Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 164

SAUDI EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING PROBLEMS: A MOVE TOWARDS SOLUTION

Choudhary Zahid Javid & Muhammad Umer Department of Foreign Languages,

Taif University, Taif, KSA chzahidj@hotmail.com, m.khan@tu.edu.sa

ABSTRACT

The study in is a comprehensive investigation to identify the important writing tasks, major areas of difficulty in academic writing, the factors causing these difficulties and the corrective measures in the Saudi EFL academic context. It attempted to identify gender-based differences for the above-mentioned factors and the results of independent-samples t-test did not show major differences in the perceptions of both the groups partially accepting the null hypotheses. Several research studies were reviewed and a 40-item Likert-scale agree-disagree questionnaire was developed by the researcher. It was translated into Arabic and piloted before it was administered to 194 Saudi EFL learners (108 male & 86 female) studying at Taif University. Descriptive analyses and Independent-samples t-test were run using SPSS version 17. The findings reported that these particular Saudi EFL learners have serious problems in their academic writing due to their weaknesses in using appropriate lexical items, organisation of ideas and grammar. The other weaker areas include wrong use of prepositions, spellings, irregular verbs, articles, punctuation, suffixes and prefixes. It is recommended to implement a stricter admission policy, increase language courses, develop tailor-made activities, provide increased practice in academic writing, exploit modern teaching techniques and equip the classrooms with modern teaching aids to improve Saudi EFL learners’ academic writing. Field of Research: Academic Writing, Perception, Syntactic Errors; Gender --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Introduction Because of the English language being a storehouse of world knowledge, it has been chosen as the medium of instruction for higher studies in general in many regions of the world including the gulf countries and, of course, the English language teaching in particular (Crystal, 2003). When it comes to the teaching and learning of language skills, writing comes at the end according to the natural order hypothesis of language learning, but this does not make writing skill insignificant. Rather, its significance increases manifolds in the academic contexts in which students are required to apply this skill as a main tool to show what they have learnt. A growing mass of research has offered valuable insights into the significance of this skill for academic success. Bjork and Raisanen (1997, p. 8) argue that

We highlight the importance of writing in all university curricula not only because of its immediate practical application, i.e. as an isolated skill or ability, but because we believe that, seen from a broader perspective,

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 165

writing is a thinking tool. It is a tool for language development, for critical thinking and, extension, for learning in all disciplines.

According to Fageeh (2011), “many EFL learners heavily rely on writing as integral skill to language learning” as supported by much research that EFL learners’ listening, speaking and reading skills mainly depend on their writing competence (Hefferman, 2006; Hinkel, 2004; Al-Ghamari, 2004; Cayer & Sacks, 1979). Though writing skill is considered extremely important, a lot of research studies conducted in the various EFL contexts strongly suggested that EFL learners, who study in institutions that use English as a medium of instruction, face severe problems in writing skills that hinders their academic progress (Tahaineh, 2010; Rababah, 2003; Bacha, 2002; Kharma & Hajjaj, 1997). Tahaineh (2010, p. 79) reiterated that the writing skill “……. is needed for taking notes, describing objects or devices and writing essays, answering written questions, writing their compositions, writing experimental reports, etc”. Like other EFL contexts, the situation in the Arab world has also been reported poor and Arab students seriously lack in all English skills in general and writing skills in particular. Several studies conducted in the Arab world revealed that Arab students face maximum problems in their writing (Abdul Haq, 1982; Zughoul & Taminian, 1984; Al-Khuweileh, & Al-Shoumali, 2000; Al-Hazmi, 2006; Al-Samdani, 2010; Grami, 2010; Ezza, 2010). Writing is defined as "…. the logical organization and arrangement of the written sentences within a paragraph and paragraphs within the units of discourse …………and the expression of the ideas" (Abu-Ghararh, 1998, p. 87). Concerning the problems of ESL learners’ in writing, Al-samadani (2010, p. 53) stated that it “is a complex, challenging, and difficult process” because it includes multiple skills such as identification of thesis statement, writing supporting details, reviewing and editing. This complex process makes it rather difficult to teach it. The difficulty of teaching/learning of this skill is due to the fact that it involves a comprehensive knowledge of grammar, suitable vocabulary, writing mechanics (e.g., punctuation & capitalization), organizational skills, style, imagination etc. Another factor that makes teaching of writing rather difficult is that it has been historically dealt with vis-à-vis the other skills. Writing skill is formally defined as the “recording of human communication, using signs or symbols to represent the spoken words” (McMillan Encyclopedia, 1986, p.1317) whereas functionally speaking it is defined as a “curiously solitary form of communication, addressed to an absent and often unknown reader” (Peters, 1986, p.169). The challenge faced by the faculty members in teaching this skill is that it is either considered a secondary activity in ELT or taken as a desocialised communication pattern. This problem rather intensifies when it is not the learners’ first language because of the additional problems encountered in this regard. Highlighting these difficulties, Hopkins (1989) stated that writing is the most difficult skill to be learnt for non-native speakers. Piper (1989 cited in Grami, 2010) reported that instructional methods are instrumental in shaping the learners’ behaviour towards writing skills as well as their writings. It has also been pointed out that the approaches to teach writing skills vary in the different academic contexts due to the indigenous specific circumstances. As for the history of teaching of writing is concerned, it was not given much attention as evident from scarcity of research studies related to this skill till the beginning of the last decade of the twentieth century (Krashen, 1984). Long and Richard (2003) reported that writing skills teaching was given importance during 1990s when English established its status as a language of

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 166

international communication and consequently “English as L2 writing skills do not only ―play an increasingly important role today in the lives of professionals in almost every field and discipline” (p. XV). A closer look through the history of teaching of writing skills reveals that among the different approaches that have been experimented to teach writing effectively, three approaches have been the most influential which are product approach, process approach and genre approach. Much research has strongly suggested that all these approaches carry their own weaknesses and strengths but they are complementary to each other as well (e.g., Grami, 2010; Hayland, 2007; Paltridge, 2004; Badger & White, 2000; McDonough & Shaw, 2003). Research has offered valuable insights into the fact that all the approaches of teaching writing skills have their own strengths and weaknesses; therefore, it is not advisable to follow any one of these exclusively; rather, the teachers should have thorough knowledge of all these approaches so that they should inculcate the professional ability to exploit all these approaches to pick and choose appropriate techniques according to the students’ level/needs, social context and their peculiar academic echo system (Badger & White, 2000; Asiri, 1997; Raimes, 1991). Like the rest of the world, English language teaching (ELT) has embedded firmly in the Arab world during the last few decades and a growing mass of research produced in this region has been related to English teaching and its sub fields (Al-Seghayer, 2011). Though tremendous efforts have been made, as reflected by the huge funding allocated to ELT, the research studies conducted in the Arab world reported that EFL learners in the Arab world including Saudi Arabia suffer from serious problems in this regard such as students' poor performance low proficiency level in the target language (Javid, Farooq, & Gulzar, 2012; Al-Jarf, 2008; Rababah, 2003). Bacha (2002) suggested that it might be due to the fact that the students are not motivated to develop their writing and that "L2 writers are known to face problems in developing their writing skills at the university level. These problems are even more accentuated with L1 Arabic non-native speakers of English in required English composition courses" (p. 161). A report published by the Cambridge Examination Center in 2009 about the proficiency level of Saudi students "…ranked them 39th of the 40 nations participated in both academic and general training tests" (Cambridge ESOL: Research Notes, 2010 cited in Al-Seghayer, 2011, p. 45). This poor performance has been more strongly revealed by the studies which were conducted to evaluate Saudi students' writing skills (Bersamina, 2009; Grami, 2010; Al-Eid, 2000). Grami (2010) cited the results of IELTS test report of Saudi students which revealed that they scored comparatively low in all English language skills (5.17, 4.97, 5.81 out of 9 in listening, reading and speaking respectively ) but the average in writing skills was the lowest (4.83 out of 9). Numerous studies have been conducted to identify the problems of Saudi EFL learners in their writing. The findings of these studies reported that despite the fact that Saudi students study English as a compulsory subjects for six years before joining any university but actually only a few of them are able to show satisfactory performance in the university entrance examinations (Grami, 2010). Tahaineh (2010) has stated that Arab students’ errors in writing mainly fall in the category of syntax and grammar and quoted Hashim’s (1996) findings, who reviewed and analysed a number of studies conducted on Arab EFL learners’ syntactic errors and stated that Arab learners’ errors can be categorised in seven syntactic subcategories: prepositions, verbs, articles, conjunctions, relative clauses, adverbial clauses, and sentence structure. Kharma and Hajjaj (1997) is another study that reinforced the previous findings and revealed that Arab EFL learners’ errors in writing are syntactical and especially in prepositions. Most recent studies

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 167

conducted to investigate Arab EFL learners syntactic errors also found out that verbs and prepositions are the most problematic areas in this regard (Zahid, 2006, Muhammad, 2005, Muortaga, 2004). Concerning the problems of Saudi university undergraduates, Khan (2011), who recently conducted a study to investigate the problems of Saudi university undergraduates, has mentioned that they face several problems in phoneme clusters, spellings, grammar, mistakes due to L1 interference, structure, doubling of subjects, doubling of preposition, tenses, articles, appropriate vocabulary, wrong use of prefixes & suffixes etc. Much research has offered valuable insights into the reasons of Arab EFL learners’ weaknesses in English in general and writing skills in particular. Khan (2011) reviewed several studies in this regard and concluded that Arab EFL learners’ problems are caused by the following reasons:

a) school graduates have lack of information regarding the university or college they enrolled in; b) there is deficiency in the English language curricula offered by some schools and universities; c) dreadful teaching methodology; d) problems with proper language environments; and e) lack of personal impetus on the part of the students. (p. 1250)

According to his findings, the causes of the problems may be dealt with from four perspectives, i.e., the learners, faculty members, curricula and the environment of teaching /learning context. It has been reported that Saudi EFL learners are more interested in getting better scores instead of learning the target language and they are in the habit of memorising passages without understanding, grammatical rules and lexical items to achieve high grade point average (Grami, 2010; Zaid, 1993). Another very strong reason behind this marks-oriented behaviour of Saudi EFL learners is that a vast majority of them lack intrinsic motivation and bear various extrinsic motivational factors to learn English language (Javid, Asmari, & Farooq, 2012). Concerning the role of EFL teachers, a growing mass of research has suggested that a vast majority of EFL teachers are hired from the Arab countries (such as Egypt, Sudan, Jordan etc.) to serve in Saudi Arabia. These teachers seem to lack the following: a) a proper and appropriate training to teach English, b) a proper motivation to indulge in teaching process, and c) willingness to incorporate innovation and modern techniques in their teaching practices; thus, causing the continuation of traditional, outdated and teacher-led teaching practices that is a major impediment in the way of effective and efficient ELT in Saudi Arabia (Bersamina, 2009; Grami, 2010; Syed, 2003; Zaid, 1993). Another important factor in this regard is the absence of appropriate and learner-centered curricula to cater for the specific EFL needs of the learners. It has been frequently reported that the curricula taught in several Saudi university is outdated, traditional and textbook-based that encourage the students to merely memorise instead of making them grasp the target language (Khan, 2011; Bersamina, 2009; Hazmi, 2006; Zughoul, 1987). 2. The context of the study This study was conducted in the second semester of academic year 2012 at foreign languages department, Taif University (TU). It offers 4-year graduate and 2-year masters programmes majoring in English language and linguistics. The students who are enrolled in the graduate programme have to take 59 compulsory courses of 2-credit hour each in eight semesters. These courses include language, linguistics, literature and translation courses. During the first three semesters, the undergraduates are taught various language courses to improve their four English language skills. Though the undergraduates are given intensive courses in various English

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 168

language skills including writing but research, such as a study conducted at TU by Javid, Farooq, and Gulzar (2012), strongly suggested that Saudi EFL learners suffer from serious handicap in all language skills including writing.

3. Research Objectives

This empirical study intended to investigate the following research objectives:

a. Identifying the kinds of academic writing as perceived by male and female Saudi EFL learners studying at TU,

b. Identifying the academic writing problems as perceived by male and female Saudi EFL learners studying at TU,

c. Identifying the causes of academic writing problems as perceived by male and female Saudi EFL learners studying at TU,

d. Identifying the solutions to overcome academic writing problems as perceived by male and female Saudi EFL learners studying at TU.

4. Null Hypotheses

H01: There is not any statistically significant difference in the perception of male and female Saudi EFL learners regarding the kinds of academic writing at TU. H02: There is not any statistically significant difference in the perception of male and female Saudi EFL learners regarding the academic writing problems at TU. H03: There is not any statistically significant difference in the perception of male and female Saudi EFL learners regarding the causes of academic writing problems at TU. H04: There is not any statistically significant difference in the perception of male and female Saudi EFL learners regarding the solutions to overcome academic writing problems at TU.

5. Participants For the purpose of this study all the junior and senior students, who have already spent two to three years at TU, were taken as the population whereas the freshmen and sophomores were not investigated. Considering the fact that the study in hand was perceptive in nature and the researcher considered it important to elicit the responses of those EFL learners who knew the academic echo system at TU so that authentic and reliable responses may be ensured. The questionnaire was translated into Arabic to collect reliable data. The researcher coordinated with the faculty members and visited the male participants of the study during their lectures to collect the data whereas the female faculty members were requested to administer the translated questionnaire to collect the data from the female cohorts. Incomplete questionnaires or the ones with same values assigned to all the items were rejected by the researcher. One hundred and eight questionnaires filled in by the male cohort and 86 by the female participants were selected for the final analyses.

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 169

The participants of the study were investigated once when the questionnaire was administered and they were given the option of free will to respond to the questionnaire. Furthermore, it was optional to mention their personal information. They were also informed that their personal information would be de-identified and data would be used for the purpose of this study only. Their submission of the questionnaires was considered as their informed consent. 6. Instrumentation The researcher consulted many related research studies including the ones conducted in the EFL context of Saudi Arabia (such as Al-Seghayer, 2011; Grami, 2010; Al-Khasawneh, 2010; Al-Hazmi, 2006) to collect data to develop a suitable questionnaire to elicit the responses of male and female English-major undergraduates of Taif university related to various dynamics of writing skills. A 40-item Likert-scale agree-disagree questionnaire was developed and translated into Arabic (See appendix#1). The Arabic translation along with the English version was given to two senior professors of translation at TU to identify any inconsistencies. Their suggestions were incorporated in the final Arabic version that was piloted with 20 EFL learners at TU. A Pearson correlation matrix was run for all the forty items using SPSS 17 that yielded a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of .75 which was a high value for ensuring sound judgments as George and Mallery (2003) have reported that alpha coefficient of more than .70 is acceptable for reliable scientific investigation.

7. Statistical Analysis The descriptive analyses, namely the means, medians and standard deviations, were run for all the questionnaire items to identify the most and least preferred questionnaire items. Furthermore, independent-samples t-test was used to see whether or not any gender-based statistically significant differences existed. The data analyses generated the following results. 8. Results and Discussion The 40-item questionnaire was divided into four sections to elicit the participants’ perceptions towards important writing tasks for their English-major studies at TU, the areas of difficulties in this regard, the factors that cause these problems and the probable solutions. The results generated through the descriptive analyses and independent-samples t-test have been summarised in tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. The first section of the questionnaire contains ten items that were included to elicit the participants’ perception to identify important academic writing tasks for their EFL studies at TU. Table 1 details the responses of the male and female Saudi EFL learners in this regard. Table (1): Analyses of important academic writing tasks at TU

Academic writing tasks Group N M SD T df p value

1 Topic sentences / supporting details

Male 108

3.6667

1.0590

-2.747 192 .007 p < 0.05

Female

86 4.0465

.8103 -2.830 191.72

2 Paragraphs Male 10 3.925 .8395 .658 192 .028 p < 0.05

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 170

8 9

Female

86 3.8372

1.0388

.642 161.66

3 Summaries Male 108

4.1111

1.1051

-.969 192 .118 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.2558

.9354 -.987 191.25

4 Letters Male 108

3.4444

.9795 1.021 192 .341 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.2907

1.1153

1.006 170.41

5 Critical Appreciation Male 108

3.1296

1.0598

-.210 192 .313 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.1628

1.1361

-.208 176.34

6 Reports Male 108

3.2407

1.0400

1.614 192 .867 p > 0.05

Female

86 2.9884

1.1323

1.599 174.87

7 Narrative Essays Male 108

3.2407

1.1590

1.471 192 .724 p > 0.05

Female

86 2.9884

1.2223

1.462 177.86

8 Descriptive Essays Male 108

3.2593

1.0445

-.767 192 .850 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.3721

.9828 -.773 186.69

9 Argumentative Essays Male 108

3.3704

1.2722

-.642 192 .726 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.4884

1.2718

-.642 182.41

10 Expository Essays Male 108

3.6667

1.1107

1.552 192 .924 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.4186

1.1004

1.424 157.63

Descriptive analysis results reveal that both sample groups saw eye to eye to each other as far the most important writing task is concerned and writing “summaries” has been assigned the highest values in favour of the female cohort. The first and second questionnaire items have been identified as the second and third most important tasks but in reverse order: the female participants allocated the second highest to writing topic sentence and supporting details and third highest to paragraph writing whereas the male cohort did the same but in a reverse order. Furthermore, the male participants also allotted the third highest value (3.66) to writing “expository essays” as well. Lowest value of less than 3.0 is not assigned to any item by the female cohort but the males did it for two items, i.e., to writing reports and narrative essays. The results of this empirical study contradict with the research conducted by Al-Khasawneh (2010) who investigated Arab postgraduate students studying at the College of Business, University

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 171

Utara Malaysia and found out that summary writing was among the least important tasks for their postgraduate studies whereas writing article reviews and reports were the two most important tasks. One probable justification for these contradicting results is due to the different levels (i.e., undergraduate v/s postgraduate level). The participants of this study need to write summaries for different concepts related to their various literature and linguistics courses; thus, ranked it the most important task for carrying out their studies effectively. The findings are partially in line with the results of Al-Khasawneh (2010) towards their perceived responses towards essay writing: postgraduate students considered it the least important as the participants of this study also reported it among the less important tasks. Standard deviation of more than 1 was calculated for nearly all items except the top three ones showing that the participants carried wide differences in their perceptions. Independent-samples t-test results indicated that though both groups bear differences in their perception towards all items but significant difference has been recorded only for the first and second items; thus, partially accepting the first null hypothesis because both groups have not shown any significant difference except items 1 and 2. Table (2): Analyses of problems faced in academic writing tasks

Problematic areas in Academic writing

Group n M SD T Df p value

11 Vocabulary Male 108 3.8519 1.0836 .172 192 .686 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.8256 1.0197 .173 186.68

12 Spellings Male 108 3.3148 1.2047 .358 192 .144 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.2558 1.0537 .363 190.27

13 Articles Male 108 3.2037 1.1337 -.181 192 .766 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.2326 1.0702 -.182 186.48

14 Punctuation Male 108 3.1111 1.2023 -.376 192 .452 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.1744 1.1187 -.379 187.35

15 Prepositions Male 108 3.2037 1.1978 -.589 192 .782 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.3023 1.1069 -.594 187.74

16 Suffixes/Prefixes Male 108 3.2593 1.1790 -.865 192 .047 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.3953 .9614 -.886 191.88

17 Irregular Verbs Male 108 3.1481 1.1982 -1.724 192 .915 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.4419 1.1541 -1.731 185.17

18 Question Words Male 108 3.2222 1.1547 .803 192 .271 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.0930 1.0586 .811 188.17

19 Grammar Male 108 3.7407 1.2257 .722 192 .536 p > 0.05

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 172

Female

86 3.6163 1.1496 .727 186.88

20 Organisation of Ideas Male 108 3.4630 1.1392 -.497 192 .412 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.5465 1.1947 -.494 178.36

The descriptive and comparative analyses of ten items that constitute the second section of the questionnaire eliciting participants’ perceived responses regarding the difficulties they face in their academic writing have been summarised in the above given table. An interesting finding is that none of the ten items has been allocated high value of 4.0 or above by either group indicating that the male and female participants of the study did not perceive any of these areas as a very serious problem. This does not seem consistent with the previous research that was conducted in the various Arab countries and strongly reported that Arab EFL learners face serious problems in all English language skills in general and writing skills in particular (see for example Khan, 2011; Al-Samdani, 2010; Bersamina, 2009; Grami, 2010). Concerning the seriousness of the problem, Zaid (1993) stated that Arab students tend to cram grammatical rules, required lexical items and even important passages in English due to their lack of understanding and inability to write even few correct sentences in the target language. Item analysis for this section of the questionnaire exhibits strong affinities in the perceptions of the male and female participants. Use of suitable vocabulary has been declared the weakest area with the highest mean values that hinder their English-major studies at TU. This finding is in accord with the previous study conducted by Al-Khasawneh (2010) who also reported that the postgraduate Arab students studying in Malaysian university also ranked vocabulary as the most difficult area. Difficulties in grammar have been unanimously identified as the second most problematic area with comparatively high mean values. The next item in this regard remains the organisation of ideas and that also unanimously by both groups. Comparatively lower values (i.e., 3.15 to 3.30) were assigned by the male and female groups to the use of prepositions, irregular verbs, articles, suffixes and prefixes. This result is in line with much research conducted in the various regions of Arabic peninsula such as the findings of Hashim (1996) who reviewed many studies related to the syntactic errors of Arab EFL learners and reported that their problematic areas include use of prepositions, verbs, articles, conjunctions, sentence structure etc. Many other studies as well revealed that Arab EFL learners face severe problems in using prepositions and articles correctly (Khan, 2011; Zahid, 2006; Mourtaga, 2004 etc.) The least mean value was allocated to punctuation suggesting that the participants of this study do not have serious problems in punctuation. The participants assigned medium values to the remaining six items but their responses carried differences for all these items. The results exhibited some interesting trends. Three items with maximum values and one with least value bear complete similarity in the perception of both the male and female participants but SD of more than 1.0 for these item reports high inter rater differences. The same is true for other items because nearly all the remaining ones also have high SD of more than 1.0. The results of independent-samples t-test reported significant difference for only one item that elicited their responses regarding the use of suffixes and prefixes. The results indicate that the null hypothesis # 2 is also accepted with a minor difference of only one item out of the total of ten items in this section.

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 173

Table (3): Analyses of the reasons of weak academic writing

Reasons of Weak Academic Writing Group n M SD T Df p value

21 Low proficiency in the target language

Male 108

4.0556

.9154 1.461 192 .013 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.8372

1.1668

1.422 158.49

22 Lack of language courses at Taif University

Male 108

4.5556

.6604 -1.311 192 .035 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.6744

.5829 -1.330 189.93

23 Teachers' lack of interest in writing tasks

Male 108

3.5185

1.1559

-1.702 192 .201 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.7907

1.0417

-1.722 189.03

24 Limited opportunities to practice English outside the classroom

Male 108

4.4074

1.0325

-1.370 192 .016 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.5930

.8026 -1.409 191.90

25 Interference of your mother tongue

Male 108

3.4630

1.4688

-3.088 192 .001 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.0581

1.1413

-3.176 191.89

26 Inappropriate teaching methods Male 108

3.8704

.9676 -1.436 192 .055 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.0814

1.0761

-1.418 172.78

27 Lack of writing practice at Taif University

Male 108

3.8333

1.0722

-1.838 192 .933 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.1163

1.0563

-1.841 183.54

28 Use of Arabic in the classrooms Male 108

3.5926

1.1684

1.321 192 .382 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.3605

1.2734

1.308 174.77

29 Lack of audio visual aids in the classrooms

Male 108

4.2778

1.0837

.435 192 .999 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.2093

1.0967

.434 181.43

30 Insufficient use of dictionaries Male 108

3.7778

1.0170

.302 192 .402 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.7326

1.0563

.301 179.21

Table 3 details the descriptive and comparative analyses for the ten items included in the third section of the questionnaire meant to elicit the participants’ perception towards the causes of weak academic writing. The participants assigned comparatively much higher values to the

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 174

various items of this section as compared to the previous two sections: the female participants allotted high value of more than 4.0 to six items and the male group did it for four items. ‘Lack of language courses at TU’ has been ranked at the top with extremely high values of 4.67 and 4.55 by the female and male cohort respectively confirming the findings of Zahid, Farooq and Ajmal (2012) that insufficient number of languages courses has been a major cause of ineffective ELT in Saudi Arabian universities. Furthermore, the SD has been calculated as 0.58 and 0.66 for the female and male participants confirming that they bear strong agreement as far as this item is concerned. The female cohort assigned the second highest value of 4.59 to 24th questionnaire item suggesting that the limited opportunities to practice the target language outside the classroom is a major reasons for their weak academic writing. The other group allocated it the third highest value. This finding is in line with the much research conducted in the Arab world and revealed that lack of support from the society and family in terms of providing Arab EFL learners with sufficient opportunities to practice the target language cause a major handicap in effectively learning the target language including the writing skills (See for example Kahn, 2011; Tahaineh, 2010). Though there are contradictory voices as well such as Al-Khasawneh (2010) who reported that the postgraduate Arab students perceived it one of the least important factors in this regard. Another major reason, the second most favoured item by the male participants and the third most favoured item by the female participants, held responsible for weak academic writing remained the ‘lack of audio visual aids’ in the teaching process. Both sample groups saw eye to eye to each other as far the least preferred items were concerned. ‘Use of Arabic in Classrooms’ has been allocated the lowest values by both groups followed by ‘insufficient usage of dictionaries’. This finding is not consistent with the study conducted by Javid, Farooq and Ajmal (2012) in the same context and reported that frequent use of Arabic language in the classrooms by the faculty as well as the students has been a major cause of ineffective ELT in Saudi universities. The results of independent-samples t-test revealed that four items (21, 22, 24 & 25) bear statistically significant gender-based differences partially accepting the third null hypothesis. Table (4): Analyses of measures to improve academic writing

Measures to Improve Academic Writing

Group n M SD T Df p value

31 Using multiple teaching techniques

Male 108 4.5370 .7416 -.314 192 .631 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.5698 .6952 -.316 186.91

32 Using pair/group work Male 108 4.3333 .7488 1.251 192 .094 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.1744 1.0197 1.209 151.48

33 Using English as a medium Male 108 4.2037 .7582 -2.255 192 .494 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.4535 .7770 -2.248 180.39

34 Diagnosing students' problems in academic writing

Male 108 4.3148 .8823 -1.834 192 .007 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.5233 .6458 -1.898 190.73

35 Frequent use of modern teaching facilities

Male 108 4.2222 1.0170 -1.992 192 .008 p > 0.05

Femal 86 4.4884 .7933 -2.048 191.92

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 175

e

36 Additional coaching facilities for weaker students

Male 108 4.2037 1.1337 -.873 192 .195 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.3372 .9531 -.891 191.41

37 Timely correction of students' errors

Male 108 4.2778 .9937 -1.766 192 .021 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.5116 .8080 -1.808 191.90

38 Increased language courses Male 108 4.4259 .9192 -.576 192 .634 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.5000 .8506 -.581 187.67

39 Using peer reviews Male 108 4.0556 1.1008 -.896 192 .433 p > 0.05

Female

86 4.1977 1.0935 -.897 182.91

40 Frequent dictionary usage Male 108 3.8333 1.2642 -.622 192 .195 p > 0.05

Female

86 3.9419 1.1309 -.630 189.37

The analyses of the last ten questionnaire items which were included to elicit the participants’ suggestions regarding the correctives measures to improve their academic writing demonstrate interesting trends because all the items except the last one has been assigned extremely high values of more than 4.0. The results of this section are in contrast to the results of the previous section to a great extent. ‘Using multiple teaching techniques’ has been assigned extremely high values of 4.56 and 4.53 by the female and male participants respectively clearly indicating that Saudi EFL learners strongly feel that the teachers follow traditional methods of teaching that are monotonous and uninteresting. This finding is supported by high mean values allocated to the item that elicited their perception regarding the frequent use of modern teaching facilities in English classes to make them lively, interesting and appealing for the learners. The results of these items strongly support the findings of the growing mass of research (e.g., Javid, 2011; Khan, 2011; Grami, 2010) conducted in the Arab world. A relatively contradictory finding is reported by Al-Khasawneh (2010) that ranked the use of multiple teaching techniques among the least preferred items. The female participants allotted the second highest mean of more than 4.5 to the need of diagnosing the EFL learners’ specific writing problems so that appropriate corrective measures may be taken by the ELT faculty. This item was ranked as the fourth highest by the male cohort. The finding is in line with the recommendation of Al-Khasawneh (2010) who suggested that error analysis of EFL learners’ writings is quite instrumental for improving writing skills because “…..it helps to build students’ awareness of the different types of grammatical errors they are making and encourage them to check their errors by using grammar handbooks” (p. 19). The third most important item as considered by the female group has been the timely correction of EFL learners’ academic writing errors. Increasing the number of language courses has been ranked the second highest by the male cohort and 4th highest by the female participants. ‘Frequent dictionary usage’ is the only item that has been allocated low mean value of less than 4.0 by both groups suggesting that frequent use of modern gadgets has weakened their association with print material including dictionaries.

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 176

The comparatively analyses generated by independent-samples t-test indicated that three items (34, 35 & 37) carried statistically significant differences partially confirming the fourth hypothesis of this study. 9. Conclusion and Recommendations This study is a comprehensive investigation to identify the important writing tasks, major areas of difficulty, the factors causing these difficulties and the corrective measures in a Saudi EFL academic context. It attempted to identify gender-based differences for the above-mentioned factors and the results of independent-samples t-test did not show major differences partially accepting all four hypotheses. It has been found that the participants of this study need writing skills to paragraph level for carrying out their undergraduate English-major studies and that they also have serious problems in their academic writing due to their weaknesses in using appropriate lexical items, organisation of ideas and grammar. The other weaker areas are prepositions, spellings, irregular verbs, articles, punctuation, suffixes and prefixes. The findings strongly support the previous research that Saudi EFL learners who are supposed to have a reasonable command of English commit serious errors of various syntactic categories even at sentence level. The findings also suggested that the number of language courses as well as the opportunities of writing practice in the classrooms are not sufficient considering the fact that the participants of this study reported that they do not have appropriate English language proficiency when they joined Taif university for their English-major studies. This finding may resonate with the undergraduates who join other Saudi universities for their higher studies. Therefore, it seems important to implement a stricter admission policy and only those students are given admission in English departments who have a reasonable command of the target language so that they may be able to effectively handle technical courses of English literature, linguistics and translation. It is strongly recommended that along with other content based courses, English departments need to provide their undergraduates with sufficient number of language courses to improve their all language skills in general and writing skills in particular. Another important factor that should be considered for better results is to identify Saudi students’ specific errors and to develop tailor-made activities, in the form of on-campus and home assignments, to address to their common mistakes. This will not only help them with their problematic areas but also enhance their practice time ensuring better results. In line with the findings of much research it has been found out that EFL learners do not get any support in terms of practicing the target language in the real world context because of limited use of English in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it also seems imperative that the English faculty members should provide their students with as many opportunities to practice the target language as possible. In this regard it is also worth mentioning that effective use of group/pair work will be extremely instrumental to materialise it with an additional benefit of making their students learn from each other. These groups should include learners of different levels so that the students with comparatively better proficiency help the weaker ones. Use of traditional teaching methods is reportedly a major cause for their weak writing and it is strongly recommended that the faculty members should exploit modern teaching techniques and the classrooms should be provided with the latest teaching aids to ensure enhanced learning possibilities.

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 177

There seems a scarcity of research related to the writing problems of Saudi undergraduates along gender lines as the researchers could not find any relevant study in a Saudi context. This study is an effort to fill this gap but the findings of the present study are limited to the context of the current study and should not be over-generalised to other academic settings without conducting further investigations. Therefore, it is suggested that further research is imperative to understand this area in a better and more comprehensive manner. References Abdul Haq, F. (1982). An Analysis of Syntactic Errors in the Composition of Jordanian Secondary Students, Unpublished MA Thesis, Jordan, Yarmouk University.

Abu_Ghararah., & Hamzah, A. (1998). Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Procedures, Techniques and Activities. Riyadh: Tawbah Library.

Al-Eid, S. (2000). The Use of Pictures and Drawings in Teaching English Paragraph Writing in Saudi Arabia Schools, King Saud University: unpublished MA thesis.

Al-Ghamari, T. (2004). Integrating writing with other skills. Muscat Message, April, 78- 81.

Al-Hazmi, S. (2006). Writing Reflection: Perceptions of Arab EFL Learners. South Asian Language Review, XVI(2), 36-52.

Al-Hazmi, S.H. (2003). EFL Teacher Preparation Programs in Saudi Arabia: Trends and Challenges. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 341 – 344.

Al-Khuweileh, A. A. and A. Al-Shoumali (2000). Writing Errors: A study of the Writing Ability of Arab Learners of Academic English and Arabic at University. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13 (2), 174-183. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content

Al-Jarf, R. (2008). The Impact of English as an International Language (EIL) upon Arabic in Saudi Arabia. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4). 193-210.

Al-Khasawneh, F.M.S. (2010). Writing for Academic Purposes: Problems Faced by Arab Postgraduate Students of the College of Business, UUM. ESP World, 2(9), 1-23.

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 178

Al-Khatib M.A. (2000). The Arab World: Language and Cultural Issues. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 13(2), 121-125.

Alsamdani, H.A. (2010). The Relationship between Saudi EFL Students’ Writing Competence, L1 Writing Proficiency, and Self-regulation. European Journal of Social Sciences, 16(1), 53-63.

Al-Seghayer, K. (2011). English Teaching in Saudi Arabia: Status, Issues, and Challenges. Hala Print Co. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Asiri, I.M. (1996). University’s EFL Teachers’ Feedback on Compositions and Students’ Reactions, University of Essex: unpublished PhD Thesis.

Bacha, N.N. (2002).Developing Learners’ Academic Writing Skills in Higher Education: A Study for Educational Reform. Language &Education, 16(3), 161-177.

Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153 – 160.

Bjork, L., & Raisanen, C. (1997). Academic writing: A university writing course. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

Bersamina, F.V. (2009). English as Second Language (ESL) Learners in Saudi Arabia. Associated Content Society. Available online www.associatedcontent.com

Cayer, R.L., & Sacks, R.K. (1979). Oral and written discourse of basic writers: Similarities and differences. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(2), 121-128 .

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ezza, E. (2010). Arab EFL learners’ writing dilemma at tertiary level. English language teaching, 3(4), 33-39.

Fageeh, A.I. (2011). EFL learners’ use of blogging for developing writing skills and enhancing attitudes towards English learning: An exploratory study. Journal of Language and Literature, 2(1), 31-48.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update (4th ed.), MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Grami, G.M.A. (2010). The Effects of Integrating Peer Feedback into University-Level ESL Writing Curriculum: A Comparative Study in a Saudi Context. Doctoral dissertation submitted to Newcastle University, School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences. Available online https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10443/933/1/grami_

Hashim, N. (1996). English syntactic errors by Arabic speaking learners reviewed. Eric. Doc 423660 Full Text.

Heffernan, N. (2006). An Integrated Approach to Teaching Academic Writing. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8(3), Special Conference Proceedings Volume: Task-based Learning in the Asian Context, 249-258. Available online http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/PDF/September-2006.pdf.

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 179

Hinkel, E. (2004) Teaching Academic ESL Writing: Practical Techniques in Vocabulary and Grammar. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hyland, K. (2007). Genre Pedagogy: Language, Literacy and L2 Writing Instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148 – 164.

Javid, C.Z., Farooq, U., & Gulzar, M.A. (2012). Saudi English-major undergraduates and English Teachers' perceptions regarding effective ELT in the KSA: A Comparative Study. European Journal of Scientific Research, 85(1), 55-70. Available online http://www.europeanjournalofscientificresearch.com/ISSUES/EJSR_85_1.htm

Javid, C.Z., Asmari, A.A., & Farooq, U. (2012). Saudi Undergraduates' Motivational Orientations towards English Language Learning along Gender and University Major Lines: A Comparative Study. European Journal of Social Sciences, 27(2), 183-300. Available online http://www.europeanjournalofsocialsciences.com

Khan, I.A. (2011). Learning difficulties in English: Diagnosis and pedagogy in Saudi Arabia. Educational Research, 2(7), 1248-1257. Available online http://www.interesjournals.org/ER

Kharma, N., & Hajjaj, A. (1997). Errors in English among Arabic speakers. Beirut:Librairie du Liban.

Krashen, S.D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and applications. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.

Long, M.H., & Richards, J.C. (2003). Series editors‘ preface. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp.xv – xvi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McMillan Encyclopedia. (1986). London: McMillan Limited.

McDonough, J., & Show, C. (1993). Materials and methods in ELT: A Teacher’s. Guide. Oxford: Blackwell.

McMillan Encyclopedia. (1986). London: McMillan Limited.

Mohammed, A.M. (2005).Collocation errors made by Arab learners of English. Asian EFL Journal. Teachers Articles, 5(2), 117-126

Mourtaga, K. (2004). Investigating writing problems among Palestinians students Studying English as a foreign language. PhD dissertation Indiana University, USA.

Paltridge, B. (2004). Approaches to Teaching Second Language Writing. Paper presented in 17th Educational Conference Adelaide 2004, University of Sydney. Available online http://www.englishaustralia.com.au/ea_conference04/proceedings/pdf/Paltridge.pdf

Peters, P. (1986). Getting the Theme Across: A Study of Dominant Function in the Academic Writing of University Students. In B Couture (Ed.), Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives (pp. 169-185). London: Frances Printer.

Rababah, G. (2003). Communication Problems facing Arab learners of English: A personal perspective. TEFL Web Journal 2(1), 15-30.

Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE 2014 (E- ISBN 978-967-11768-5-6)

4-5 March 2014, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA. Organized by WorldConferences.net 180

Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407-430.

Raimes, A. (1996). Out of the woods: emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. In B Leeds (Ed.), Writing in a second language (pp. 10-26). New York: Longman.

Tahaineh, Y.S. (2010). Arab EFL university students’ errors in the use of prepositions. MJAL, 2(1), 76-112.

Zahid, C. (2006). Righting writing errors. The Seventh Annual UAE University Research Conference, UAE University, Al-Ain.

Zaid, M. (1993). Comprehensive analysis of the current system of teaching English as a foreign language in the Saudi Arabian intermediate school. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.

Zughoul, L., & Tamimian, L. (1984). The linguistic attitude of Arab university students: Factorial structure and intervening variables. The International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 50, 28-45.

Zughoul, M. (1987). Restructuring the English department in the Third World universities: Alternative approach for the teaching of English literature. IRAL, XXV(3), 221 – 236.