Application of discourse analysis theory to the teaching of writing to students at International Standard Programme-ULIS-VNU = Áp dụng lý thuyết phân tích diễn

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

VŨ THÙY LINH


APPLICATION OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS THEORY TO THE
TEACHING OF WRITING TO STUDENTS AT INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD PROGRAMME – ULIS – VNU

(Áp dụng lý thuyết phân tích diễn ngôn vào việc giảng dạy môn viết
cho sinh viên Nhiệm vụ chiến lược – ĐHNN- ĐHQGHN)

MINOR M.A. THESIS
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60.14.10


Hanoi, December, 2012


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

VŨ THÙY LINH


APPLICATION OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS THEORY TO THE

TEACHING OF WRITING TO STUDENTS AT INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD PROGRAMME – ULIS – VNU

(Áp dụng lý thuyết phân tích diễn ngôn vào việc giảng dạy môn viết
cho sinh viên Nhiệm vụ chiến lược – ĐHNN- ĐHQGHN)

MINOR M.A. THESIS
Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60.14.10
Supervisor: Huynh Anh Tuan, PhD


Hanoi, December, 2012


iv
TABLE OF CONTENT
Table of Contents
Declaration i
Acknowledgments ii
Abstract iii
Table of content iv
List of tables, figures and abbreviations vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION
I. Rationale 1
II. Aims 3
III. Significance 3
IV. Scope 4
V. Research methodology 4
VI. Limitations 6

VII. Organizations 7
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER ONE: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE
REVIEW
I. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1. Writing
1.1. Definition of writing 8
1.2. The importance of EFL writing 9
1.3. What makes good writing 9
2. Discourse and discourse analysis 10
3. Coherence 11
4. Cohesion


v
4.1. The concept of cohesion 13
4.2. Types of cohesion 13
II. LITERATURE REVIEW 16
CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY
2.1. Research questions 18
2.2. Research approach 18
2.3. Data collection instruments 19
2.4. Data collection procedure 20
CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS
3. Data analysis
3.1. Ways of evaluation 22
3.2. Data analysis 24
3.2.1. Problems related to cohesion and coherence competence ISP students have in
writing 24
3.2.2. Relationship between giving L2 learners explicit instruction in coherence

-cohesion and the improvement of their writing proficiency 30
3.2.3. Students’ evaluation 34
PART C: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Major findings 37
II. Recommendations 38
III. Suggestions for further studies 45
REFERENCES
APPENDICES



vi

LISTS OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ABBREVIATIONS
Lists of Tables
Table 1: The researcher’s analytical scoring criteria
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for the group’s performance in the pre-test.
Table 3: Students’ pre-test and post-test results
Table 4: Results of the Paired-Sample T-tests
Lists of Figures
Figure 1: Participants’ satisfaction with the course
Figure 2: Participants’ overall evaluation of the course
Lists of Abbreviations
L1: first language
L2: second language
ISP: International Standard Programme
ULIS: University of Languages and International Studies
VNU: Vietnam National University

1
PART A: INTRODUCTION
I. Rationale
Writing is a fundamental component of English language learning. In the light
of this fact, it is imperative that learners be taught and trained on the
conventions of English writing, especially academic writing. Some of these
conventions are cohesion and coherence. Cohesion refers to “the grammatical
and/ or lexical relationships between the different elements of a text” (Richard,
Platt & Webb, 1985:45). Coherence refers to the relationships of ideas and the
ability of those ideas to function together for the purpose of conveying the
meaning (Mclinn, 1988:15).
It has been noted by Magableh (1992) that English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) learners focus almost exclusively on the sentence level rather than the
level of the whole discourse that is textual coherence. Most EFL learners feel
that correct grammar is the only tool they depend on in writing English essays.
Therefore, they rely on what they have learned about grammar.
However, according to Kies (1995) some EFL writings appear to be poor in
coherence and in cohesion. Such writings may lack persuasiveness, satisfactory
and logical connection of ideas. This problem can be attributed to the fact that
learners know the grammar and lexical items of the language, but they are
unaware of the mechanics of coherence and cohesion. Maqableh (1992) claims
that Arab EFL learners encounter serious problems when they write. These
problems involve producing a coherent text and making the produced text
cohesive. The focus on writing has been on generating grammatically correct
sentences depending on the belief that grammar is the only requirement for
learners.
In recent years with the appearance of Halliday and Hasan (1976)’s book
Cohesion in English, there has been a shift in focus among researchers from

detecting EFL learners’ problems at the sentential level toward diagnosing
problems at the inter-sentential level. Hence, writing is now seen in terms of


2
cohesion and coherence. Khalil (1989:359) says “New concepts such as
cohesion and coherence have identified as two major standards of textuality”.
Halliday and Hasan (1976) consider the text as a unit of language in use.
It has been noticed that some of writing features may be ignored by EFL
learners. Such features involve coherence and cohesion. Researchers point out
three factors that could contribute to the weakness in writing. These factors are:
1- Language transfer. Different studies by Kapalan (1966), Tadros (1976) and
Hole (1984) indicate that EFL learners transfer the conventions of their first
language (L1) to their second language (L2); therefore, they show negative
transfer. Conner (1996:3) says “Students often mention that when they write in
English, they translate, or attempt to translate, first language words, phrases or
organization into English.”
2- Ignorance of the features of cohesion and coherence. Zhu (1992) states that
EFL learners are usually unaware of the terms cohesion and coherence in
writing. Thus, they have inadequate knowledge of cohesive devices that are
necessary for making a text cohesive. Even if they have knowledge of these
discourse markers, they do not use them appropriately. This problem can be
attributed to the fact that teachers at schools generally do not emphasize on such
devices.
3- Lack of training: According to Kharma (1985), students are not well-trained
in English writing. Normally, the focus is laid on the sentence level and in some
cases the paragraph level.
To sum up, it can be concluded that EFL learners encounter rhetorical problems
especially in coherence and cohesion. These problems can be attributed to many
factors such as negative transfer, or rather nonexistence of certain features in

the mother tongue. That is to say, many learners still do not have the adequate
knowledge of using cohesive devices that are necessary for making a text
cohesive.


3
Although these problems have been realized by a lot of researchers, very few
solutions have been suggested to improve EFL students’ writing quality,
especially in terms of cohesion and coherence. This gap gives the researcher the
desire to conduct this study.
II. Aims of the study
The purpose of the study is to examine the real situation of the Vietnam
National University (VNU) International Standard Programme (ISP) students’
writing skill, specifically in terms of their cohesion and coherence- related
issues. It aims (1) to find out ISP students’ problems in terms of cohesion and
coherence in their writing and (2) to provide some recommendations that could
improve their writing through the experimental teaching of cohesion and
coherence.
III. Significance of the research
It is hoped that this study will be contribute to the field of applied linguistics
especially in EFL writing. It could act as a great help to not only students,
teachers but also researchers working on relating issues. This study aims at
investigating ISP students’ problems in cohesion and coherence. Therefore, it
can be a contribution for evaluating students’ writing competence in terms of
cohesion and coherence. Besides, this study, to some extent, can help increase
students’ awareness of the benefits of cohesion and coherence in their writing
quality.
The significance of this study can be stated that it will provide teaching
implications for EFL teachers into the procedures and the teaching material to
be used in dealing with cohesive devices and coherent elements. Witte and

Faigley (1981) indicated that cohesion and coherence research can help
discover the developmental stages undergo in their writing process. In other
words, this is significant for educators in providing implications for developing
their essay writing syllabus, methods of teaching and assessment.


4
Lastly, this research can be used as a reference source for those who have
interest in this issue and a supplement to the previous studies on cohesion and
coherence problems.
IV. Scope of the research
 Field of the study: The writing issue is so broad and complicated that
the researcher has no desire to cover all aspects of it. Within the frame of this
thesis, the researcher would like to work on the problems of coherence and
cohesion in students’ writing and make some useful suggestions to help
students achieve greater competence in this skill.
 Targeted subjects: The research is restricted to students at
International Standard Program (ISP) – ULIS – VNU and it is confined to the
analysis of cohesion and coherence written by 20 learners of group 9 in ISP.
V. Research methodology
V.1. Research questions
This survey aims at addressing the two following questions
 What problems related to cohesion and coherence competence do ISP
students have in writing?
 Is there any relationship between giving L2 learners explicit instruction in
coherence-cohesion and the improvement of their writing proficiency?
V.2. Informants
The target population of this research was from class 9 with 20 students at
International Standard Programme (ISP), University of Language and International
Studies (ULIS), Vietnam National University (VNU).

V.3. Approach
Action research was chosen as the primary research method as it meets the aim
and objectives of the study. This method is also justified to offer significant
benefits for the researcher, who is also a teacher. Johnson (1995) pointed out
three mains advantages of action research namely to promote personal and


5
professional growth, to improve practice to enhance student learning, and to
advance the teacher profession.
V.4. Data collection instruments and procedure
Two data collection instruments were used in the study: tests and survey
questionnaires. To be specific, two writing tests were conducted before and after
the experimental teaching. Students were required to write discussive essays with
the following topics:
 Pre-test: These days internet-based courses have become a
popular alternative to university-based courses. Some students prefer
this type of learning because they do not need to attend lectures. Others
argue that it is important to study at university. Discuss both these
views.
 Post-test: It is generally believed that some people are born
with certain talents, for instance for sport or music, and others are not.
However, it is sometimes claimed that any child can be taught to
become a good sports person or musician. Discuss both these views and
give your own opinion.
The questionnaire survey consists of two main parts: The first part is composed of
six questions which are to evaluate students’ satisfaction after the experimental
teaching. The second part asks for students’ suggestion for improvement in the next
teaching.
The data collection procedure underwent 3 phases. A pre-test was administered

among an ISP group to assess their writing competence and analyzed to find out
their writing problems in terms of cohesion and coherence in the pre-teaching
phase. The participants then participated in a 6-week experimental while-teaching
phase in which participants were given thorough theory of cohesion and coherence
in academic writing as well as provided a lot of practicing exercise. Finally, they
took a post-test to evaluate their improvement in writing ability in the post-teaching


6
phase. Also in this phase, students completed one survey questionnaire concerning
their opinions about the teaching and learning process.
V.5. Data analysis methods
Learners’ writings are qualitatively analyzed using a rating scale set up by the
researcher. The rating scale specifies criteria for marking. Learners’ proficiency in
points was quantitatively analyzed using the SPSS software to conclude to what
extent ISP students’ writing improves after the researcher’s experimental teaching.
VI. Limitations
Although the research has achieved some certain results in investigating cohesion
and coherence problems in ISP students’ writing as well as illustrating some
teaching methods to tackle such issues, it still contains some limitations due to
limited time and scope of the study.
The first limitation lies in the participants in this study. One special feature of ISP
students is that they are classified into different groups according to their entry test
result. The in-survey group got the medium score; so they can be ranked at the
average level. That means a lot of low-level students are not really involved in the
research.
Secondly, because the researcher was supposed to follow the fixed ISP timetable,
the experimental teaching only lasted 6 weeks with one writing session per week.
Therefore, students actually were not given thorough teaching about cohesion and
coherence, which more or less affected their writing quality.

VII. Organization of the study
The study totally consists of three main parts: Introduction, Development and
Conclusion.
Part 1 states the rationale, aims, scope and significance of the study.
Part 2 includes three chapters namely theoretical background and literature review,
methodology, and data analysis.


7
 Chapter 1 provides the background on the study, including the definitions
and the features of some determinant terms such as writing, discourse analysis,
coherence and cohesion.
Also presented in this chapter is a brief review of some previous studies on
cohesion and coherence problems in EFL students’ writing.
 Chapter 2 demonstrates the research methods applied in the study with
details on how and why these methods were implemented. Besides, the data
collection procedure and data analysis methods are also illustrated in this chapter
 Chapter 3, data analysis presents the results and discussion in terms of how
much they answer the research questions.
Part 3 summarizes the main issues covered in the paper, presents the limitations of
the study and some suggestions for further studies in the research area. Following
this chapter are the References and Appendixes for the whole research.

8
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER ONE: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE
REVIEW
I. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The purpose of this chapter is threefold: define EFL writing, highlight the
importance of writing to EFL students and shed light on some EFL students’
writing problems with special reference to cohesion and coherence.
1. Writing
1.1. Definition of writing
Bryne (1988) considers writing “the act of forming graphic symbols” such as letters
or combination of letters. According to this definition, an act that results in the
forming of letters with or without meaning can be defined as writing. On the other
hand, Lannon (1989) views writing as “the process of transforming the material
discovered by research inspiration, accident, trial and error, or whatever into a
message with a definite meaning- writing is a process of deliberate decision”. In this
way, writing must convey a message without meaning. The definition of writing
experienced a big change in some later years. In 2000, Chakraverty and Gautum
offered a quite different definition in which writing is “a reflective activity that
requires enough time to think about the specific topic and to analyze and classify

any background knowledge Then, writers need a suitable language to structure these
ideas in the form of coherent discourse”. Besides, writing is defined by several
contrasts by Sokolik (2003). In her opinion, writing, firstly, is both “a physical and
mental act” in the sense that requires writiers to commit words or ideas to some
medium and at the same time to invent ideas, think about how to express them, and
organize them into statements and paragraphs. Secondly, writing aims at expressing
and impressing. Writers typically try to express their ideas or feelings; meanwhile
they need to impress their readers in certain ways. Thirdly writing is a process and a
product. Writers have to generate ideas, organize, draft, edit, read, and reread to
produce a product- a paragraph, an essay or a report. Also writing is seen by


9
Shokrpour and Fallahzadeh (2007) as “a complex activity, a social act which
reflects the writer’s communicative skills which is difficult to develop and learn,
especially in an EFL context”. In line with the process writing approach adopted in
the current study, I perceive EFL writing as a multi-dimensional process composed
of a cognitive activity affected by a number of linguistic and contextual factors;
EFL linguistic proficiency, instructional, psychological, socio-cultural, and socio-
political issues. If these factors are well addressed, this will make writing an
unforgettable experience
1.2. The importance of EFL writing
EFL writing has always been considered an important skill in teaching and learning.
As commented by Rao, EFL writing is useful in two respects: First, it motivates
students’ thinking, organizing ideas, developing their ability to summarize, analyze
and criticize. Second, it strengthens students’ learning, thinking and reflecting on
English language.
In relation to the context of the current study, essay writing is significant to the
learning of students of English because it facilitates students’ acquisition of the
basic study skills needed for understanding what they study and expressing it in

their own words. This will assist them to keep away from memorization, rote
learning and plagiarism that are much discouraged in the recent theories of teaching
and learning. In addition, competence in writing will help students pass all their
academic courses successfully and enable them to be successful teachers and
researchers in the future.
1.3. What makes good writing
Writing is an important means of communication; it is probably the skill that is
most needed in academic communities. According to Beaugrande and Dressler
(2002) a text derives its communicative value from its conformity to the following
ten standards of communication: cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability,
informativity, situationality, intertextuality, efficiency, effectiveness, and
appropriateness. All these standards are behind the success of communication, but


10
cohesion and coherence have a special status. Beaugrande and Dressler say “to
some degree, cohesion and coherence could themselves be regarded as operational
goals without whose attainment other discourse goals may be blocked” (I.3). The
empirical studies of Chiang (1999) confirm that raters’ and native speakers’
judgments of the quality of EFL students’ writing relies more on discourse features
like cohesion and coherence. Grammatical weaknesses are not considered unless
they hinder their understanding of their writer’s intended meaning.
Therefore, coherence should be given an important weight in writing syllabuses of
instruction is to be effective, and in order to be able to teach it appropriately, we
need thorough understanding of the concept and useful insights on how to introduce
it best in writing classes.
2. Discourse and Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis, as remarked by Brown and Yule (1983:8), “has come to be used
with a wide range of meanings which cover a range of activities at the intersection
of many disciplines from sociolinguistics, philosophical linguistics to computational

linguistics”. In other words, discourse analysis is a field of study which concerns
different aspects basically including three basic strands; that is text grammar,
conversation analysis, and pragmatics, as pointed out by Hoa Nguyen (2000:11). He
also defines discourse analysis, in the eyes of a linguist, as” a study of how and for
what purposes language is used in a certain context of situation and the linguistic
means to carry out these purposes.”
In the study of discourse analysis, it is crucial to make a clear distinction between
two terms: discourse and text. According to Brown and Yule (1983:6), text is “the
verbal record of a communicative act”; meanwhile, discourse …. “is language in
use”…(p.1). De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) presents an elaborate definition of
text as a “communicative occurrence which possesses seven constitute conditions of
textual communication, cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability,
informability, situationality and intertextuality”. In this approach, De Beaugrande
and Dressler see text and discourse in the same light.


11
The most explicit and clearest distinction is by Widowson (1984). He elaborates
discourse as “a communicative process by means of interaction. Its situational
outcome is a change in a state of affair: information is conveyed, intention made
clear, its linguistic product is Text” (as cited in Hoa Nguyen, 2000, p.14). In the
explanation, text is understood as simply a representation of a communicative
process. In other words, text is the verbal realization of discourse.
3. Coherence
Coherence refers to the functioning of the text as a unified whole. Moreover,
coherence refers to the relationships of ideas and the ability of those ideas to
function together for the purpose of conveying the meaning. (Mclinn 1988: 15)
In fact, any piece of writing has coherence if it represents its argument in a clear,
plausible, convincing and comprehensible order. This piece of writing should have
no logical gaps in its line of reasoning and it avoids unnecessary digression.

Any piece of writing is considered coherent if it is understandable, follow a clear
line in presenting facts, arguments and avoid statements which are
incomprehensible for the reader. There is a strong connection between the text and
the reader concerning coherence. So, the writer should cut what is irrelevant or
unintelligible for the reader. Kies (1995) stated “Any piece of writing can be
coherent if the authors:
 Know the subjects well
 Have an eye on their audience and tailor their writing to what their readers
probably know beforehand and are able to understand.
Oshima and Hogue (2006) indicate that there are five ways to achieve coherence:
1- Repeat key nouns: repeat key nouns or use synonyms or expressions with the
same meaning.
2- Use consistent pronouns: make sure that you use the same person and
number throughout the paragraph.
3- Use transition signals to link ideas: they are like traffic signs, they tell you
when to go forward, turn around, slow down and stop.


12
4- Arrange your ideas in logical order:
There are several common and logical ways to arrange the sentences in orderly
sequence in a paragraph. Time order is the simplest and the most common order,
which is usually suitable for narrative paragraphs and for paragraphs that explain
how something is happened (Razzak and AL-Hassan, 1981:57). It is important to
know when and in what order the things in any story we read happen. This enables
us to understand how the various steps are arranged in correct order.
If the sentences have no time order we can arrange them in a space order, in which
the paragraph moves from east to west or from right to left or vice versa. Space
order is sometimes suitable for giving direction. The writer should know that he
can use space order when he wants to tell the others what the things are looking

like.
The order of climax which is the least important ideas í writing first, then the other
ideas are given in order of increasing important. The movement within the
paragraph in this order may be from general to the particular or from the particular
to the general or from familiar to the unfamiliar. describes the room to enable the
reader to have a clear picture of the room which the writer saw.
The discussion of the idea may move from cause to effect or from effect to cause
(Razzak and AL-Hassan, 1981:60-62). The writer can order sentences in any order
to make the sequence of the thought clear and the reader can understand what he
reads.
5- Consider the length of Paragraph.
Razzak and AL-Hassan (1981:69) indicate that there is no rule about the length of
paragraphs. A paragraph is a unit and all the sentences in it are necessary to make
the idea as a whole one and clear. The length of the paragraph depends upon the
idea itself. It is important for the writer to know that he must be able to put down
his thoughts or ideas clearly enough and completely enough so that anyone who
reads his paper will be able to follow his directions and understand what he is
explaining.


13
The length of paragraph should be tailored to aid the reader's understanding of the
ideas. A short paragraph can indicate poor organization of materials, that the writer
can make the larger idea as a topic sentence for a single paragraph. A series of short
paragraph can also sacrifice unity by breaking a single idea into several pieces. A
series of long paragraph can fail to provide the reader with manageable subdivisions
of thought. A good rule for writing the paragraph should be just long enough to deal
adequately with the subject of its topic sentence (Brauasw et al; 1987:464).
4. Cohesion
4.1. The concept of cohesion

In relation to EFL essay writing cohesion, many researchers agree that cohesion, on
the macro level is related to linking ideas whereas on the micro level, is concerned
with connecting sentences and phrases. “The concept of cohesion is a semantic one,
it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a
text”. Cohesion connects and hangs words together in order to create a text. Many
researchers have highlighted the importance of text cohesion claiming that a text
stands as a text by means of cohesion. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976, as
cited in Hoa, 2000) “A text has texture and this is what distinguishes it from
something that is not a text… the texture is provided by cohesive relation”. It means
that cohesion creates texture in a text, in other words, creates the text. Hoa (2000:
23) shares the same idea by stating that “cohesion refers to the formal relationship
that causes text to cohere or stick together.”
4.2. Type of cohesion
4.2.1. Grammatical Cohesion
4.2.1.1. Reference
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976:32), reference is a semantic relation and
“since the relationship is on semantic level, the reference item is in no way
constrain to match the grammatical class of the item it refers to”. The two scholars
also classify discourse reference into two types, namely exophoric and endophoric.


14
If the reference item is endophoric, it can be either anaphoric or cataphoric.
Anaphoric reference occurs when the writer refers back to someone or something
that has been previously identified, to avoid repetition. It points the listeners and
readers backward to previous entity to understand the text. In constrast, cataphoric
reference lead listeners and readers forward to the text.
Exophoric reference is different from these two types by describing generics or
abstracts without ever being identified. In this case, the interpretation is assisted by
the context of the situation.

Reference items in English comes into three main forms, including personal
reference expressed by pronouns (he, she, it, me, mine…) and determiners (his, her,
your…); demonstrative reference (this, that, there, then, etc.) and comparative
reference which is expressed by adjectives and adverbs such as same, identical,
equal, different, other, etc.
4.2.1.2. Substitution
Halliday and Hasan (1976:89) define substitution as “a relation between linguistic
items such as words or phrases and in terms of linguistic level, it is a relation on the
lexico-grammar level, the level of grammar and vocabulary”. Hoa Nguyen (2000:
24) also sees substitution as “a device which shows the relation between sentences,
where it is derivable to avoid repetition”
In this light, Halliday and Hasan (1976) categorized substitution into nominal,
verbal and clausal substitution. Nominal substitution is realized by one, ones, and
same. Verbal substitute in English is “do” and clausal substitutes are “so” and not.
Clausal substitution is commonly used after verbs: think, hope, suppose, etc.
4.2.1.3 Ellipsis
In Halliday and Hasan (1976:142)’s point of view ellipsis is “the omission of
certain elements from a sentence, allowed by context”. It is important to make a
difference between ellipsis and substitution. With ellipsis, the omitted parts can be
recovered based on the context but such possibility does not exist.


15
Quirk et all (1972) discuss three conditions under which ellipsis may occur namely,
repetition, expansion and replacement.
a. Repetition: the speaker repeat what has been said by the first
E.g/ Did you go there?
Yes, I did (go there)
b. Expansion: the speakers adds to what has been said
E.g/ Will he come?

Probably (he will come)
c. Replacement: the second speaker replaces what has been said by the
first with new information
E.g/ Where did he go?
(He went to) Canada.
4.2.1.4 Conjunction
According to Cook (1989:21), “conjunction is words or phrases which explicitly
draw attention to the type of relationship between one sentence and clause and
another”. Briefly speaking, conjunctions are used to connect sentences and clauses
together into one context.
Halliday and Hasan (1976: 242-243) divide conjunction into four types including
additive, adversative, causal and temporal.
a. additive: the relation of adding meaning among sentences
E.g/ and, also, moreover, in addition, etc
b. adversative: information appears in the contradict way
E.g/ but, yet, though, however, on the contrary, etc
c. causal: the relation of cause and effect
E.g/ so, hence, before, consequently, as a result, etc
d. temporal: this relation creates unified and tied discourse.
E/g : then, next, last, etc…
4.2.2 Lexical cohesion


16
According to Van (2006:80-81), the concept of lexical cohesion was first defined in
terms of collocation by Firth (1975), then developed by Halliday and Hasan (1976).
Eggins (1994) and Halliday (1985) share the same idea that lexical relation analysis
is a way of systematically describing how words in a text related to each other, how
they cluster to build up lexical sets or lexical strings. Lexical relation appears in two
main types, reiteration and collocation.

4.2.2.1 Reiteration
According to Mc Carthy (1991:65) presents that “reiteration means either restating
an item in a later part of discourse by direct repetition or else reasserting its
meaning by exploiting lexical relations”. Reiteration is divided into five types,
namely repetition, synonyms, super-ordinate and general words.
4.2.2.2 Collocation
Collocation occupies an important role in lexical items to create cohesion in a text.
In fact, words seldom stand alone, but tend to combine together and relate to each
other. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), “Word combination” or “word co-
occurrence” is known as collocation which brings a particular sense or meaning.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
In recent years, researchers have given considerable attention to how EFL and ESL
learner actually write and what problems they usually encounter in their writing.
One of the widely explored subfields of second language writing is the construct of
coherence and cohesion. As one of essential criteria for assessing writing, coherence
and cohesion have been regarded as subjective and hazy concepts which are hard to
learn and teach (Crewe, 1990; Lee, 2002). Findings of some previous studies
revealed that EFL students generally experience some coherence and cohesion
problems in their English writing. For examples, Crewe (1990) identified two
problems with regard to incoherent writing that most Hong Kong college students
had. One was using numerous connectives without discerning the semantic
differences among them, such as using “on the contrary” for “however”. The other
problem concerned overusing connectives. Inexperienced writers tended to use


17
more connecitves to maintain surface logicality, but actually there was no logicality
in their writing. Some other examples can be illustrated here such as the research
by Abel (2000) on students’ problems with cohesion and coherence in EFL essay
writing, the investigation into the use of cohesive devices by students in National

Tsing Hua University (2002) and the study by Bassaem (2010) on cohesion and
coherence in the essay writing of Palestinian college. In relation to coherence
problems in their writing, some problems were revealed such as difficulty in writing
the introduction, the thesis statement, the topic sentence, writing conclusion,
transition of ideas and sequence of ideas. A number of reasons are associated with
students’ coherence problems in English writing. In reference to student teachers’
problems in cohesion, some were reported such as difficulty in using cataphoric and
anaphoric reference, ellipsis, substitution, and genre related cohesive ties. In
addition, overusing certain cohesive ties was also reported by university lecturers.
Results of some related studies revealed that there are a number of factors and
contexts lying behind these different coherence and cohesion problems. At the
psychological level, students faced a number of challenges including lack of
motivation, lack of self-confidence, and writing anxiety. Most EFL students are not
given opportunities to practice their writing at high school and are not motivated to
write English essays for a number of possible reasons.
Although a number of studies have been carried out as regards problems related to
cohesion and coherence in writing as well as illustrated some causes of such issues,
the question of tackling this issue has still remained unanswered. Furthermore, as
far as the researcher knows, no studies on coherence and cohesion problems have
been carried out among Vietnamese students. That’s the reason why the researcher
decided to do this research as a contribution to finding a solution to this problem in
Vietnamese universities context.





18
CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY
2.1. Research question

The aims of this study are to find out the relationship between the participants’
enhancement in their cohesion-coherence competence and the improvement in their
writing skill after receiving explicit instruction enhancing their knowledge of
cohesion and coherence. In order to achieve this aim, answers to the following two
questions must be sought:
 What problems related to cohesion and coherence competence do ISP
students have in writing?
 Is there any relationship between giving L2 learners explicit instruction in
coherence-cohesion and the improvement of their writing proficiency?
2.2. Research approach
Action research, as defined in Cohen and Manion (1994, p.186) is “small-scale
intervention in the functioning of the real world and a close examination of the
effects of such an intervention”. In other words, Hopkins (1985, p.32) and Ebbutt
(1985, p.156) defined it as the combination of action and research in which a person
attempted to understand, improve and reform practice. Carr and Kemmis (1986,
p.162) presented a different point when regarding action research as a form of “self-
reflective inquiry”.
From these definitions, researchers suggested some main features of an action
research as follows:
- Combination of action and research
- Intervention to solve real problems in the real world
- Close and careful examination of the effect of the intervention
- Self-reflection of the participants on their changes, or in other words,
the researcher is also a participant
Some other characteristics of an action research were also stated by Hult and
Lennung (1980) and Mckernan (1991) as:
- Aiming at improving the quality of human actions


19

- Being in an on-going cycle process, i.e. the feedback from data
collected can be used to improve the next steps in the research.
- Being formative, i.e. the researcher may witness the alteration in
definition, aims and methodology
- Contributing to a science of education
- Being collaborative, i.e. the research involves all contribution to
improve the understanding and action
These features were reflected in this study. First, the aim of the study was to
improve the current situation of teaching writing for ISP students (specifically in
terms of coherence and cohesion). Second, the study would contribute to the science
of language education. Third, the study included the researcher’s intervention on
other participants’ writing competence. Forth, the study was formed with several
uncertainties and suspicions, thus, it needed the alteration and improvement from
within the research process. Finally, the answer to the research question needed
answering as participants reflected on their own improvement, interest and emotion
during the research.
In conclusion, action research is a good choice for this study on account of the
suitability in target, design and characteristics of the study.
2.3. Data collection instruments
 1. Test: to seek answers to both research questions. Best and Kakn
(2003) regarded documents among the most significant sources for data
collection (cited in Ghonaim, 2005, p.91). 20 writing samples of ISP students
were collected and analyzed. The samples were collected twice, one before,
one after the teaching phase. The analysis from these samples helps bring
more insightful information; thus increase the reliability of the study
findings.
 2. Questionnaire: to seek answer to the second to the second research
question. A questionnaire survey was conducted to collect students’ opinions
towards the above action research. According to Gillham (2000)

20
questionnaire is a very useful tool to administer a group of people and it
provides permanent, systematic records of feedback from all students.
2.4. Data collection procedure
1. Participant
The target population of this research was students at ISP (International Standard
Program), ULIS, VNU. These students were not majored at English at high school
and they are supposed to spend their first year improving their English proficiency.
They passed the entrance exam to be eligible for the Talent program of VNU with
rather high results. Therefore, it can be said that most ISP students show good
cognitive ability, which helps greatly their process of acquiring English knowledge
at university.
All the participants of the research were chosen from class ISP 9 with 20 members
because the researcher was the main teacher to be in charge of writing skill in this
group. Also the researcher acted as the group’s head teacher and all these students
were active and enthusiastic ones who had strong motivation in improving their
writing skill. Hence, the study was carried out with willingness and great
contribution from all participants.
2. Procedure
Period
Activities
September 10
th

Pre-test in class
The topic “These days internet-based courses have
become a popular alternative to university-based courses.
Some students prefer this type of learning because they do
not need to attend lectures. Others argue that it is

important to study at university. Discuss both these
views”.
A total of 20 essays were then collected, marked and
analyzed.
September 15
th
-
the experimental teaching (see appendix 1&2)