國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
118
5.5 Limitation of the Study
The main limitation in the present study is that some of the students could not provide detailed information about their perceived difficulties in the process of conducting
research and writing and related coping strategies. That is, the students could only recall the greatest difficulties they had encountered and the general strategies they adopted to cope with these difficulties, presumably because of (a) the students’ graduation time and (b) the students’ identity as in-service teachers. Since the students invited to participate in the study had graduated for at least half a year, they might have forgotten some detailed information about the obstacles faced in thesis writing and how they overcame these problems. In addition, after graduating from the graduate school, they converted their attention to their teaching. Hence, they forgot the events happened during the thesis writing process easily and gave obscure expression of the writing difficulties and related coping strategies. Although the detailed information about how the thesis is completed may be missing due to the memory span, it does not mean that the current study is not valid or not trustworthy. The fact that we can discover the same patterns of the writing difficulties in the ETMA students’ recalls indicates how important they may be as to the individual student.
Also, the findings suggested that a difference between the students’ and the advisors’
perceptions about the obstacles faced before and while writing theses and the assistance provided by the advisors. Yet such a mismatch has not been confirmed by the teacher interviewees because these teachers were interviewed first and no follow-up interviews were conducted. In order to ensure the kinds of difficulties and assistance and enhance the credibility of the study, follow-up interviews with the teachers should be conducted in the future.
5.6 Suggestions for Future Research
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
119
To compensate the limitation of this study and fill the gap of prior studies, two suggestions for future research are presented as follows. First, ethnographic studies are suggested as future research, for they are longitudinal and contextualized in nature.
Employing an ethnographic research design, the researcher can follow the students’
proposal and thesis writing process by interviewing and observing them regularly and collecting relevant material data. In addition, since no evidence was found from the present study that the students may learn from the less capable peers, future research will benefit from exploring how the students interact with the people within their social network via ethnographic studies. Second, diary studies may solve the limitation that the students may forget the difficulties they encountered in proposal or thesis writing. By keeping diaries, the participants can record the activities and events they have
experienced in their own words (Corti,1993). Thus, the diaries provide a record of thoughts and actions in the thesis writing process and the researcher can attain more in-depth understanding about how the student accomplish his/her thesis.
5.6 Conclusion
Since prior studies suggested that the graduate students who are not full-time students may adopt different resources to cope with their difficulties in theses writing and little research has focused on these students, this study aimed to understand if the graduate students as school teachers have different needs in thesis writing by investigating the difficulties these students face and the resources they adopt to address different
challenges with expanded ZPD (van Leir,2004), which is consistent with social cultural theory of learning (Lantolf,2000; Vygotsky,1978). According to the findings, the
linguistic and rhetorical difficulties these students encountered were not different from those regular students. They had linguistic difficulties, such as paraphrasing, and the rhetorical ones like meeting the conventionalized structure of each section because they
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
120
were novice research writers and L2 writers, not because their identity as teachers.
However, the findings that these students coped with the troubles in thesis writing mostly by self and then consulted with experts, peers, and even the colleagues revealed that their attitudes toward the problems they faced and the ways they chose to solve the troubles may differ from those regular students. Thus, it is necessary for future research to explore how these students who are also in-service teachers overcome the obstacles to complete their theses.
In light of these findings, some suggestions are given to the course instructors of graduate schools and the advisors. For the course instructors, they could provide exercises for students to practice how to write a thesis or how to analyze data they have learned from classes. In addition, personalized feedback about the students’ assignments is
needed. As to the advisors, they should remind their advisees of the points to be noticed in specific section beforehand and provide information about the resources available. Since the current study has shown the significance of investigating the graduate students as in-service teachers, it is suggested that future research can be ethnographic ones which focus on the impact of the participants’ social network on their writing, especially how the members within the same social environment assist them. By so doing, we can attain an overall picture of the needs of the in-service teachers as graduate students in Taiwan and the professors in graduate education will know how to provide necessary assistance for this group of students to complete their theses.
‧
Aı´da, W. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: a
conceptual framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.
Alison, D., Cooley, L., Lewkowicz, J., &Nunan, D. (1998). Dissertation writing in action: The development of a dissertation writing support program for ESL graduate research students. English for Specific Purposes, 17(2), 199-217.
Belcher, D. (1994) The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy:
Graduate students and their mentors. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 23-24.
Bitchener, J. & Basturkmen, H. (2005). Perceptions of the difficulties of
postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 4-18.
Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bruce, C.S. (1994). Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 217-229.
Buckingham, L. (2008). Development of English academic writing competence by Turkish scholars. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 3, 1-18.
Cadman, K. (1997). Thesis writing for international students: A question of identity?
English for Specific Purposes, 16, 13-14.
Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: Routledge.
Casanave, C.P. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy practices in higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Casanave, C. P., & Hubbard, P. (1992). The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: Faculty perceptions, pedagogical issues, and needed research. English for Specific Purposes, 11, 33-49.
Cheng, A. (2008). Individualized engagement with genre in academic literacy tasks.
English for Specific Purposes, 27, 384-411.
Cho, D. W. (2009). Science journal paper writing in an EFL context: The case of Korea. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 230-239.
Chung, C. N. (張繼寧). (2010). New Proposal for professional development of British teachers: Masters in teaching and learning. Taiwan Teacher Education Database, 4. Retrieved November 20, 2011, from
http://society.nhu.edu.tw/e-j/95/A10.htm
Cooley, L., & Lewkowicz, J. (1995). The writing needs of graduate students at the University of Hong Kong: A project report. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics
‧
and Language Teaching, 18, 121–123.
Corti, L. (1993). Using diaries in social research. Social Research Update 2.
Donato, R. (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P.
Lantolf and G. Appel (eds) Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 35-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dong, Y. (1996). Learning how to use citations for knowledge transformation:
non-native doctoral students’ dissertation writing in science. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 428–457.
Dong, Y. (1998). Non-native graduate students’ thesis/dissertation writing in science:
Self-reports by students and their advisors from two US institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 369–390.
Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2007) From novice to disciplinary expert: Disciplinary identity and genre mastery. English for Specific Purposes, 27 , 233-252.
Duff, P.A.(2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169-192.
Ferenz, O. (2005). EFL writers’ social networks: Impact on advanced academic literacy development. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 339-361.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 8(3), 243-264.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Freedman, A. (1989). Reconceiving genre. Texte 8 (9). 279–292.
Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., & Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gibbons, P. (2002) Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Potsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Gosden, H. (1996). Verbal reports of Japanese Novices’ Research Writing Practices in English. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(2), 109-128.
Hsu, Y.& Kuo, CH. (2008).Writing RA Introduction: Difficulties and Strategies.
Retrieved September 13, 2012, from
http://tesol.nctu.edu.tw/FCKupload/File/students_paper/Writing%20RA%20Intro duction%20Difficulties%20and%20Strategies_%E5%BE%90%E6%98%B1%E6
%84%B7.pdf
Hsu, W.L. (2010). Dissertation Writing for NNES Students Regarding Writing Process, Difficulties, and Support. Retrieved September10, 2012, from
http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/20168/Hsu2010.pdf
‧
James, P. L., &Steven L. T.(2006). Socialcultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
James, P. L.(2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, S., Jordan, M., &Weiland, P. (1993). The role of writing in graduate engineering education: A survey of faculty beliefs and practices. English for Specific Purposes, 12, 51–67.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A gilding and course book for teachers 1-13. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kuo, M. H. (郭明樺). (2008). Study of Factors Attributing Elementary School Teacher to Pursue Further Education. E-paper Professional Development of In-service Teachers, 4. Retrieved November 20, 2011, from
http://www1.inservice.edu.tw/EPaper/ep2/indexView.aspx?EID=102
Lea, M. & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.
Lee, H. Y. (李欣怡) (2008). Challenges throughout the process of writing a Master’s thesis: The voices of Taiwanese graduate EFL students and their advisors.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Providence University.
Li, Y. (2007). Apprentice scholarly writing in a community of practice: an intravie of an NNES graduate student writing a research article. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 55-79.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
Merton, R. K. Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L. (1990). The focused interview: A manual of problems and procedures (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Mellon, C. (1990). Naturalistic inquiry for library science: Methods and
applications for research, evaluation, and teaching. New York: Greenwood.
Mullen, Carol A. (2001). The need for a curricular writing model for graduate students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25(1), 117-126.
Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology:
Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
O’Connor, K.A., Greene, H.C., Anderson, P.J. (2006). Action research: A tool for improving teacher quality and classroom practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Okamura, A. (2006). Hoe do Japanese researchers cope with language difficulties and
‧
succeed in scientific discourse in English? : interviews with Japanese research article writers. The Economic Journal of Takasaki City University of Economics, 48 (3), 61-78.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures.The Qualitative Report 11(3), 474-498.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2003). Assessment in statistics courses: More than a tool for evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2),
115-127.
Paltridge, B. (1997). Thesis and dissertation writing: Preparing ESL students for research.
English for Specific Purposes, 16, 61-70.
Paltridge, B. (2002). Thesis and dissertation writing: An examination of published advice and actual practice. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 125-143.
Paltridge, B. (2004). Academic writing. Language Teaching, 37, 87-105
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201-230.
Qian, J., & Krugly-Smolska, E. (2008). Chinese graduate students’ experiences with writing a literature review. TESL Canada Journal, 26(1), 68-86.
Ratner, C. (2002). Cultural psychology: Theory and method. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J.& Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 16(2), 97-116.
Samara,B. (2002). Introduction in research articles: Variations across disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 1-17.
Shaw, P. (1991). Science research students’ composing processes. English for Specific Purposes, 10, 189–206.
Silva, T. (1997). Differences in ESL and native-English speaker writing: the research and its implications. InC. Severino, J. C., Guerra & S. E. Butler (eds.),
Writing in multicultural settings. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 209–219.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative research for social scientistis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swales,J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J.M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tsai, C. C. (蔡春綢) (2004). Related research in the motive of participation in the in-service education and teaching effectiveness for social subject teacher of Taipei county primary school. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Hualien
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
125
University of Education.
van Leir, L. (2004). The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Westbrook, L. (1994). Qualitative research methods: A review of major stages, data analysis techniques, and quality controls. Library and Information Science Research, 241-254.
Yang, C.T. (楊正德) (2011). The correlation of Taipei county elementary school teacher’s motivation of in-service education, teaching readiness, and teaching effectiveness. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Normal University.
Yeh, C.(2010). New graduate students’ perspectives on research writing in English:
A case study in Taiwan. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 4(1), A1-A12
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). CA: Sage.
Ratio of primary and secondary teachers with MA degree. (2011). Retrived November 8, 2011, from
http://www.edu.tw/STATISTICS/content.aspx?site_content_sn=8956
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
126
Appendix A
Consent Form (Teachers)
Department of English, National Chengchi University
You are invited to participate in a research about ETMA students’ difficulties and coping strategies in thesis writing. The purpose of the study is to attain more in-depth
information about the graduate students’ thesis writing process and then provide insights for the course design of the graduate education for in-service teachers in Taiwan.
In this study, you may have on interviews. The interview will last about 1.5 hours. The interview will focus on your advising experience. This interview will be audio-recorded for future analysis. For any information missed in the interview, the researcher will ask follow-up questions via e-mails. Also, you can take the drafts of your advisees’ theses to recall your memory about the students’ difficulties in thesis writing and serve as evidence of your statements.
All the data collected in this study will be used in research analysis and report only. Your identities will not be revealed.
If you have any question about this study or concern about your right, please contact Jou-en Hsu via email: [email protected] or [email protected] or cell phone:
0933759043.
MA-TESOL student, Jou-en Hsu Department of English,
National Chengchi University
□ I have read this consent form and voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
___________________________
participant’s signature date
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
Na tiona
l Ch engchi University
127
Appendix B
Consent Form (Students)
Department of English, National Chengchi University
You are invited to participate in a research about ETMA students’ difficulties and coping strategies in thesis writing. The purpose of the study is to attain more in-depth
information about the graduate students’ thesis writing process and then provide insights for the course design of the graduate education for in-service teachers in Taiwan.
In this study, you may have at least two interviews, including the first the interview and the follow-up interview. All the interviews will last about 1.5 hours. The interview will focus on your experience of thesis writing and thoughts about the instruction or assistance received from graduate school. The interviews will be audio-recorded for future analysis.
Also, you can take any texts helpful for your thesis writing or the drafts of your thesis to recall your memory about the events happened in thesis writing and serve as evidence of your statements.
All the data collected in this study will be used in research analysis and report only. Your identities will not be revealed.
If you have any question about this study or concern about your right, please contact Jou-en Hsu via email: [email protected] or [email protected] or cell phone:
0933759043.
MA-TESOL student, Jou-en Hsu Department of English,
National Chengchi University
□ I have read this consent form and voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
___________________________
participant’s signature date
‧
I am Hsu, Jou-en, a TESOL graduate student in National Cheng-chi University.
Thank you for your time to share your experience and ideas about thesis writing.
This interview will take approximately ninety minutes. Firstly, we would like to ask you about your demographic/educational backgrounds related to academic writing.
Then, questions about thesis you are writing now/just finished will be asked. We would add a particular focus on how you compose individual section of thesis, including your perceived difficulties and related coping strategies in writing each section. At the end of the interview, we would like to know your comments about teachers’ role in your thesis writing.
II. Demographic information
Before we start our interview, could you briefly introduce yourself?
1. Did you major in English at college? If not, what makes to be an English teacher?
2. Since you are a(n) elementary/ secondary school teacher, what motivated you to enter graduate school? What do you expect to attain from graduate education?
3. What’s your study habit in graduate school? What did you do before each course?
How did you review the content of each course? How did you prepare for the mid-term/final exam? How did you prepare for the course presentation? How did you complete the course assignments?
III. Key questions
A. Topic Domain 1: Educational backgrounds
IQ1: At first, we would like to know your language/educational background. Now please recall the English writing instruction you have received. Could you briefly talk about your experience about English writing?
Follow-up questions:
1. When was the first time you write in English? Please describe this experience (e.g.
what did you write? What did you learn from this experience?). Did you have other experience of writing in English? If yes, please describe these experiences.
2. Have you received any instruction of English writing? When did it happen?
How/what did the teacher teach? What was your feeling then?
3. Have you received any instruction of thesis writing? If no, do you want to take this course? Please state your reasons. If yes, when did it happen? How/what did the teacher teach? What was your feeling then? What did you learn from that course?
4. How do you evaluate the thesis writing course you took in graduate school? Is the
‧
which part? If no, please explain why.5. Is there any suggestion given to the course instructor? If yes, what are they? If no, please explain why.
6. What’s the focus of your study? How do you decide your study focus?
Covert categories
(1) Knowledge about English/thesis writing (2) Efficacy of English/thesis writing courses
B. Topic domain 2: Personal experience in proposal writing
IQ2: Since you had written a thesis proposal before conducting your research, could you recall your writing process and describe how you write your proposal?
Follow-up questions:
1. What did you do before you started to write your thesis (your preparation)? How
1. What did you do before you started to write your thesis (your preparation)? How