A SURVEY ON THE USE MODEL ESSAYS IN LEARNING ESSAY WRITING OF ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT CTU

CAN THO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

A SURVEY ON THE USE MODEL ESSAYS IN
LEARNING ESSAY WRITING OF ENGLISH
MAJOR STUDENTS AT CTU
B.A. Thesis

Supervisor: Đỗ Xuân Hải, M.A

Student: Nguyễn Thị Phương Thắm
Code: 7062924
Class: English Language Teaching 01
Course: 32

Can Tho, April 2010


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisor, Mr. Do Xuan Hai
for his support during the process of the research. Thanks to his helpful instructions,
my thesis was finished on time.
I wish to give my best regards to Ms. Ngo Thi Trang Thao for her valuable
source of materials and advice during the data collection and analysis process.
I am strongly grateful to Ms. Le Xuan Mai and Ms. Chung Thi Thanh Hang,
who gave me valuable comments to improve my thesis.
I am also indebted to Ms. Bui Minh Chau and Mr. Le Cong Tuan for their
precious advice in choosing the research.
I would like to extend my thanks to 70 students in English Language Teaching
classes for their completion of the research questionnaires.

I wish to give my sincere thanks to all of my friends for their help and
encouragement.
Lastly, a big thank you goes to my family for their care and support during the
research process.

Nguyen Thi Phuong Tham

1


ABSTRACT
Writing academic essay is an essential course in the curriculum dictated by Can
Tho University (CTU). To compose good essays, English major students at CTU
employ many learning strategies including consulting model essays. Despite this fact,
until now, there is no research on the effect of model essays in learning writing at
CTU. For this reason, this descriptive research attempts to explore what aspects of
language English major students at CTU notice when consulting model essays. A
questionnaire including 30 factors that could be noticed in model essays was designed
to collect data from 70 students majoring in English Language Teaching who
experienced two essay writing courses. These factors are relevant to 4 main
categories: lexicon, form, discourse and content. SPSS software was employed to
process collected data. The results revealed that students notice all the factors
mentioned in the questionnaire but the degree of noticing on each category is unequal.
Students notice most the factors in terms of form while lexical factors receive less
attention.

2


TÓM TẮT

Viết luận là một môn học quan trọng trong khung chương trình đào tạo Tiếng
Anh chuyên ngành của Trường Đại học Cần Thơ. Để có thể viết được những bài luận
tốt sinh viên chuyên ngành Tiếng Anh tại Đại học Cần Thơ đã áp dụng nhiều phương
pháp học khác nhau trong đó có việc tham khảo các bài luận mẫu. Mặc dù các bài luận
mẫu được sinh viên sử dụng khá phổ biến, cho đến nay vẫn chưa có một nghiên cứu
nào về hiệu quả của việc sử dụng các bài luận mẫu trong việc học viết luận ở Trường
Đại học Cần Thơ. Vì lí do trên, bài nghiên cứu này được thưc hiện nhằm tìm hiểu xem
những yếu tố ngôn ngữ nào được sinh viên chuyên ngành tại Đại học Cần Thơ chú ý
khi họ tham khảo một bài luận mẫu. Một bản câu hỏi đã được thiết kế bao gồm 30 yếu
tố ngôn ngữ có thể được chú ý trong bài luận mẫu nhằm thu thập số liệu từ 70 sinh
viên chuyên ngành Sư phạm Tiếng Anh, những người đã trải qua hai khóa học viết
luận tại trường Đại học Cần Thơ. Các yếu tố này liên quan tới 4 nhóm chính gồm từ
vựng, ngữ pháp, ngôn từ và nội dung. Phần mềm phân tích số liệu SPSS đã được sử
dụng trong quá trình xử lí số liệu. Kết quả nghiên cứu cho thấy tất cả các yếu tố ngôn
ngữ được đề cập đến trong bản câu hỏi đều được chú ý tuy nhiên mức độ chú ý của
sinh viên đối với từng yếu tố có sự khác biệt. Sinh viên chú ý nhiều hơn ở các yếu tố
ngữ pháp trong khi các yếu tố về từ vựng nhận được ít sự chú ý nhất.

3


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
TÓM TẮT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Essay writing

Definitions of essay
Structure of an essay
Requirements of a successful essay
2. Model essay
Definition of model essay
Studies on using model essays in writing
3. Reading and Writing connection
4. Noticing in SLA
CHAPTER 3: METHOD
1. Research design
2. Participants
3. Instruments
4. Research procedure
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
1. Result for research question 1
2. Result for research question 2
The degree of noticing on four main categories
The degree of noticing on factors in each categories
The degree of noticing on items in terms of lexical
The degree of noticing on items in terms of form
The degree of noticing on items in terms of discourse
The degree of noticing on items in terms of content

4

1
2
3
4
6

7
10
10
10
10
11
12
12
12
14
15
17
17
17
18
18
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
24
25


CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
1. Summary
2. Discussion and implications

3. Limitations and suggestions for further research
4. Conclusion
REFERENCES
APPENDIX

5

27
27
27
28
29
30
33


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Relevant participant characteristics
Table 2: Reliability Statistics
Table 3: The proportion of ticked times in the whole questionnaire.
Table 4: Mean score and SD of 4 main categories
Table 5: Mean and SD of items in lexical category
Table 6: Mean and SD of items in form category
Table 7: Mean and SD of items in discourse category
Table 8: Mean and SD of items in content category

6

18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25


Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Writing academic essays is a skill that English major students must acquire for
their studies at university. At Can Tho University (CTU), for example, English major
students are expected to finish five academic writing courses in the curriculum.
Among these courses, Writing 3 and Writing 4 are two courses relating directly to
essay writing. Specifically, in Writing 3, students are introduced to the structure of an
academic essay in general and how to write argumentative essays and
compare/contrast essays. Writing 4 is a step further, requiring students to write three
types of essays: classification, argumentative and cause/effect. During these courses,
students often consult various learning materials to help them write the required
essays. Among these materials are model essays.
Effects of model essays on learning writing have been a controversial issue. Qi
and Lapkin (as cited in Abe.M., 2008) stated that model essays can be a useful
reference tool for students to improve their essay writing in both meta-language
factors (lexicon, syntax, semantics, discourse) and language-related factors (structure,
organization). The argument was based on the findings about the effect of noticing in
L2 writing in Robinson (1995) and Swain (2005) as well as the findings about the
connection between reading and writing in Trosky and Wood (1982); Tierney, Soter,
O'Flahavan, and McGinley (1989) and Doyle (Eds.). However, many researchers
argue that the process of making meaning in L2 cannot be achieved by referring to
written texts (Murray, 1980) and model essays prevent L2 learners from having

creativity (Goby, 1997). Despite the objections, from a practical point, model essays
are a useful pedagogical tool (Sublett, 1993).
From my personal experience as well as my observation, many English-major
students at Can Tho University have used model essays as a tool of reference during
the process of learning essay writing. Despite this fact, I realize that until now, there
are no research studies into English majors in Can Tho University and the use of
model essays as reference tools to assist essay writing. Apparently, knowing what
students pay attention to in model essays is the first step on the way to find out what
students learn from model essays and what effects of model essays on learning essay
writing. Understanding how model essays affect learners’ studying will help model
essays to be used in the most effective way. For example, teachers could provide
students with model essays that are suitable to each specific types of essay to enrich
their vocabulary, review sentence structures or enhance their critical thinking. Those

7


reasons urged me to investigate on what aspects of language that students notice when
consulting model essays.
With this purpose, I concentrate on answering the following research questions:
 What language factors do students notice when consulting model
essays?
 To which extent do students notice those aspects of language in the
model essays?
To find the answers for the two questions, I designed a questionnaire including
language factors that appear in an essay. The degree of noticing is divided into 5
scales: always, usually, sometimes, rarely and never. By analyzing students’ answers
in the questionnaire, the tendency of their noticing are revealed.
Basing on the findings about noticing in using model essays in Hanaoka (2007)
and Abe (2008), I hypothesize that students pay attention to both meta-language

factors and language-related factors in model essays and they tend to notice lexical
factors more often than the other factors.
The results are expected to give an insight into what students pay attention to in
the model essays and into the frequency of their noticing.
The current study consists of five chapters: introduction, literature review,
method, results and summary and conclusion.
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter presents an overview for this study that includes the reason for
choosing this study, the research questions, the data collection method, the analysis
method, and the summaries of each chapter.
Chapter 2: Literature review
In this chapter, previous studies in using model essay in learning writing, the
role of noticing in SLA and the connection between reading and writing will be
reviewed.
Chapter 3: Method
This chapter displays in general the periods in the process of the research
including the research design, description of participants, instruments and research
procedure.
Chapter 4: Results
This is the chapter in which the results and findings about students’ noticing
when consulting model essay are reported. The frequencies of noticing on many
aspects of language that students notice when consulting the model essay are also
analyzed in this chapter.
Chapter 5: Summary and discussion

8


This chapter summarizes the main findings as well as discusses the similarities
and differences in the findings between this study and previous studies. Some

limitations of the study are also mentioned. Besides limitations, there are unanswered
questions relating to this study need to be considered. Therefore, some suggestions for
further studies are made in this part.

9


Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter gives an overview of essay writing including the definition, structure and
requirement of an essay. It also focuses on presenting previous studies relevant to
using model essays in writing. The relationship between reading and writing as well
as the noticing in second language acquisition (SLA) are also mentioned in this
chapter.
1. Essay writing
1.1. Definitions of essay
An essay is “a group of paragraphs written about a single topic and a central
main idea. It must have at least three paragraphs, but a five-paragraph essay is a
common assignment for academic writing.”(Zemach & Rumisek, 1990, p.4). Huxley
(1989) notes that "Like the novel, the essay is a literary device for saying almost
everything about almost anything, usually on a certain topic. By tradition, almost by
definition, the essay is a short piece, and it is therefore impossible to give all things
full play within the limits of a single essay" (p.32). The term essay is used broadly for
many different kinds of papers which discusses, explains, analyzes, interprets or
evaluates a topic in an organized and coherent manner (Huxley, 1989). Since this
study tends to do research on academic essay at university, the term “essay” in this
study refers to which is defined by Zemach & Rumisek (1990).
1.2. Structure of an essay
In general, an essay includes three parts: the introduction, the body paragraphs
and the conclusion.
The introduction is the opening of the essay. It raises the topic and narrows

down to the specifics of the problem that will be discussed in the paper. The
introduction often provides background information about the broad topic, identifies
the relevant problems or issues, and takes the reader step by step to an understanding
of why the specific focus of this paper is relevant to that subject. To create interest in
the readers so that they will want to read on, the introduction often begins with a
hook- an interesting statement that can engage readers' attention. The introduction also
includes a thesis, which contains the statement of the essay’s topic and the writer’s
assertion about that topic.
The supporting details of the essay are included in the body paragraphs. An
essay may have only one body paragraph (three-paragraph essay) or three body
paragraphs (five-paragraph essay). However, in terms of college writing, five-

10


paragraph essay is encouraged by professors. They provide information and
arguments that follow logically from the issue expressed in the introduction and
support it consistently throughout the paper. Each paragraph has a topic sentence that
clearly states the content of the paragraph. The concluding sentence may be a
restatement of the idea mentioned in the paragraph or a suggestion for the content of
the next paragraph.
The conclusion restates the thesis of the introduction in different words. The
conclusion can summarize main ideas mentioned in the body paragraphs. An essay
can have a close conclusion or an open conclusion. The close conclusion finishes all
the issues mentioned in the essay while the open conclusion tends to lead the readers
to another issue which will be presented in another essay. The issue must logically
follow the information provided to the reader in the paper.
1.3.

Requirements of a successful essay

Each type of essay has its own characteristics; therefore, it has different
requirements. However, generally, there are some standards for a successful essay.
Rimes (1994) exposed what writers have to deal with as they produce a piece of
writing in a diagram.
Diagram on what writers have to deal as they produce writing
CONTENT
Relevance
Clarity
Originality
Logic
………

SYNTAX
Sentence structure
Sentence boundaries
Stylistic choices
………..
GRAMMAR
Rules of verbs
Agreement
Article
Pronouns
……….
Clear, fluent,
effective
communication
of ideas

MECHANICS
Handwriting

Spelling
Punctuation
……….

AUDIENCE
The readers
PURPOSE
The reason for writing
WORD CHOICE
Vocabulary
Idiom
Tone

ORGANIZATION
Paragraphs
Topic & support
Cohesion & unity
11

THE WRITER’S PROCESS
Getting ideas
Getting started
Writing drafts
Revising


According to Rimes (1994), three basic requirements of an essay are clarity,
fluency and effective communication of ideas. In order to come up these
requirements, writers have to deal with eight main factors including content, syntax,
grammar, mechanic, organization, word choice, purpose, audience and the writing

process.
Strauch(1996) also proposes three essential standards toward a successful piece
of writing. The first standard required is a clear and convincing content. The essay
needs a main idea, convincing supporting details and an appropriate tone. Another
standard is a clear organization. An essay has to open with the introduction which
contains the main idea, then paragraphs with supporting ideas and close with the
conclusion. The last standard mentioned is standard grammar. This is the goal for
excellent writer. Developing writers, however, need to put the emphasis on progress,
not perfection.
Hedge (1988) introduces three standards to base on when grading an essay.
Specifically, grading criteria consists of: organization of content (clarity, coherence,
paragraph development), range (grammatical structures, vocabulary), complexity of
sentence structure, accuracy of grammar (tenses, agreement,...), accuracy of spelling
and punctuation and fluency (feel for the language, appropriateness, use of idioms,...).
2. Model essays
2.1. Definition of model essays
Very often, model essays and sample essays are considered to be the same by
English learners. In the research on using model essay as a feedback tool in IELTS
test, Abe (2008) clearly distinguishes between model essay and sample essay.
According to him, a model essay is a model text written by a native or a writer of
native- like proficiency while a sample essay means a text composed by a non-native
writer. The term “model essay” in this study refers to the notion which is defined by
Abe.
2.2.

Studies on using model essay in writing
Qi and Lapkin (2001) suggested that “positive modeling of native-like writing
may be more helpful to the learner than error correction” (p.89). Thus, model essays,
can be found in almost academic writing textbooks as a guidance that enables learners
to pay attention to many aspects of the target language.

Knudson (1991) conducted a study on using model essay to improve writing
skill. Teachers presented students with two excellent persuasive essays. One
convinced the readers that UFOs exist, the other claims that there was no such thing as
a UFO. Students were encouraged to analyze these models and discuss with the
teacher. Students were asked to emulate the critical elements, patterns, and forms
12


embodied in the models in their own writing. The following day, students received the
essay persuade that there was no existence of the UFO. Then they were required to
write an argumentative essay on a new topic. The effect of this writing instruction was
positive, though small (effect size=0.25). Not all techniques are effective with all
students, sometimes it requires a sufficient investment of time to reveal its potential
(Graham & Harris, 2005). If the students have enough content knowledge, model
essay is really a useful tool (Smagorinsky, 1992).
The question about what aspects of language L2 writers notice was posed by
Swain and Lapkin (1995). Their empirical study investigated the role of output in L2
writing context, examining whether the learners’ output could allow them to become
aware of language problems they encounter in composing. The participants, Frenchimmersion students in Canada, were asked to speak (think aloud) whatever was on
their mind in L2 composition. During analysis of think-aloud protocols, the units
called, language-related episodes (LREs) were identified and categorized into several
groups according to the type of language problems. The results revealed that the
participants noticed language problems, which promoted them to modify their output.
Based on the results, they concluded that “noticing may occur because of either
internal or external feedback which may prompt, for example, the generation of
alternatives and assessment of them through simple inspection through to complex
thinking” (p.386).
In exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task,
Qi and Lapkin (2001) conducted a research with two Mandarin background adult
English-as-a-second language (ESL) learners. By conducting a pretest and a posttest,

Qi and Lapkin tried to access whether or not the participant successfully improved
their writing skill by using model essays. The finding indicated that using model
essays relates directly to L2 writing improvement thanks to the promotion of noticing.
Based on Qi and Lapkin’s (2001) study, Hanaoka (2007) found out the role of
model texts in promoting noticing in a four-stage study consisting of output,
comparison, and two revision stages. 37 Japanese participants were asked to write on
whatever they noticed as they compared their original text with the models. Data was
coded into four categories: lexical, grammar, content and other. The result of this
study reveals that the participants noticed the lexical aspects far more frequently than
the other three categories. In addition, the participants noticed their respective
linguistic problems and autonomously found solutions in the models.
Partly replicating the methodology in Qi and Lapkin’s (2001) research, Abe
(2008) conducted a study in exploring the role of model essay as feedback tool in
IELTS writing test. The research was conducted with two groups of English learners:
university students and EAP students. The participants were required to do two
writing tasks: writing an argumentative essay and a descriptive report. Then they
13


compared their own essays with the model essays. The participants’ think-aloud
protocols were recorded. Data was categorized into: lexical, form, content, discourse
and other. By analyzing participants’ verbal comments, Abe (2008) found that there
was a substantial difference in the quality and quantity of learners’ noticing according
to their proficiency and the type of tasks undertaken.
In conclusion, these studies exposed that model essays relate to the
improvement of writing skill through the noticing on aspects of language appearing in
the model essays. Swain and Lapkin (1995) explored that English learners noticed
language problems through model essays, which helped them to modify their output.
The role of noticing in the improvement of writing skill was stated in Qi and Lapkin
(2001). The finding that lexical factors are noticed more often than other factors of the

model essays was explored by Hanaoka (2007). Following Hanaoka’s (2007) research,
Abe’s (2008) study on using model essays as feedback tool in IELTS writing test
revealed that the noticing among language factors were less unequal than in Hanaoka
(2007). Abe (2008) also found that there was a difference in the quality and quantity
of learners’ noticing depending on their proficiency and the type of tasks undertaken.
3. Reading and Writing connection
Reading has long been considered as an effective and supportive skill for
writing. “The more our students read, the more they become familiar with the
vocabulary, idiom, sentence patterns, organizational flow, and cultural assumptions
of native speakers of the language” (Raimes,1994,p.34). Some L2 writing researchers
argue that L2 learners should be encouraged to use a model essay for improving their
writing skills in terms of the relationship between reading and writing. For many
years, reading and writing researchers (Trosky & Wood, 1982; Tierney, Soter,
O'Flahavan, & McGinley, 1989; McGinley, 1992) have acknowledged the importance
of the connection between the reading and writing processes. Reading and writing are
usually described as parallel processes (Trosky & Wood, 1982; Tierney & Pearson,
1983) where the activities of readers are congruent to or mirror images of the activities
of writers.
Ferris and Hedgcock (1998) argue that L2 writers have to be exposed to
various types of reading material since it is difficult to acquire L2 writing skills by
only writing. Eschholz (1980) points out that what L2 learners write depend on what
they read and they can improve their L2 writing skills by reading. He also argues that
given the opportunities to learn rhetorical modes, L2 learners can eventually apply
their knowledge about those modes to their writing. Based on Cumming’s (1995)
empirical study, which demonstrates the significance of rhetorical aspects of texts in
model essays, Smagorinsky (1992) discusses that model essays are the most helpful
tool if L2 writers have a sufficient amount of content knowledge. Thus, some
14

researchers emphasize the necessity of a model text illustrated in an academic writing
textbook, which enables L2 writers to pay attention to the various aspects of target
language (Hyland, 2003).
However, there are also several objections to using model essays in an L2
writing context. Murray (1980) points out that the process of making meaning in L2
cannot be achieved by referring to written texts. In addition, Goby (1997) asserted that
model essays prevent L2 learners from having creativity, which she believes is one of
the important aspects of L2 writing skills. Writing instruction with model essays has
also been criticized by other researchers (Collins & Gentner, 1980; Judy, 1980) for
laying emphasis not on content but on form. They insist that language form and the
content of composition are inseparable. Even among researchers who claim that model
essays can be beneficial pedagogical tools, there has been agreement that reading
model essays is important but not totally sufficient (Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998; Hyland,
2003). However, there has been little empirical research to explore the role of model
essays in L2 writing pedagogy.
4. Noticing in SLA
Kees de Bot, , Wander Lowie and Marjolijin Verspoor (2005) in their study on
second language acquisition (SLA) found that in producing the L2, a learner will on
occasion become aware of a linguistic problem (brought to his/her attention either by
external feedback- e.g. clarification requests- or internal feedback). That leads to the
conclusion that “Noticing is a problem “pushes” the learner to modify his or her
output”.(Kees de Bot, Lowie & Verspoor,2005, p.182)
In the recent SLA research, the role of attention and awareness which have
been considered as key issues in L2 learning (e.g., Ellis, 1993; Robinson, 1995;
Schmidt, 1990, 1995, 2001; Schmidt & Frota, 1986; Swain, 1985, 1995; Swain &
Lapkin, 1995) are much emphasized. In his research, Schmidt (1990) claims that
noticing plays an essential role in SLA and that L2 learners must become “aware” of
certain aspects of language, mainly the meaning. Based on the assumption that
awareness is significant for language learning, Schmidt emphasizes that awareness at
the low level (noticing) is necessary and sufficient for SLA. Schmidt (1990) also

states that learners need to notice all aspects of language equally, such as lexicon,
grammatical form, sound, and pragmatic features. Some other researchers also claim
that awareness is necessary for language learning. For instance, Robinson (1995)
defines noticing as “detection plus rehearsal in short-term memory, prior to encoding
in long-term memory” (p.296).
Schmidt (2001) extends the discussions about the role of noticing. Based on the
assumption that noticing and understanding are different in the level of awareness and
on the psychological view that attention is of limited capacity, he states that “limited
15


attention resources are directed first at those elements that carry message meaning,
primarily lexicon, and only later, when the cost comes down, towards
communicatively redundant formal features of language” (p.13). Finally, Schmidt
emphasizes that what aspects of language an L2 learner notices in the input depends
on the individual differences.
Even though there is general agreement on the importance of awareness and
noticing, some disagreements also exist in the other SLA studies. Tomlin and Villa
(1994) disagree with Schmidt’s conclusion about the important role of noticing in
SLA and point out the necessity of finer discussion about the concept of attention.
Dividing the function of attention into alertness, orientation, and detection, they claim
that detection, “the cognitive registration of sensory stimuli” (p. 192), which does not
require conscious awareness, is vital for language learning. Robinson (1995) viewed
noticing as “what is both detected and then further activated following the allocation
of attentional resources” (p. 297), although he agrees with Schmidt in that awareness
is necessary for SLA.
Although there are a number of views on noticing, little is known about what
aspects of language are noticed in L2 essay writing. Supported by the studies of
Hanaoka (2007) and Abe (2008), the current study also tend to explore what aspects
of language students notice during the process of learning essay writing.

16


Chapter 3: METHOD
This chapter gives information on research design and the research process.
Firstly, the research design is introduced. Following the research design, the
participants and instruments’ characteristics are described. The research
procedure including two stages of data collection process and data analysis
process are presented after the instruments’ description. A research schedule is
also included in this chapter.
1. Research design:
This study is designed as a descriptive one. It tends to find out which
language factors in model essays are noticed by students. The degrees of noticing
on the factors are displayed through the statistic which is collected from a large
group of students who experienced two essay writing courses at CTU. The
collected data were analyzed with the use of SPSS software.
2. Participants:
The participants in this study were 70 students (9 males and 61 females)
majoring in English Language Teaching. Because of the fact that few male
students at CTU choose English as their major, the majority of participants in this
study are females. As there is a slightly different in the learning program of
Writing 4 between two major English Language Teaching and Bachelor of
Language, I focus on finding participants in one major English Language
Teaching. To assure that the participants have sufficient knowledge in essay
writing to finish the questionnaires, I choose students who have experienced at
least two courses in essay writing (Writing 3 and Writing 4) dictated by the
curriculum of English Language Teaching major at CTU. Among them, there are
40 second-year students (7 males and 33 females) who are currently taking Writing
4 class in this semester and 30 third-year students (2 males and 28 females) who

have just finished their essay writing classes last semester.
Table 1 will summarize characteristics of participants in my study.

17


Table 1 : Relevant participant characteristics
Year
Second year Third year
7
2
33
28
19.86
19 - 21

Characteristics
Gender
Age

Male
Female
Mean
Range

9
61

%
12.86

87.14

3. Instruments:
Borrowing aspects of language in a piece of essay writing mentioned in Qi
and Lapkin (2001), Hanaoka (2007) and Abe (2008), I designed a questionnaire to
answer two questions:” What language factors do you notice when reading a
model essay?” and “To which extent do you notice those factors?”. The
questionnaire tends to reveal the aspects of language that are noticed by students
and the degrees of noticing on each factor. To make sure that participants
understand clearly what a model essay is, I provided the definition of model essay
by Abe (2008) in the questionnaire. I listed 30 factors that students can notice in a
model essay within 5 degrees of frequency: always, usually, sometimes, rarely and
never. In order to help participants to get the point easily, I categorized these
factors into 6 groups: vocabulary, form, structure and organization, coherence,
unity and content. In addition, I provided examples for some cases such as
idiomatic expression, topical words, and transition words and so on. Participants
will tick to the cells which indicate the factors they notice and the degree of
frequency of the factors. If students notice in other aspects of language, they can
fill it out in the questionnaire.
4. Research procedure:
After having consulted Qi and Lapkin (2001), Hanaoka’s (2007) and Abe’s
(2008) studies on aspects of language in a piece of essay writing, I designed a
questionnaire in which 30 language factors are included within 5 degrees of
frequency: always, usually, sometimes, rarely and never. The questionnaire and
interview questions were sent to two experienced lecturers at CTU, one is my
supervisor Mr. Do Xuan Hai , and the other is Ms. Ngo Thi Trang Thao, leader of
the discipline of Research Methodology of the English Department. After being
improved according to their comments and advice, 11 sheets of questionnaire were
delivered to 11 third-year participants to pilot. SPSS software was employed to
check the reliability of the questionnaires. The Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.927 that

18


ensures the reliability of this questionnaire. The next 70 sheets of questionnaire
which were delivered to participants got Cronbach’s Alpha 0.885. Therefore, the
questionnaire is considered to be reliable. The reliability statistics are displayed in
Table 2 below.
Table 2:
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Pilot
Main

0.927
0.885

N

N of Items

15

30

70

30

For data collection process, thanks to the helpful participation, 70 sheets of
questionnaire were delivered and collected in one week. 40 questionnaires were
delivered to 40 students at Writing 4 class. The left 30 questionnaires are delivered
to small groups of students.
For data analysis process, collected questionnaires were numbered. The data
from questionnaires were transformed into computer and processed by SPSS
software. Through digits, I initially analyzed the degree of noticing in general and
then the degree of noticing on 4 main categories: lexicon, form, discourse and
content. Items 1 to 5 belong to lexical. Items 6 to 13 belong to form. Discourse
contains items 14 to 24. Content comprises items 25 to 30 (Appendix). The degree
of noticing in each item was also analyzed. The unequal range of noticing was
clarified by charts and tables.
After the collected data were analyzed, the findings are reported and subject
to discussions.

19


Chapter 4: RESULTS
The main part displayed in this chapter is the results for two research questions
from analyzing data. For research question 1, the result is displayed in factors that
are chosen in the questionnaires by participants. For research question 2, the
result is the degree of noticing in the questionnaire. The degree of noticing in
general is presented basing on the total mean score (M) and standard deviation
(SD) of the whole questionnaire. The degrees of noticing on 4 main categories are
compared basing on the mean scores of each category.
This chapter reveals the results for the two research questions:
(1) What language factors do students notice when consulting model
essays?
(2) To what extent do students notice those aspects of language in the

model essays?
1. Result for research question 1:
The first research question aimed to investigate which aspects of language
the participants noticed. In order to explore what they were paying attention to, the
scales ticked in 30 factors included in the questionnaire are counted. Those factors
are adapted from Hanaoka’s (2007) and Abe’s (2008) studies. The 30 factors are
divided into four mains categories: lexicon (word choice, idiomatic expressions,
topical words and lexical diversity), form (tenses, subject and verb agreement,
sentence structures, structural diversity, article, preposition, punctuation and
spelling), discourse (structure, organization, coherence and unity) and content.
Factors that are ticked on the scale “never” is considered to be “not noticed” while
on the other scales: “always, usually, sometimes and rarely” it is considered to be
“noticed”. Table 2 below will display the proportion of ticked times on each scale
in the whole questionnaire.
Table 3: The proportion of ticked times in the whole questionnaire.
Scales
Times
%

Always
563
26.8

Usually
877
41.76

Sometimes
476
22.67

Rarely
170
8.1

Never
14
0.67

As can be seen in Table 2, the proportion of ticked times on “never”
(0.67%) is very small in comparing with other scales. This revealed that among
2100 ticked times synthesized from 70 sheets of questionnaire; there are only 14
20


times that the scale “never” was ticked, indicating that the participants notice
almost all factors mentioned in the questionnaire.
As I mentioned in the chapter 3, if participants notice in other language
factors which are not provided in the questionnaire, they can write them down in
the questionnaire. After having synthesized all the sheets of questionnaire, it was
found that no one mentioned other factors in their sheet of questionnaire. This
result shows that there are no factors on which participants notice except for 30
factors mentioned in the questionnaire. The result is similar to my hypothesis that
students notice on all the factors comprised in the questionnaire.
The digits in table 2 also display that the scale “usually” gets the largest
proportion of ticked times (41.76%). It reveals that the degree of attention that
participants give to the factors in general is “usually”. The result for research
question 2 will help to learn more clearly about the degree of noticing that
participants pay to these factors.
2. Result for research question 2:

The second research question attempts to find out the degree of noticing
that participants give to language factors comprised in the questionnaire. Two
main findings are expected to find out in this part including: the degree of noticing
on four main categories of the model essays: lexicon, form, discourse and content
and the degree of noticing on factors in each category.
The degree of noticing on four main categories
Table 3 will provide the total mean score and SD of the whole the
questionnaire as well as of 4 main categories: lexicon, form, discourse and content.
Table 4: Mean score and SD of 4 main categories
Descriptive Statistics
N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Total

70

3.86

.426

Lexicon

70

3.72

.560

Form

70

3.96

.551

Discourse

70

3.88

.550

Content

70

3.82

.616

As can be seen from Table 3, the total mean score is M=3.86 (SD=0.426).
The digits show that in general, participants usually notice in the language factors
comprised in the questionnaire.

21


The mean scores of four categories are above average (M > 3). That means
the degree of the noticing in these cases is “usually”. However, the mean scores
and SD of these 4 categories are slightly unequal. The mean score of form is the
highest (M=3.96, SD=0.551) which reveals that participants notice on the form
more frequently than in the other categories. Lexicon gets the lowest mean score
(M=3.72, SD=0.560). This can be inferred that participants pay less attention to
lexical factors in model essays. Therefore, my hypothesis that lexicon may receive
more attention than other categories is not correct in this case.
The degree of noticing on items of each category will be analyzed in the
next part.
The degree of noticing on factors in each category
After the noticing on 4 main categories are analyzed, this part is expected to
reveal the degree of noticing on items of each specific category.
2.2.1. The degree of noticing on items in terms of lexicon
This category contains items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 which tend to reveal factors related
to lexicon that participants give attention to.
 Item 1: I notice the way that the author selects words to put
appropriately in different situations.
 Item 2: I give attention to idiomatic expressions that were used in the
writing.
 Item 3: I notice topical words of the essay in order to let them be used in
my writing accurately.
 Item 4: I pick out topical words to enrich my vocabulary source.
 Item 5: I pay attention to the lexical diversity.
Table 4 below will display the mean score and SD of lexical items.
Table 5: Mean and SD of items in lexical category
Descriptive Statistics

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

item 1

70

3.77

.981

item 2

70

3.36

1.036

item 3

70

3.61

.873

item 4

70

3.79

.759

item 5

70

4.07

.804

From Table 4, it is obvious that lexical diversity receives more notice from
the participants than other factors (Item 5: M=4.07, SD= 0.804), followed by item 4,
22


1 and 3. Item 2 which presents the notice in idiomatic expressions has the lowest
mean score (M=3.36, SD=1.036). Those digits show that in terms of lexicon,
participants pay attention to lexical diversity more often than topical words and
word choice. Idiomatic expressions get least attention from these participants.
2.2.3. The degree of noticing on items in terms of form
What students notice in terms of form in model essays is mentioned from
item 6 to item 13 in the questionnaire.
 Item 6: I notice the tenses used in the essay
 Item 7: I pay attention to the subject and verb agreement.

 Item 8: I give attention to sentence structures.
 Item 9: I pay attention to the structural diversity
 Item 10: I notice the use of the articles.
 Item 11: I take notice of the use of prepositions.
 Item 12: I give attention to the punctuation.
 Item 13: I notice the spelling of words.
Mean and SD of items in the form categories will be showed in Table 5.
Table 6: Mean and SD of items in form category
Descriptive Statistics
N

Mean

Std. Deviation

item 6

70

4.33

.775

item 7

70

4.36

.933

item 8

70

4.26

.829

item 9

70

4.01

.825

item 10

70

3.57

.926

item 11

70

3.63

1.024

item 12

70

3.54

.973

item 13

70

3.94

1.034

As can be seen in Table 5, the range of mean scores in this case is from 3.54
to 4.36. In other words, there is the unequal noticing among factors in this
category. The subject and verb agreement receives the highest noticing (Item 7:
M=4.36, SD=0.933) while the punctuation and articles receive the lowest attention
(Item 12: M=3.54, SD=0.973; Item 10: M=3.57, SD=0.926). Other factors such as
tenses, sentence structures and structural diversity also get much attention from the
participants.

23

The degree of noticing on items in terms of discourse
Relevant factors in discourse category are included from item 14 to item 24
in the questionnaire that mostly mention the structure, organization, coherence and
unity of the model essays.
 Item 14: I notice if the essay structure is clear enough.(An essay has 3 parts:
introduction, body and conclusion.)
 Item 15: I notice if the paragraphs are organized in appropriate order.
 Item 16: I notice the order of the paragraphs to determine whether or not
that order can be changed.
 Item 17: I find connection words that the author uses to link ideas between
paragraphs.
 Item 18: I find sentence connectors that the author uses to link sentences in
each paragraph.
 Item 19: I notice transition words used to indicate the order of a sequence of
events.
 Item 20: I notice transition words used to connect one idea to a fact or
illustration.
 Item 21: I notice transition words used to indicate an effect or result.
 Item 22: I notice if all paragraphs support only one topic.
 Item 23: I notice how each body paragraph is related to the thesis.
 Item 24: I notice if there are any sentence in the paragraphs that are not
related to the main topic (off-topic).
The Table 6 below will display the mean score and SD of the items above.
Table 7: Mean and SD of items in discourse category
Descriptive Statistics
N

Mean

Std. Deviation

item 14

70

4.26

.829

item 15

70

3.49

.864

item 16

70

3.36

.948

item 17

70

4.24

.788

item 18

70

4.26

.846

item 19

70

4.03

.742

item 20

70

3.89

.925

item 21

70

4.03

.816

item 22

70

3.67

1.032

item 23

70

3.99

.752

item 24

70

3.43

.972

24