TC in the Learner Writings

4.2 Coherence in the Learner Writings

The students’ improvement in coherence could be further verified by examining

the TPs, TCs, at the sentence level and rhetorical moves at the discourse level. The

succeeding section attempted to answer the second research question which examined

whether coherence improved in the following three aspects, i.e. TCs, TPs and rhetorical moves, in the posttest.

4.2.1 TC in the Learner Writings

84

The current study examined how the instruction informed by SFL influenced EFL learners’ picture writings. TCs in the EFL senior high school learner writings were the first research foci in the current study. Specific emphasis was laid on participants in unmarked themes and logical connectors in marked themes. The

following sub-sections elaborated on the findings of the TC analysis.

Evaluation of Participants in Unmarked Themes The present study investigated

the variety of participant types in the pretest and posttest picture writings. The participant types identified in all the pretest and posttest writings were people, object,

dummy, intangible entity, and referent. The frequency and percentage of each type were calculated to judge if coherence in the aspects of TCs improved. The results obtained from the participant analysis of the thirty pretest and thirty posttest writing were summarized in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Participants in Unmarked Themes of the EFL Senior High School

Learners’ Pretest and Posttest Picture Writings

Pretest Posttest

Types Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

People 327 81 % 336 80 %

85

Object 20 5 % 35 8 %

Dummy 31 8 % 19 4 %

Intangible

entity

23 6 % 32 8 %

Referent 1 0 % 0 0 %

Total 402 100 % 422 100 %

Note. Percentage = frequency/ the total number of participants

It can be seen in Table 4.2 that, both in the pretest and posttest picture writings, the students used people participants most of the time. There were 327 cases in the pretest and 336 cases in the posttest. It accounted for 81% and 80% in the pretest and posttest respectively. The result was in accordance with the previous studies (Cheng, 2008; Correa & Domínguez, 2014; Derewianka, 2004), which reported that people participant was the dominant type in narratives. Figure 4.1 displayed the percentage

of each participant type in the pretest writings on the left and the percentage of each participant type in the posttest writings on the right.

86

Figure 4.1 Participants in Unmarked Themes of the Pretest and Posttest Picture

Writings

Closer inspection of Figure 4.1 showed that the people participants were the most prevalent among other participant types. Next, the dummy participant, such as

“it” and “there”, was also frequently found in the pretest writings. 31 cases were identified and accounted for 8% on the pretest. Participants belonging to the object and intangible entity type appeared more than 20 times, accounting for 5% and 6%

respectively in pretest and posttest student writings. However, the referent type, such as “that”, was only used once.

In the posttest, the major type was still people participant. 336 cases were observed and the percentage was 80%. The frequency rose, but the percentage slightly decreased because the use of other participant types also increased. It was encouraging in that the students diversified the participant types, which added variety to the posttest picture writings. Another evidence of the positive influence was that, in

People

87

addition to the people participant, the number of object and intangible entity grew to more than 30 cases and the percentage also rose to 8%. The number and frequency of dummy declined and there was no use of the referent type.

Overall, the students employed a large number of people participants and object participants on both tests, which accounted for 86% and 88% in total. The findings

corroborated the research literature, which indicated that EFL learners often used content nouns, or simple nominal groups in various genres (Hawes & Thomas, 1997;

Liu & Liu, 2013; Mellos, 2011). Usually, picture writings were descriptions of characters, so the students mostly relied on people and object participants. The learner writings could be improved if the students varied the participant types by describing from different perspectives or using a wide variety of sentence structures, such as narrating from the passive voice.

Evaluation of Logical Connectors in Marked Themes Adapted from Hyland

(2004a), the logical connectors identified in the pretest and posttest writings were categorized into five types, i.e. the ones that compared and contrasted, explained the sequence of events, providing explanation, showed the cause and effect of events, and offering conclusion. To determine if the learners’ use of logical connectors in marked themes differed in the pretest and posttest, the frequency and percentage of each type

88

were calculated. The overall findings are provided in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Logical Connectors in Marked Themes of the EFL Senior High School

Learners’ Pretest and Posttest Picture Writings

Pretest Posttest

Types Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Contrast 9 18 % 9 14 %

Sequence 23 47 % 30 46 %

Explanation 5 10 % 3 4 %

Cause and

Effect

11 23 % 20 31 %

Conclusion 1 2 % 3 5 %

Total 49 100 % 65 100 %

Note. Percentage = frequency/ the total number of logical connectors in unmarked

themes

Table 4.3 showed that the use of logical connectors increased after the instruction.

The number of logical connectors rose from 49 cases in the pretest to 65 cases in the posttest. 15 students, i.e. half of them, employed more logical connectors in posttest

89

writings, while 7 students, i.e. 23% of them, employed the same number of logical connectors in marked theme positions. According to the literature (Cheng, 2008;

Hawes & Thomas, 1997; Mellos, 2011; Vande Kopple, 1991), logical connectors improved coherence. The increase of logical connectors might contribute to the progress of students’ overall performance. Figure 4.2 presented the percentage of each logical connector type in the pretest writings on the left and the percentage of each logical connector type in the posttest writings on the right.

Figure 4.2 Logical Connectors in Marked Themes of Pretest and Posttest Picture

Writings

As the above figures showed, both in the pretest and posttest, the most widely used type was to describe a sequence, such as “then”, “next” and “first”, which accounted for 47% and 46% in the pretest and posttest writings respectively. It was

Contrast,

90

quite common for learners to use sequential logical connectors to tell stories and describe events when composing picture writings. For instance, the students usually used “then” to narrate a series of events, as in “I ran as fast as I could to leave there and immediately threw that coat away. Then, I bought the same windbreaker and went to a park to take a break.” The encouraging findings were in line with Albufalasa (2013), who also reported that the use of sequential logical connectors increased after the instruction informed by SFL.

Second, there were also many logical connectors that developed cause and effect sets of ideas, including “therefore” and “as a result”, accounting for 23% on the pretest and 31% in the posttest. Frequency of the type went from 11 to 20 after the instruction, which almost doubled after the intervention. The nature of the genre, i.e.

picture writings, might explain why this type of logical connectors frequently appeared. To complete picture writing tasks, the learners were required to tell stories and wrote about a series of cases. Therefore, the learners often used such logical connectors to explain why the event took place and what led to the outcome of the story.

The next type commonly found in the student writings was the logical connectors that compared and contrasted, like “however”. Nine cases were found and the percentage was 18% in the pretest and 14% in the posttest. Fourth, the logical

91

connectors that provided explanation or added ideas, such as “besides” and “in fact”, were fewer. The learners employed this type of logical connectors five times, accounting for 10%, in pretest writings and three times, accounting for 4%, in posttest writings. Finally, the logical connectors that concluded or summarized the event, including “to sum up”, just occurred once, accounting for 2%, in the pretest and three times, 5%, in the posttest. The low frequency of the three types, i.e. logical connectors that compared and contrasted ideas, added different ideas, and offered conclusions, were not surprising because the learners were to tell stories in picture writings. Thus, it would be rare to find the logical connectors that compared, contrasted, and summarized ideas in picture writings.

In summary, the learners employed more logical connectors to connect sentences after the instruction informed by SFL. For instance, sequential logical connectors and logical connectors that developed cause and effect set of ideas were adopted to narrate the events of picture writings. Furthermore, various types of logical connectors were also used to improve coherence in the learners’ posttest writings. After the instruction, coherence in the learners’ picture writings improved with the number and types of logical connectors increasing in the learners’ picture writings.