The perception and use of english discourse markers in essays of efl learners in an ielts preparation courseat a chau language center

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

---------------

PHAM THI HONG VAN

THE PERCEPTION AND USE OF ENGLISH
DISCOURSE MARKERS IN ESSAYS OF EFL
LEARNERS IN AN IELTS PREPARATION COURSE
AT A CHAU LANGUAGE CENTER

Major: English Language
Course code: 8220201

HO CHI MINH CITY, SEPTEMBER 2020


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

---------------

THE PERCEPTION AND USE OF ENGLISH
DISCOURSE MARKERS IN ESSAYS OF EFL
LEARNERS IN AN IELTS PREPARATION COURSE
AT A CHAU LANGUAGE CENTER
Submitted to the
Faculty of English Language
in partial fulfillment of the Master‟s degree in English Language
Course code: 8220201

By

PHAM THI HONG VAN
Supervised by

NGUYEN THI KIEU THU, Ph.D.

HO CHI MINH CITY, SEPTEMBER 2020


The thesis entitled
THE PERCEPTION AND USE OF ENGLISH DISCOURSE MARKERS IN
ESSAYS OF EFL LEARNERS IN AN IELTS PREPARATION COURSE AT A
CHAU LANGUAGE CENTER
was successfully defended and approved on ………..…. at Ho Chi Minh City University
of Technology (HUTECH).

Academic supervisor: NGUYEN THI KIEU THU, Ph.D.

Signature: …………..

Examination Committee
1……………………………………………………………………..Chair
2……………………………………………………………………..Reader 1
3……………………………………………………………………..Reader 2
4…………………………………………………………………….Member
5……………………………………………………………………Secretary Member

On behalf of the Examination Committee
Chair

HCMC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE
HCMC, September 2020
MASTER’S THESIS REPORT
Student name: Pham Thi Hong Van

Sex: Female

Date of birth: 07/12/1985

Place of birth: Lam Dong Province

Major: English Language

Student code: 1941900012

I- Thesis title:
THE PERCEPTION AND USE OF ENGLISH DISCOURSE MARKERS IN
ESSAYS OF EFL LEARNERS IN AN IELTS PREPARATION COURSE AT A
CHAU LANGUAGE CENTER
II-Objectives and contents:
This study aims at investigating the students‟ academic writing ability by analyzing
EFL learners‟ perception of Discourse Markers in academic writing and the way they use
Discourse Markers in their essays, especially, in IELTS preparation courses. The
objectives of this study are as follows:


To investigate EFL learners‟ perception of Discourse Markers in English essays

in an IELTS preparation course at A Chau language center according to
pragmatic value, indispensable value and learning value of Discourse Markers.



To examine how EFL learners in an IELTS preparation course use Discourse
Markers in writing English essays in terms of types, functions and the
appropriateness.

The current research was conducted at A Chau language center, Le Van Khuong
campus, Ho Chi Minh City. The participants were students who were in an IELTS
preparation course at this center. In order to gain the results, the mixed approach was
applied. Precisely, two instruments used for data-collection were questionnaire and
document analysis. 52 types of DMs were analyzed from 120 scripts written by 60


participants. The results revealed that learners overused Elaborative Markers (63%),
followed by Contrastive Markers, Temporal Markers, and Interpersonal Markers. The
lowest figure was given to Topic Change Markers (1%). It can be implied that the
limitation and the imbalance in using DMs might impact the quality of their essays.
Furthermore, the overexploitation of one kind of DMs led to the ignorance of the
interpersonal function of DMs, which is regarded a key factor conveying writers‟
influence. Also, the findings of this study concluded that although the participants had
shown their consciousness of DMs‟ role in academic writing, there were some problematic
matters that they need to improve, namely wrong relation, overuse, distraction, nonequivalent exchange, semantic incompletion, and surface logicality.
III- Starting date: 30/03/2020
IV-Completing date: 30/09/2020
V- Academic supervisor: NGUYEN THI KIEU THU, Ph.D.

SUPERVISOR

Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu, Ph.D.

DEAN OF FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu, Ph.D.


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I certify my authorship of the Master’s Thesis submitted today entitled:

THE PERCEPTION AND USE OF ENGLISH DISCOURSE MARKERS IN
ESSAYS OF EFL LEARNERS IN AN IELTS PREPARATION COURSE AT A
CHAU LANGUAGE CENTER

In terms of the statement of requirements for Theses in Master’s programs issued by the
Higher Degree Committee of Faculty of English Language, Ho Chi Minh City
University of Technology.

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2020
Sgnature …………………………

PHAM THI HONG VAN

i


RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I hereby state that I, PHAM THI HONG VAN, being a candidate for the degree of
Master of Arts (English Language) accept the requirements of the University relating to
the retention and use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my Master’s Thesis deposited
in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance
with the normal conditions established by the Librarian for the care, loan, and
reproduction for theses.

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2020
Signature …………………………….

PHAM THI HONG VAN

ii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Undoubtedly, the accomplishment of my thesis was attained by many prominent
people‟s contributions and support. I would like to express my special thanks to all
those who have lent me down-to-earth experience, unparalleled knowledge and
sentimental values.

For the most part, I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu
Ph.D., who has had my utmost respect for her continuous guidance, forbearance,
integrity and particularly her immense knowledge. To me, such is an exceptional
teacher that she always inspires students with her incredible wisdom and her
appealing teaching methodology. The countless enlightening discussions that I had
with her tremendously deepened insights in this research. Her characteristics are
plainly shown by the way she checked my work. She is extremely conscientious to
read every single word of my thesis, thereby spotting my mistakes. Without her

persistence, incentives and rigor, the goal of my thesis would not have been
recognized.

I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to many lecturers at HUTECH
university who delivered a host of intriguing lessons throughout my studying
process.

Ultimately, I wish to acknowledge the unfailing support and overwhelming love of
my family and friends. They are inherently a source of my motivation, my anchors
and will always be.

iii


ABSTRACT
Driven by students‟ needs of achieving higher scores in IELTS writing, this
study was conducted to explore learners‟ perception of Discourse Markers (DMs)
and the use of DMs in academic writing. The questionnaire adapted and modified
from the survey developed by Fung (2011) and Albester, Farid and Raja (2017) was
administered to 60 participants enrolling in an IELTS preparation course at A Chau
language center. The responses collected and then analyzed by SPSS 20 revealed
that learners were well aware of the significance of DMs. The results of 120 scripts
consisting of two samples written by 60 learners were scrutinized by Antconc
software. The findings highlighted that Elaborative Markers (63%) were the most
frequently used in comparison with Inferential Markers (16%), Contrastive Markers
(9%), Temporal Markers (7%), Interpersonal Markers (4%) and Topic Change
Markers (1%). It can be included that the overuse of one specific DM can lessen the
quality of a text. Remarkably, the interpersonal function of DMs was not absolutely
exploited. Content analysis, furthermore, showed six chief misapplications of the
use of DMs in learners‟ compositions including wrong relation, overuse,

distraction, non-equivalent exchange, semantic incompletion, and surface logicality.
Taken together, these findings suggest that the proficiency in writing can be
evaluated by utilizing various DMs with different position successfully.

Keywords: ELF learners, IELTS preparation course, academic writing,
perception, the use of DMs, function, misapplication.

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY ………………………………………………...i
RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS………………………………………...ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………………………………………….iii
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………….v
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………..ix
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………….xi
LIST OFABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………….....xii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................1
1.1 Background to the study ........................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the problem .......................................................................................5
1.3 Research Objectives of the study...........................................................................6
1.4 Research questions ................................................................................................ 7
1.5 Scope of the study..................................................................................................7
1.6 Significance of the study .......................................................................................8
1.7 Definition of key terms .......................................................................................... 8
1.8 Organization of the study……………………………………………………….10
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ 12
2.1. Discourse and Discourse Analysis ....................................................................12

2.1.1. Definition of Discourse .............................................................................. 12
2.1.2. Definition of Discourse Analysis ............................................................... 13
2.2. Discourse Markers ............................................................................................ 13
2.2.1. Definition of Discourse Markers ................................................................ 13
2.2.2. Characteristics of Discourse Markers ......................................................... 15
2.2.3. Discourse Markers and Cohesive Devices .................................................20
2.2.4. Approaches to Discourse Markers .............................................................. 22
2.2.4.1. Coherence-based approach ...................................................................22
2.2.4.2. Relevance theory ..................................................................................22
2.2.4.3. Grammaticalization theory ..................................................................23
v


2.2.4.4. Grammatical-pragmatic perspective ....................................................23
2.3. Classification of Discourse Markers .................................................................24
2.4. Functions of Discourse Markers ........................................................................26
2.5. Nature of writing ................................................................................................ 32
2.5.1. Definition of Writing....................................................................................32
2.5.2 The importance of essay writing ..................................................................32
2.6. Discourse Markers in writing ..............................................................................33
2.7. Discourse Markers in IELTS writing ...................................................................33
2.8. The perception of the use of DMs in academic writing .......................................34
2.9. The appropriateness of the use of DMs in academic writing ............................. 37
2.10. Previous studies..................................................................................................39
2.11. Conceptual framework ......................................................................................43
2.12. Summary………………………………………………………………………46
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................47
3.1. Research design ..................................................................................................47
3.2. Research site .......................................................................................................47
3.3. Samples and sampling procedures .....................................................................49

3.4. Research instruments ......................................................................................... 51
3.4.1. Questionnaire ..................................................................................................51
3.4.2. Students‟ essay ................................................................................................ 52
3.5. Data collection procedures ................................................................................. 53
3.6. Data analysis procedures .................................................................................... 53
3.7. Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................... 55
3.8. Ethical considerations…………………………………………………………..57
3.9 Summary ............................................................................................................... 58

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS…………………………………..59
4.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 59
vi


4.2. Results ................................................................................................................. 59
4.2.1. Learners‟ perceptions of DMs in academic writing ...................................... 59
4.2.2. The use of DMs in academic writing ............................................................ 63
4.2.2.1 Types of DMs and their frequency in learners‟ essays ............................. 63
4.2.2.2 The functions of DMs in academic writing ............................................. 72
4.2.2.2.1 The textual function of DMs ............................................................. 72
4.2.2.2.2 The interpersonal function of DMs .................................................... 76
4.2.2.3 The appropriateness of the use of DMs in learners‟ essays ...................... 77
4.2.2.3.1. Wrong relation .................................................................................. 77
4.2.2.3.2. Distraction .......................................................................................... 79
4.2.2.3.3 Overuse ............................................................................................... 80
4.2.2.3.4. Non-equivalent exchange .................................................................. 81
4.2.2.3.5. Semantic incompletion ...................................................................... 83
4.2.2.3.6. Surface logicality .............................................................................. 83
4.3 Discussions ........................................................................................................... 85
4.4. Summary ............................................................................................................. 87

CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 88
5.1. Summary of answers to research questions ........................................................ 88
5.2. Implications of the research ................................................................................. 89
5.3. Limitations of the study ...................................................................................... 90
5.4. Recommendations for further research ............................................................... 90
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 91
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………….102

APPENDDIX A: BMI Global Education Fair Vietnam March 2019 visitor statistics
Courses of interest) ............................................................................................... 102
APPENDDIX B1: Questionnaire (English Version) ............................................... 103
APPENDDIX B2: Questionnaire (Vietnamese Version).......................................... 105
APPENDDIX C: Questionnaire designed by Albester, Farid and Raja (2017) ........ 107
vii


APPENDDIX D: Sample of Reliability ................................................................... 109
APPENDDIX E: Sample of Concordance ................................................................ 111
APPENDDIX F: Sample of learners‟ essays ........................................................... 113
APPENDDIX G: Sample of Analysis of learners‟ essays ........................................ 114

PLAGIARISM CHECKING REPORT ..................................................................... 115

viii


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Academic IELTS Statistics 2012
Table 2.1. The types of DMs in academic writing (Fraser, 1999 & 2009) and Fung
(2003) & Kopple (1985)

Table 2.2. Functions of DMs in academic writing adapted from the scholars (Briton,
1996; Castro, 2009; Ajimer, 2002; Kopple, 1985 & Hyland, 2005)
Table 2.3. Appropriateness of DMs (Kao & Chen, 2011)
Table 3.1. Participants‟ demographic information
Table 3.2. Students‟ perception on DMs (Fung,2011; Albester, Frid & Raja, 2017)
Table 4.1. Percentages of the Responses to Five Variables
Table 4.2. Pragmatic value of DMs
Table 4.3. Indispensable value of DMs
Table 4.4. Learning value of DMs
Table 4.5. Summary of DMs used by learners
Table 4.6. The percentage of The Frequency of Occurrences
Table 4.7. Temporal Markers in learners‟ essays
Table 4.8. Contrastive Markers in learners‟ essays
Table 4.9. Elaborative Markers in learners‟ essays
Table 4.10. Inferential Markers in learners‟ essays
Table 4.11. Interpersonal Markers in learners‟ essays

ix


Table 4.12. Topic Change Markers in learners‟ essays

x


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Number of overseas students in Vietnam, 2013 – 2016
Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework of the perception and use of English Discourse
Markers in essays of EFL learners in IELTS preparation course.
Figure 3.1: Participants‟ purposes of learning IELTS

Figure 3.2: Study‟s Research Methodology Framework
Figure 4.1: DMs used according to categories
Figure 4.2: Types of DMs used in learners‟ essays per 1000 words
Figure 4.3: DMs used by each learner.

xi


LIST OF ABREVIATIONS
CDM

Contrastive Discourse Markers

DMs

Discourse Markers

EDM

Elaborative Markers

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

IDM

Inferential Discourse Markers

IELTS

International English Language Testing System

IM

Interpersonal Markers

TCM

Topic Change Markers

TDM

Temporal Discourse Markers

xii


CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the background of the study, statement of the problem,
research questions, scope and significance of the study, definition of key terms as
well as the organization of the study.
1.1. Background to the study
Over the past decades, writing has been an indispensable part, which equips
writers with communicative and critical thinking skills (Nunan, 1989). Writing has
proved to be a powerful tool to communicate at the work place, at school and in the
community (Fraser, 1999; Rahimi, 2011). Inevitably, sending messages, giving
special cards or writing essays require primary writing skills in which writers can
express their feelings and explain what they want to convey to receivers and
listeners.

According to Promas and Sinwongsuwat (2014), in comparison with speaking
skills, writing is more taxing since the writers cannot show their ideas via facial
expression, gestures or tones, a meaning of a written piece must be conveyed
through constructing structural properties as well as forming a cohesive text. What
is more, even for students of lower levels, they also require to know how to write an
informal letter or formal ones, a short paragraph or an essay. For that reason,
writing lessons should be more accentuated in an attempt to better learners‟ writing
competence.
In Vietnam, the Ministry of Education and Training delivered the piloting of
the primary English language policy, which means English is constructed
compulsorily from Grade 3 (Nguyen Mai Thi Hoa, 2011). It is not uncommon that
Vietnamese teachers often place an emphasis on grammar instead of assigning their
students to do their writing homework (Le Van Canh, 2011). Being teachercentered is profoundly believed in Vietnamese teaching methodology and low
participation has belonged to Vietnamese students for ages (To Thi Thu Huong,
2010). Learners are asked to repeat, memorize and recite what they learnt form the

1


textbook and from their teachers, especially about grammatical rules, grammatical
accuracy (Duong Thi Hoang Oanh & Nguyen Thu Hien, 2006; Pham Hoa Hiep,
2007).

Gradually, there is a high possibility that they can acknowledge

grammatical insights deeply, but they are enable to connect those precious points to
complete an essay. This can be explained that they confront with vocabulary and
cohesive devices deprivation (Tran Nu Ly Na, 2015). The inadequate mastery of
syntactic and semantic use of language causes the shortage of self-confidence in
writing performance (Rico, 2014).

In the era of globalization, studying abroad has gained much popularity among
Vietnamese students. A quick glance at the report of Ministry of Education and
Training (MOET), Figure 1.1 enumerates the statistical data on the volume of
students who enrolled in higher education in foreign countries, which witnessed a
gradual rise from 104.500 in 2013 to 130,000 Vietnamese students in 2016.

Figure 1.1: Number of overseas students in Vietnam, 2013 - 2016
With an aim to broaden their horizon and enrich their knowledge in multicultural
environments, they yearn to obtain golden opportunities to study in prestigious
universities. Appendix A (BMI Global Education Fair Vietnam March 2019 visitor
statistics Courses of interest) shows different interests of Vietnamese when
studying abroad.
Before applying for any institutions, learners need to undertake International Tests
including International English Language Testing System (IELTS), Test of English

2


for International Communication (TOEIC), Test Of English as a Foreign Language
(TOEFL), or First Certificate in English (FCE) (Le Van Canh, 2017). According to
Moore (2005), there have been a significant number of educational institutions,
which demand the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) as a
requirement for overseas students. Thus, IELTS has become one of the most
prevailing tests worldwide. A comparison between IELTS and other tests could be a
clear explanation for its popularity. To be more detailed, IELTS is used to test
foreign speakers‟ language capacity that are planning to further their education or
migrate to other countries with English as a mother tongue. Meanwhile, TOEFL
measures a candidate‟s capacity to study at higher levels, which is commonly
accepted in the US, Canada, France and Germany. TOEIC is well-known for those
who need a certificate for graduation or work with basic English skills.

A majority of universities have introduced their coming enrollment proposals
for the academic year in 2020 in which IETLS is accepted as one of the
requirements (taken from www.ieltsasia.com). Precisely, for those who have an
IELTS certificate score of 4 or above will be exempted from national English and
with a score of at least 5.5 for graduates, leading to a mushrooming of IELTS
language centers as well as home classrooms in Vietnam, which accommodate
learners‟ needs. IELTS has two modules, which are Academic and General
Training. In both tests, examinees are required to accomplish task 1 (150 words)
and task 2 (250 words). Nonetheless, task 1 in General Training Test is writing a
letter replying to a question or an issue, while task 1 in Academic module is
reporting and summarizing statistics from a line graph or a pie chart. Task 2 in
either Academic or General Training is the same. This study does not examine the
specific components of writing task 1 because the chief purpose of this research is
about Discourse Markers (henceforth DMs) used in writing task 2. For this reason,
the assessment of writing task 2 in terms of DMs is mainly focused.
The main root of this issue can be explained that Vietnamese students are in
dearth of essential writing skills. Thus, Vietnamese students failed to achieve high

3


scores in international exams due to their low points of writing part. Below are the
recent data about IELTS test, which depicts the results, made by Vietnamese
candidates in 2012 and 2018 (taken from ielts.org site, saigonenglish.com and
blc.english.com). The mean scores for each skill were as follows:
Table 1.1: Academic IELTS Statistics 2012
Years

Listening

Reading

Writing

Speaking

OVERALL

2012

5.9

6.1

5.6

5.7

5.9

2018

6.09

6.22

5.63

5.73

5.98

In order to write a well-organized text, coherence and cohesion must be taken
into an account. Halliday and Hasan (1976) point out in Cohesion in English five
chief cohesive devices in English discourse: reference, substitution, ellipsis, lexical
cohesion and conjunction. The unity of discourse both in oral conversations and
written pieces is created by applying DMs, which are semantic articles or
expressions such as well, though and honestly speaking by connecting and joining
discourse segments in a comprehensible way. In written discourse, the persuasive,
comprehensible and explanatory characteristics of a text are attributed to the
appropriateness of using DMs (Zienkowski, Ostman & Verschueren, 2011).
Another striking issue should be considered is those students who are taking a
course for IELTS exam have a habit of employing connectors and cohesive devices
inappropriately (ieltsadvantage.com). Having a look at this example, it can be
implied that DMs should be íntructed so that IELTS takers can use them more
suitably.
“Writing a letter is time-consuming. In addition to this, it is meaningful.”
(Uysal, 2010)

4


The second sentence tells us the contrary, so the sentence should be corrected
by using However or on the contrary
“Writing a letter is time-consuming. On the contrary, it is meaningful.”
(Uysal, 2010)
One of the primary rationales for that is having a shortage of managing all
aspects of cohesion, impacting their writing test as well as their overall score.
Modhish (2012) emphasizes that the coherence and cohesion of an essay can be
formed by relating discourse markers properly. Having the similar finding, Kies

(2003) also states that the solely approach to triumph coherence is through words
and setting. Nonetheless, Melor and Siti Nor Fatimad (2014) conclude that the lack
of insights on DMs exerts a profound impact on students‟ products, resulting in the
fact that they tend to misuse, underuse or overuse DMs in their writing. Martin
(1992) states that non-native writers have encountered grammar errors when
applying Discourse Markers in their essays, which in turn leads to poor marks
(Yomiyama,1980). Based on the conclusion of Corder (1967), outlining core errors
is of great value to methodology in teaching and self-improvement in learning.
Noting that the low scores in IELTS writing test lurk in several aspects but in
this study the researcher only focuses on the perception and use of English
Discourse Markers in essays of EFL learners in an IELTS preparation amidst the
burgeoning needs for IELTS test. It is hoped that the findings of this research will
momentously contribute to teachers‟ adjustment in educating well as students‟
writing improvement.
1.2.

Statement of the problem
Of the four macro skills, writing is explicitly a knotty process as students are

influenced by various internal and external elements (Nunan, 1989). Indeed,
students who attend a four-month course for IELTS preparation at A Chau language

5


center have been struggling to gain desirable scores in IELTS writing. In the writing
classroom, learners are not provided with any books because the teacher has to
prepare a presentation and send it to a classroom group when each lesson has been
done. Accordingly, each teacher is in charge of improvising the suitable lessons by
collecting materials from relevant textbooks. After teaching several courses at this

center, the researcher has realized that students have analogous hitches in writing
skills despite having heterogeneous backgrounds from ages to studying purposes.
For the most part, the obsolete teaching methodology and assessments in Vietnam
are the chief roots that profoundly impact students‟ language ability. That is to say,
students need to make efforts to practice on grammatical accuracy and written
forms (Le Ha, 2009; Nguyen Thi Lan Phuong & Phung Thuy Nhu, 2015).
Consequently, when they are reluctant to memorize something, this will hinder their
creativity and lead to some misunderstanding use either words or DMs.
In the context of A Chau language center, learners who are attending IELTS
preparation course usually gain unsatisfactory marks for writing tasks, stemming
from a lack of understanding about the critical role of DMs in coherence and
cohesion in writing. This means that they sometimes do not know how to use them
accurately and the functions of DMs are often neglected. This is the factor that
diminishes the soothing and decent development of students‟ writing outcome. DMs
henceforward should be equally noticed like other linguistic traits. However, there
have not been any studies on this population. Accordingly, there should be a
research on this issue. This current study, hence, concentrates on EFL learners‟
perception and use of DMs in essays in IELTS preparation course.
1.3. Research Objectives of the Study
This study aims at investigating the students‟ academic writing ability by
analyzing EFL learners‟ perception of DMs in academic writing and the way they
use DMs in their essays, especially, in IELTS preparation courses. The objectives of

6


this study are as follows:


To investigate EFL learners‟ perception of DMs in English essays in an

IELTS preparation course at A Chau language center regarding
pragmatic value, indispensable value and learning value of DMs.



To examine how EFL learners in an IELTS preparation course use DMs
in writing English essays in terms of types, functions and
appropriateness.

1.4. Research questions
In order to achieve the aforementioned objectives, the following research
questions must be addressed:
(1). What are EFL learners‟ perception of DMs in English essays in an IELTS
preparation course at A Chau language center regarding

pragmatic value,

indispensable value and learning value of DMs?
(2). How do EFL learners in an IELTS preparation course at A Chau language
center use DMs in writing English essays in terms of types, functions and the
appropriateness?
1.5. Scope of the study
Writing skills were the main aspect of this study due to learners‟ common
problem. Accordingly, the principal features of this research are the perception of
discourse markers of EFL learners in a particular IELTS preparation course and the
way they use discourse markers in writing English essays in terms of types,
functions and the appropriateness. Other skills are not taken into an account.
Besides, despite various writing types, only essays in IELTS writing are examined.
The study was conducted at A Chau language center, Le Van Khuong campus,
Ho Chi Minh City. 60 participants, who took foundation classes, were

7


homogeneous when it comes to age group ranging from 15 to 25 years old and
language competence. Having been teaching IELTS at this center for more than
three years, the researcher has had an appetite for implementing this study, which
shed the light on learners‟ awareness and their inclination of submitting DMs in
writing.
1.6. Significance of the study
Theoretically, the central emphasis of this study is EFL learners‟ perception
of DMs and DMs employment in terms of types, functions and the correctness in
their compositions. It is hoped that the teaching and learning of English can drive
benefits from the outcome of this study. First, it is more likely to be a reliable
source of reference for teachers to have a better understanding of learners‟ tendency
towards DMs and the way they use them in their writing test, resulting in improved
teaching methods (Etherton, 1977). Having in-depth discernment of those aspects,
each educator will find out a suitable teaching approach with an aim of learners‟
writing solidification, exceptionally, using DMs. Second, the cognizance of
students‟ inherent challenges related their errors aids teachers to design course
outlines alongside their contents which are suitable for every single stage. As a
matter of fact, if students who belong to the same age group and speak the identical
language, chances are that similar troubles possibly emerge (Abbot 1980, p.21).
Third, this study will somewhat reinforce to the field of DMs analysis.
As far as the practical contribution of this study is concerned, the importance
of DMs in essay writing will be perceived by learners, which possibly enhances
their writing skills. Corder (1967) assumes that errors must be corrected otherwise
repeated mistakes will form fossilization, which adversely impacts writing progress.
It is crucial to learn from mistakes in order to avoid deviation. It should be born in
mind that writing and reading skills have mutual relationships. Thus, being

equipped with good writing skills, a learner is able to comprehend a reading
passage, which is pretty lengthy in IELTS. On top of that, learners are capable of
8