Nghiên cứu ứng dụng phương pháp diễn ngôn trong giảng dạy môn Viết học thuật tại Đại học Ngân hàng Tp. Hồ Chí Minh

v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY

NGHIÊN CỨU ỨNG DỤNG PHƯƠNG PHÁP DIỄN NGÔN
TRONG GIẢNG DẠY MÔN VIẾT HỌC THUẬT
TẠI ĐẠI HỌC NGÂN HÀNG TP. HỒ CHÍ MINH
NGUYỄN QUANG NHẬT*
NGUYỄN NGỌC PHƯƠNG DUNG**
*
Đại học Ngân hàng TP. Hồ Chí Minh, 
Đại học Ngân hàng TP. Hồ Chí Minh, 
Ngày nhận bài: 02/3/2018; ngày sửa chữa: 11/4/2018; ngày duyệt đăng: 20/6/2018
*

TÓM TẮT
Các phương pháp truyền thống hiện nay vẫn chiếm ưu thế trong nhiều lớp dạy viết tại các cơ sở
đào tạo đại học tại Việt Nam (Nguyen Thi Mai & Hall, 2016). Do đó, nhóm tác giả đã áp dụng
phương pháp diễn ngôn trong giảng dạy môn viết tiếng Anh học thuật để tìm hiểu xem liệu
phương pháp này có thể mang lại kết quả tốt hơn trong việc cải thiện thành tích cũng như thái độ
học tập của sinh viên hay không. 30 sinh viên chuyên ngành tiếng Anh tại Đại học Ngân hàng TP.
Hồ Chí Minh đã tham gia nghiên cứu trong học kỳ 2 năm học 2017. Thông qua bảng câu hỏi và
so sánh điểm thi cuối khóa, các kết quả cho thấy rằng, phương pháp này khá hữu ích trong việc
cải thiện thành tích cũng như thái độ của sinh viên trong việc học viết tiếng Anh học thuật.
Từ khóa: môn viết tiếng Anh học thuật, phương pháp diễn ngôn, thành tích và thái độ.

1. INTRODUCTION
Helping students to develop their writing skills
for academic success is among the most critical
challenges for many instructors, especially when
the students enroll in Academic writing courses
and English-majored programs which require a
thorough mastery of both discourse and linguistic

elements (Zaki & Md Yunus, 2015). Unfortunately,
quite a few writing instructors still stick closely
to traditional methods, i.e. providing grammatical
structures and vocabulary, which not only hinders
students’ performance but also de-motivates
them (The “BlackBox” Survey of the Proficiency

26

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 14 - 7/2018

Output Standards of BUH’s English-majored
Graduates from the Perspectives of Employees,
2015). Therefore, with a view to changing the
current situation, this study drew on a model of
using discourse approach in an academic writing
class to evaluate its effectiveness on learners’
performance and to shed light on whether this
method could bring any positive attitudes into the
writing classroom.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Studies have indicated that aspects of
discourse approach promote students’ writing in


PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v

certain ways. In an experimental study with firstyear management students in Brunei, Henry and

Roseberry (1998) found that the students who
received explicit analysis of authentic model
texts had a higher “textual scores” in a post-test
than those with no such instructions. Another
study by Hanauer (1998) in Israel showed that
freshman students familiarized with authentic
model writing could organize their own ideas
better than the control group. More than that, other
aspects of discourse such as audience awareness
and joint negotiation were also reported to have a
positive effect on students’ writing. Zainuddin and
Moore (2003) also suggested that better audience
awareness resulted in improved writing quality
after they had investigated four bilingual writers
doing persuasive writings in Malay and in English.
In another study, Al-Ahmad (2003) investigated
the effects of joint construction on college students.
His findings revealed that collaboration in groups
to explore, analyze, and negotiate meaning led to a
significant improvement in writing skills.
Despite these merits, discourse approach has
not been applied in many EFL contexts. Instead,
the traditional view relying on the belief that a
writing text could be “decoded together with the
lexical and grammatical structures on the page”
(Kramsch, 2001, p. 28) is still in dominance. More
importantly, little is known about how discourse
influences students’ attitudes and their approach
to a writing task. Hence, the present study was
undertaken with the objective of evaluating the

effectiveness of discourse approach in an academic
writing class at a Vietnamese university, thus it
could address these aforementioned gaps.
3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
As this study was conducted to improve the
quality of in-class instructions and students’
writing ability, this project aimed to answer two
following questions:
1. To what extent is the effectiveness of
discourse approach on students’ final exam results?

2. What are learners’ perceptions towards the
effectiveness of discourse approach?
Hypothesis
One objective of this study was to examine
the effectiveness of discourse approach on
learners’ performance in an academic writing
course; in other words, the study was conducted to
investigate if this method could help the students
achieve higher scores in the final exam than the
traditional class. Hence, one theme gives shape to
the hypothesis as presented below.
Hypothesis: Is there a significant difference
between the performance of the experimental class
(subjected to discourse approach) and that of the
control class (subjected to traditional instructions)
in an academic writing course as measured through
the final exam scores?
The null hypothesis: There is no significant
difference between experimental and control

groups’ achievement scores as measured through
the final exam scores.
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1. Participants
30 first-year students enrolling in a 9-week
academic writing course at Banking University of
Ho Chi Minh City participated in the study. These
students were at intermediate level. The class met
once a week for five academic periods. Discourse
approach was implemented during the course and
students’ opinions were gathered in week 9 to get
their perceptions towards the new approach as well
as to measure their satisfaction with their progress.
The procedure of discourse approach applied
in this study followed the framework suggested
by Massi (2001) and Wennerstrom (2003). It
consisted of four steps: the use of authentic
materials, text deconstruction, joint negotiation,
and individual construction. First, with authentic
materials taken from books and the Internet,
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 14 - 7/2018

27


v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY
learners were involved in a critical analysis of the
way in which the texts were organized, and how

the organization was signaled (coherence and
cohesion). They also examined specific structures
and lexical items that occurred in a particular
discourse environment. In the joint negotiation
step, the students collaborated to brainstorm and
outline their ideas from the critical analysis of the
texts. Finally, they constructed their own texts
individually.
4.2. Data collection and management
Two methods were used to collect data and to
ensure the reliability of the results.
First, an analysis of students’ final exam results
was conducted between the experimental class and
a traditional class which was taught by another
teacher who did not use the discourse approach
in her teaching style. This instrument adopted
the quantitative method utilizing a “static-group
comparison non-equivalent control group research
design” since subject randomization is not possible
within this university (Gall et al., 2007). After the
treatment had been implemented for 9 weeks,
an end-of-course writing test was administered
for analysis. The test was taken from the school
test bank (it means the sensitivity, validity and
reliability of the tests have been verified by expert
judgments and they are also structured around the
program’s curricula and contents) and the papers
were marked by third party examiners to ensure
reliability. The test lasted for 60 minutes and all
the test items were the same for each student. The

passing grade is 5.0 or higher.
Second, questionnaires were chosen to
“elicit frank and honest answers” thanks to their
anonymity (Robson, 2002, cited in Lloyd, 2005,
p. 36). The questionnaires (Appendix) were
distributed to 30 students in the experimental class
at the end of the course to get the participants’
perceptions of the new approach as well as to
measure their satisfaction with their progress.

28

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 14 - 7/2018

Likert scales, checklist, closed-ended and
open-ended questions were included to collect
complementary quantitative and qualitative data.
The data were entered into a database using
Microsoft Excel for statistical analysis.
4.3. Data analysis
As regards the test results, after all the final
grades were submitted to the institution with the
signature of the Dean, the scores were sent to
the researcher in the form of a copy version. To
maintain anonymity, the instructor of the traditional
class assigned a random number to each student
rather than using their real names, and provided
the researcher with an Excel spreadsheet document

containing the exam scores via the institutional
email. The quantifiable data of the test results
were analyzed by statistics with F-test ANOVA
to investigate whether a statistically significant
difference exists between the experimental and
control groups with regard to learners’ academic
achievements. Therefore, this can help to shed
light on whether this approach could bring
about any measurable improvements in learner’s
achievements compared to the traditional approach.
In terms of the questionnaire results, the data
were mainly quantified with the help of Microsoft
Excel in order to discover how the collected
answers would mirror positive or negative attitudes
towards the new method. By looking for general
tendencies, they could answer the first question of
whether the students could find any interest as well
as confidence in essay writing.
5. FINDINGS
5.1. Students’ final exam results
On the outset, the paper aims to explore the
statistically significantly differences of the grades
between two following classes: Experimental Class
and Control Class. The grades were collected from
60 students who followed two different teaching


PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v

methodologies. Table 1 gives information about the raw scores of the two classes. In the experimental

class, the highest score was 9.4, and the lowest score was 5.5. Likewise, in the control class, the highest
score was 9.2, and the lowest score was 5. Moreover, the number of students who got more than 8 marks
(Distinction grades in this university) was 12 in the experimental class while there were 9 students in the
control class. Finally, the number of students who got under 6 (Average grade at BUH) in the experimental
class and control class was 2 and 4 respectively.
Table 1: The raw scores of students’ final exam results (n=60)

Student

1

2

3

4

5

Experimental
7.2 7.7 9.4 8.4 7.5
class

6
6

7

8

7.4 7.5

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

9

6.9

9

7.8

7.7

7.2

7.6

Control class

7.5

8

6.5 6.6

7

8.2 6.5 5.6 8.1

6.5

8.8

9

7.2

7.2

5.5

Student

16

17

18

19

20

21

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Experimental
8.5 6.8 7.9 5.9
class

9

8.1 8.7 5.5

8

8.4

6.6

7.5

8.8

9.2

7.5

Control class

7

6.5

8

5.5

8.5

7.8

6.5

6

6.5 7.5

8

5

22

7

9.2 7.2

Table 2 exposes the descriptive analysis of the data including Mean, Min, Max, Std Deviation, Error
and Confidence Interval. The scores of the 30 participants in the experimental group ranged between 5.5
to 9.4 with a mean of 7.7567 and a standard deviation of 0.9936. Likewise, 30 subjects in the control
group gained a range of scores between 5 and 9.2, with with a mean of 7.1467 and a standard deviation
of 1.07823. It can be clearly seen that figures of the Mean, Min, Max, and Confidence Interval of the
experimental class are all higher than those of the control class, indicating that the experimental group
had a better performance on the final exam.
To carry out the inferential statistics, the samples were checked for the underlying assumptions
required for the choosing of an appropriate technique. The assumption of Normality and Levene test of
Homogeneity were met since all p-values are more than 0.05. It means that there were no outliers, the data
followed a normal distribution (the empirical rule), and within-group variance was equivalent across the
Table 2: The grade descriptive analysis from two groups’ results (n=60)

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 14 - 7/2018

29


v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY
Table 3: The Normality and Homogeneity tests results (n=60)

Table 4: The One-way ANOVA test results (n=60)

Figure 1: The mean plot of grade between two classes results (n=60)

30

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 14 - 7/2018


PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v

classes. Table 3 is the results of two assumption tests based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnova and the Levene
Homogeneity of Variances.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to explore the differences between two classes on the grade of 60
students and Table 4 below shows the detailed result of the one-way ANOVA test. The result indicated that
there was a statistical significant difference between two classes, F (1, 58) = 5.192, p/Sig.= 0.026 < .05.
The Mean Plot of Figure 1 below shows that the mean difference between two classes is 0.61. This
effect size is moderate, indicating that more research is needed on this area.
5.2. Students’ attitudes towards the discourse approach

Table 5 gives an overview of the results taken from the questionnaires. It can be seen that the mean
scores clusters in the 3.0-4.0 range, indicating that on the whole the students found the four steps useful
and interesting.
Table 5: BUH student’s overall perception of the discourse approach (n=30)

As regards the use of authentic texts, the mean scores are high (Museful = 3.73; Minteresting = 3.64),
suggesting that students attached great value to this new component. In fact, 22 out of 30 students in
question 3 stated that they preferred these materials to the textbook, indicating that such resources were
real-life and more interesting.
Text deconstruction was also considered useful with the mean score of 3.6. Moreover, the questionnaire
revealed that participants learned many aspects from this second step as can be seen in Figure 2. However,
the mean score for its interest was relatively slow (Minteresting= 3.27) and some students commented that this
step sometimes were too tedious and repetitive.
The third step of joint negotiation was rated as a useful and interesting activity (Museful = 3.63; Minteresting
= 3.7). Question 7 of the questionnaire made it clearer by showing that this step helped them improve their
writing in three main ways: brainstorming ideas more easily (86.7%), organizing ideas more logically
(83.3%), and checking mistakes more effectively (73.3%)
The last step receives the highest rating with regard to both its usefulness (M=3.83) and interesting
level (M= 3.76). It is worth noting that its standard deviations were quite small (S.D.useful= 0.38, S.D.interesting=
0.44), revealing the homogeneity of the answers to this issue.
Another point that should be taken into consideration is the students’ interest in writing. On average,
the students rated their interest before this course as 2.9 with a mode of 3. After the course, their interest
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 14 - 7/2018

31


v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY

Figure 2: Aspects learned from the text deconstruction (n=30)
Table 6: Roles of the joint negotiation (n=30)

Brainstorming ideas more easily:

26/30

86.7%

Organizing ideas more logically:

25/30

83.3%

Checking mistakes more effectively:

22/30

73.3%

Table 7: Students’ assessment of their interest (n=30)

 

Mean (M)

Mode

S.D.

Interest before this class

2.9

3

0.48

Interest after this class

4.13

4

0.51

Table 8: Students’ satisfaction with their progress (n=30)

32

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 14 - 7/2018


PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v

increased significantly to 4.13 with a mode of 4

(Table 3). It is also worth noting that 23 students
wanted to continue this learning style in the
next course. Obviously, the new approach had
exerted an optimistic impact on their interest and
motivation.
As to their satisfaction with their progress, Table
4 indicates that the students were generally confident
with three kinds of essays taught in the course with
the mean scores above 3.5 and the mode of 4. More
than that, they also felt a remarkable improvement
in their writing ability (Mean =3.87, Mode = 4).
6. DISCUSIONS
6.1. BUH students’ performance in the final
exam
As seen in the results, the statistics showed
significant differences between the performance of
the subjects who went under discourse approach in
teaching academic writing and those who received
instructions based on the traditional approach.
Hence, the null hypothesis stating “There is no
significant difference between experimental and
control groups’ achievement scores as measured
through the final exam scores” can be rejected.
This method, to some extent, helped the learners to
raise their sensitivity and consciousness regarding
the logical structures of the text (i.e. the layout,
the use of authentic texts and coherence) as they
could implement these elements in their final
exam to transmit powerful meaning. In short,
this study indicated that discourse approach

with an overt teaching of the logical structures
of the text, the use of authentic materials,
audience awareness, and joint negotiation could
bring about an increase in the performance
of the learners in their academic writing.
However, the mean difference of the two
groups is moderate (0.61), indicating that more
research should be conducted in this area. One
possible explanation is that the new method was

implemented within only 9 weeks. Within such a
short time, it is unlikely that any significant changes
could be achieved sinceVietnamese learners have
relied heavily on the bottom-up stance, attaching
great importance to grammar and vocabulary
for a long time (Dang, 2010). Moreover, though
the control class was structured according to a
traditional format, it could not prevent the teacher
in that class from making the lectures as interactive
as possible with contemporary education methods
such as collaborative activities, presentation, and
discussions. Since these activities were aligned
with the learning objectives that are identical to
those in the experimental group and to some extent
involved active learning methods, a moderate
result between these two classes are quite logical.
6.2. BUH students’ attitudes towards the
discourse approach
In general, the study revealed the students’
positive attitudes towards the new method.

Particularly, a majority of students haboured an
increased interest and encouraging confidence
in essay writing, implying that this approach
was more preferable than the traditional ones.
There are two explanations for this result. First,
discourse approach created a more learnercentered atmosphere in which the students were
exposed to a wide diversity of resources necessary
for them to engage critically with the texts and get
more involved in the learning process (e.g. text
deconstruction and joint negotiation). Second, in
this study, the teacher’s role was facilitating and
non-directive, and the students took on the role of
explorers. Therefore, their interest and motivation
were enhanced.
An important point emerging from this
project is that text deconstruction may need some
modifications as some participants did not think
this step was interesting enough. Some students
explained that such model texts written by experts
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 14 - 7/2018

33


v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY
were perfect; therefore, it was monotonous to
analyze them. One solution may be giving students
the writings of past students to analyze. Besides

those written by experts, the students can explore
the strengths and weaknesses of those written by
fellow students. Text analysis, thus, may become
more relevant and interesting.
7.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS

AND

In conclusion, the present study has offered
an insight into the students’ attitudes towards the
new method and its effectiveness. Although the
results did not reveal a significant change in the
students’ performance compared to the controlled
class, they still indicated a positive impact on
students’ writing ability, interest and confidence.
Those responses are quite consistent with other
discourse studies in methodology (e.g. Kaplan &
Grabe, 2002; Hyland, 2004; Belcher & Liu, 2004).
In the light of what the study has revealed,
several implications for future research arise. It
is worth stating that the external validity of the
project is relatively slow due to its small sample
size and short time frame. Thus, an understanding
of discourse approach could be beneficial more
from longitudinal research with larger scale of
participants. Besides, more qualitative methods
such as interviews and observations should be
conducted to explore the actual in-class procedures

as well as to reveal how this method could reorientate the learners’ writing habits, which is
the main aim of the writing class. As a result, the
students may adopt a more versatile approach to
essay writing and they can have a greater control
over their own learning process./.
References:
Al-Ahmad, S. (2003). The Impact of Collaborative
Learning on L2 College Students’Apprehension
and Attitudes towards Writing. Dissertation
Abstracts International 64(5), pp. 1621-1622.

34

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 14 - 7/2018

Belcher, D. & Liu, J. (2004). Conceptualizing
Discourse/ Responding to Text. Journal of
Second Language Writing 13, pp. 3-6.
Dang, T. T. (2010). Learner Autonomy in EFL
Studies in Vietnam: A Discussion from
Sociocultural Perspective. English Language
Teaching, 3(2), pp. 3–9. Retrieved on 21
February, 2018 from com/pqcentral/w/838890027/32D8AEC89C8
C4C4FPQ/1?accountid=62831>.
Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W. R. (2007).
Educational Research: An Introduction (8th
ed.). Berkshire: Allyn and Bacon.

Hanauer, D. (1988). The Effect of Three Literary
Educational Methods on the Development
of Genre Knowledge. Journal of Literary
Semantics 27, pp. 43-57.
Henry, A. & Roseberry, R. L. (1998). An Evaluation
of a Genre-based Approach to the Teaching of
EAP/ESP Writing. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1),
pp. 147-156.
Hyland, L. (2004). Disciplinary Interactions:
Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing 12, pp.
17-29.
Kaplan, R.B. & Grabe, W. (2002). A Modern
History of Written Discourse Analysis. Journal
of Second Language Writing 11, pp. 191-223.
Kramsch, C. (2001). Reading into writing:
Rhetorical Models of Understanding. English
Teaching Forum 38. Retrieved on 5 March,
2018
from
< />education/engteaching/rhmodels.html>.
Lloyd, R. (2005). Considerations in Survey
Design, Data Analysis and Presentation: A
Guide for ELT Practitioners. EA Journal 22(2),
pp. 36-60.
Massi, M. P. (2001). A Task-based Discourse
Approach to Writing. The Internet TESL
Journal 7(6). Retrieved on 25 February, 2018
from
< />

PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v

Nguyen Thi Mai, H., & Hall, C. (2016). Changing
Views of Teachers and Teaching in Vietnam.
Teaching Education, 6210, pp. 1–13. Retrieved
on 28 February, 2018 from < />.1080/10476210.2016.1252742>.
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
The “BlackBox” Survey of the Proficiency
Output Standards of BUH’s English-majored
Graduates from the Perspectives of Employees.
(2015). Banking University of HCMC.

Wennerstrom, A. (2003). Discourse Analysis in
the Language Classroom (Vol. 2). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Zainuddin, H. & Moore, R. A. (2003). Audience
Awareness in L1 and L2 Composing of
Bilingual Writers. TESL-EJ 7(1), p. 42.
Zaki, A. A., & Md Yunus, M. (2015). Potential of
Mobile Learning in Teaching of ESL Academic
Writing. English Language Teaching 8(6), pp.
11-19. Retrieved on 21 February, 2018 from
< />
Appendix
QUESTIONNAIRE
AN EVALUATION OF THE DISCOURSE APPROACH TO THE ACADEMIC WRITING CLASS
This questionnaire is designed to investigate your attitudes and the effectiveness of the method used
in this writing course. Your responses are greatly appreciated as they might suggest some solutions to

improve the language learning process. All the information on this questionnaire will be confidential.
GENERAL EVALUATION
For question 1, please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 5 that is most closely the same as your situation.
The scale of 1 - 5 represents the following ratings:
1 = least useful, 2 = a bit useful, 3 = useful, 4 = quite useful, 5 = most useful.
1. How useful were the following activities for improving your writing?
using model writing texts

1

2

3

4

5

analyzing model texts

1

2

3

4

5

constructing new texts in groups and in pairs

1

2

3

4

5

writing essays individually

1

2

3

4

5

For question 2, please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 5 that is most closely the same as your situation.
The scale of 1-5 represents the following ratings:
1= least interesting, 2= a bit interesting, 3= interesting, 4= quite interesting, 5= most interesting.
2. How interesting were the following activities for improving your writing?
using model writing texts

1

2

3

4

5

analyzing model texts

1

2

3

4

5

constructing new texts in groups and in pairs

1

2

3

4

5

writing essays individually

1

2

3

4

5

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 14 - 7/2018

35


v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY
USE OF MODEL TEXTS
3. Do you prefer to learn writing from the textbook or from the model texts (e.g. taken from the
Internet and other books)?
textbook
model texts

4. How often did you use the information in model texts in your writing?
5. In what way did you benefit from the model texts? (You can choose MORE THAN ONE)
getting ideas
learning the layout of a topic
learning the steps of writing each type of writing
identifying the purpose and the use of each type of writing
learning new vocabulary relating to the topics
learning grammar structures
learning transitions
other: …………………………………………………………………………………………
ANALYSIS OF MODEL TEXTS
6. Do you think that analyzing model texts can help you become …….. (Please CIRCLE the answers)
aware of the texts patterns (layout and steps)?

Yes

No

aware of specific grammar structures used in each type of writing? Yes

No

more proficient in using vocabulary for each topic?

No

Yes

aware of the ideas, cohesion, and coherence?
Yes

No
other: …………………………………………………………………………………………
BRAINSTORMING AND OUTLINING IDEAS
7. Do you think that working in pairs and in groups can help you ….... (Please CIRCLE the answers)
brainstorm the ideas more easily?



Yes

No

organize the ideas more logically?

Yes

No

Yes

No

checking mistakes more effectively?

other: …………………………………………………………………………………………
LEANERS’ SATISFACTION WITH THEIR PROGRESS
For questions 8-12, please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 5 that is most closely the same as your
situation. The scale of 1-5 represents the following ratings:
1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= no opinion, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree.
8. I feel more confident in writing descriptive essays.

9. I feel more confident in writing narrative essays.
10. I feel more confident in writing argumentative essays.

36

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 14 - 7/2018

1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

5
5
5

PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v

11. I have become aware of different aspects of
writing, e.g. cohesion, coherence.
12. I feel I have improved my writing ability.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

LEARNERS’ INTEREST
For questions 13-14, please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 5 that is most closely the same as your
situation. The scale of 1-5 represents the following ratings:
1= not interested, 2= not much interested, 3= interested, 4= very interested, 5= most interested

13. How would you rate your interest in English learning before this course?

1
2
3
4
5
14. How would you rate your interest in English learning after this course?

1
2
3
4
5
15. Do you want to study with this method in the next course?
Yes
No
16. If there was any or no improvement in your interest, what do you think was the cause?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
SUGGESTIONS
17. What do you like best in this course? Please explain why.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
18. If you could change or add anything in this course, what would your change be? Please explain.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!

AN INVESTIGATION INTO USING DISCOURSE APPROACH TO TEACH ACADEMIC
WRITING AT BANKING UNIVERSITY, HO CHI MINH CITY
NGUYEN QUANG NHAT
NGUYEN NGOC PHUONG DUNG

Abstract: For years, it has been observed that traditional methods are still dominant in many
Vietnamese writing classes at tertiary level. Therefore, a course applying discourse approach into
teaching academic writing was taught to find out whether this method may bring about any better
improvement in learners’ achievements and attitudes. 30 Vietnamese English-majored students at
Banking University of Ho Chi Minh City participated in the study during the second semester of
2017. Through questionnaires and final test comparison, the responses suggested that discourse
approach could be quite beneficial as this technique helped improve learners’ performance and
attitudes in academic essay writing.
Keywords: academic writing, discourse approach, performance and attitudes

Received: 02/3/2018; Revised: 11/4/2018; Accepted for publication: 20/6/2018

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 14 - 7/2018

37