The Gap Between Oral and Academic Writin

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 7 (2), October 2014; 175-‐189 Safariyan, L., & Shahrokhi, M
EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
THE GAP BETWEEN ORAL AND ACADEMIC WRITING
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AMONG EFL BA GRADUATES
FROM KAZERUN AZAD UNIVERSITY
Leila Safariyan
English Language Department, Faculty of Humanities, Yasuj Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Yasuj, Iran
E-mail: l.safariyan@yahoo.com
Mohsen Shahrokhi (Corresponding author)

Department of English, Shahreza Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
E-mail: Shahrokhi1651@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to investigate the gap between academic writing and oral
proficiency among Iranian graduated English students. In this case study, the writer studied 40
English Foreign Language (EFL) BA graduates from Kazerun Azad University, Iran, as they had
learned English as a foreign language for more than four years. The data for the present study
were gathered through the identification and tallying of three basic measures, which were1) a
general English proficiency test, 2) academic writing ability test, and 3) Oral English
proficiency test. The findings of this study overall indicate a negative relationship between
University level ESL students’ writing and speaking, which specifically shows that there does
exist a gap between their writing and speaking proficiency. There may be several reasons for
that, inadequate vocabulary, grammar as a block, imperfectly learned pronunciation and
intonation, inadequate opportunities to speak English in class, lack of a focus on language
improvement in the curriculum, and input-poor environment outside class are but some sources
of this problem. Hopefully, these study findings will give contribution for foreign language
teachers, especially teachers of teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) to be aware
about the significance of speaking proficiency in foreign language learning to prevent the gap
which exists between the writing and speaking performance.
KEYWORDS: writing skill, speaking skill, TEFL
INTRODUCTION
Essentially language functions as the system of human communication which according to
Richards, Platt and Platt (1992, p. 283), “consists of different units, such as morphemes, words,
sentences, and utterances”. On the other hand, Crystal (1992), views language as “an act of
speaking or writing in a given situation”. This spoken or written form of language is referred to
as, “parole or performance whereas the linguistic system underlying one’s use of speech or
writing is referred to as competence” (p. 212).
175
(IJLLALW)
Of the four skills in English, writing is considered to be the most complex and difficult skill to
master. This difficulty, according to Richards and Renandya (2002, p. 303), “lies not only in
generating and organizing of ideas but also in translating these ideas into readable texts”. The
important role ascribed to writing is manifested in the status accorded to it in differing situations
within the teaching and learning environment.
The distinction between speech and writing is traditionally felt to be fundamental to any
discussion about language. Indeed, many would find the difference so basic and obvious that
they might question the need to devote any space to it at all. The distinction is transparent, they
might say. Speech uses the transmitting medium of 'phonic substance', typically air-pressure
movements produced by the vocal organs, whereas writing uses the transmitting medium of
'graphic substance', typically marks on a surface made by a hand using an implement. It is simply
a physical thing (Biber, 1988, p.136). The study of sounds is one dimension; the study of
symbols is another; and, that is apart from the nuisance of having to bring the two dimensions
together when getting to grips with spelling.
A number of language theoreticians assume that speaking and writing develop reciprocally and
directly affect each other (e.g. Myers, 1987). One reason for this assumption, as Shuy (1981)
argues, is that both oral and written languages come from the same source which is one's
communicative competence. A second reason is that writing and speaking are productive modes
of the language arts and employ many of the same faculties (Larson & Jones 1983). A third
reason, as Magnan (1985, p. 117) notes, is that “writing is sometimes the only possible form for
'speech'[and] speech is the most feasible form for 'writing'”. A final reason is that writing
involves talking to oneself which is considered one of the characteristics of effective speakers
(Klein, 1977).
Understanding these facts, as Chafe (1992) concluded that “writing and speaking each has its
own validity” (p. 257), more linguists have started comparing the linguistic features of the two
forms of language. Educators have started observing how children develop their written language
from speech. Some researchers even treated learning writing as learning a second language
(Neilson, 1979; Horning, 1987).
Gumperz and Gumperz (1991) believe that what impedes educational success (with literacy
included) is not grammar (linguistic features), but the social or cultural gap between the oral
community and the written community. But do these findings also apply in places where English
is used or learned as a second or a foreign language? For this specific issue, few researchers
seem to invest much time and energy in it. For English native speakers, the issue may be simpler
by assuming that all literates are from the oral culture. In other words, all people who learn to
write already know how to speak English. For ESL or EFL students, the issue is definitely more
complicated. Basically, the ESL or EFL students can be divided into at least four different types
(Astuti, 2010):
Type A: Fluent in speech and literate in English (with a good command of speaking,
reading, and writing)
Type B: Fluent in speech but not literate in English
176
(IJLLALW)
Type C: Not fluent in speech but literate in English
Type D: Neither fluent in speech nor literate in English
Being fluent in speech is defined as being able to communicate with English native speakers
without missing a punch line. People who have a chance to live in the English-speaking
community may acquire fluent speech in English prior to their writing. Most of others learn to
read and write first and then try to transform written language into oral expressions. In the
United States, the population of type A may be very small and that of types B and C may be
large. Type D may be new immigrants. Types A, B, and C ESL students are usually the
population from which the samples are drawn. Type D probably will be treated differently in a
specially designed bilingual class or individual studies.
However, most EFL university students in Iran may belong to types C or D. They are not likely
to be orally fluent in English because most of them are still under the traditional teacher-centered
classroom teaching methods. It should be noted that English nowadays is no longer the language
which people of most other countries use for only reading and writing to pass examinations or to
write dissertations, since with their open policy, they frequently find themselves face to face with
foreigners. Therefore, speaking English as a foreign language has become a vital skill for them.
On the contrary, speaking is still neglected if not totally forgotten in Iranian schools and
universities.
Despite the demand for proficient EFL BA graduates in employing them in appropriate jobs like
teaching and translating areas, it seems that the outcome of the majority of the Azad universities
responsible for the two or four year English programs is not sufficient and except for some top
students the rest of the graduate students are not proficient enough in oral or speaking activities.
Oral language involves a process of utilizing thinking, knowledge and skills in order to speak
and listen effectively. Hence, the students in such English programs cannot acquire the necessary
and expected ability of oral communication.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Research studies have addressed both ESL writing skill and oral skill. Yet, studies have
addressed each separately. The section below provides an overview of the research studies
conducted on each strand.
Writing Proficiency
Writing skill has been the subject of many studies, Badr and Jahin (2007) for instance,
investigated the effect of training discourse parameters and text types on developing prospective
EFL teachers' knowledge in applying these skills in their communicative writing production.
This was through an essay-writing test directed to a sample of 30 EFL prospective teachers
studying in the Department of English, Teachers' College, Taibah University, Saudi Arabia, and
belonging to an intermediate language proficiency level. The training adopted scaffolding as a
strategy. Effectiveness of training was assessed via a pre- and post-test. Preliminary statistical
analysis of data indicated strong correlations between participants' responses to the component
177
(IJLLALW)
sections of the pre- and post-test. Comparison of participants' post-training performance to their
pre-training performance indicated that training did induce a positive change in trainees'
knowledge of and ability to apply the principles of discourse parameters and text types in
communicative writing production.
Likewise, Shokrpour and Fallahzadeh (2007) investigated EFL writing problems at the university
level, trying to point out the major difficulties Iranian students face when writing their reports
and determine the defects in writing skill of medical students. They further explored whether
language skills or writing skills are the major problematic areas to which fifth year medical
students and interns are confronted. Data analysis indicated that Iranian EFL medical students
had problems both in language and writing skills, but with a higher percentage of problems in
writing skills.
Jamal and Mohammad (2012) in a study assessed the current EFL major students' writing
proficiency and examined the relationship between their writing proficiency and their attitudes
(motivational intensity and desire to learn) towards learning English. Data for the main study
were collected through two instruments administered to a sample of 50 participants studying in
the Department of English, Teachers' College, Taibah University, Saudi Arabia. The first was
Writing Proficiency Test, which aimed to assess participants’ current English writing proficiency
level. Analysis showed that 46% of the participants had a low writing proficiency level. Analysis
also showed that the majority of participants (86%) held positive attitudes towards learning
English. Yet, it showed no statistically significant correlation between participants’ writing
proficiency and their attitudes towards learning English. However, it showed a highly significant
correlation (sig. = 000) between students’ writing proficiency levels and their overall English
language proficiency, as represented by their GPAs.
Speaking Proficiency
A considerable volume of literature in both language assessment and SLA has also investigated
characteristics of oral proficiency. Some studies such as Adams (1980), Higgs and Clifford
(1982) have explored proficiency based on scores awarded from rating scales and feedback on
ratings collected from teachers and experts employing qualitative approach, while others such as
Magnan (1988) and Larsen-Freeman (2006) have conducted in-depth analyses of learner
performance through objective assessment.
Gan (2013) reports the result of a study that aimed to identify the problems with oral English
skills of ESL (English as a second language) students at a tertiary teacher training institution in
Hong Kong. The study, by way of semi-structured interview, addressed the gap in understanding
of the difficulties ESL students encountered in their oral English development in the context of a
Bachelor of Education (English Language) program. Insufficient opportunities to speak English
in lectures and tutorials, lack of a focus on language improvement in the curriculum, and the
input-poor environment for spoken communication in English outside class apparently
contributed to a range of problems that closely related to the sociocultural, institutional and
interpersonal contexts in which individual ESL students found themselves. The results of the
study lead us to question the effectiveness of the knowledge- and pedagogy-based ESL teacher
178
(IJLLALW)
training curriculum. They also point to a need to incorporate a sufficiently intensive language
improvement component in the current teacher preparation program.
Bashir (2011) stressed the components of a successful class and noted that language learners
need to recognize that speaking involves three areas of knowledge: 1) mechanics (pronunciation,
grammar, and vocabulary): Using the right words in the right order with the correct
pronunciation, 2) functions (transaction and interaction): Knowing when clarity of message is
essential (transaction/information exchange) and when precise understanding is not required
(interaction/relationship building).
Bashir (2011) also maintained that in the communicative model of language teaching, instructors
help their students develop this body of knowledge by providing authentic practice that prepares
students for real-life communication situations. They help their students develop the ability to
produce grammatically correct, logically connected sentences that are appropriate to specific
contexts, and to do so using acceptable (that is, comprehensible) pronunciation.
Iwashita et al. (2008) investigated the nature of speaking proficiency in English as a second
language in the context of a larger project to develop a rating scale. Spoken test performances
representing five different tasks and five different proficiency levels (200 performances in total)
were analyzed using a range of measures of grammatical accuracy and complexity, vocabulary,
pronunciation and fluency. The results showed that features from each of these categories helped
distinguish overall levels of performance, especially features of vocabulary and fluency.
Unlike the two studies above, Larsen-Freeman (2006) focused her investigation on the
development of proficiency by analyzing the oral and written data of five Chinese learners of
English in terms of complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity and fluency over a four-month
period. Qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed that the five learners became more fluent,
accurate and complex, but that each learner followed a different path in terms of rate of
improvement.
Comment on the Previous Studies

Concerning the studies about writing and speaking, it should be said that some of them addressed
the problems facing EFL university students in their learning of English. All of these studies
came to almost the same conclusion that writing and speaking are the students’ major problems
despite the fact that these studies were conducted in different EFL contexts. Other studies
addressed the type(s) of errors students did in their writing and speaking production.
In addition, considerable research has been done on the relationship between speaking and
writing development in L1 acquisition from different perspectives (Kantor & Rubin, 1981;
Cambourne, 1981; Gere, 1981). Labov argued that “competence in the spoken language appears
to be a necessary base for competence in writing” (1963, p. 88), and predicted it would be
relatively difficult for the students with low proficiency in speaking to master written
conventions. Kroll (1981) stated there was a developmental trend on speaking and writing, which
179
(IJLLALW)
progressed through different phases of development. These studies have provided valuable
information for L1 instructors to facilitate their students’ language acquisition.
However, fewer studies have been written about this issue on L2 acquisition. L2 instructors
therefore have to turn to L1 acquisition studies for information on the relationship between
speaking and writing for their teaching strategies. Nevertheless, Vann states that many questions
need to be answered concerning this relationship. For example, “How much transfer of learning
can we expect from one language skill area to another?” “Will fluent speakers make good
writers?” “Why do some students have particular difficulty with one mode or another?” (1981, p.
167). Similarly, Kim (2000) points out the stages in L1 and L2 acquisition might not be the
same. Thus, much research is needed to explore this relationship so as to enrich L2 acquisition
theories and provide a guide for L2 instructors when they practice their teaching in classrooms.
The research literature in this study was reviewed with respect to exploring the similarities and
differences between speaking and writing since there are not many studies examining the effect
of writing on speaking. In this respect, a large number of studies view speaking and writing as
similar forms (e.g. Cooper 1982, Mangelsdorf 1989, Negm 1995). Other studies conducted by
Hildyard and Hidi (1985), Mazzie (1987) and Redeker (1984) point to the differences between
speaking and writing. But these differences, as Shuy (1988, p. 77) argues, “are largely the
product of comparing formal writing within formal speech...[and] are considerably less obvious
when one compares formal speech to formal writing”.
The relevant review of the researches argues that limited evidence has been found in addressing
the relationship between oral skill and other language skills. Therefore, the study in hand tried to
shed more light on this topic and discusses the relationship between academic writing and
speaking ability of Iranian EFL learners.
RESEARCH QUESTION
In dealing with the mentioned issues, the present study attempted to find the answer to following
question:
Is there any gap or difference between EFL BA graduates’ oral proficiency and academic
writing?
METHODOLOGY
Participants
In this study, 40 EFL BA graduates from Kazerun Azad University were selected. The
randomization procedure was used to give every graduate in the population an equal chance of
being selected. The participants were carefully selected so that the potential intervening variables
including their age and field of study were controlled. The age range of the subjects was 20-25
years old. With regard to the students’ field of study, only English translation students
participated in this study in order to control the field of study variation. Also, the participants
were both males and females, 18 males and 22 females and native speakers of Persian.
180
(IJLLALW)
Materials and Instruments
The data for the present study were gathered through the results of the different oral and written
tests applied in the study. The analysis of the study involved the identification and tallying of
three basic measures, which were: 1) a general English proficiency test, 2) academic writing
ability test, and 3) Oral English proficiency test. The mentioned materials and instruments are
described in the following sections.
General English Proficiency Test

In the first phase of this study, all participants were asked to sit for a general proficiency test in
order to screen highly low and highly top participants. Thus, a Standard English Language
Proficiency Test was administered to all the participants before starting the experiment to
determine whether the participants are homogeneous in terms of their language proficiency. The
test had been previously used by Transparent Language, Inc. and its validity and reliability was
proven many times (available at: http://www.transparent.com). The test included grammar,
vocabulary, and reading comprehension. The total score for the test was 100. A clear instruction
for the test, as well as the two other tests of the study, was given to the participants. The test was
in multiple-choice format. The reason behind using the test was to determine the subjects’
command of English language as well as the elimination of the low proficient participants of the
study. The scores of the final 40 participants of the ongoing study were within required range
(40-60), and it was made clear that all of them were at the intermediate level of language
proficiency.
Academic Writing Ability Test

This test was based on “Academic Writing” by: Jordan and “Writing” by: Heffernan and John E.
Lincoln. The test consisted of five sections: a short questionnaire which sought for personal
information, paragraph recognition, using punctuation, description of the charts, and writing on a
selected topic. In paragraph recognition task the participants were required to read the following
paragraphs and fill the spaces. The required information was to write the type of paragraph, topic
sentence, minor supporting sentence, major supporting sentence, and concluding sentence. In the
next section, the students were asked to rewrite the following sentences using the correct
punctuations. As the next section of the writing test, the students were asked to look at the charts
and write a simple description of each of them. In part V, they were required to select one of the
given topics and write a three part essay on it with the length of 10 to 15 sentences in each
paragraph. Also, they had to note these things in their writing:
-grammar, punctuation, logical writing, the format of a classical paragraph, controlling
idea, and appropriate vocabulary
The topics utilized are as follow:

-What do you think the most serious problem in the world is? Why?
-What has been the best period in your life, and why?
-Think of two of your friends who have some similarities and differences and write a
paragraph of comparison and contrast.
181
(IJLLALW)
The total score assigned for this test was 150. The purpose of utilizing the test was to determine
the ability of the participants in writing the academic and logical writing. Inter-rater reliability
technique was used to guarantee the reliability of test results. The reliability amount obtained
was 0.85.
The Oral Proficiency Test

In this phase of the study, the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) was used by some needed
modifications. Moreover, the present study applied the listening test derived from International
English Language Testing System (IELTS).
More specifically, The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Oral
Proficiency Interview, or OPI, is a live 20-25 minute conversation, between a trained or
experienced tester and the candidate. It is a valid and reliable test that measures how well a
person speaks a language. The OPI assesses language proficiency in terms of the ability to use
the language effectively and appropriately in real-life situations. The procedure is standardized in
order to assess global speaking ability, measuring language production holistically by
determining patterns of strengths and weaknesses. During the course of the interview, the
interviewee was guided to engage in a variety of tasks such as describing, narrating, and
hypothesizing. Through a series of personalized questions a sample of speech is elicited and
rated against the proficiency levels. The OPI originally has the following scale: Superior,
Advanced High, Advanced Mid, Advanced Low, Intermediate High, Intermediate Mid,
Intermediate Low, Novice High, Novice Mid, and Novice Low. The total score assigned for this
test was 100.
Additionally, the present study applied the listening test derived from International English
Language Testing System (IELTS). Listening tests assess the ability of an individual to
understand the spoken word in all its forms. In details, in listening part the participants listened
to several short talks and conversations to answer the listening comprehension questions. The
total score assigned for this test was 50.
Due to the fact that the tests utilized in the study were standard tests, their validity and reliability
were assumed to be satisfactory. However, to ensure the content validity of the tests, the
comments of three experts were sought. Each confirmed the appropriateness of the tests
regarding the subject matter content and the general objectives of the study. After making sure
about the reliability and validity of the tests, the researchers administered the tests to the
participants of the present study.
Data Collection Procedure

Due to the fact that the tests utilized in the ongoing study were standard tests, their validity and
reliability were assumed to be satisfactory. To ensure the content validity of the tests, the
comments of three experts were sought. Each confirmed the appropriateness of the tests
regarding the subject matter content and the general objectives of the study. After making sure
about the reliability and validity of the tests, the researcher administered the tests to the
participants of the present study. The participants were given ample time to answer the written
182
(IJLLALW)
questions, and then they were asked to take OPI oral exams. The participants’ final score in
writing and oral proficiency tests were used as the means to study the possible difference
between their ability in these areas.
As far as the scoring of the Oxford Placement Test is concerned, as there were fifty multiple
choice items (40 vocabulary and grammar questions and 3 reading comprehensions with 10
related questions) so each correct answer was attributed 2 points. Next, the correct answers to the
whole test were multiplied by two and added up to a total sum, then the total sum was used to
show the scores of students out of hundred. There was no negative point for wrong answer or
items not answered at all.
The overall scoring in the second phase of the study (Academic Writing Ability Test) was based
on a combined assessment of the participants’ score on the academic writing task with a total
score of 150. The lecturer’s fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and interaction skills in
OPI and comprehension in IELTS listening part were the means to calculating his/her overall
speaking proficiency out of 150.
Table1: The Scoring Sheet for the participants on Different Writing and Oral tests
Type of Test Points Total Score
Standard English Language Proficiency Test 100 100

Academic Writing Ability Test 150 150
Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) 100
Oral Proficiency Interview (IELTS Listening Part) 50 150
The study changed the scales of the whole oral proficiency test, in the third phase of the study,
comprising of Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), and Oral Proficiency IELTS Listening Part, to
the minimum and maximum scores zero to 150 in order to be compared to the academic writing
test scores of the participants.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

English Language Proficiency Test
As mentioned earlier, the reason behind using a Standard English Language Proficiency Test was
to determine the subjects’ command of English language as well as the elimination of the low
proficient participants of the study. In order to ascertain the homogeneity of the participants in
terms of their general proficiency, they were divided into two groups. Table 2 shows the mean
difference between the scores of these two groups.
183
(IJLLALW)
Table 2: Group Statistics for the general proficiency test of the two groups
VAR0
0001 N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
VAR0000 1 20 52.1500 5.76080 1.28815
2 20 51.2000 3.94168 .88139
As it can be seen, the mean score for group one is 52.15 and that of group two is 51.20, showing
a mean difference of 1.05 which is not significant. However in order to prove this homogeneity,
an independent sample t-test was run between the mean score of the two groups. Table 3 depicts
the results of this test.
Table 3: The Result of Independent Samples T-Test between the Means of the Two Groups
Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
VAR00 Equal
002 variances 2.830 .101 .609 39 .546 .95000 1.56083 -2.20973 4.10973
assumed
Equal
variances
.609 39 .547 .95000 1.56083 -2.22340 4.12340
not
assumed
As it is clear, the t-observed is .609 which is lower than the t-critical from the table of t-values
at.05 level of significance (p.546>.05); therefore, the difference between the two groups is not
statistically significant. Figure 1 depicts the graphic presentation of the difference between the
two groups.
Figure 1: Graphic Presentation of the Difference between the Two Groups
The research hypothesis analyzed

The only research hypothesis of the present study was that there is a gap between EFL graduates’
writing ability and their oral skill in a way that their writing ability outperforms their oral skill. In
184
(IJLLALW)
order to statistically compare the results of the oral and writing tests, it was needed to compare
the mean score of these two sets of scores. Table 4 presents the descriptive statistic of the two
sets of scores.
Table 4: The Mean Differences between the Scores of Writing and Oral Tests
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
writing 134.0500 40 10.16013 1.60646
Pair 1
oral 84.1250 40 24.04503 3.80185
Figure 2 shows the difference between the performance of the participants in their writing and
oral tests.
Figure 2: The Mean Difference between the Participants’ Oral and Writing Score
As it can be seen in Figure 2 the mean score of the participants in the oral test was 84.125 and
the mean for the writing test was134.050 that is a mean difference of 50.375, so it can be said
that the students’ writing skill was obviously better than their oral ability. In order to ascertain
that this claim is reliable and valid and that there is a gap between oral and writing ability of
Iranian EFL graduates, a paired-samples t-test was run between the scores of writing and oral
tests. Table 5 summarizes the results of this test.
Table 5: The results of the paired-samples t-test between the score of the writing and oral tests
Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-
Mean Std. Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval tailed)
Deviation Mean of the Difference
Lower Upper
Pair writing –
49.92500 26.84370 4.24436 41.33997 58.51003 11.763 39 .000
1 oral
According to this table the t-value observed of these tests is 11.763 which is higher than the t-
critical from the t-value table. The level of significance is .000, so it can safely be claimed that
EFL graduates performed better in their writing ability compared to their oral performance.
Therefore, as it was stated above, the sole hypothesis of the study was finally accepted at.05
level of significance. So, the hypothesis is reiterated as “EFL BA graduates under the four year
learning program obtain wiring skill at a higher level than the oral skill”.
Discussion
185
(IJLLALW)
Concerning the t-value observed of the paired sample t-test which was 11.763 being higher than
the t-critical it can be claimed that EFL graduates performed better in their writing ability
compared to their oral performance. Therefore, as it was stated above, the sole hypothesis of the
study was finally accepted at.05 level of significance.
Thus, the Iranian EFL learners performed more powerfully on writing tests compared to oral test
after graduation. There may be several reasons for that, inadequate vocabulary or grammar as a
block, imperfectly learned pronunciation and intonation, inadequate opportunities to speak
English in class, lack of a focus on oral proficiency improvement in the curriculum, and input-
poor environment outside class are but some sources of the detected gap.
Of particular relevance to the findings of current study are Cheng, Myles, and Curtis’s (2004)
findings. Their findings also suggested that many non-native English speaker students still
needed continual targeted language support even after they were admitted into the graduate
programs. Moreover, Kim’s (2006) survey revealed that students were most concerned about
leading class discussions and participating in whole-class debates.
These findings are not totally against the findings of Xin-hua (2007) since in his study about the
relationship between speaking and writing in college-level ESL students in an American
university; the findings indicated a positive relationship between college-level ESL students’
speaking and writing. Unlike the present study, his findings specifically showed that students
who write with a high proficiency speak better than those of a low proficiency in writing. These
findings are also congruent with the findings of Gan (2012) regarding the differences between
the speaking and writing. In his study he concluded that speaking practice can help expose gaps
in learners’ vocabulary and grammar and pronunciation and eventually improve their oral
fluency.
Based on the findings of this study and the review of literature, several implications are
discussed. First, Students majoring in English at English language universities, encounter many
challenges that require investigation. Examples of these challenges include the gap between what
level of English they have after graduation and what level they should be in. Differently stated,
most of the Iranian EFL BA graduates are not at the level to write and speak in English legibly,
at the same time, there is a great gap between their oral production in English and their writing
ability.
All in all, although the writing proficiency is a must for Iranian EFL University students
especially for those majoring in translation, thus, the acquisition of a satisfactory level of
speaking performance should be a priority for English teachers and curriculum designers.
CONCLUSION
The original impetus for this study came from the need and necessity that most university
students are most concerned regarding the ability to speak fluently since they think that of the
four language skills, speaking is the prominent skill they have to master after their graduation.
186
(IJLLALW)
This is mostly because of the need for future career and employment purposes. In this regard,
Ferris (1998) investigated the views of tertiary ESL students at three different American tertiary
institutions about their difficulties in English listening and speaking skills, and found that the
students were most concerned with oral presentations and whole class discussions.
As a conclusion and with regard to the main points that have been previously mentioned, it is
important to notice that speaking ability is the vital and urgent need of the students majoring in
TEFL in general and translation in particular. But there are still many things to do for these
students’ future success. In order to achieve a good level of speaking skill and having high
quality of communication ability the essential matter is using different varieties of methods for
learning English. Based on Azam Noora (2008) English speaking and communication skill
requires a well-structured teacher training and useful method in relation to communication.
This perspective of improving the students’ speaking ability besides their writing proficiency and
preventing the gap between these skills presupposes that there must be a constant improvement
of better or suitable programs and courses, of effective teaching, and of serious analysis of
students’ needs. According to Hassani (2003, p. 4), the following problems exist in the Iranian
language learning environment: “a) unqualified teachers, b) old methods of teaching, c)
differences in cultures, d) non-authentic materials, e) lack of audiovisual facilities, f) lazy pupils,
g) the lack of native speakers, and h) the lack of satellite channels to watch English language
programs”. Much attention should then be drawn to the design of these English teaching
programs, which can help prepare the learners for future communication in response to the
mentioned needs.
Hopefully, these study findings would give contribution for foreign language teachers to be
aware about the significance of speaking proficiency in foreign language learning to prevent the
gap which exists between the writing and speaking performance of their students.
Limitations of the Study

This study is limited in several respects. First, its participants (EFL BA graduates) were drawn
from the same university, i.e. Kazerun Azad University, and therefore its results may not be
generalized well to other educational settings or other population with different backgrounds.
Future research involving a larger sample across the nation would help validate the findings of
this study. Moreover, class time, students’ psychological problems, CLT method, teachers’
regulated method for teaching speaking besides other skills and other types of factors and
problems which may contribute to the detected gap and low speaking proficiency need to be
added to be tested and studied. The comparisons of these factors are essential in order to find out
the most effective type of English language learning/teaching methods in general and speaking
skill in particular so that the findings can be used in English language learning.
REFERENCES
Abu Ras, R. (2001). Integrating reading and writing for effective language teaching, English
Teaching Forum, 39(1), 30-39.
187
(IJLLALW)
Adams, Marianne L. (1980). Five co-occurring factors in speaking proficiency. In James R. Firth
(Ed.), Measuring spoken language proficiency (pp. 1–6). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Alves, A. R. (2008). The good language learner. The University of Birmingham.
Astuti, D. (2010). The Gap between English Competence & Performance (Performance: The
Learners` Speaking Ability) State Islamic Jakarta University, Indonesia
Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Badr, S. M., & Jahin, J. H. (2007). Effect of Scaffolded Learning of Discourse Parameters and
Text Types on Prospective EFL Teachers' Communicative Writing Ability, College of
Education Journal, 36, 1-44
Bashir, M. (2011). Factor Effecting Students’ English Speaking Skill. British Journal of Arts and
Social Sciences, 2(1).
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cambourne, B. (1981). Oral and Written Relationship: A Reading Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, T.C. (1976). Measuring Written Syntactic Patterns of Second Language Learners of
German. Journal of Educational Research, 69,176-183.
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Ferris, D. (1998). Students_ views of academic aural/oral skills: a comparative needs analysis.
TESOL Quarterly, 32, 289-318.
Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic oral communication needs for EAP learners: What
subject-matter instructors actually require. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 31-58.
Gan, Z. (2012). Understanding L2 Speaking Problems: Implications for ESL Curriculum
Development in a Teacher Training Institution in Hong Kong. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 37(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n1.4
Hujailan, T. A. (2004). Analytical Study of an Evaluation to Assess College Students' Proficiency
in English, Teaching English in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, Al Dar
Iwashita, N. (2010). Features of Oral Proficiency in Task Performance by EFL and JFL Learners.
In Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum, ed. Matthew T.
Prior et al., 32-47. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. www.lingref.com,
document #238Salawatia for Pub. & Dist.
Iwashita, N. Brown, A. McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second
language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29 (1), 24–49.
Kim, S. (2006). Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international graduate
students in non-science and non-engineering fields. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 479-
489.
Kim, Y., & Kim, J. (2005). Teaching Korean university writing class: Balancing the process and
the genre approach, Asian EFL Journal, 7(2), Article 5.
Kroll, B.M. (1981). Developmental Relationship between Speaking and Writing. // B.M. Kroll &
R. J. Vann, Eds. Exploring Speaking-writing Relationships: Connections and Contrasts.
Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 32-54.
188
(IJLLALW)
Kroll., & Vann, R, J. Eds. (1981). Exploring Speaking-writing Relationships: Connections and
Contrasts. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Larsen –Freeman, Diane (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency and accuracy in the oral
and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27 (4),
590–619.
Magnan, Sally, Sieloff (1988). Grammar and the ACTFL oral proficiency interview: Discussion
and data. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 266–276.
Richards, J. C. and W. A. Renandya. (eds.) (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An
Anthology of. Current Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Richards, J.C., Platt, J. T., & Platt, H.K. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and
applied linguistics. Essex, England: Longman
Richards, J. C., & Schmidts, R. (2002). Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics (3rd Ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Press.
Shokrpour, N. & Fallahzadeh, M. H. (2007). A survey of the students and interns’ EFL writing
problems in Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Asian EFL Journal, 9(1)
<http://www.asian-efljournal. com/March_2007_EBook.pdf
189

The Gap Between Oral and Academic Writin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gap Between Oral and Academic Writin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

Mohsen Shahrokhi (Corresponding author)

KEYWORDS: writing skill, speaking skill, TEFL

Comment on the Previous Studies

General English Proficiency Test

Academic Writing Ability Test

The topics utilized are as follow:

The Oral Proficiency Test

Data Collection Procedure

Standard English Language Proficiency Test 100 100

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1: Graphic Presentation of the Difference between the Two Groups

The research hypothesis analyzed

Limitations of the Study

You might also like