lexical cohesion in particular, reiteration and collocation in the narrative and
argumentative essays of the Malaysian and Thai medical student subject groups.
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), reference is a device which allows the reader or
hearer to trace participants, entities, events, etc. in a text. For example, HMs. Prissana has resigned.
She announced her decision this morning. The pronoun Hshe7 in this example points to Ms. Prissana
within the textual world itself. Conjunction, on the other hand, involves the use of formal markers to
combine clauses, sentences and paragraphs such as the use of Hand7, Hhowever7, Hbut7, etc. Lexical


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

cohesion involves either the reiteration, repetition of an item, or the use of a synonym, near synonym,
or superordinate term. Lexical cohesion could also be used in reference to lexical collocation.
Collocation involves the association of lexical items that regularly co-occur, for instance, climb /
ascend; order /obey; laugh / joke; garden / dig; and beach / waves / sand / swim / lifeguard.
Data Collection and Findings
The four research questions mentioned earlier were answered through the investigation of the
participants7 demographic information and a writing test which included 2 essay questions, namely
narrative and argumentative essays.
The subjects involved in this study were 14 Malaysians and 14 Thai second year medical
students from the National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and Prince of Songkla
University, Hat Yai, Thailand respectively.
Participants Demographic Information
The demographic survey indicated the following aspects of information. Both population
groups had a greater number of female respondents (Malaysian: 10 females and 4 males; Thai: 13
females and 1 male). The Malaysians speak Malay, Chinese, English, Tamil and other as their first
languages, while the Thai sample group were 100% Thai native speakers. The Malaysian group
studied English for 1.1 years more than the Thai group (14.4 years Malaysian and 13.3 years Thai).
The Malaysian group began studying English from an earlier age (5.7 years) than the Thai sample
group (7.4 years).
In terms of attitudes towards writing in English, the Malaysian sample group had positive (8)
and neutral (6) feelings, while the Thai had positive (1), negative (1) and neutral (5) feelings.
With regards to perception of difficulty in writing in English, the Malaysian sample group
reported it as: easy (4), moderate (1), and difficult (9), while the Thai sample group reported it as:
easy (3) difficult (10), and most difficult (1).
Regarding ESL/EFL and a cultural context, it is well-known that Malaysia offers greater
exposure to English language and multilingual experiences than Thai culture (L. Naomi, personal
communication, April 6, 2006). This could affect the writing proficiency of both populations.


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

Coherence Analysis of Essays

The (56) essays, 14 narrative and 14 argumentative essays written by the Malaysian
respondents and 14 narrative and 14 argumentative essays written by the Thai respondents were
evaluated holistically from 1 I 6 in terms of overall quality by the researcher (a Thai national, college
English teacher), and an American Ph.D. native speaker (who is teaching English at the college level
in Thailand). Bailey7s (1988) six holistic scale which is called Test of Written English Scoring Guide
(see Appendix B) was used to examine the organization of content. The guide clarifies essays of
different scales as the followings: 6 = clearly demonstrates competence in writing on both the
rhetorical and syntactic levels, though it may have some occasional errors; 5 = is generally well
organized but have fewer details than does a 6 essay; 4 = demonstrates minimal competence in
writing on both the rhetorical and syntactic levels; 3 = demonstrates some developing competence in
writing, but it remains flawed on either the rhetorical or syntactic level, or both; 2 = suggests
incompetence in writing; and 1 =demonstrates incompetence in writing. The inter-rater reliability,
agreement between the raters, was high; the Cronbach7s alpha coefficient of narrative composition
scoring was 0.97 and that of argumentative scoring was 0.95, using SPSS 11.5 for Windows.
The English compositions written by the Malaysians revealed a minimum score of level 3 for
narrative and level 2 for argumentative, while the compositions of the Thais revealed a minimum
score of level 2 for narrative compositions and level 0 for argumentative essays. The maximum
scores for Malaysians reached level 6 and level 5 for argumentative essays as did the Thais; however,
the percentage of Malaysians scoring level 5 or 6 were higher.
In order to investigate whether or not the quality of writing related to the number of cohesive
devices used in the writing of these two participation groups, the scores were then ranked from
highest to lowest. Then, the top 27% of the narrative and argumentative and the bottom 27% of the
narrative and argumentative from the ranking were taken out. These top 27% were designated high
scorers and the bottom the low scorers.
Cohesion Analysis of Essays
This study examined the frequency of use of syntactic and semantic ties in the Malaysian and
Thai narrative essays and argumentative essays. This covered the examination of three types of
reference (personal, demonstrative & comparative), eight types of conjunction (causative,


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

comparative, contrastive, objective, effect, additive, exemplified and temporal), and two types of
lexical cohesion (reiteration and collocation).
The cohesive ties were first identified as referential, conjunctive or lexical, followed by a
counting for each category. A series of statistical analyses (frequencies, mean, standard deviation of
cohesion and T-test comparing the frequency of cohesive ties used in the narrative and argumentative
essays) were employed in this study.
Comparative data were analyzed for the Malaysian and Thai narrative essays, and then for
the Malaysian and Thai argumentative essays as follows in Tables 1 & 2. The narrative essays
showed a similar use of cohesive ties by the Malaysians and the Thais except in the category of
reiteration in which the Malaysian narratives (6.60) contained nearly double the frequency of the Thai
(3.87). This comparison is shown in Table 1.
The argumentative essays revealed a slightly similar pattern as the narrative as seen in
Table 2. Again the category of reiteration in the Malaysian essays (8.13) outpaced the Thais (3.20).
And, interestingly the Thais employed a significant number of references (32.87) in their
argumentative essays in comparison to the Malaysians (25.87).

2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

Table 1
Mean Frequency of Cohesive Ties Across Narrative Essays Written by Malaysian and Thai Students
Cohesive
Devices

Malay N=14
S.D.
Mean

Thai N=14
Mean
S.D.

df

Sig.
(2-tailed)

Reference
50.07
17.70
38.73
14.15
1.94
28
.063
Conjunction
18.80
7.63
17.80
5.93
.40
28
.692
Reiteration
6.60
4.07
3.87
3.04
2.08 25.94
.047*
Collocation
6.20
2.40
5.07
2.76
1.20
28
.240
Average ties
80.07
24.18
65.79
20.50
1.69
26
.104
per essay
*P< 0.05 calculated from the total number of cohesive ties in each essay, which were then summed
and averaged across all essays in each group.
Table 2
Mean Frequency of Cohesive Ties Across Argumentative Essays Written by Malaysian and Thai
Students
Cohesive
Malay N=14
Thai N=14
t
df
Sig.
Devices
(2-tailed)
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Reference
25.87
11.04
32.87
7.45
2.035
28
.053*
Conjunction
18.60
8.29
14.06
4.12
-1.674 28
.105
Reiteration
8.13
6.95
3.20
4.54
-2.302 28
.030*
Collocation
6.47
3.82
6.60
2.90
.108
28
.915
Average ties
63.25
18.93
57.71
14.05
.884
26
.385
per essay
*P< 0.05 calculated from the total number of cohesive ties in each essay, which were then summed
and averaged across all essays in each group.
The series of T-tests performed on the cohesion analysis showed both similarities and
differences. Regarding the similarities, a case in point is that both the Malaysian and Thai writers


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

10

used more syntactic ties (reference and conjunction) than semantic ties (reiteration and collocation).
However, the Malaysian writers used more reiteration than the Thai writers. Nevertheless, the Thai
writers used more references in their argumentative essays than the Malaysian writers. There were no
differences in the number of cohesive devices used between the high and low-rated essays written by
these two groups of writers.
Discussion and Implications
The Malaysian and Thai groups shared similarities in the use of four categories of cohesive
ties: high use of references, medium use of conjunctions and low use of reiterations and collocations.
This similar patterns in the use of cohesive devices in English Essays written by the Malaysian and
the Thai respondents are consistent with the Indrasuta7s (1988) study who found that when American
and Thai students wrote essays in English, they used reference the most, following by conjunction,
reiteration and collocation, respectively. The similarities in the use of cohesive devices in both cases
might be because the native speakers of the two language groups (Malay & Thai) share some patterns
of use of devices for unifying their texts cohesively. The results of this study also suggested that both
Malaysian and Thai respondents used more cohesive devices in the narrative mode than in the
argumentative one. Moreover, the use of references and conjunctions in their narratives and
arguments were above the use of reiterations and collocations. It is reasonable to say that it was the
nature of the narrative conventions which require the writers to use sufficient cohesive elements in
order to make the text (plot/story) coherent or incomprehensible text otherwise (Nicholas and Nicholl,
2000).
With regards to the differences, the Malaysian use of reiteration through repetition of the
same word and the use of synonyms was significantly higher than the Thai7s in both narrative and
argumentative essays. Therefore, it is worth saying that the only characteristic
which can differentiate the essays written by the Malaysians and the Thais was the use of
reiteration. One possible explanation would be that the Thai students did not realize the importance of
reiteration that it connects parts of their writing. This might due to the fact that they were not properly
taught in their early education. Last, the Malaysians differed from the Thais in their use of references.
This is true when we take a closer look in the Thai use of references which was much higher than the
number of references used in the Malaysian argumentative essays. This finding was consistent with
the study investigated by Indrasuta (1988) who found that Thai students used
I as a reference at a


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

11

high frequency and with a minimal use of lexical ties in their narrative writing. This was because Thai
students used their personal experiences to support their arguments as seen in the following example,
when one of the Thai students wrote: !Most of foods from restaurant are bizarred. I can select
different kind of foods everyday. Having food prepared at home is make me tired and bored. Cooking
make my kitchen dirty.' (Sample 8)
The findings on the lack of distinction in the use of cohesive devices between the good and
poor essays seem to support the theoretical distinction between cohesion and coherence in written
discourse as characterized by Lautamatti (1990) and Yule (1996). According to Lautamatti, the lack
of difference in terms of cohesive devices used in narrative and argumentative essays rated as high
and low written by the Malaysians suggests that it is the coherence patterns or textual organization of
the essays that characterize quality. The findings on the lack of cohesion difference between the high
and the low rated narrative and argumentative essays written by the Malaysian and the Thai also seem
to support the theory of Hyme7s communicative competence (as cited in Richards & Rodgers, 1997).
Hyme viewed language in a broader sense, as a social whole, and introduced the concept of
communicative competence. According to Hyme, there are four strategies in order to make successful
communication, namely, grammatical competence, socio-linguistic competence, discourse
competence and strategic competence. Therefore, the situation in the present study where the low
rated essays used cohesive devices at almost the same rate as in high rated essays but failed to achieve
text coherence seems to imply that students may have linguistic competence but lack right
performance or communicative competence as described earlier.
Regarding pedagogical implications, teachers of ESL and EFL may hereby know that in this
study, students made use of syntactic ties more frequently than semantic ties. Thus, we may enhance
our students understanding of semantic ties through vocabulary building, teaching word relations,
teaching reiteration and the use of synonyms to connect sentences. Also, teachers may help their
students to improve their writing by asking students to rate the coherence of texts as part of English
lessons (Palmer, 1999).
Lee (2002) recommended four steps when teaching students coherence in writing classes.
First, teachers should introduce and discuss the topic of coherence. Second, the students are led to
read a text, discuss and determine if it is coherent. Third, the teachers offer students the 6 criteria for
coherence (1. purpose, audience and context of situation; 2. overall structure of texts; 3. information
distribution and topical development; 4. propositional development; 5. text cohesion; and


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

12

6. metadiscourse). Fourth, the learners7 awareness of coherence is raised via mini-text analyses in
which the teacher serves as a facilitator. Fifth, students are requested to write independently.
As for this study, it is revealed that the medical students found it easier to write narrative
essays than argumentative essays. Thus, teachers may help their students to develop their critical
thinking skills and reasonable argumentation.
Considering cross-cultural aspects, this research indicates a significant cross-cultural
difference in rhetorical forms as evidenced in Kaplan7s analysis (as cited in Takala, Purves and
Buckmaster, 1982) stating that
each language and each culture has a paragraph order unique to itself,
and part of the learning of a particular language is the mastering of its logical system. The internal
logic and organization of texts of English and Malay are more similar than the internal logic and
organization of texts of English and Thai. The rhetorical patterns of a language are determined by the
culture and are an expression of the collective consciousness of the culture. And, an examination of
the contrastive rhetoric showed cultural memes such as the positive collectivism of Malaysian culture
and thus a clear and structured support of organizing texts (paragraphs, sentences and punctuation)
when writing; and the loosely structured relationships in Thai culture and therefore the ego-affirming
use of self-referentials and the loosely structured paragraphs, sentences and punctuation (L. Naomi,
personal communication, April 6, 2006). So, when teaching writing in English, teachers should keep
in mind the writing conventions of students from different cultures. Thus, appropriate remedies to the
students7 writing should be done accordingly.


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

13

References
Bailey, K. M. (1988). Learning about language assessment: Dilemma, decisions, &
directions. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Fahnestock, J. and Secor, M. (1983). Teaching Argument: A theory of types. In J.C. McDonald, The
Allyn and Bacon sourcebook for college writing teachers. USA: Allyn and Bacon.
Fitzgerald, D. and Spiegel, D. L. (1986). Textual coherence and cohesion in children7s writing.
Research in Teaching of English, 20(3), 263-280.
Gonzalez, V.; Chen, C.; & Sanchez, C. (2001). Cultural thinking and discourse organizational
patterns influencing writing skills in a Chinese English-as-a-foreign language (EFL) learner.
Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 1-22.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Singapore: Longman Group
Limited.
Henley, J. J. (1988). The RSCC: Online writing lab, also available at http://www.rscc.cc.tn.us/
Hew, C.K. (1994). Primer on modern academic writing from paragraphs to essays. Malaysia:
International Islamic University of Malaysia.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
Indrasuta, C. (1988). Narrative styles in the writing of Thai and American students. In A.C. Purves,
Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric. Newbury Park: SAGE,
206-226.
Johnson, P. (1992). Cohesion and coherence in compositions in Malay and English.
RELC Journal, 23(2), 1-17.
Kongput, S. (2005). Investigating the problems of connectedness in students7 written work.
Unpublished master thesis, King Mongkut7s University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand.


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

14

Lautamatti, L. (1990). Coherence in spoken and written discourse. In U. Cornor, and A. M. Johns,
(eds). Coherence: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Lee, I. (2002). Helping students develop coherence in writing. English Teaching
Forum, 32-39.
Neuner, J. L. (1987). Cohesive ties and chains in good and poor freshman essays. Research in the
Teaching of English, 21(1), 93-105.
Nicholas, J. K. & Nicholl, J. R. (2000). Models for effective writing. London: Allyn & Bacon.
Palmer, J. C. (1999). Coherence and cohesion in the English language classroom: The use of lexical
reiteration and pronominalization. RELC Journal, 30(2), 61-85.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. USA:
Cambridge University Press.
Takala, S.; Purves, A.C.; and Buckmaster, A. (1982). On the interrelationships between language,
perception, thought and culture and their relevance to the assessment of written composition.
Evaluation in Education, 5, 317-342.
Yule, G. (1996). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

15

Appendix A: Research Instrument

The purpose of this instrument is to study the students7 compositions in English. The result is
expected to provide some insights on how to improve the teaching of writing skills in the future.
Time: 1 hour
There are three sections of this instrument. Please answer all of them.
Section 1: Background Information
1. Gender:

_______ male

_______ female

2. First language:
______ Thai _______ Malay
3. Years of studying English:

_______ Chinese

______ Hindi

______ years

4. Age when you first began to study English: _______ years

5. Do you enjoy writing in English?
_______ Yes

_______ No

_______ Neutral

6. Do you consider writing in English to be:

_________ easy
_________ difficult
_________ most difficult
_________ (other. Please explain.)
7. When you write in English, what do you consider as the most important factor? Please rate from
1 to 3, (most important = 1, least important = 3).


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

16

_______ grammar
_______ idea / meaning
_______ structural organization
Section 2: Narrative Essay-Writing
Instructions: Please write a narrative essay (length, approximately 250 words) on the following
topic.
)My First Year as a Medical Student+
Section 3: Argumentative Essay Writing
Instructions: Please write an argumentative essay (length, approximately 250 words) on the
following topic. You may write in support of or in opposition to the topic.
In modern daily life, purchasing food from fast food chains is more convenient than having food
prepared at home.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Appendix B: Test of Written English Scoring Guide (Bailey, 1998)
6. Clearly demonstrates competence in writing on both the rhetorical and
syntactic levels, though it may have occasional errors. A paper in this category:

is well organized and well developed

effectively addresses the writing task
uses appropriate details to support a thesis or illustrate ideas
shows unity, coherence and progression
displays consistent facility in the use of language
demonstrates a syntactic variety and appropriate word choice


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

17

5. Demonstrates competence in writing on both the rhetorical and syntactic levels,

though it may have occasional errors. A paper in this category:
is generally well organized and well developed, though it may have fewer
details than does a 6 paper
may address some parts of the tasks more effectively than others
show unity, coherence, and progression
demonstrates some syntactic variety and range of vocabulary
displays facility in language, though it may have more errors than does a 6
paper
4. Demonstrates minimal competence in writing on both the rhetorical and
syntactic levels. A paper in this category:

is adequately organized
addresses the writing topic adequately but may slight parts of the task
uses some details to support a thesis or illustrate ideas
demonstrates adequate but undistinguished or inconsistent facility with syntax
and usage
may contain some serious errors that occasionally obscure meaning
3. Demonstrates some developing competence in writing, but it remains flawed on
either the rhetorical or syntactic level, or both. A paper in this category may
reveal one or more of the following weaknesses:
inadequate organization or development
failure to support or illustrate generalizations with appropriate or sufficient
detail
an accumulation of errors in sentence structure and /or usage
a noticeably inappropriate choice of words or word forms


2007 Southern Thailand English Language Teaching/Cultural Change Conference

2. Suggests incompetence in writing

A paper in this category is seriously flawed by one or more of the following
weaknesses:

failure to organize or develop

little or no detail, or irrelevant specifics
serious and frequent errors in usage or sentence structure
serious problems with focus

1. Demonstrates incompetence in writing

A paper in this category will contain serious and persistent writing errors, may be
illogical or incoherent, or may reveal the writer7s inability to comprehend the
question. A paper that is seriously underdeveloped also falls into this category.

18