4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the findings that answer the four research questions posed in
Chapter One. Data obtained from the students’ pre and post instruction written
assignments, as well as the pre- and post instruction administration of the
Undergraduates’ Perceived Self-regulated Efficacy for Writing (UPSREW) Scale
and the Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) were used to examine
the effectiveness of the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model on
students’ academic writing. The effect of the model on the students’ self-efficacy
and their language learning strategies was also examined. The data obtained from
these protocols were analysed by carrying out paired sample t-tests comparing the
performance of the treatment group to that of the control group. This was done to
determine if there was any significant change in the students’ writing skills,
perceived self-efficacy and language learning strategies following SRSD strategy
instruction in the treatment group as compared to the control group which
underwent the conventional instruction based on the process writing approach as
required by the language department.
Data obtained from interviews with students were also analysed using the
categories of self-regulated learning strategies identified by Zimmerman and
Martinez-Pons (1986) (Appendix K) to gather additional evidence to support the
quantitative analyses. Other qualitative data obtained from written self-reflections,
ESL student’s background and writing ability questionnaire, field notes, goal
evidence to support the quantitative data. It must be noted here that all names that
are used in the following discussion are pseudonyms so as to protect the identity
of the respondents.
The results are presented in three sections which correspond to the first three
research questions listed below. The first section compares the pretest and posttest
results of students’ performance in the pre and post instruction written
assignments for both the treatment and control groups. The second section
investigates the self-efficacy of both the treatment and control groups, based upon
their responses in answering the UPSREW Scale at pretest and posttest. The third
section examines the language learning strategies employed by the treatment and
control groups in ESL learning. The data for this was obtained through the
administration of the SILL as pretest and posttest. Lastly, the fourth section
explores the features of the SRSD writing course that are effective in developing
strategies for teaching academic writing among low-proficiency Malay ESL
learners. This involved examining both the quantitative evidence provided for the
first three research questions and the qualitative evidence obtained from
interviews, written self-reflections, background questionnaire, field notes, goal
setting sheets and students’ written assignments.
The research questions addressed in this chapter are:
1. What are the differences in the writing skills of low-proficiency Malay
ESL learners who have completed a writing course based on the SRSD
model in comparison to the control group?
2. How does a writing course based on the SRSD model affect the perceived
ability to develop and self-regulate their learning strategies in comparison
to the control group?
3. How does a writing course based on the SRSD model affect the learning
strategies employed by low-proficiency Malay ESL learners in their ability
to develop and self-regulate their writing in comparison to the control
group?
4. What are the distinctive features of an SRSD model for teaching academic
writing to low-proficiency Malay ESL learners?
4.1 What are the differences in the writing skills of low-proficiency Malay ESL learners who have completed a writing course based on the SRSD model in comparison to the control group?
This section reports on how the SRSD model affected the writing skills of low-
proficiency young adult learners of English in a mono-ethnic group of Malays.
SRSD intervention in writing has proven to be effective in improving the writing
skills of children, adolescents and adults, of varying backgrounds, whether with or
without LD (Adkins, 2005; Asaro-Saddler & Saddler, 2010; Berry & Mason,
2010; Biedenbach, 2004; Chalk, Hagan-Burke, & Burke, 2005; Danoff, Harris, &
Graham, 1993; De La Paz, 1999; Delano, 2007; Garcia & Fidalgo, 2008; Graham,
Harris, & Mason, 2005; Graham & Perin, 2007c; Mourad, 2009; Wong, Harris,
Graham, & Butler, 2003; Zumbrunn, 2010). Clearly, the response of learners to
the SRSD model is affected by several variables. Therefore, the effectiveness of
the model on this particular group of learners must be measured if it is to serve its
purpose of helping such students in their EAP course. Writing has become an
essential skill for academic and professional success (Kellogg & Raulerson, 2007)
and in the case of these low-proficiency Malay ESL students, there is an urgent
students on a more level playing field. The IELTS grading scale for academic
writing (Appendix B) was used to assess the students’ pre and post instruction
written assignments (Appendix A).
The paired sample t-test results in Table 4.1 indicate a significant change in the
overall IELTS writing scores for the pretest and posttest of the treatment group. In
contrast, the difference in scores for the control group was not significant. In the
treatment group, the p-value of the test was 0.000 (p<0.05). The post mean score
(M=4.050) was more than the pre mean score (M=3.340), indicating a mean
difference of 0.710.
Table 4.1 ESL students’ overall performance for writing at pretest and posttest
Therefore, there was a significant improvement in the writing score for this group.
In the control group, the p-value of the test was 0.094 (p>0.05), indicating that
there was no significant change in the writing scores of students in this group. The
mean difference for this group was 0.240, which shows only a slight improvement
in the students’ writing. Thus, this result indicates that SRSD writing instruction
has a significant positive effect on the students’ performance in the writing test
administered to the treatment group. The students’ scores prior to SRSD
instruction ranged from 2.5 to 4.25 (out of a maximum score of 9) in the pretest,
Treatment Group (N =33) Control Group (N =33)
Time Mean SD t-value p-value Mean SD t-value p-value
(<0.05) (>0.05)
Posttest 4.050 0.840 0.000* 3.400 0.730 0.094
Pretest 3.340 0.540 3.160 0.520
Note:*Significant level at p< 0.05
which placed them as extremely limited and limited users based on the IELTS
band. However, in the posttest following the SRSD instruction, there was
improvement with scores ranging from 2.5 to 6.5, with some students being
placed as either modest or competent users (Appendix I). This improvement in
adult students’ writing due to SRSD treatment is similar to the findings of
previous studies involving adult learners (Berry & Mason, 2010; Dahlman, 2010;
Graham & Harris, 2003; MacArthur & Lembo, 2009). For instance, Berry and
Mason (2010) observed improvement in the posttest in the expository writing of
low-achieving adult learners in terms of quality and organisation. Similarly,
MacArthur and Lembo (2009) noted that the SRSD improved the overall quality
and organisation of persuasive essays through strategy training in planning,
writing, and revising as well as self-regulation strategies such as goal setting and
self-evaluation.
Also, the paired sample t-test results in Table 4.2 show that the treatment group
performed better than the control group in all four components of the IELTS
writing scale, namely task response, coherence and cohesion, lexical resources,
Table 4.2 ESL students’ performance for writing at pretest and posttest according to the four IELTS writing components
Note:*Significant level at p< 0.05
4.1.1 Task Response
Looking at the treatment group's performance, it is evident that the
performance in task response was the best among the four components.
The t-value was 5.782 and the p-value of the test was 0.000 (p<0.05).
Therefore, there was a significant difference in the writing scores in terms
of task response. The post mean score (M=4.880) was more than the pre
mean score (M=3.940). Thus, there was a significant improvement in
writing scores in terms of task response for this group. In the control
group, the t-value for task response was 2.714, and the p-value of the test
was 0.011 (p<0.05). This indicates that there was also a significant change
in the writing scores in terms of task response for the control group.
However, the treatment group that followed the SRSD instruction
performed better at task response compared to the control group.
Noticeable improvements were identified in post instruction essays, with
stronger thesis statements and better development of main ideas in the
Treatment Group ( N =33) Control Group ( N =33)
Time Mean SD t-value p-value Mean SD t-value p-value
IELTS WRITING