Aplicación de un juego por puntos a la asignatura Probabilidades 7Error!

What were Masters students’ writing experiences during their previous major educational degree(s)?

Descriptive analysis was deployed to explore students‘ previous writing experiences. Regarding the quantity of academic writing produced by respondents, findings suggested

145

that the overwhelming majority of NES students had frequently produced written assignments in their previous degree(s), while EAL students seemed to have written academically less frequently. As table 5.1 shows, less than half of EAL students had frequently produced written texts compared with well over three quarters of NES students. The cross tabulation analysis disclosed a statistically significant difference among NES and EAL students‘ amount of academic writing they produced (chi

square=23.491, df=2, p=.001). Hence, NES students entered academia with more extensive experience of writing academically than EAL students.

Table 5.1 Amount of academic writing experienced by NES and EAL students.

Amount of academic writing

Frequently Sometimes Hardly at all

NES Students n=53 84.9% 3.8% 11.8%

EAL students n=67 47.8% 41.8% 10.4%

Table 5.2 illustrates the amount of writing practices undergone by Master students. Accordingly, only a minority of students had frequently experienced academic writing classes, peer feedback, tutor feedback and collaborative writing. Findings indicated that almost two thirds of the Masters students claimed to have never taken an academic writing class; over one third had never experienced peer feedback and a quarter had not received any tutor feedback; and, less than half of Masters students had never undergone collaborative tasks in their previous academic degree(s).

146

Table 5.2 Amount of writing practices undergone by Masters students.

Amount of academic writing practices

N frequently (> 3) _{sometimes (1 - 3) never}

Class in academic writing 14.2% 20.8% 65.0% 120 Collaborative writing task 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 119 Peer feedback 16.8% 47.1% 36.1% 119 Tutor feedback 24.4% 50.4% 25.2% 119

As table 5.3 shows, the distribution of NES and EAL students‘ experiences of writing practices differed to some extent.

Table 5.3 Amount of writing practices undergone by EAL and NES students.

frequently (> 3) sometimes (1 - 3) never

Class in academic writing NES n=53 3.8% 9.4% 86.8% EAL n=67 22.4% 29.9% 47.8% Collaborative writing task NES n=53 3.8% 41.5% 54.7% EAL n=66 22.7% 43.9% 33.3% Peer feedback NES n=53 20.8% 49.1% 30.2% EAL n=66 13.6% 45.5% 40.9% Tutor feedback NES n=53 24.5% 45.3% 30.2% EAL n=66 24.2% 54.5% 21.2%

Overall, over one fifth of EAL students had attended at least three academic writing classes compared to a tiny proportion of NES students (see Figure 5.1). The cross tabulation analysis disclosed a statistically significant difference between the amount of academic writing classes NES and EAL students undertook (chi square=20.094, df=2,

147

p=.000), showing that the great majority of NES students had never attended an academic writing class compared with less than half of EAL students.

Figure 5.1 Differences between the amount of academic writing classes NES and EAL students experienced in their previous courses.

One possible explanation of EAL students‘ greater experience of academic writing

classes might be the provision of writing classes as part of their second or foreign language curriculum and of their preparation for taking IELTS. In addition, a number of EAL students had attended the pre-sessional courses before starting their academic course at WIE, which introduced them to writing conventions and norms. Besides, educational organisations (e.g. British Council, Open Society Institute and Soros Foundations Network) that financially supported some international students provided information on academic writing before they started their academic degrees in the UK. Another possible explanation might be that there were many mature students (53%) among the NES students who graduated some time ago when academic writing was not explicitly taught. EAL students NES students 50 40 30 20 10 0 never sometimes (1 - 3) frequently (>3) Academic Writing Class

148

Further, as the graphical representations show (see Table 5.3 & Figure 5.2), NES students had experienced fewer collaborative writing tasks than EAL students. Only a small number of NES students and over one fifth of EAL students had experienced collaborative writing tasks in their previous academic degree; whereas, over half of NES students compared with only a third of EAL students had never experienced

collaborative writing tasks. There was a statistically significant difference between NES and EAL students‘ previous experience of collaborative writing tasks (chi

square=10.569, df=2, p=.005).

Figure 5.2 Differences between the amount of collaborative writing tasks NES and EAL students undertook.

Findings also showed that both groups, irrespective of their language status, reported similar experiences of receiving tutor and/or peer feedback.

Participants‘ limited experiences of writing classes, collaborative writing tasks and

feedback made further analysis of how these writing practices had impacted on the development of their writing skills inappropriate. For instance, a large proportion of

EAL students NES students 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 never sometimes (1 - 3) frequently (>3) Collaborative Writing Tasks

149

students (65.0%) had never attended an academic writing class. Thus, to say whether there was a statistically significant relationship between students who had attended academic writing classes and their self-efficacy beliefs as writers was not possible.

Furthermore, when rating the usefulness of these writing practices, some students appeared to offer a general response on how these items affected academic writers, but not on how they had contributed to their personal development as writers. For instance, a great majority of students (65%) had never attended an academic writing class, however, when asked how writing classes impacted on their writing skills, only less than half (42.5%) reported that they had not experienced writing classes. Accordingly, over one fifth of students (22.5%) who had not attended writing classes actually believed that they enhanced their writing skills. Respondents might have misunderstood or misinterpreted the questions and instructions, which ultimately limited the confidence in these findings.

When asked to rate the usefulness of particular academic practices, three quarters of students who had experienced writing classes thought that they were very useful or useful for developing their writing skills, while a small percentage had found them not very useful or not at all useful (see Table 5.4). Almost half of students who experienced collaborative writing tasks considered them very useful or useful, while almost one quarter found them either not very useful or not at all useful. Clearly, students valued collaborative writing tasks less than other literacy practices.

150

Table 5.4 Responses regarding the usefulness of academic practices for respondents’ writing skills

Academic writing class* (%) Collaborati ve writing* (%) Tutor feedback* (%) Peer feedback* (%) very useful 56.7 26.1 51.5 34.6 useful 17.3 20.5 29.1 26.7 neither useful nor inutile 17.3 29.5 8.7 22.8

not very useful 5.8 15.9 8.7 9.9

not at all useful 2.9 8.0 2.0 6.0

*n=120

More respondents valued tutor feedback than peer feedback. The great majority of respondents reported that tutor feedback was either very useful or useful compared to under two thirds who thought that peer feedback had had positive effects on their

writing. Additionally, findings showed that one tenth of those who had experienced tutor feedback believed that tutor feedback was not useful. At the same time, nearly a sixth of students thought that peer feedback was unhelpful.

Concerning the types of writing produced by Masters students, findings showed that all respondents regardless of language status had previously produced a limited amount of types of writing. The only type of writing that the majority of respondents had produced was essay writing. Thus, the vast majority of NES students (86.8%) and nearly half of EAL students (45.5%) indicated that they had frequently written essays. However, almost half of EAL students (42.4%) had undergone modest experiences of essay writing. Additionally, over one tenth of EAL students (12.1%) reported that they had never written essays. Figure 5.3 displays these differences graphically.

151

Figure 5.3 Differences between British and EAL students’ amount of essay writing. (n=120)

Furthermore, the least common types of writing for both groups were statistical presentation – over half of respondents (54.6%) had never experienced it; creative writing (51.8%); critique (36.1%) and thesis writing (31.4%). Besides, over one quarter (28.6%) had never produced a report and over one quarter (26.3%) had not written a literature review.

Accordingly, the results show that students enrolled for Master Taught courses at WIE typically came from a wide variety of educational and cultural backgrounds and they brought different writing experiences from their earlier degrees. Although the majority of Masters students indicated that they wrote academically quite often, they tended to have received a limited preparation for writing academically within a HE context. Thus, many students claimed to have never experienced tutor and peer feedback. Some

students believed that feedback was unhelpful. Besides, a great deal of students had

EAL students NES students 50 40 30 20 10 0 never sometimes (1 - 3) frequently (>3) Essay writing

152

undergone limited types of writing. Thus, they had never completed statistical presentations, critique, thesis, reports and literature review, which represented

fundamental features of assessment in their current context. The results also suggested that NES students were better prepared for producing extended assignments (e.g. essays) than EAL students. Essentially, students‘ perceptions of writing practices and their

limited writing experiences may compromise how they participate in literacy practices and how they respond to feedback.

5.3 Students’ Perceptions of Themselves as Academic Writers