AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CHALLENGES UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

FACE IN ACADEMIC WRITING AT A JAMAICAN UNIVERSITY

by

Tashieka Simone Burris-Melville

Dissertation

Submitted to the Faculty of

Trevecca Nazarene University

School of Graduate and Professional Studies

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

Doctor of Education

in

Leadership and Professional Practice

May 2020
 ProQuest Number: 28087001

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 28087001

Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2020 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All Rights Reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CHALLENGES UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

FACE IN ACADEMIC WRITING AT A JAMAICAN UNIVERSITY

by

Tashieka Simone Burris-Melville

Dissertation
 © 2020

Tashieka Simone Burris-Melville

All Rights Reserved

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In the words of Helen Keller “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so

much.” From the inception to the successful completion of this dissertation, I have

benefitted from the collaborative efforts of many individuals. I am overwhelmed with

profound gratitude, and I am forever grateful to my professors, colleagues, cohort

members, students, friends, and family who motivated, supported, guided, and

encouraged me throughout this doctoral journey.

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the Creator, God, who has been my source of

strength throughout this doctoral journey. Without the Lord and His blessings, I would

not be able to accomplish this feat.

To my parents, Vincent and Gean Burris, I am who I am because of the many

sacrifices you both have made. Thank you for teaching me the value of hard work and

what it means to fight for my dream. I would also like to thank my sisters, Shalieka and

Oprah Burris for being a part of the journey. You both sacrificed your time when I

needed a listening ear. Thank you for your constant encouragement and support when I

cried and wanted to give up. When I was struggling to maintain a balance with school,

work, and home, you both relieved me of my home duties so I could focus on my

dissertation. I love you all unconditionally.

To the members of Cohort 14, I thank you for the camaraderie and collaboration

we shared. I truly value the meaningful conversations and discussions and the wealth of

knowledge I have garnered. I am especially grateful to Ernest Mbandi, Sherene Wolcock,

ii
 and Shalonda Franklin, who have made this journey easier. I appreciate the time

you invested in me with your constant phone calls, emails, and encouragement to ensure

that I stayed the path and cross the finish line. Thank you for your remarkable friendship.

I would like to express heartfelt thanks to my colleagues and students who

generously volunteered to participate in the completion of the surveys and interviews.

Without your involvement, this dissertation would not be possible.

To my friends, Dejon, her friend Clyde, Susana, Stefan, and Arlo who assisted me

in so many ways. I thank you for your kindness, patience, and support.

I want to express gratitude to the members of my dissertation committee. Thank

you, Dr. William Tripp, Dr. Amber Miller, and Dr. Ryan Longnecker, for your guidance

and support throughout the dissertation process. I would also like to thank Dr. Donna

Gray for editing, proofreading, and providing valuable suggestions for improving my

research. I want to especially thank Dr. Melinda Burch, my statistics professor for being a

source of inspiration, constantly praying for me, and effectively guiding me through the

analysis of my data. I have grown immensely under your leadership. Thank you all.

Finally, to my husband, forever love, and life partner, Andrew Benson Melville I

thank you for your unconditional love and unwavering support throughout this process.

You are my number one cheerleader. Thank you for believing in me even when I did not

believe in myself. I thank you for sacrificing our vacation trips, date nights, and time

together so I could complete this journey. Words will never be enough to express how

grateful I am to have you as a husband and friend. I will always love, adore, and cherish

you.

iii
 This journey has truly been an adventure. Thank you all for being a part of this

transformational journey.

iv
 DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to all the Jamaican students who struggle with academic

writing and all my colleagues who continue to employ best practices and effective

strategies to minimize these challenges.

v
 ABSTRACT

by

Tashieka Simone Burris-Melville, Ed.D.

Trevecca Nazarene University
August 2020

Major Area: Leadership and Professional Practice Number of Words: 163

Although writing is fundamental for effective language production, it is a difficult skill

for second language learners and this is evident in the numerous writing challenges

students encounter. This mixed-methods study was designed to investigate the academic

writing challenges Jamaican undergraduate students face and the perceived factors that

hinder the development of their writing skills. Quantitative data were gathered and

analyzed using the Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test, student and faculty

perception surveys, and writing assessment scores while qualitative data were collected

from semi-structured interviews conducted with students and lecturers. Writing samples

were collected from 100 students to identify the major challenges they had with academic

writing. The findings reveal that the major difficulties students encounter are related to

referencing, grammar, mechanics, lexical, and discourse challenges. Students and

lecturers are of the perception that these challenges are influenced by a number of factors

including students’ fear of writing, the Jamaican language situation, low motivation, and

the lack of a writing across the curriculum initiative.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................5

Rationale ..................................................................................................................6

Research Questions ..................................................................................................9

Description of Terms .............................................................................................10

Contribution of the Study.......................................................................................11

Process to Accomplish ...........................................................................................12

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .......................................................................17

Introduction ............................................................................................................17

Historical Perspective…………………………………………...……………… 19

Academic Writing in Higher Education ................................................................31

Challenges Students Face in Academic Writing……………………………… 38

The Approaches to Teaching Writing…………………………...……………….38

Conclusion .............................................................................................................45

III. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................47

Introduction ............................................................................................................47

Research Design.....................................................................................................48

Participants .............................................................................................................51

Data Collection .....................................................................................................53

vii
 Chapter Page

Analytical Methods ................................................................................................56

IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................59

Introduction ............................................................................................................59

Findings..................................................................................................................60

Summary of the Findings .......................................................................................77

Limitations .............................................................................................................79

Implications and Recommendations ......................................................................80

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................82

APPENDIXES

A. Dr. Amber Miller Survey Approval ..................................................................97

B. Dr. Raymond Oenbring Survey Approval.........................................................99

C. Dr. Hoi Chan Interview Protocol Approval ....................................................101

D. Consent Form for the Daly-Miller Test ..........................................................103

E. Consent Form for the Student Perception Survey ...........................................106

F. Consent Form for the Faculty Perception Survey............................................109

G. Consent Form for Student Interviews .............................................................112

H. Consent Form for Faculty Interviews .............................................................115

I. Consent Form for Students’ Writing Scripts ....................................................118

J. The Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test ...................................................121

K. Student Perception Survey ..............................................................................125

L. Faculty Perception Survey...............................................................................133

M. Student Interview Protocol .............................................................................141

viii
Chapter ............................................................................................................... Page

N. Faculty Interview Protocol ..............................................................................144

O. Categories and Codes from Student Interviews ..............................................147

P. Categories and Codes from Faculty Interviews ...............................................153

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Lexical Items Shared in JC and SJE ......................................................................24

2. Differences between SJE and JC ...........................................................................28

3. Williams’ Model of Writing Process .....................................................................42

4. Lecturers’ Responses on the AW Challenges Students Face.................................61

5. Students’ Responses on the AW Challenges they Face .........................................62

6. Academic Writing Challenges Found in Students’ Papers ....................................66

7. Comparison of Students’ AW Challenges by Gender ...........................................68

8. Comparison of Students AW Challenges by Year Levels .....................................69

9. Chi Square Results by Gender ...............................................................................70

10. Chi Square Results by year Levels on Writing Effective Paragraphs ...................71

11. Chi Square Results by Year Levels on In-text Citation .........................................72

12. Chi Square Results for Question 20 by Gender .....................................................73

13. Chi Square Results for Question 20 by Year Levels .............................................73

14. Descriptive Statistics for Writing Scores ...............................................................77

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. The Jamaican Continuum as a Ladder of Lects .....................................................26

2. The Features of Academic Writing ........................................................................33

3. The Structure of an Academic Writing Paper ........................................................37

4. The Stages of the Writing Process .........................................................................41

5. Martin’s Model of the Genre Approach.................................................................44

6. The Integrated Process-Genre Approach ...............................................................45

7. The Convergent Mixed-Methods Design...............................................................50

8. Students’ Responses to Question 20 .....................................................................63

9. Lecturers’ Responses to Question 8 .......................................................................64

vii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

“Academic writing is never a student’s mother tongue” (Sommers & Saltz, 2004,

p. 145). Sommers and Saltz (2004) captured the idea that academic writing is undeniably

a challenging task for many students. In fact, this quote is most appropriate for the

subject of this dissertation. Writing is often considered one of the most essential language

skills since it permits one to express his or her thoughts and ideas. Scholars also regard

writing as an educational tool that seeks to enhance learning (Wittek, Solbrekke, &

Helstad, 2017). Educators have agreed that “the ability to write clearly and fluently is

undoubtedly one of the more important skills required of graduates” because it is critical

for their academic success (Singleton-Jackson & Colella, 2012, p. 24).

Writing is considered to be the framework of human communication, especially

within the twenty-first century, as it appears to be used more as a means of

communication than any other forms of media. People write for varying reasons, and

writing has been done successfully in both formal and informal settings (Alfaki, 2015).

Drennan (2017) highlighted, “Writing functions as an important tool that spans various

spaces in higher education” (p. 1). The teaching of writing and composition has been a

requirement for all students entering higher education since the start of the late nineteenth

century (Crowley, 1998). Crowley (1998) further highlighted that universities refer to this

introductory-level course as “English composition” or “freshman English” (p. 1).

1
 Today, names such as English composition and freshman English have been

extended to include academic writing, advanced academic writing, freshman

composition, college composition, college English among others. These introductory-

level courses are categorized as English for academic purposes (EAP), which was first

recorded in 1974 as a means to describe students English language needs (Zascerinska,

2009). Also, Zascerinska (2009) asserted, “English for academic purposes is concerned

with those communication skills in English which are required in formal education

systems” (p. 133). All English for academic purposes courses serve the same primary

function; they are designed to prepare students with the knowledge and skills needed to

successfully complete their course of study (Jarvis, 2001). The Council of Writing

Program Administrators (WPA), with professional responsibilities for writing programs,

has identified and presented the key outcomes for the first-year composition courses in

higher education within the United States. Many universities outside of the United States,

including universities within the Anglophone Caribbean, have also adopted these

outcomes in their academic writing modules.

These writing outcomes for first-year composition courses present a description of

the writing knowledge, practices, and attitudes that undergraduate students are to develop

in first-year composition. Moreover, they were designed to represent as well as regularize

the priorities for writing programs for first-year composition. Downs and Wardle (2007)

highlighted that the WPA has outlined four major outcomes for writing instruction that

most universities have adopted. These outcomes include rhetorical knowledge, critical

thinking, reading and writing processes, and knowledge of conventions. First-year

2
students are expected to develop rhetorical knowledge that will allow them to conduct

audience and context analysis and act on the information gathered to comprehend and

create texts. It is also imperative that first-year students develop the skill of critical

thinking, reading, and writing that will aid them to analyze, synthesize, interpret, and

evaluate ideas and information; these are foundational skills for advanced academic

writing (Downs & Wardle, 2007). The knowledge of processes will enable students to

employ multiple drafts to conceptualize, develop, and produce a final project. Finally,

first-year composition writing programs should introduce students to writing conventions,

which examine the different genres of writing, grammar, and citation practices. These

outcomes highlighted by Downs and Wardle (2007) have implications for what students

should learn and how instructors facilitate learning.

Hyland (2013) posited that writing in an academic context has gained prominence

in recent years on a global level, and both students and faculty must demonstrate fluency

in academic writing conventions because of its central role in constructing knowledge,

educating students, and establishing a professional academic career. He further

highlighted that three developments have significantly contributed to an increased interest

in academic writing. Firstly, Hyland (2013) contended that globally higher education has

experienced a huge expansion, which means there is an increase in ethnic class and age

diversity in the overall student population. Secondly, there is an increased interest in

writing, because universities and higher educational institutions are largely becoming

subjected to “teaching quality audits” (Hyland, 2013, p. 54) As a result, many universities

are spending more time on teaching and learning since writing is fundamental to

3
curricula. Thirdly, English is recognized as the international language of research and

scholarship (Hyland, 2013). Hence, more students are required to study and complete

dissertations in English.

Academic writing serves as a major source of communication for conveying

acquired knowledge in a specific field of study. In institutions of higher learning,

academic writing is critical to how knowledge is constructed within the disciplines and

students’ professional development (Sala-Bubaré & Castelló, 2018). Consequently,

universities across the world are now insisting that their students acquire proficiency in

academic writing skills. Academic writing is described as a mental and cognitive activity

since it is a product of the mind (Al Fadda, 2012). Although academic writing is an

essential academic skill for university students, Singleton-Jackson and Colella (2012)

noted that the acquisition of writing skills is not always successfully accomplished. The

process of writing a good paper or essay appears to be quite challenging for many

students. Academic writing challenges are particularly evident with students whose

native language is not English (Negari, 2012).

Consequently, these writing challenges are manifested within educational

institutions in Jamaica. The unique language situation that exists in Jamaica is one in

which Standard Jamaican English (SJE) is the official language of the country, and

Jamaican Creole (JC) is the mother-tongue language that is spoken by ninety percent of

the population (Bryan, 2010). The limited or none use of JC in education is problematic

in the sense that English, the colonial language, is the medium of instruction in schools

but the majority of Jamaican students are not competent in English. However, the reality

4
reflects that many educators do not approach the teaching of English as a second

language.

In 2001, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Culture (MOEY&C) drafted a

language policy to address the English language competence of students. The MOEY&C

(2001) described the language situation as a bilingual one but also noted the “fluid nature

of language usage between these two languages” (p.4). The policy also highlighted the

linguistic relationship between SJE and JC and the difficulties they create for

monolingual Creole speakers learning English (MOEY&C, 2001). As a result of this

complexity with the different languages, there has been a significant impact on the

teaching and learning of English in the Jamaican education setting.

Statement of the Problem

Student academic writing is at the center of teaching and learning in higher

education (Hyland, 2013); however, it is often an invisible dimension of the curriculum

and the rules and conventions governing academic writing are not explicitly taught within

disciplinary courses (Coffin et al., 2005). Furthermore, lecturers have expressed growing

concerns over the subpar writing being produced by Jamaican students within an

academic context. Several lecturers at the University of Technology, Jamaica have

consistently registered concerns about students’ low level of proficiency in English

(Brown, 2000; James, 2013; Richards, 2014).

Because academic writing is at the center of the scholarship of teaching and

learning in universities, this study was designed to investigate the academic writing

5
challenges Jamaican university students encounter as well as explore students’ and

lecturers’ perceptions of the causes of the challenges that students face.

Rationale

The purpose of this study was to investigate the challenges students face in

academic writing as well as explore the possible causes of their writing challenges.

Several reports have revealed that Jamaican university students are struggling with

acquiring proficiency in English. Lecturers at the University of the Technology, Jamaica

(UTECH) have expressed several concerns that undergraduate students are not capable of

expressing themselves in a clear and coherent manner. Findings from research completed

by Smith and Stewart-McKoy (2017) and Burris and Burris-Melville (2020) have

revealed that UTECH students struggle with numerous language challenges. These

research findings have led to an emerging need to investigate the problems Jamaican

university students encounter and to consider the possible strategies that can be

implemented to help students overcome these challenges.

The literature has established that academic writing is an integral part of the

teaching and learning process that affects both students and faculty in universities (Al

Badi, 2015). Academic writing is crucial in the field of higher education mainly because

a predominant part of a student’s academic life is spent writing in an academic context

(Fujii & Fukao, 2001; Zhu, 2004). Research has indicated that even though academic

writing is an essential skill, many university students lack competence; therefore, they

find the process of writing to be challenging (Ramsay, 2011; Souriyavongsa, Rany,

6
Abidin, & Mei, 2013). Furthermore, this is particularly evident with foreign and second

language learners (Negari, 2012).

A considerable number of researchers have noted that writing within a second

language learning context has proven to be complex and demanding. Musa (2010)

highlighted that writing is thought to be a difficult skill due to the number of components

involved including spelling, punctuation, grammar, vocabulary, and organizational skills.

Additionally, Alsamdani (2010) has indicated that the difficulty associated with academic

writing arises from the fact that writing involves formulating a thesis; developing and

supporting the thesis; and organizing, revising, and editing to reflect effective and error-

free writing.

According to Ramsay (2011), students within an Anglophone Creole context tend

to find academic writing extremely challenging. Researchers on the teaching of English

to Caribbean Creole speakers have noted that English appears in the position of second

language and consequently, teaching English to them should reflect a similar approach

(Craig, 1999; Nero, 2006; Nero, 2014). The main errors in second language writings are

usually the result of cognitive and social factors (Myles, 2002). Therefore, the cognitive

science and linguistic theory, as well as the social constructionist theory, have been used

as the theoretical framework for academic writing. The cognitive science and linguistic

theory have been instrumental in providing empirical research about the process of

writing (Alfaki, 2015). This theory demonstrates how thought processes influence the

writing process. The social constructivism theory is based on the idea that people

construct their understanding and knowledge through different experiences and the

7
reflection of those experiences (Giesen, 2008). Language serves as the means for

discovery and articulation (Alfaki, 2015).

Because of the importance of possessing effective writing skills, researchers have

generated a methodological approach about how writing should be taught. The literature

discusses the two major approaches to writing; these approaches are referred to as the

product and process approaches. The product approach is primarily focused on the result

of a student’s production and generating grammatically correct written work (Nunan,

1989). However, the process approach allows students to employ various steps that will

more likely lead to successful writing (Hedge, 1994). Employing the process approach to

the teaching of writing indirectly allows students to practice and develop their linguistic

skills (Badger & White, 2000).

In addition to the pedagogical concerns relating to the teaching of writing, some

of the chief writing challenges that students face have been discussed by scholars in the

literature. Academic writing is considered a difficult skill to learn or teach because it is

believed to be a complex mental production requiring careful thought, discipline, and

concentration rather than a simple cognitive activity (Grami, 2010). Various research

studies have revealed some of the major academic writing challenges and struggles

students experience when writing. Grammatical errors, mechanical problems including

punctuation and spelling, challenges with sentence structure, inappropriate diction and

vocabulary choice, and referencing are among some of the linguistic problems that

hamper students’ effective writing in English (Al-Khairy, 2013; Al Murshidi, 2014;

Ravichandran, Kretovics, Kirby, & Ghosh, 2017). Research has also recognized that first

8
language interference and insufficiency of views as well as unclear guidance of writing

tasks could possibly lead to challenges in the development of students’ writing skills (Al

Mubarak, 2017). Low proficiency in English, large class size, lack of practicing writing

skills, competence and qualifications of academic writing lecturers, poor attitudes, and

student lack of motivation have been identified among the main causes of the writing

challenges students encounter (Alfaki, 2015; Al Mubarak, 2017; Pineteh, 2014).

Students need to learn how to master effectively writing, a skill they will need

beyond college and universities. Therefore, this mixed-methods study was instrumental in

providing both qualitative and quantitative data that will benefit university students on

the various academic writing challenges that exist and how these challenges can be

minimized. In addition, language instructors, lecturers, and curriculum developers seek to

benefit from the findings of this study. More specifically, the findings of this study have

implications for Caribbean academic literacy practitioners’ approach to the teaching of

academic writing modules to help students overcome their writing struggles.

Research Questions

The mixed-methods study was designed to identify the challenges students

experience in academic writing as well as the perceived causes of the writing challenges

students encounter. Therefore, the following research questions helped to guide the study:

1.What were the challenges students face in academic writing?

2. What differences were observed in the challenges students face in academic

writing when controlling for demographic factors?

9
 3. What differences were observed between students’ and lecturers’ perceptions

of the possible causes of the academic writing challenges?

4. What changes, if any, existed in students’ writing scores throughout the

academic writing course?

Description of Terms

The following terms were employed throughout the study for consistency.

Academic literacies. Academic literacies is a relatively new empirical and

theoretical field. It is a framework that explores reading and writing in academia as social

practices that vary within context, culture, and genre (Lillis & Tuck, 2016).

Academic writing. Academic writing can be defined as the written scholarly

discourses that academics produce in conformity with the conventions and expectations

of their respective disciplines (Milson-Whyte, 2015).

First language. (L1). A first language is considered one's native language or first

acquired language; it is the language learned by children and passed from one generation

to the next (Mizza, 2014).

Jamaican Creole. (JC). The Jamaican Creole is also referred to as Jamaican Patois

or “Patwa” and is widely spoken in Jamaica. It is an English-based Creole with a mix of

Central and West-African influences (Patrick, 2004).

Mother tongue. The term mother tongue is a traditional term for a person's native

language; it is a language learned from birth. It is also referred to as a first language,

dominant language, home language, and native tongue (although these terms are

not necessarily synonymous) (Nordquist, 2018b).

10
 Second language. A second language is sometimes referred to as a target or

foreign language. This is any language used by an individual that is not his or her first or

native language (Nordquist, 2018a).

Standard Jamaican English. (SJE). Standard Jamaican English is the official

language of Jamaica and is employed mostly in formal contexts (Jettka, 2010).

Contribution of the Study

The Jamaican Language Education Policy has highlighted the unsatisfactory

performance of students in language and literacy at all levels of the education system

(MOEY&C, 2001). Therefore, the findings gathered from this study were considered

valuable in providing fundamental insights to all stakeholders at the university

particularly, the students, lecturers of academic writing, and the English language and

linguistics division to develop effective programs to help students in mastering effective

academic writing skills.

Researching the best practices in teaching tertiary-level academic literacies has

been dominated by United States-based scholars. The study of academic literacies

pedagogy is a developing field in the Caribbean (Oenbring, 2017). Thus, this study has

expanded research studies conducted on academic writing and literacies in the Caribbean.

Furthermore, one of the national outcomes outlined in Jamaica’s vision 2030 plan

is centered around providing world-class education and training. According to this

outcome, by 2030, students should, at minimum, become proficient in the English

language. The results of this study provided insights to the policy makers concerning the

11
core challenges students face and the strategies that can be implemented for more

students to become proficient in English and improve their academic writing skills.

Process to Accomplish

The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to examine the challenges

Jamaican undergraduate students encounter in academic writing and determine the

possible causes for their academic writing problems.

This mixed-methods study focused on a population of full-time and part-time

first, second, third, and fourth year undergraduate students at a large urban university in

Jamaica. The students involved in the study were comprised of male and female students

who were over the age of eighteen. The study also focused on male and female full-time

and part-time faculty members who teach or have taught academic writing modules. The

study was conducted on the main campus of the university, which has approximately

11,000 undergraduate students, 154 graduate students, and 700 full-time, part-time, and

adjunct faculty. The study was conducted during the fall semester of 2019. Once they met

the requirements, the participants involved in the sample were selected based on

convenience sampling. To participate in the study, the students needed to be in their first,

second, third, or fourth year of any undergraduate program offered by the university and

have completed at least one academic writing module or enrolled in an academic writing

module. The faculty members who participated in the study were selected on the basis

that they have taught an academic writing module.

The researcher investigated the challenges students experienced in academic

writing. Additionally, the researcher examined the students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of

12
the causes of the academic writing challenges that students face, as well as determined if

there were differences in students’ writing scores throughout the semester. This

quantitative and qualitative study used the Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test and

students’ essay scripts to identify the academic writing challenges students face.

Furthermore, writing perception questionnaires for students and lecturers were adapted

from the surveys utilized by Amber Miller (2018) that were adapted from Martineau-

Gilliam’s (2007) study and Beason and Darrow’s (1997) assessment, as well as Oenbring,

Jaquette, Kozikowski, and Higgins’ (2016) study (see permission in Appendices A and

B). Additionally, interviews were adapted from Chan’s (2013) study (see permission in

Appendix C) and were used to gain an understanding of both students’ and lecturers’

perception of the possible causes for the academic writing challenges.

The Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test is a Likert-scale survey that is

designed to measure writing apprehension. This test was combined with students’ essay

writing scripts to identify the difficulty faced in academic writing. The academic writing

modules, offered by the university, require students to complete many writing tasks,

including expository and argumentative essays, case studies, critical reviews, summaries,

and synthesis summaries. The writing scripts were collected from the various writing

tasks students had to complete during the 2016 to 2020 academic period. The selected

writing scripts received high, medium, and low scores. Moreover, the scripts were also

marked by a second examiner using a designated rubric to ensure quality assurance and

consistency in marking. The self-administered Writing Perception Questionnaires were

administered to both students and lecturers to measure their perception of the causes of

13
academic writing challenges. The questionnaires consisted of both open-ended and closed

questions. The closed questions employed a five-point Likert scale. The first section of

the questionnaires consisted of demographic questions that were used to collect data

regarding students’ gender, year of study, and the program in which they were enrolled.

The lecturers’ demographics included questions about gender; the name or names of the

academic writing modules they teach; their status; whether full-time, part-time, or adjunct

faculty; and how long they have been teaching. The other questions were relevant to

academic writing challenges and possible causes for these challenges. A sample was

drawn from the students and lecturers who participated in the questionnaires to be

interviewed to gain more insights into their perceptions.

To answer the first research question regarding the challenges students face in

academic writing, the researcher used the Students’ and Lecturers’ Perception Surveys to

measure students’ challenges as well as students’ writing scripts. The researcher

examined the challenges students face in general and then compared the challenges based

on gender. These data were used to run statistical tests to identify if there were

differences in the academic writing challenges between male and female and if the

differences were significant. Code numbers were assigned to students so that their names

were kept confidential.

For research question two, which focused on the differences observed in the

challenges students encounter when controlling for demographic factors such as gender

and year levels, the Student Perception Survey was administered using SurveyMonkey.

SurveyMonkey is an online data collection management platform that has account- and

14
password-protected features. The researcher is the sole owner of the account and a private

password was employed to guarantee confidentiality.

The questionnaire was administered on a voluntary basis to undergraduate

students who were taking or had taken at least one academic writing module. The survey

was sent by way of SurveyMonkey to students who met the requirements. The data

gathered were collected through the surveys and placed in the SurveyMonkey database.

The responses were then imported into an Excel spreadsheet for triangulation and data

efficiency. One-way analysis of variances (ANOVAs) and chi square tests were run to

determine if there were differences in the challenges students faced by gender and year

levels.

The third research question was centered on the students and lecturers’

perceptions of the possible causes of the academic writing challenges. Both the students

and lecturers’ perception surveys were used to measure students and lecturers’

perceptions of the possible causes of the academic writing challenges. The questionnaires

employed a five-point Likert scale to measure students and lecturers’ perceptions of the

possible causes of the writing challenges students encounter. The self-administered

writing perception questionnaires for students and lecturers were administered one time

to measure their perceptions of the causes of academic writing challenges. Quantitative

data were also collected from the Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test. One-way

ANOVAs were run to analyze the data. Additionally, the researcher interviewed faculty

members as well as students. The students’ and lecturers’ interviews were based on open-

ended questions that were designed to get further insights on their perceptions of the

15
possible causes of the academic writing challenges students face. The interviews were

conducted once. The students and lecturers were interviewed close to the end of the fall

semester of 2019. The interviews were transcribed and coded for analysis.

To answer research question four, which sought to determine if there were

changes in students writing scores throughout the academic writing course, students’

academic writing scores for fall semester of 2019 were retrieved from the university’s

electronic database, integrated student administrative system (ISAS). A within-subjects

ANOVA to determine if there were changes in students’ writing scores. Students’ names

and scores were kept confidential by assigning code numbers to the students.

16
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

Academic writing is at the center of the scholarship of teaching and learning in

universities; hence, universities across the world are insisting that their students acquire

proficiency in academic writing skills. Students are assessed largely by what they write

and need to learn in both general academic writing conventions as well as disciplinary

writing requirements in order to be successful in higher education (Coffin et al., 2005).

However, there has been a growing concern regarding the sub-standard writing being

produced by university students across the world, including those in Jamaica. Moreover,

as discussed in the literature, writing for academic purposes is an extremely difficult task

for many university students, especially those in an Anglophone Creole context (Ramsay,

2011). The transition from secondary school to higher education is also considered one of

the principal causes for the challenges students encounter in adapting to the writing

requirements at the university level (Ask, 2005; Baker, 2017). Additionally, students’

previous experiences with writing differ greatly, as the initial literacy acquired in

elementary and secondary education is not enough because it does not allow for them to

successfully deal with the demands of a given field of language (Marinkovich,

Velasquez, Córdova, & Cid, 2016). Furthermore, university introduces students to

specialized knowledge; therefore, they need to develop specific strategies to participate in

17
the activities required for learning in the context of higher education (Marinkovich et al.,

2016).

Scholarship on academic writing in higher education, especially in rhetoric and

composition, has focused on academic literacy, writing across the disciplines and other

challenges to student proficiency in writing (Baker, 2017; Marinkovich et al., 2016).

Additionally, from a Caribbean perspective, the literature has addressed the causes of

poor literacy performance, the teaching of remedial English, and identifying common

errors that students make (Bryan, 2010; Burris & Burris-Melville, 2020; Craig, 1999;

Smith & Stewart-McKoy, 2017). However, there is still a need for research on the

various challenges students face in academic writing within Jamaican universities. This

literature review seeks to provide an overview of the literature on academic writing

within the context of higher education as well as challenges that Jamaican university

students face in academic writing. To examine this gap in research, the following

questions were used to guide the literature review:

1. What were the challenges students face in academic writing?

2. What differences were observed in the challenges students face in academic

writing when controlling for demographic factors?

3. What differences were observed between students’ and lecturers’ perceptions

of the possible causes of the academic writing challenges?

4. What changes, if any, existed in students’ writing scores throughout the

academic writing course?

18
 Historical Perspective

The reviewed literature has indicated that the study of academic writing and

literacy was first developed in the English-speaking world. The history of academic

writing can be traced back to writing across the curriculum (WAC) and writing in the

disciplines (WID) movements in the last century (Marinkovich et al., 2016). According to

Russel, Lea, Parker, Street, and Donahue (2009), WAC originated in the United States in

the early 1970s. WAC was established out of the need to improve students’ learning and

writing, while the WID is focused on the characteristics of writing and learning in a

specific discipline (Marinkovich et al., 2016; Russel et al., 2009).

Academic literacies, another framework used to discuss student writing, emerged

in the United Kingdom and South Africa in the 1990s in a context where higher

education systems were undergoing significant change (Lillis, 2003; Lillis & Tuck,

2016). Academic literacies draw upon applied linguistics and social anthropology for its

theoretical framework and orientation toward the social, cultural, and contextualized

nature of writing in the university (Lea, 2017). The notion of academic literacies

conceptualizes student writing as a social and cultural practice that highlights the

relationship between language and learning in higher education (Arneback, Englund, &

Solbrekke, 2017; Lea, 2017; Lea & Street, 1998). Lillis and Scott (2007) have

emphasized that the term academic literacy(ies), in both singular and plural forms, are

growing in use across the various disciplinary fields and subfields including applied

linguistics, sociolinguistics, and literacy studies. They have also posited that there is

19
 fluidity and confusion with the use of the term academic literacies, which is

difficult to explain in terms of its singular or plural form (Lillis & Scott, 2007). Some

scholars have contended that the use of the plural form, “literacies,” indicates a concern

with literacy as a means of social and cultural practices related to reading and writing in

particular contexts and not an individual cognitive activity (Lea, 2017).

In applied settings, academic literacies refer to courses that are designed to enable

student writers to meet the demands of writing in the university (Lillis & Scott, 2007).

Many universities have designed various writing courses for students to take, especially

during their first year. Courses such as Freshman Composition, College Composition,

Academic Writing, Advanced Academic Writing, among others, fall under the umbrella

of English for Academic purposes (EAP). These courses range from introducing students

to academic writing in the context of higher education to how to write a dissertation

(Lillis & Scott, 2007).

The emergence of academic literacies in the United Kingdom stemmed from the

recognition of the limitations in official discourse on language and literacy in the context

of higher education (Lillis & Scott, 2007). Additionally, the increase in student

population within higher education and the linguistic, social, and cultural diversity that

students bring to this domain have concerns for students’ writing and the minimal

attention given to language in higher education pedagogy (Lillis & Scott, 2007).

Academic literacies emerged in South Africa for similar reasons. An interest in the

writing and reading of the students developed out of the need for transforming and

expanding higher education that had concerns related to access, diversity, power, and

20
equality (Lillis & Scott, 2007; Lillis & Tuck, 2016). Moreover, the emerging field of

academic literacies sought to address student writing, which is a principal cause of

concern since writing constitutes the main form of assessment in university education

(Lillis & Scott, 2007; Lillis & Tuck, 2016).

Oenbring (2017) testified to the complexity of providing an overview of the

historical development and present state of academic writing in the Anglophone

Caribbean. Providing an overview on academic writing in the Anglophone Caribbean is

difficult because the territories of the English-speaking Caribbean are spread over one

million square miles of the Caribbean basin and are, for the most part, developing

countries or colonies and have limited resources for or have traditions of academic

research (Oenbring, 2017). The Anglophone Caribbean is comprised of the seventeen

English-speaking territories in the Caribbean. These territories include Anguilla, Antigua

and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, the

Cayman Islands, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent

and the Grenadines, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands.

The study of academic literacies pedagogy is a developing field in the

Anglophone Caribbean. In recent years, Vivette Milson-Whyte, a senior lecturer at the

University of the West Indies, Mona (UWI, Mona) campus in Jamaica, provided in her

book an overview of the historical development of the pedagogical practices of academic

writing at the institution (Milson-Whyte, 2015). UWI is one of the leading regional

doctoral degree granting universities in the Anglophone Caribbean. According to Milson-

Whyte (2015), English writing instruction was conceptualized at UWI in the 1960s.

21
Furthermore, she mentioned that “use of English” was more focused on the teaching of

formal logic and oral presentation rather than on writing instruction (Milson-Whyte,

2015, p. 76). After decades, teaching writing became more centralized as a result of the

institution utilizing writing textbooks written by Americans and UWI faculty members

being trained at universities in the United States.

Although universities in the Caribbean have academic writing courses as part of

their curriculum, there has been limited research published on problems associated with

the teaching and learning of academic writing in higher education. As evidenced in the

literature, the studies completed were analyzed from a linguistic or Teaching English to

Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) perspective (Oenbring, 2017). Consequently, the

model created for American-style college composition, including the textbooks and

general style guides are adopted and utilized within Caribbean universities for the

teaching and learning of academic writing. There is a need to develop and discuss

academic literacies within the context of the Caribbean and address the writing concerns

and language proficiency of Caribbean students.

The Jamaican Language Situation

There has been continued concern among faculty and the broader populations

regarding the poorly developed writing skills of undergraduate students in the

Anglophone Caribbean. The deficiency of students’ writing skills is significantly

attributed to the fact that Caribbean students’ native languages are largely English-based

Creoles. Creole languages were developed during the Colonial Period, where European

and African languages were mixed and used for communication by slaves. To put this

22
research into perspective, it is necessary to provide a background on the language

situation that exists in Jamaica. The language situation can be described as a complex and

peculiar one. Two language varieties are at play; the varieties are Standard Jamaican

English (SJE) and Jamaican Creole (JC), which is often referred to by the masses as

Patois or Patwa.

These language varieties are often used within specific contexts; Standard

Jamaican English is the language of education, business, and commerce; thus, the

language is often used within a formal domain. Jamaican Creole, on the other hand, is the

language spoken at home and among family and friends. The Jamaican Creole is spoken

by 90 percent of the population (Bryan, 2010). However, the use of Jamaican Creole has

been expanding and evolving; it is no longer reserved for private use, but it has spread to

traditionally dominated English spheres (Smith & Stewart-McKoy, 2017). In 2001, The

Ministry of Education in Jamaica developed a Language Education Policy (LEP); the

Language Education Policy, however, has not passed through all the channels for official

adoption (Brown-Blake, 2007). The draft policy was developed in response to the

language concerns in educational institutions with the intention of improving students’

language and literacy proficiency (Brown-Blake, 2007). Moreover, the Jamaican

Language Education Policy recognizes that the Jamaican language situation is bilingual,

where Standard Jamaican English (SJE) is the official language and Jamaican Creole (JC)

as the language most widely used in the Jamaican speech community (Ministry of

Education, Youth, and Culture [MOEY&C], 2001). According to the Jamaican Language

23
Education Policy, this is a contributing factor to most of the population having a

difficulty learning the SJE (MOEY&C, 2001).

The close relationship and similarities between Standard Jamaican English and

Jamaican Creole add to the complexity of the language situation. Ninety percent of the

Jamaican Creole lexicon is from the English language. Consequently, this often leads to

confusion among speakers. Many lexical items in Jamaican Creole are derived from

English; however, these words have either expanded the original meaning or convey

different meanings from those words in English. Table 1 below illustrates examples of

English words that have either been expanded in Jamaican Creole or carry a new

meaning.

Table 1

Lexical Items Shared in Jamaican Creole and Standard

Jamaican English

Lexical
SJE Meaning JC Meaning Function
Item
Having very
little or no Expanded the
Having very little
Dark light as well meaning of the
or no light
as shy or word
backward

To look like
An act of Two different
Favour or resemble
kindness meanings
someone

Unsalted or
Expanded the
Unsalted or newly made
Fresh meaning of the
newly made as well as to
word
be rude

24
 Lacking
knowledge or Two different
Ignorant Bad-tempered
awareness; meanings
uneducated

Wretched, To be fussy or
Two different
Miserable unhappy, easily
meanings
uncomfortable annoyed

A vegetable Expanded the

Salad A vegetable as well as a meaning of
tomato the word

The Ministry of Education, Youth, and Culture further indicated that the speech of

Jamaican students, upon entering school, reflects a combination of SJE and JC

(MOEY&C, 2001). Linguists have used the term “Creole continuum “to describe this

observation. Many linguists, in providing a description of the Jamaican language

situation, have sought to characterize it has been operating on a Creole continuum.

Devonish and Thompson (2013) posited that a Creole continuum is a dialect of varieties

that ranges from the most basilectal or purest form of the Creole (in this case, the

Jamaican Creole), on one hand, to the acrolectal form, which refers to the most standard

varieties of English, on the other hand, with several varieties in between, referred to as

the mesolectal form. Figure 1 below illustrates the use of the continuum in the Jamaican

setting:

25
Figure 1. The Jamaican Continuum illustrated as a Ladder of Lects (Adapted from

Sebba, 1997).

As represented in Figure 1 above, the basilectal form and the acrolectal form

appear at the two ends of the ladder, while the mesolectal varieties are in the middle. The

basilectal form is usually employed by speakers who are considered to have low-status

and are not educated, and the acrolectal form is used by the elite or those who are

amongst the most educated. However, the majority of speakers in Jamaica fall in the

middle and are more likely to employ the mesolectal variations. Figure 1 also highlights

the lexical and syntactic differences that exist between SJE and JC. In the basilectal

variety, the lexical item nyam is used, while eat is utilized for the acrolectal form.

Additionally, on a syntactic level im a is used to represent the present continuous, which

is distinctly different from the acrolectal variation.

26
 Due to the high level of borrowing the lexical items from Standard Jamaican

English to Jamaican Creole, many critics have argued that Jamaican Creole is not a

language; rather these critics view it as broken or bad English that has no grammar or

standard form. However, linguists such as Devonish and Seiler (1991), Patrick (1999)

and Durrleman (2008) have carried out extensive research on the morphosyntactic

structure and phonological systems of Jamaican Creole. The findings from these

researches have indicated that Jamaican Creole has its own structure and system and

should therefore be considered a language. Devonish (1986) also posited that, for

students to be made aware of the linguistic differences between Standard Jamaican

English and Jamaican Creole, Jamaican Creole should be used as a medium of instruction

in school. Furthermore, Devonish and Carpenter (2010) suggested that the use and

function of Jamaican Creole be elevated to equal status as Standard Jamaican English in

the classroom; this approach, they believe, will eliminate the confusion between the two

languages.

Christie (2003) also highlighted numerous differences that exist between Standard

Jamaican English and Jamaican Creole. These differences are summed up and illustrated

in table 2 below.

27
 Table 2

Differences between Standard Jamaican English and Jamaican Creole

Jamaican Standard English Jamaican Creole

Number and tense are always formally Formal indication of these categories is

indicated. optional but still subject to definable rules.

Distinguishes between past and past

Creole does not
before past time reference

Mark case on pronouns Creole pronouns are invariable.

Uses the same pronoun form for second

Uses different forms for these categories
person singular and second person plural

Table 2 above indicates the major distinctions between the rules of English grammar and

Creole grammar.

Jamaican poet, Mutabaruka, summed up the language situation beautifully:

Jamaican speakers speak a language they do not write (Jamaican Creole) and write a

language they do not speak (Standard Jamaican English) (Devonish & Carpenter, 2007).

English as a Second Language

Scholars have completed extensive research on the teaching of English to Creole

speakers in the Caribbean (Craig, 1999; Nero, 2006; Nero, 2014). These studies have

28
concluded that English in the Jamaican education setting functions as a second language

rather than a first language; therefore, it should be taught as such. Myles (2002) noted

that errors in second language writing can be caused by two main factors; these factors

are cognitive and social factors. Having a knowledge of these factors is critical for

writing instructors and facilitators since they need to bear in mind any cognitive or social

factor that may affect the development of students’ writing skills.

Additionally, the process of second language acquisition is generally difficult for

learners, and the challenges they encounter tend to be reflected in the errors they produce.

The systematic occurrence of errors by second language learners has influenced the

development of the error analysis (EA) framework. The notion of error analysis was first

introduced in the 1960s by linguist Stephen Pit Corder out of the need to predict errors

made by first and second language learners (Hariri, 2012). Error analysis may be

described as the process of collecting, identifying, describing, and classifying, explaining,

and evaluating inconsistencies found in learners’ second language production (Brown,

2000; Hariri, 2012; Sawalmeh, 2013). The major deviations made by second language

learners are grammatical, lexical, typographical, and substance-related (James, 2013).

Furthermore, one of the first and possibly most important studies in error analysis

conducted by Richards (1971) indicated the different types of errors that are related to the

production and distribution of articles, prepositions, verb groups, and the use of

questions. From the findings gathered, Richards (1971) was able to determine the origin

of errors that were made language learners of varied backgrounds. The three sources of

errors were interlingual interference, intralingual confusion, and developmental

29
challenges. Learners’ first or native language significantly impacts the learning and

development of a second language. Richards (1971) described the errors produced by

learners in a second language due to the influence of the first language as interference

errors. Interference errors are also referred to as interlingual or transfer errors.

Interlingual errors are made when the rules and patterns of the learners’ first language

interfere with the acquisition of the rules and patterns of the second or target language

(Sari, 2016).

Intralingual errors, on the other hand, are those errors that are produced by

learners based on their application of the general rules they are exposed to in the second

language. Intralingual errors are classified into four categories namely,

overgeneralization, ignorance of the rule restrictions, incomplete application of the rule,

and false concept hypothesized or semantic errors (Richards, 1971). However, Richards’

sources of errors were later revised to include interference, overgeneralization,

performance errors, markers of transitional competence, strategies of communication and

assimilation, and teacher-induced errors (Sawalmeh, 2013).

Developmental errors are similar to intralingual errors, because they are both

produced during the process of learning a second language. Developmental errors occur

when learners attempt to build on hypotheses about the second language on the bases of

their limited exposure and experiences (Heydari & Bagheri, 2012). Moreover, learners

are likely to produce intralingual and developmental errors due to factors such as

simplification, overgeneralization, hypercorrection, faulty teaching, fossilization,

avoidance, inadequate learning, and false concepts hypothesized (Touchie, 1986).

30
 The findings of an error analysis research can be particularly valuable in guiding

the pedagogical practices of writing instructors who teach English as a second language.

Because the production of errors is an inevitable occurrence when learning a language, it

is important that instructors provide quality feedback to learners on these errors.

Therefore, as observed by Heydari and Bagheri (2012), having a better understanding of

students’ deviations and inconsistences, as well as the sources for these errors, will

enable instructors to identify the difficulties they face. Error analysis will also allow

instructors to create appropriate teaching and learning strategies to address and mitigate

the challenges that students face when learning a second language.

Academic Writing in Higher Education

Writing functions as an essential tool that spans various spaces in higher

education (Drennan, 2017). This importance of writing supports the rationale for

universities’ insistence that their graduates complete academic writing modules or

courses. Research in the field of academic writing has generated much interest. Research

has revealed that students entering higher education find academic writing to be quite

challenging and that they possess poor writing skills, which have been a major concern

for lecturers (Motlanthe, 2010; Ramsay, 2011; Souriyavongsa et al., 2013). Bartholomae

(2005) described academic writing as learning to speak and write according to the rules

of the speech community within a university. He stated that students must adapt to

writing a specific way and in a specific language. One of the issues he has identified with

adapting to writing a certain way and in a certain language is on the basis that students

may still be unfamiliar with their target language. The unfamiliarity of the target

31
language, as expressed by Bartholomae, is especially true in the Jamaican context.

Standard Jamaican English and Creole have not been taught alongside each other; this

introduces much confusion for the learners. In some cases, learners have limited

experiences with Standard Jamaica English outside of the university discourse space,

even though they have been taught English in high schools. Ravichandran et al. (2017)

discovered that despite the positive correlation between strong writing skills and

academic achievement, the literature with respect to support needed for academic writing

for students whose first language is not English remains sparse.

Characteristics of Academic Writing

Academic writing, like all other forms of writing, is governed by a set of

conventions. Academic writing provides an avenue for scholars including students to

express themselves in their disciplines and specific areas of expertise (Hartley, 2008).

While there are many purposes for writing an academic paper, the principal reason is to

convey information in a clear manner, whether to inform, describe, or persuade a

particular audience. Many researchers have highlighted that there are some defining

characteristics of academic writing that are applicable across all disciplines; these include

complexity, formality, precision, accuracy, structure, objectivity, hedging, and

responsibility (Hartley, 2008; Nasiri, 2012; Samigullina, 2018). (See Figure 2 below.)

32
Figure 2. The Features of Academic Writing.

Complexity is a salient feature of academic writing. Academic writing is

generally described as complex because of its standard written form when compared to

spoken language (Nasiri, 2012). The complexity of academic writing is usually reflected

in the lexical items and grammatical structures employed by a writer. Academic writing

requires a higher degree of lexical density and has a more diverse vocabulary (Nasiri,

2012). As a result, writers are expected to utilize academic and discipline-specific

vocabulary or specialized and technical jargons (Samigullina, 2018). Additionally,

grammatical complexity implies the use of more noun-based phrases rather than verb-

based phrases as well as the use of subordinate clauses and passive structures (Nasiri,

2012; Samigullina, 2018). Moreover, because academic writing addresses complex

33
issues, writers are required to utilize higher-order thinking skills such as synthesizing and

critical thinking.

Formality as a feature of academic writing is concerned with the use of an

acceptable or appropriate register that distinguishes it from other types of writing. The

use of colloquial language or slangs and overtly idiomatic language is not permitted in

academic writing (Samigullina, 2018). Furthermore, abbreviated or shortened forms of

words, including ellipsis and contractions, should be avoided.

According to Nasiri (2012), precision is a distinguishing characteristic of

academic writing because there is no room for inaccuracy. The facts and figures

presented in an academic paper should be precise and free from ambiguity so as not to

cause confusion or misunderstanding for the readers. Academic writing requires precision

to compensate for the author’s physical absence while the readers are reading (Nasiri,

2012). In addition, writers should ensure that they verify the quality, reliability, and

credibility of the sources they use. Therefore, sites such as Wikipedia, blogs, and .com

sites should not be considered when writing an academic paper. Instead, writers should

utilize information from journals and educational, organizational, and other scholarly and

trusted sites when writing for an academic audience.

Accuracy is also an important aspect of academic writing. Writers must accurately

use vocabulary, structure, style, and grammar (Hartley, 2008; Nasiri, 2012). This will aid

in eliminating mistakes that can result in confusion. Furthermore, it is also imperative

that the information presented by writers is accurate. Writers must clearly distinguish

facts from opinions, and information gathered from sources must reflect accuracy and be

34
well-documented. Writers may choose from a number of documentation styles, including

the American Psychological Association (APA), Modern Language Association (MLA),

Harvard, Chicago, among others. Each referencing style has its own conventions, and

writers must adhere to the guidelines outlined when quoting, paraphrasing, or

summarizing materials. Writers are also required to maintain consistency by using only

one documentation style when writing a paper.

Academic writing is generally objective in nature. To achieve this objectivity,

writers should make very little reference to themselves by emphasizing the facts and

evidence, thus avoiding personal bias (Nasiri, 2012; Samigullina, 2018). Writers should,

therefore, avoid the use of personal pronouns as well as use the passive voice when

writing academic papers (Nasiri, 2012).

According to Nasiri (2012), hedging is perhaps the most important characteristic

of academic writing. The concept of hedges was first introduced by American linguist

George Lakoff in 1972 who defined them as “words whose job it is to make things

fuzzier or less fuzzy” (Kim & Lim, 2015, p. 600). The technique of hedging is used in

academic discourse to enable writers to express their certainty and doubt toward

statements based on plausible reasoning (Kim & Lim, 2015; Nasiri, 2012). In other

words, writers are expected to exercise caution about being definitive and categorical in

the statements they produce as well as to avoid arriving at general or hasty conclusions.

Hedging, therefore, also initiates a dialogue with the readers that allows them the

freedom to dispute the statements posited (Kim & Lim, 2015).

35
 Finally, academic writing must be treated with responsibility. This characteristic

involves the justification of the writer’s position as well as effectively supporting the

claims made with appropriate evidence (Nasiri, 2012; Samigullina, 2018). Writers are

also responsible for accurately documenting the work of other authors by using the

relevant citing conventions (Samigullina, 2018). Taking responsibility for properly

referencing materials is crucial as it aids writers in preventing plagiarism, which will also

help in establishing and promoting the credibility of writers.

The Structure of Academic Writing

In academic writing, papers are usually divided into a formal and logical structure

that makes them unique from non-academic writing. Academic writing papers have three

parts, which are the introduction, body, and concluding paragraphs. The introduction is

the opening paragraph that introduces the purpose and the overall scope of the paper

(Bailey, 2018). In addition, the introduction gives the writer an opportunity to make an

impression on the reader. An effective introduction typically has an opening sentence that

draws the reader’s attention to the topic, relevant background information or context to

clarify the focus of the paper, and a clearly formulated thesis statement that captures the

main ideas to be developed in the body (Bailey, 2018; Whitaker, 2009).

The body paragraphs may be described as the heart of the academic paper. In the

body, writers develop the main points that were highlighted in the thesis statement. Well-

written body paragraphs tend to have clearly defined topic sentences that establish the

focal point of the paragraphs, explanation of the topic sentences, supporting details, and

concluding sentences (Murray & Moore, 2006; Whitaker, 2009). It is also vital that

36
writers develop these points in a coherent, logical, and sequential order that effectively

brings together the related points. Whitaker (2009) posited that coherency can be

achieved by using transitional words to connect the ideas.

The conclusion is the final paragraph of the academic paper. This section of the

paper summarizes the main ideas that were discussed throughout the body. Although the

conclusion may be the shortest paragraph, it is still considered very important since this

paragraph is the last one readers will read (Whitaker, 2009). A conclusion generally has a

sentence that connects the last sentence to the previous paragraph or an opening sentence

that efficiently signals the closure of the paper, restatement of the thesis, and a sentence

that provides a compelling statement concluding the paper (Whitaker, 2009). (See below

for Figure 3 depicting the general structure of an academic writing paper.)

Figure 3. The Structure of an Academic Writing Paper.

37
 Challenges Students Face in Academic Writing

Extensive research has been done on an international level to identify challenges

that students face in academic writing and reasons for these challenges. Academic writing

is a difficult skill to teach or learn because “It is not a simple cognitive activity; rather it

is believed to be a complex mental production which requires careful thought, discipline

and concentration” (Grami, 2010, p. 9). Studies have revealed some of the fundamental

causes in academic writing that challenge students. Grammar, vocabulary, referencing,

linguistic fluency, and accuracy are among the English language challenges that students

face (Ravichandran et al., 2017).

Not being prepared has been identified as one of the major challenges that

negatively affects students’ transition from secondary school to tertiary institutions. Thus,

it takes them a longer time to adapt to what is happening at the university, particularly

how to write academically (Fernsten & Reda, 2011). Students’ difficulty mastering tone,

form, and content required for academic writing demonstrates that they are not prepared

for university writing. These deficiencies severely affect the way students approach the

entire learning experience and the way they handle academic tasks, including academic

writing (Pineteh, 2012). Consequently, students fail to demonstrate the higher-order

thinking skills and coherent academic discourse that are expected at the university level.

The Approaches to Teaching Writing

The teaching of writing can take several approaches. However, since many

students struggle with many aspects of academic writing, a collaborative approach is

likely to enhance their academic writing development. The collaborative writing

38
approach is one in which students work in teams to navigate the writing process (Luna &

Ortiz, 2013). Research has shown that collaborative writing tends to have numerous

positive effects on learners, including the enhancement of students’ academic written

production (Luna & Ortiz, 2013; Mulligan & Garofalo, 2011). Taking a collaborative

approach aids in the promotion of student interaction in the classroom and minimizing

students’ writing apprehension levels (Mulligan & Garofalo, 2011). The students’ level

of awareness regarding the organizational and syntactical elements required for effective

academic writing is more likely to be heightened when they participate in a peer or group

writing process than when they work individually (Mulligan & Garofalo, 2011). Students

who approach writing tasks in teams are likely to benefit from each other, especially

those with higher writing proficiency; thus, through the peer editing process, they will

receive more meaningful feedback on grammar, vocabulary, organization, and content.

Studies have also confirmed that students who wrote their essays using the collaborative

approach produced higher grades and greater grammatical accuracy than those who

worked independently (Mulligan & Garofalo, 2011).

Scholars have acknowledged that writing skills are difficult to learn and require a

tremendous amount of practice; this is why choosing appropriate methods of teaching and

learning is of paramount importance. According to Wahyuni (2014), some of the writing

challenges are derived from the teaching and learning process. This means that students

and lecturers or instructors must collaborate in order for students to gain mastery in

academic writing. The transition from secondary institutions to higher education is not

always a smooth process; therefore, there is a need for supportive learning environments

39
that allow students to become more acclimatized to the academic standards of higher

education (Wilkes, Godwin, & Gurney, 2015). Essay-writing is one of the primary

assessment components in higher education. When writing essays, students need to find,

analyze, and synthesize information (Wilkes et al., 2015). To improve at writing, students

and faculty can work together by employing the process and genre approaches.

The process approach to writing focuses predominantly on the stages writers go

through in producing a piece of writing (Badger & White, 2000; Rusinovci, 2015). Using

this approach to teach writing can be rather beneficial and can help minimize student

frustrations with writing challenges. Hyland (2003) posited that the process approach

impacts the understanding of the nature of writing as well as how it is taught.

Additionally, students are introduced to the expectations of essay-writing in a scaffolded

manner (Wilkes et al., 2015). Rather than focusing on the final product, the process

writing approach allows students to submit multiple drafts of their written work

(Rusinovci, 2015).

The Stages of the Writing Process

Some authors have contended that the writing process has three major parts,

namely prewriting, writing, and rewriting (Kolin, 2017; Lalla, 1997). However, these

parts may be further divided into five stages: the pre-writing, drafting, revising, editing,

and publishing stages. Figure 4 illustrates the stages of the writing process.

40
Figure 4. The Stages of the Writing Process.

In the process writing approach, the teacher or instructor facilitates students’

writing and draws out students’ potential (Badger & White, 2000; Rusinovci, 2015). In

the pre-writing stage, a collaborative approach is taken by students and faculty to

brainstorm and make topic selection, collection of information, and formulation of the

thesis for the selected topic. Once this process is completed, students are able to work on

composing a draft or outline. The draft process is usually the most prolonged. During this

41
 stage, feedback is provided by peers and faculty (Rusinovci, 2015). The revision stage is

critical to the success of the writing process, as it allows students to make the

recommended changes to improve their writing (Kolin, 2017). Once writers are

completely satisfied with the revisions made to the content and organization of the paper,

they should proceed to the editing stage. In this stage, writers should revise r grammatical

and mechanical errors that may be present in their papers (Kolin, 2017). Papers should be

ready for publication once all the other stages have been completed.

Writing process models are developed based on either first language or second

language writing theories; consequently, it is imperative that writing instructors are aware

of this and select the model that is most suitable for their learners (Abas & Abd Aziz,

2018). Williams’ writing process model will be adapted for this research study since it

was framed with second language learners in mind, which illustrates the recursive nature

of the writing process (Williams, 2003). Williams’ writing process model highlights the

stages of the writing process as well as the numerous activities that are associated with

effective writing (See Table 3 below).

Table 3

Williams' Model of Writing Process

Process Definition Description

Prewriting activities take place before

Generating ideas,
Prewriting starting on the first draft of a paper. They
strategies, and
include discussion, outlining, free

42
 information for a given writing, journaling, talk-writing, and

writing task metaphor building.

Producing words on a

computer or on paper Drafting occurs over time. Successful

Drafting that match (more or less) writers seldom try to produce an entire

the initial plan for the text in one sitting or even in one day.

work

Revising occurs after the students have finished

Literally 're-seeing' the
their first draft. It involves making changes that
text with the goal of
enhance the match between plan and text.
Revising making large-scale
Revising almost always includes getting
changes so that text and
suggestions from friends or colleagues on how
plan match
to improve the writing.

Focusing on sentence-

level concerns, such as

punctuation, sentence Editing occurs after the revision of the

Editing length, spelling, work. The goal is to give the paper a

agreement between professional appearance.

subjects and predicates

and style

43
 Publishing is not limited to getting a text
Sharing the finished text
printed in a journal. It includes turning a
Publishing with the intended
paper into a teacher, a boss, or an
audience
agency.

Adapted from (Williams, 2003)

The genre approach to writing is an extension of the product approach, where the

focus is on the final product; however, the genre approach places greater emphasis on the

social contexts in which writing is produced (Badger & White, 2000; Rusinovci, 2015).

The genre approach to writing provides explicit and systematic explanations of how

language functions in different social domains (Hyland, 2003). Hyland (2003) contended

that the underpinning theory of the genre approach emphasizes an interactive

collaboration between teacher and students: teachers scaffold, and support students as

their writing progress. Moreover, students are provided with models to observe and are

usually required to discuss and analyze their use of language and structure. Figure 5

demonstrates the genre approach to writing.

Figure 5. The Genre Approach Model (Retrieved from Badger & White, 2000).

44
 Both the process and genre approaches to writing have received several criticisms.

Thus, some researchers have proposed an eclectic approach to writing, which draws on

the strengths of the two approaches. Theorists believe that this approach will expose

students to writing in a social context, while at the same time focusing on the purpose,

audience, and message of the different writing activities (Macken-Horarik, 2002;

Rusinovci, 2015). With the process approach, learners should be provided with a range of

feedback including peer feedback and teacher’s written feedback,3 throughout the entire

process (Rusinovci, 2015). Figure 6 captures the integration of the process and genre

approach.

Figure 6. The Integrated Process-Genre Approach (Retrieved from Badger & White,

2000).

Conclusion

This review of literature review examined academic writing in a higher education

context. Additionally, it has outlined several challenges that undergraduate students face

45
in academic writing as well as identified various errors that students make when writing.

While there have been numerous researches on academic writing challenges students face

internationally, limited research has been carried out in this area in the Caribbean. The

review identified a gap relating to the need for research to be conducted on the various

challenges students face in academic writing within Jamaican universities as well as

possible causes of these academic writing challenges. This research study will seek to

identify the challenges students encounter in academic writing as well as the perceived

causes of these challenges. Finally, this study hopes to also build previous research

regarding strategies that faculty can use to improve students’ writing performance.

46
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Writing is an essential skill and mastery of this skill is critical to students’ success

in institutions of higher learning. However, on a global level, many lecturers have

expressed grave concerns regarding students’ poor academic writing performance. This

study was designed to investigate students’ academic writing challenges at a Jamaican

university, as well as students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of the causes of these academic

writing challenges. Chapter three presents a description of the methodology used to

conduct this research, which includes the research design, the participants involved, data

collection, and the analytical methods. The following research questions guided the

study:

1. What were the challenges students face in academic writing?

2. What differences were observed in the challenges students face in academic

writing when controlling for demographic factors?

3. What differences were observed between students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of

the possible causes of the academic writing challenges?

4. What changes, if any, existed in students’ writing scores throughout the academic

writing course?

47
 Research Design

This study employed a mixed-methods research paradigm to determine the

students’ academic writing challenges and the factors that contribute to these challenges.

In a mixed-methods study, the researcher integrates both quantitative and qualitative data

to get different perspectives on a research problem as well as obtain a greater

understanding of the research problem (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Additionally,

mixed-methods research capitalizes on the strengths of quantitative and qualitative

approaches (Mills & Gay, 2019). Therefore, this paradigm was selected primarily

because it provided an opportunity to obtain rigorous data and results by statistically

testing students’ writing challenges and providing a rich account of the perceived causes

of these writing challenges. The mixed-methods paradigm provided a balanced

approached to the study; the qualitative data facilitated the participants’ voice in the study

and the quantitative data assisted with minimizing possible biases (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2018).

Creswell and Plano Clark (2018) recommend three core mixed-method designs

that researchers can utilize in formulating a framework for their research. These include

the convergent design, the explanatory sequential design, and the explanatory sequential

design.

The convergent design involves collecting and analyzing two independent strands

of qualitative and quantitative data in a single phase, merging the results of the

two strands, and then looking for convergence, divergence, contradictions, or

relationships between the two databases. (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018, p. 74)

48
The researcher employed the convergent design because it facilitated the merging

of the quantitative and qualitative results so they can be compared and combined.

Moreover, the merging of both the quantitative and qualitative data allowed the

researcher to garner information from different perspectives and insights on the

same problem, which provided not only more data, but also a more in-depth

understanding of the nature of the research problem (Creswell, 2015). The

convergent design was also employed because it provided the researcher with the

advantage of validating the quantitative database with the qualitative database

Creswell, 2015) (see Figure 7).

49
Figure 7. Convergent Mixed-Methods Design (Adapted from Creswell & Plano Clark,

2018).

In the quantitative strand of this study, data were collected from students’ writing

scores and self-administered surveys from both students and lecturers. Quantitative data

allow researchers to answer specific and narrow questions on observable data on

variables as well as yield general trends and relationships (Creswell, 2012; Creswell,

50
2015). The quantitative data collected enabled the researcher to identify students’ writing

challenges and compare both students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of the causes of the

academic writing challenges encountered. In the qualitative phase of the study, data were

gathered from research interviews and students’ writing scripts. Qualitative data permit

researchers to gain a deeper understanding by learning more from the participants

involved in the study (Creswell, 2012). Furthermore, qualitative data aid in strengthening

language research as they elicit deeper insights and explores perceptions (Rahman, 2017).

The qualitative data obtained provided greater insights about students’ writing challenges

as well as students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of the possible causes of these writing

challenges. Both the quantitative and qualitative data were merged and used to triangulate

the results gathered in order to produce a stronger interpretation of the findings.

Triangulation ensures accuracy and validity since the collection methods were drawn

from multiple sources of information, participants, and processes (Creswell, 2012).

Participants

This mixed-methods study focused on a population of full-time and part-time

first, second, third, and fourth year undergraduate students at a large urban university in

Jamaica. The students involved in the study were comprised of male and female students

who were over the age of eighteen. The study also focused on male and female full-time

and part-time faculty members who teach or have taught academic writing modules. The

researcher conducted the study on the main campus of the university, which has

approximately 11,000 undergraduate students, 154 graduate students and 700 full-time,

part-time and adjunct faculty. The study was conducted during the fall semester of 2019.

51
Once they met the requirements, the participants involved in the sample were selected

based on the random sampling technique for the quantitative data collection and

purposive sampling for the qualitative data. According to Creswell and Plano Clark

(2018), random sampling is the preferred sampling technique in quantitative data

collection because it allows researchers to select a large number of participants who are

representative of the population. The researcher chose purposive sampling because the

sample size for qualitative research is usually smaller, and this sample size allows

researchers intentionally to select participants who can provide firsthand experience on

the phenomenon being explored (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Mills & Gay, 2019). To

participate in the study, the students needed to be in their first, second, third, or fourth

year of any undergraduate program offered by the university and have completed at least

one academic writing module or be enrolled in an academic writing module. The faculty

members who participated in the study were selected on the basis that they had taught an

academic writing module.

The participants involved in the quantitative phase of the study included 265

undergraduates: first (n = 103), second (n = 73), third (n = 56), and fourth (n = 33) year

students across the various faculties. The sample included both males (n = 86) and

females (n = 179). Additionally, a total of twenty-seven full-time (n = 13), part-time (n =

12), and adjunct (n = 2) faculty members participated in the study. The sample for the

qualitative component of this study included twenty-five students and twelve lecturers.

The researcher took the necessary steps to ensure both the anonymity and

confidentiality of the participants’ information, including their work used in the research.

52
It was necessary to collect identifiable information, which was put in an excel database;

however, the identifiers were removed before the data were made available to anyone.

Additionally, the researcher assigned code numbers to writing scripts, writing scores, and

the interview transcripts. The identifiable information was accessible only to the primary

researcher.

Data Collection

The researcher submitted an Institutional Review Board (IRB) application to

Trevecca Nazarene University and was granted approval in the summer of 2019. The

researcher also sought approval to conduct research and access students’ data at the

research site. Once approved, consent forms were sent to students and lecturers who

agreed to participate in the study (See Appendices D, E, F, G, H, I). To measure students’

writing apprehension level, the Daly Miller Test (see Appendix J) was administered at the

beginning of each academic writing class for the fall semester. The Daly-Miller Test, a

Likert scale developed by Daly and Miller in 197,5 placed individuals on a continuum

from low to high apprehension (Güler, İlhan, Güneyli, & Demir, 2017). The

questionnaire was composed of twenty-six items with thirteen positive and thirteen

negative polarity and five possible answers for each item. These were strongly agree,

agree, uncertain, disagree, and strongly disagree. The Daly-Miller Test instrument was

widely used, and its validity and reliability had been established (McAndrew, 1986). A

reliability analysis was carried out on the perceived task value scale comprising the

twenty-six items in the Daly Miller WAT. The internal consistency was found to be high

(Cronbach’s α = 0.756).

53
 Academic writing perception surveys (see Appendices K and L) were sent to

students and lecturers through SurveyMonkey, a web-based data collection management

system. Students and lecturers were able to gain access to this database through a link

that was provided by the researcher once every week over a four-week period. The

questionnaires consisted of both open-ended and closed questions. The closed questions

employed a five-point Likert scale. The first section of the questionnaires consisted of

demographic questions that were used to collect data regarding students’ gender, year of

study, and the program in which they were enrolled. The lecturers’ demographics

included questions about gender, the name or names of the academic writing modules

they teach, their status, whether full-time, part-time, or adjunct faculty, and how long

they have been teaching. The other questions were relevant to academic writing

challenges and possible causes for these challenges.

The writing perception surveys for students and lecturers were adapted from

surveys employed by Miller (2018) that were Martineau-Gilliam’s (2007) study and

Beason and Darrow’s (1997) assessment, as well as Oenbring et al. (2016) study. The

validity of these instruments was established using content validity, which is the extent or

degree to which a test measures its intended content (Mills & Gay, 2019). The

researcher’s advisor and the academic writing instructors were consulted to obtain their

expert opinion of the items and to determine whether these items measured the intended

constructs. Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine the internal consistency for the

perceived task value scale comprising the thirty-three items in the Academic Writing

Perception Survey for students, showing a strong reliability, α=0.826. Cronbach’s alpha

54
also showed an internal consistency of .705 for the perceived task value scale of the

twenty-eight items in the Academic Writing Perception Survey for lecturers, which is

above the desired level of .7.

The researcher drew a purposive sample from the students and lecturers who

participated in the questionnaires; these students and lecturers were interviewed to gain

more insights into their perceptions of the causes of students writing challenges. Semi-

structured interviews (see Appendices M and N) were conducted with the research

participants. The interview protocols were adapted from Chan’s (2013) study. These

interviews were transcribed and coded for analysis.

Additionally, one hundred writing scripts over a four-year period (2016-2020)

were selected using stratified sampling and categorized into high, mid, and low scores in

order to identify patterns of students’ academic writing challenges. Studies completed by

Burris and Burris-Melville (2020), James (2013), Smith and Stewart-McKoy (2017), and

other researchers have suggested that identifying writing errors and challenges can be

effectively done by recognizing, describing, classifying, and categorizing errors through

the creation of taxonomies. Therefore, this was the process used to determine the major

writing challenges students encountered. Finally, the researcher collected the writing

scores of the students’ first, second, third, and fourth writing assessments for the fall

semester of 2019. These scores were compared to determine whether there were

significant changes between the writing scores.

55
 Analytical Methods

Once the data collection process was completed, the researcher compiled the data

from the various instruments utilized throughout the process. Because this was a mixed-

methods study, the data analysis involved preparing both the quantitative and qualitative

data for analysis. To approach the data analysis effectively, the researcher explored and

analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data separately and then the results were

integrated to interpret and answer the research questions (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

To answer the first research question regarding the challenges that students face in

academic writing, the researcher used the Student Perception Survey, the Lecturer

Perception Survey, and students’ essay writing scripts to identify the major academic

writing challenges students encounter. The quantitative analysis required selecting

appropriate statistical tests and descriptive analyses using the Statistical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0, which generated results in the forms of tables and

figures for interpretation. Additionally, the qualitative analysis involved the examination

of students’ writing scripts. According to Lichtman (2013), this process involves coding,

developing categories, and moving to concepts. Once this process was completed, the

patterns were imported into SPSS to be interpreted and presented.

The second research question focused on comparing students’ challenges

controlling for demographic factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, faculty, and year

levels. A chi-square test was run to compare students’ writing challenges when

controlling for demographic factors such as gender and students’ year levels.

Additionally, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if there were significant

56
differences. A < .05 significance level was used as the baseline to determine if there were

significant differences between the writing challenges faced by male and female students

and their year levels. If significant differences were recorded, these were followed up

with post hoc Tukey tests.

The third research question was centered on the students’ and lecturers’

perceptions of the possible causes of the academic writing challenges. The questionnaires

were administered using SurveyMonkey. SurveyMonkey is an online data collection

management platform that has account and password protected features. The researcher is

the sole owner of the account and a private password was employed to guarantee

confidentiality. The questionnaire employed a five-point Likert scale to measure

students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of academic writing challenges. The self-

administered writing perception questionnaires for students and lecturers were

administered one time to measure their perceptions of the causes of academic writing

challenges. The responses were then imported into an Excel spreadsheet for triangulation

and data efficiency. A series of one-way ANOVAs were run to determine the differences

between students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of the possible causes of the academic

writing challenges encountered by students. Additionally, a Pearson r correlation was

also conducted to triangulate any correlations between students’ and lecturers’

perceptions of the causes of the academic writing challenges students face.

Furthermore, the researcher gathered deep insights about what students and

lecturers perceived to be the causes of the academic writing challenges students

encountered by conducting one-on-one semi-structured interviews with students and

57
lecturers. Each interview was recorded and transcribed. Once the transcriptions were

completed, the researcher identified codes, categories, and patterns from the interviews.

A thematic and content analysis were done using Quirkos, a qualitative data analysis and

research software to gather more in-depth information on both students’ and lecturers’

perceptions of the academic writing challenges students encounter.

To determine if there were changes in students’ academic writing scores

throughout the semester, the researcher ran a within-subjects ANOVA. If there were

significant differences between the scores recorded, paired samples t tests were used as

post hocs. This study provided both quantitative and qualitative data about the major

academic writing challenges Jamaican university students encounter. The results gathered

will be analyzed and presented in chapter four.

58
 CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

Academic writing is a fundamental skill that is used extensively in higher

education. However, many students, particularly those learning in a second language

context, find academic writing challenging (Fareed, Ashraf, & Bilal, 2016; Negari, 2012).

Concerns regarding students’ writing deficiencies have been a recurring theme expressed

in the Jamaican society by educators, employers, the media, and the general public. News

articles such as Public Affairs- Jamaica’s Language Crisis (Thompson, 2011), Bloody

English! UWI, UTECH Students Struggle with the Language (Virtue, 2013), English is

the Most Important Subject (Kidd, 2015), and Our Children are Struggling to Read

(Williams-Pinnock, 2019) highlight the many challenges students encounter with writing.

The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to examine the challenges

undergraduate students face in academic writing at a Jamaican university. This study also

sought to investigate students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of the causes of these writing

challenges. Data were collected through three self-reported surveys. The Daly-Miller

Writing Apprehension Test (WAT) was administered to students to measure students’

writing apprehension levels and to determine if it was a contributing factor in the

challenges they encounter with academic writing. The student and lecturer perception

surveys had the participants rate their perception of the writing challenges as well as the

59
causes of the writing challenges on a Likert scale. Additionally, information was

collected through students’ essay-writing scripts as well as semi-structured interviews,

where follow-up questions were asked to gather deeper insights on the writing challenges

and their perceived causes. The following quantitative and qualitative research questions

were developed to guide this study:

1. What were the challenges students face in academic writing?

2. What differences were observed in the challenges students face in academic

writing when controlling for demographic factors?

3. What differences were observed between students’ and lecturers’ perception

of the possible causes of the writing challenges?

4. What changes, if any, existed in students’ writing scores throughout the

academic writing course?

This chapter presents the findings of the data analysis and the limitations of the study.

This chapter also discusses the implications of the study as well as offers

recommendations for minimizing students’ writing challenges and improving their

writing skills.

Findings

Research Question 1: What were the challenges students face in academic writing?

The first research question sought to find out the challenges that students face in

academic writing. To determine the major writing challenges that students face in

academic writing, the researcher collected both quantitative and qualitative data were

collected. Quantitative data were collected using the student perception survey as well as

60
 the lecturer perception survey. The results of the student perception survey questions 20,

22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, and questions 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 were

examined.

The results from the lecturer perception survey revealed that students found all the listed

academic writing tasks challenging (see Table 4 for their responses). The lecturers noted

that paraphrasing (100%), cohesion (92.6%), writing logically (88.9%), punctuation

(85.2%), spelling (85.2%), and referencing (100%) as major academic writing challenges.

Additionally, 92.6 % of the participants agreed that students use verb tenses incorrectly,

and 96.3% found synthesizing as an academic writing challenge.

Table 4
Lecturers' Responses to the Academic Writing Challenges Students
Face
Strongly Strongly
Agree Uncertain Disagree
Agree Disagree
Academic Writing
n % n % n % n % n %
Challenges
Verb tense 10 37.0 15 55.6 2 7.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

Spelling 5 18.5 18 66.7 1 3.7 3 11.1 0 0.0

Writing logically 8 29.6 16 59.3 1 3.7 2 7.4 0 0.0

Punctuation 5 18.5 18 66.7 3 11.1 1 3.7 0 0.0

Cohesion 6 22.2 19 70.4 2 7.4 0 0.0 0 0.0

Clear and coherent
4 14.8 15 55.6 2 7.4 6 22.2 0 0.0
essay
Paraphrasing 11 40.7 16 59.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Synthesizing 13 48.1 13 48.1 1 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

Referencing 16 59.3 11 40.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

61
 Students were also asked to indicate the extent to which they face certain academic

writing challenges. Table 5 represents their responses. As seen in the Table 5, when the

strongly agree and agree responses were combined, students found the following to be

challenging in academic writing: paraphrasing (29.3 %), cohesion (29.3%), paragraph

writing (37.6%), punctuation (24.8), spelling (29.2%), in-text citation (32.3), and creating

an APA reference list (40.3%).

Table 5

Students' Responses on the Academic Writing Challenges They Face

Strongly Strongly
Agree Uncertain Disagree
Agree Disagree
Academic
Writing n % n % n % n % n %
Challenges
Paraphrasing 29 11 86 33 50 19 87 32.8 13 49.0

Cohesion 15 5.6 63 24 46 17 115 43.2 27 10.2

Writing effective
20 7.5 80 30 49 18 99 37.2 18 6.8
paragraphs
Punctuation 12 4.5 54 20 48 18 116 43.6 36 13.5

Spelling 15 5.7 62 24 40 15 106 40.2 41 15.5

In-text citation 15 5.6 71 27 60 23 95 35.7 25 9.4

APA reference
31 12 76 29 41 15 94 35.3 24 9.0
list

Students were also asked to indicate the extent to which they found academic writing

challenging (question 20). Likewise, lecturers were asked to indicate the extent to which

62
students found academic writing challenging (question 8). Figures 8 and 9 illustrate their

responses.

35.0% 32.7%

30.0%
25.2%
25.0% 21.8%

20.0% 18.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0% 2.3%

0.0%
Strongly Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree

Figure 8. Students’ Responses to Question 20.

63
 60%

51.9%
50%

40% 37%

30%

20%

10% 7.4%
3.7%

0%
Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree

Figure 9. Lecturers’ Responses to Question 8.

As shown in Figure 8, when strongly agree and agree responses were combined,

57.9% of the students indicated that they find academic writing extremely challenging.

However, when faculty members were asked a similar version of the question, 88.9 %

(18.5% strongly agree and 66.7% agree) indicated that most of their students find

academic writing challenging.

The relationship between students’ responses to question 20 (M = 2.36, SD =

1.21) and lecturers’ response to question 8 (M = 1.81, SD = 0.83) was also analyzed using

a Pearson r correlation, which showed that there was not a significant relationship

between these two variables, r (25) = .179.

The qualitative data collected supported the responses provided by faculty and

students. Both students and faculty delineated many academic writing challenges during

64
the semi-structured interviews. In the interviews, a number of students indicated that

paraphrasing was a major academic writing challenge for them: I have a problem

understanding paraphrasing and understanding what I read; I guess paraphrasing is the

most difficult academic writing challenge I experience; paraphrasing what other writers

have written.

In addition to the writing challenges identified in the quantitative data, other

themes emerged (see Appendices O and P for categories and codes). Students also stated

that grammar, writers’ block, reading academic text, critical thinking, expression, being

concise, and formulating thesis statements were among the academic writing challenges

they experience.

When asked how many students experience academic writing challenges, all

lecturers agreed that more than half of the students they teach have difficulty with

academic writing. According to one lecturer, it varies. One could argue that the majority

have challenges; however, the severity of the challenges varies with the attitude and

aptitude of the student. All faculty members identified grammar, mechanics,

comprehension, vocabulary, organization, receptive and expressive skills as academic

writing challenges for students. One lecturer highlighted that Students usually have a lot

of challenges with grammar, mechanics, and expression and more specifically with verb

tenses, sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and syntax. Another lecturer stated that

Learners, for the most part, are lacking in receptive and expressive skills. They know

what they want to say but find it difficult to do so using (verbally and written) Standard

Jamaican English.

65
 A total of 100 writing scripts were also analyzed to identify the major writing

challenges students faced. The analysis revealed a total of 3,551 writing challenges in the

areas of lexical, grammatical, mechanical, discourse, and research conventions (see Table

6). The highest number of challenges was recorded in research conventions. The majority

of the students’ scripts revealed that they found paraphrasing, synthesizing, in-text

citation, compiling an APA reference page, and general formatting of an APA paper

problematic.

Table 6

Academic Writing Challenges Found in Students' Papers

Academic Writing Challenge Frequency of Occurrence

Research conventions 1213

Grammar 980

Mechanics 806

Lexical 450

Discourse 102

Total 3551

Research conventions were closely followed by grammatical challenges. The

grammatical challenges included subject-verb agreement, sentence fragments, run-on

sentences, comma splices, pronoun antecedents, verb tenses, and singular and plural

agreements. Comma splices and sentence fragments accounted for the highest number of

grammatical errors students made. Prevention of sexual abuse against children and

emotional scar, strategy and approach, improving safety and monitoring in schools,

66
another cause that is harming coral bleaching are among the examples of sentence

fragments found in students’ papers.

The mechanical challenges identified in students’ papers were based on the

omission and or overuse of capitalization as well as the omission and over inclusion of

commas, semicolons, and apostrophes. The lexical challenges examined were based on

diction and word choice, expression, and spelling. Some of the spelling errors that were

observed included ice-breg (ice-berg), boast (boost), accross (across), dear (there), and

thier (their).

Discourse challenges were the least among the challenges that students face. Only

102 discourse challenges were identified. The discourse challenges included sequential,

topical, and relational incoherencies.

Research Question 2: What differences were observed in the challenges

students face in academic writing when controlling for demographic factors?

To answer research question 2, the student perception survey questions 20, 22, 23,

24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 were analyzed using one-way ANOVAs to determine if there were

differences in the academic writing challenges students face. Chi square tests were also

run to compare students’ writing challenges by gender and year levels.

67
 Table 7

Comparison of Students' Academic Writing Challenges by Gender

Male Female

Academic writing
M SD M SD Fa
challenge

Paraphrasing 3.02 1.15 2.80 1.11 2.23

Logical sequence 3.47 1.06 3.19 1.12 3.65

Writing effective
paragraphs 3.29 1.13 2.93 1.09 6.13*

Punctuation 3.49 1.04 3.39 1.12 0.52

Spelling 3.47 1.09 3.30 1.20 1.19

In-text citation 3.21 1.04 3.13 1.12 0.27

Reference list 3.22 1.23 2.93 1.19 3.46

Key: 1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly
disagree.
a
df = 1, 263.
*p < .05.

As shown in Table 7, a one-way ANOVA was run to determine whether there was

a difference between male and female students and the academic writing challenges they

encounter. The academic writing challenge I find writing effective paragraphs

challenging showed a significant difference between the genders. The academic writing

challenge, I struggle to write sentences that follow a logical sequence was also

marginally significant.

68
Table 8

Comparison of Students' Academic Writing Challenges by Year Levels

Year Levels

1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year

Academic writing
M SD M SD M SD M SD Fa
challenge

Paraphrasing 2.70 1.10 2.79 1.15 3.09 1.08 3.24 1.15

2.88*
Logical
3.14 1.19 3.29 1.06 3.49 1.00 3.36 1.08
sequence 1.32
Writing effective
2.86 1.09 3.08 1.14 3.16 1.09 3.36 1.14
paragraphs 2.06

Punctuation 3.49 1.11 3.41 1.12 3.29 1.08 3.45 1.03

0.39

Spelling 3.41 1.21 3.51 1.14 3.04 1.15 3.39 1.06

1.93

In-text citation 2.92 1.07 3.44 1.09 3.15 1.11 3.30 1.02
3.48*

Reference list 2.89 1.16 3.10 1.25 2.98 1.24 3.36 1.19
1.38

Key: 1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree.

a
df = 3, 260.

*p < .05.

Students’ years in school were also compared on the academic writing challenges using

one-way ANOVAs, which showed significant differences between the year levels on

paraphrasing and using in-text citations well. The significant differences were followed

69
up with a post hoc Tukey test, which showed a marginal significance between first year

and fourth year students on paraphrasing, p = .07. The mean score went up every year,

suggesting that students seem to become more aware of this deficit as they progress

through school. The results also revealed that there was a significant difference between

first- and second-year students on in-text citation challenges, p < .05.

Male and female students were also compared on their writing challenges using

chi square tests. There was a significant difference between the genders on paraphrasing,

X2 (4, N = 265) = 10.50, p < .05. See descriptive statistics in Table 9.

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics for Chi Squares Results by

Gender

Strongly Strongly
Agree Uncertain Disagree
Agree Disagree

Gender n % n % n % n % n %

Male 7 8.1 17 19.8 13 15.1 42 48.8 7 8.1

Female 13 7.3 63 35.2 36 20.1 57 31.8 10 5.6

Chi square tests were also run to compare the writing challenges students face by

year levels, which showed a significance in writing paragraphs effectively, X2 (12, N =

70
 264) = 29.51, p < .01, and in-text citation, X2 (12, N = 264) = 25.51, p < .05. Descriptive

statistics are reported in Tables 10 and 11.

Table 10

Descriptive Statistics for Chi Squares Results by Year Levels on Writing Effective
Paragraphs
Strongly Strongly
Agree Uncertain Disagree
Agree Disagree

Year Level n % n % n % n % n %

1st year 13 12.6 26 25.2 29 28.2 32 31.1 3 2.9

2nd year 5 6.8 23 31.5 12 16.4 27 37.0 6 8.2

3rd year 0 0.0 23 41.8 5 9.1 22 40.0 5 9.1

4th year 2 6.1 8 24.2 2 6.1 18 54.5 3 9.1

71
Table 11

Descriptive Statistics for Chi Squares Results by Year Levels on In-Text Citations

Strongly Strongly
Agree Uncertain Disagree
Agree Disagree

Year Level n % n % n % n % n %

1st year 10 9.7 27 26.2 33 32.0 27 26.2 6 5.8

2nd year 3 4.1 15 20.5 12 16.4 33 45.2 10 13.7

3rd year 1 1.8 21 38.2 8 14.5 19 34.5 6 10.9

4th year 1 3.0 8 24.2 6 18.2 16 48.5 2 6.1

Chi square tests were also run to compare gender and year levels on students’

responses to question 20 on the student perception survey (this course is extremely

challenging). Males and females were compared on their response to question 20 using a

2 x 5 chi square test. There was not a significant difference between the genders, X2 (4, N

= 265) = 1.07 (see Table 12). A 4 x 5 chi square test was also run to compare the writing

challenges students face by their enrollment status (years 1, 2, 3, and 4). Students’

responses were marginally significant by enrollment status, X2 (12, N = 264) = 20.36, p =

.061 (see Table 13).

72
 Table 12

Chi Square Results for Question Twenty by Gender

Student Participants

Variable n % X2

Gender 1.07

Male 86 32.3

Female 179 67.5

df = 4.

Table 13

Chi Square Results for Question Twenty by Year Levels

Student Participants

Variable n % X2

Year levels 20.36

1st year 103 38.7

2nd year 73 27.4

3rd year 55 20.7

4th year 33 12.4

df = 12.

Research Question 3: What differences were observed between students’ and

lecturers’ perceptions of the possible causes of the writing challenges?

To analyze the data for research question 3, questions from the student and

lecturer perception surveys, the Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test, as well as the

73
semi-structured interviews sought to find out possible causes of the academic writing

difficulties students face.

Both students and lecturers identified several factors that they perceive to be the

causes of students’ academic writing difficulties. The majority of the respondents noted

that the Jamaican language situation is a major contributing factor to students’ poorly

developed writing skills. One respondent stated that many students speak the Jamaican

dialect at home, among peers, and in most informal situations. They do not want to seem

out of place by speaking Standard English in their daily interactions, so most do not have

a command of Standard English, as they have not mastered it or practice what they learn

in class. Another respondent noted that students face grammatical challenges which are

caused by the interference of their mother tongue- Jamaican Creole. They mix the

language and sometimes use the construction of JC instead of Standard English because

they do not know the rules of either language or how to apply them to academic writing.

The students and lecturers who participated in the research study also indicated

that a lack of exposure to English and insufficient writing practice negatively impacted

students’ writing development. Students highlighted that writing is not a focus across the

curriculum. Only when I come to academic writing classes we are encouraged to write;

our content lecturers do not emphasize writing, and content lecturers do not make it

mandatory for us to produce effective sentences; they’ll say you don’t have to know how

to pronounce it, just be able to spell it. Additionally, many of the lecturers felt that

students encountered academic writing challenges because they have a weak foundation

74
in English language learning and insufficient reading and writing opportunities in

formative years.

Many of the respondents were of the perception that students’ writing challenges

stem from a fear of English, which is heightened by the negative things that they hear

about the academic writing courses. One lecturer indicated that many learners are locked

into the perception that Inglish haad and so they spend little time outside of the class to

work on improving. One student also highlighted that I often think I am dunce and tend to

shy away from most English related classes because of the fear that I will embarrass

myself.

The findings gathered from the semi-structured interviews regarding students’

fear of writing were corroborated with the results of the Daly-Miller Writing

Apprehension Test. The Writing Apprehension Test revealed that almost 70% (69.9%) of

the students have a mid-level of writing apprehension (M = 83.86, SD = 17.31). 14.7% of

the students have high writing apprehension, while 15.4% experience low writing

apprehension.

The data also revealed that more male students had low writing apprehension

(16.3%) when compared to female students (14.6%). The reverse was also true with the

genders and high writing apprehension. More female students reported a higher writing

apprehension (15.5%) than male students (13.3%)

A chi square test was done to determine if there was an association between

gender and writing apprehension, which showed that there was no significant difference

between the genders, X2 (2, N = 259) = 0. 03. From the data gathered, students also

75
appeared to be more apprehensive of their writing skills the higher in year level they are;

however, a chi square test was run, which showed that there was no significant difference

between students’ year levels and their writing apprehension, X2 (8, N = 259) = 9. 52.

Other factors that were listed as possible causes included approaches to teaching

English, lack of planning and preparation, laziness, poor work ethic, inability to transfer

reading skills, students’ level of unpreparedness for class, and social media.

One-way ANOVAs were used to compare students’ and lecturers’ perceptions of

the causes of the academic writing challenges students face, which showed there was a

significant difference between the students’ (M = 3.31, SD = 1.13) and lecturers’ (M =

1.81, SD = 0.68) perceptions only on students’ preparation for classes, F (1, 291) =45.61,

p < .001.

Research Question 4: What changes, if any, existed in students’ writing

scores throughout the academic writing course?

To answer research question four, the researcher analyzed students’ academic

writing scores using a within-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) to see if there were

differences in students’ scores throughout the semester. A within-subjects ANOVA was

run to compare students’ academic writing scores throughout the semester, showing a

significant difference among the four sets of scores, F (3, 609) = 424.28, p < .001. Paired

samples t tests were used as post hocs for this comparison. The t tests showed significant

growth from the first to the second, t (203) = 24.29, p < .001, first to fourth, t (203) =

21.93, p < .001, and third to fourth writing scores, t (203) = 28.96, p < .001. There was

76
also a significant decrease first to third, t (203) = 2.24, p < .05, and for the second and

third, t (203) = 26.57, p < .001. See Table 8 for reported means and standard deviations

for each set of scores.

Table 14

Descriptive Statistics for Writing Scores

Writing Scores M SD

1 7.76 2.14

2 17.02 5.62

3 7.18 3.33

4 20.51 8.52

Summary of the Findings

There has been an increase in research on student writing in higher education in

the past decade. This increase is prompted by the widely held perception that students’

writing skills are poorly developed. This mixed methods research was conducted to

determine the academic writing challenges undergraduate students encounter and the

possible causes for these challenges. Although further research is required, some

determinations can be made based on the findings of this study.

The first research question sought to identify the major writing challenges

students face. Based on the results of the student and lecturer perception survey, students

find paraphrasing, writing in a logical sequence, punctuation, spelling, referencing, using

correct verb tenses, synthesizing, and writing effective paragraphs challenging. Students’

essay writing scripts and information gathered from the semi-structured interviews also

77
confirmed that those were among the major academic writing challenges students

encounter.

The second research question asked, what differences were observed in the

challenges students face in academic writing when controlling for demographic

factors? A total of 265 students, 86 males and 179 females, enrolled in first to fourth

year completed the Student Perception Survey. One-way ANOVAs were conducted to

determine if there were differences in students’ writing challenges by gender and year

levels. The results from the survey demonstrated that there was a significance between

the gender on the writing challenge “I find writing effective paragraphs challenging.” The

results also indicated that there was marginal significance between the genders when

students were asked if they struggled to write sentences that follow a logical sequence.

Additionally, the findings from the study revealed that there were significant differences

between the year levels on students who found paraphrasing and using in-text citations

well to be challenging. Consequently, the researcher followed up with a post hoc Tukey

test, which showed a significant difference between first- and second-year undergraduate

students on in-text citation. There was also a marginal significance between first- and

fourth-year students on paraphrasing.

Research question three was aimed at determining differences between students’

and lecturers’ perceptions of the possible causes of writing challenges. The findings

revealed that both lecturers and students share similar perceptions on the perceived

causes of the academic writing challenges students face. Students’ and lecturers’

perceptions were compared using one-way ANOVAs, which showed a significant

78
difference between the two groups only on students’ preparation for classes. Over 90% of

the lecturers agreed that students encountered writing challenges due to their level of

unpreparedness for class. However, more than half (56%) of the students disagreed with

the statement that their level of preparation for classes influenced the writing challenges

they face.

The goal of research question four was to determine if any differences existed in

students’ writing scores throughout the semester. A within-subjects ANOVA was run to

determine any statistical difference. Based on the results, there were significant

differences between the four writing scores students received. This was followed up with

paired samples t tests, which showed that there was significant growth from the first to

second, first to fourth, and third to fourth writing scores. The findings also revealed that

there was a significant decrease from the first to third and second to third writing scores.

Limitations

According to Creswell (2012), research studies are not completely flawless and as

a result they all have limitations. The major limitation of this study was based on the

sample. The sample was not evenly distributed across gender and students’ year levels.

More female students participated in the research compared to their male counterpart.

Also, more than half of the participants were first year students. Ideally, the researcher

would have preferred an equal distribution across gender and year levels. This limitation

may possibly skew the findings gathered in this study.

Additionally, the sample size and the use of purposive sampling are limitations of

the study. As a result of this limitation, the generalizability of the findings of this study is

79
decreased. For the study to be a more generalizable one, it would have been ideal to

collect samples from a number of universities in Jamaica, which would provide a more

accurate picture of the academic writing challenges faced by Jamaican undergraduate

students.

Implications and Recommendations

The research was conducted with an aim to explore the academic writing

challenges and the perceived causes of these challenges faced by undergraduate students

at a Jamaican university. The research findings have revealed that students have

numerous academic writing challenges. In order to effectively address and mitigate these

challenges, the researcher must take into consideration the perceived causes of these

challenges. Fear of writing, the Jamaican language situation, lack of sufficient writing

practice across the curriculum, and approaches to the teaching of writing were identified

as the major contributory factors to students’ poor writing development.

The results of this study have significant implications for the major stakeholders

including students, faculty and staff of academic writing, the English language and

linguistic division, course and curriculum developers, university administrators, and the

entire university community. Any effort to improve students’ academic and university

experiences require partnership and collaboration among all stakeholders. According to

The National Commission on Writing (2004), “People who cannot write and

communicate clearly will not be hired, and if already working, are unlikely to last long

enough to be considered for promotion” (p.3). Since writing is so essential, it is

80
imperative for all university stakeholders to employ an inclusive approach to academic

writing to minimize students’ deficiencies in writing.

Since writing is considered as the most essential skill needed for all core

academic courses, collaboration is needed among all faculties and not just among

language and literacy instructors and practitioners. Throughout students’ lives, they will

be required to solve problems, analyze and synthesize information, and think critically as

well as communicate their ideas effectively on a myriad of topics. In order for these skills

to be developed, writing must be taught and practiced across the curriculum and the

disciplines. Therefore, the researcher recommends that the university focus on the

integration of writing into teaching pedagogies through the development and

implementation of a writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC) initiative.

Additionally, the university and, in particular, the language and linguistic division

should consider investing in appropriate technological infrastructure to aid in the

development of students’ language competency. There is a need for a virtual writing

center or language lab to be developed. This virtual writing space would provide

additional exposure and practice for students to assist in the development of their

language skills. Many of the students indicated that their writing would improve if a

YouTube channel or other similar media were created where academic writing content is

uploaded for them to access. Furthermore, the use of Loom, a video messaging software,

should be considered as an additional tool to give instructions as well as provide feedback

to students throughout the writing process, especially in instances when written feedback

can be misleading.

81
 REFERENCES

Abas, I. H., & Abd Aziz, N. H. (2018). Model of the writing process and strategies of

EFL proficient student writers: A case study of Indonesian learners. Pertanika

Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(3), 1815-1842.

Al Badi, I. A. H. (2015). Academic writing difficulties of ESL learners. Madrid, Spain:

The West East Institute.

Al Fadda, H. (2012). Difficulties in academic writing: From the perspective of King Saud

University postgraduate students. English Language Teaching, 5(3),123-130.

Alfaki, M. (2015). University students' English writing problems: Diagnosis and remedy.

International Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(3). 40-52.

Al-Khairy, M. A. (2013). Saudi English-major undergraduates' academic writing

problems: A Taif University perspective. English Language Teaching, 6(6), 1-12.

Al Mubarak, A. A. (2017). An investigation of academic writing problems level faced by

undergraduate students at Al Imam Al Mahdi University-Sudan. English Review:

Journal of English Education, 5(2), 175-188.

Al Murshidi, G. (2014). UAE university male students' interests impact on reading and

writing performance and improvement. English Language Teaching, 7(9), 57-63.

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), pp. 53-63.

Arneback, E., Englund, T., & Solbrekke, T. D. (2017). Student teachers’ experiences of

82
 academic writing in teacher education- on moving between different disciplines.

Education Inquiry, 8(4), 268-283.

https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2017.1389226

Ask, S. (2005). Tillgång till framgång : Lärare och studenter om stadieövergången till

högre utbildning [Access to success: Teachers and studentson the transition to

higher education]. (Licentiate dissertation). Växjö universitet, Institutionen för

humaniora, Växjö.

Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT

Journal, 54(2), 153 – 160.

Bailey, S. (2018). Academic writing: A handbook for international students (5th edition).

London, England: Routledge.

Baker, S. (2017). Students’ writing in transition from A-levels to university: How

assessment drives students’ understandings, practices and discourses. Assessment

& Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(1), 18-36.

Bartholomae, D. (2005). Inventing the university. In Writing on the Margins: Essays on

Composition and teaching (pp. 60-85). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Beason, L., & Darrow, L. (1997). Listening as assessment: How students and teachers

evaluate WAC. In K. B. Yancey & B. Huot (Eds.), Assessing writing across the

curriculum: Diverse approaches and practices (pp. 97-121). Greenwich, CT: Ablex

Publishing Corporation.

Brown, H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey: Prentice-

Hall Inc.

83
Brown-Blake, C. (2007). The role of law in language education policy: The Jamaican

situation. Caribbean Journal of Education, 29(2), 385-402.

Bryan, B. (2010). Between two grammars: Research and practice for language learning

and teaching in the Creole environment. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers.

Burris, S. T., & Burris-Melville, T. S. (2020). “A glimps at thier raiting”: Target

inconsistencies found in UTECH students’ academic writing papers. Journal of

Arts Science and Technology, 13(1), 167-189.

Chan, H. Y. (2013). Freshman writing course for international students: The missing

Components (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses Global. (3562837.) Retrieved from

https://trevecca.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/docview/1399592583?accountid=29083

Christie, P. (2003). Language in Jamaica. Kingston, Jamaica: Arawak Publications.

Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T. M., & Swann, J. (2005).

Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London, England:

Routledge.

Craig, D. R. (1999). Teaching language and literacy: Policies and procedures for

vernacular situations. Georgetown, Guyana: Educational Development Services.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Los Angeles,

CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

84
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Crowley, S. (1998). Composition in the university: Historical and polemical essays.

Pittsburgh, PA.: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Devonish, H. (1986). Language and liberation: Creole language politics in the

Caribbean. London, England: Karia Press.

Devonish, H., & Carpenter, K. (2007). Full bilingual education in a Creole language

situation: The Jamaican bilingual primary education project. (Vol. 35 of

occasional paper). St. Augustine, Trinidad: Society for Caribbean Linguistics.

Devonish, H., & Carpenter, K. (2010). Swimming against the tide: Jamaican Creole in

education. In B. Migge, I. Leglise and A. Bartens (Eds.), Creole in education: An

appraisal of current programmes and projects (pp. 167 - 182). Philadelphia: John

Benjamins Publishing Company.

Devonish, H., & Seiler, W. (1991). A reanalysis of the phonological systems of Jamaican

Creole. Society for Caribbean Linguistics Occasional Papers, (No. 24). St.

Augustine, Trinidad: The University of the West Indies.

Devonish, H., & Thompson, D. (2013). Creolese. In S. Michaelis, P. Maurer, M.

Haspelmath & M. Huber (Eds.), The atlas and survey of Pidgins and Creole

languages (pp. 49-60). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Downs, D., & Wardle, E. (2007). Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions:

85
 (Re)envisioning "first-year composition" as "introduction to writing

studies." College Composition and Communication, 58(4), 552-584. Retrieved

from https://trevecca.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/docview/220690822?accountid=29083

Drennan, L. M. (2017). Traversing the spaces of higher education through

writing. Reading & Writing, 8(1), n/a. Retrieved

from https://trevecca.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/docview/1898606236?accountid=29083

Durrleman, S. (2008). The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective.

Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Fareed, M., Ashraf, A., & Bilal, M. (2016). ESL learners’ writing skills: Problems,

factors and suggestions. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 4(2), 81-92.

Fernsten, L. A., & Reda, M. (2011). Helping students meet the challenges of academic

writing. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(2), 171-182.

Fujii, T., & Fukao, A. (2001). Investigating difficulties in the academic writing process:

Interview as a research tool. Language Research Bulletin, 16, 29-40.

Giesen, J. (2008). Constructivism: A holistic approach to teaching and learning.

Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/facdev/programs/handouts/constructivism.

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). Newcastle University, England. Retrieved from

86
 https://trevecca.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/docview/899760155?accountid=29083

Güler, N., İlhan, M., Güneyli, A., & Demir, S. (2017). An evaluation of the psychometric

properties of three different forms of Daly and Miller’s writing apprehension test

through Rasch analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(3), 721-

744.

Hariri, M. (2012). Taxonomy of morpho-syntactic errors and error analysis. Research

Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 4(22), 4856-4860.

Hartley, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing: A practical handbook. New York:

Routledge.

Hedge, T. (1994). Second language pedagogy: Writing. Encyclopedia of Applied

Linguistics, Pergamon/Elsevier Science, 3774-3778.

Heydari, P., & Bagheri, M. S. (2012). Error analysis: Sources of L2 learners'

errors. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 2(8), 1583-1589.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17-29.

Hyland, K. (2013). Writing in the university: Education, knowledge and

reputation. Language Teaching, 46(1), 53-70.

doi://dx.doi.org.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/10.1017/S0261444811000036

James, C. (2013). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis (2nd

edition). New York, NY: Routledge.

Jarvis, H. (2001). Internet usage of English for academic purposes courses.

87
 The Journal of EUROCALL, 13(2), 206-212.

doi://dx.doi.org.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/10.1017/S0958344001000623a

Jettka, D. (2010). The language situation of Jamaica: Language education policy in the

tension between Standard Jamaican English and Jamaican Patwa. Retrieved

from http://www.daniel

jettka.de/pdf/JETTKAThe_language_situation_of_Jamaica.pdf.

Kidd, P. (2015, August 17). English is the most important subject.

Retrieved from http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/commentary/20150818/english-

most-important-subject

Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2015). Hedging in academic writing-a pedagogically-

motivated qualitative study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 600-

607.

Kolin, P. C. (2017). Successful writing at work (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage

Learning.

Lalla, B. (1997). English for academic purposes: A course for Caribbean students.

Bridgetown, Barbados: University of the West Indies Press.

Lea, M. R. (2017). Academic literacies in theory and practice. In B. Street and S. May

(Eds.), Literacies and language education: Encyclopedia of language and

education (3rd ed.) (pp. 147-158). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International

Publishing.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic

literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157-172.

88
Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A user's guide (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Lillis, T. (2003). Student writing as “academic literacies”: Drawing on Bakhtin to move

from critique to design. Language and Education, 17(3), 192-207.

Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of

epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 5-32.

Lillis, T., & Tuck, J. (2016). Academic literacies. In K. Hyland and P. Shaw (Eds.), The

Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 30-43). Abingdon,

London: Routledge.

Luna, A. M. R., & Ortiz, L. S. H. (2013). Collaborative writing to enhance academic

writing development through project work. HOW, A Colombian Journal for

Teachers of English, 20(1), 130-148.

Macken-Horarik, M. (2002). “Something to shoot for”: A systemic functional approach

to teaching genre in secondary school science. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the

classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 17-42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates Publishers.

Marinkovich, J., Velasquez, M., Córdova, A., & Cid, C. (2016). Academic literacy and

genres in university learning communities. Ilha do Desterro, 69(3), 95-113.

Martineau-Gilliam, V. (2007). Effective writing-across-the-curriculum activities and

support services for nontraditional adult students (Doctoral dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (329008.) Retrieved

89
 from https://trevecca.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/docview/304763660?accountid=29083

McAndrew, D. A. (1986). Writing apprehension: A review of research. Research and

Teaching in Developmental Education, 2(2), 43-52.

Miller, A. N. (2018). A study of the effects and student and instructor perceptions of a

writing-across-the-curriculum program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2065114836.) Retrieved from

https://trevecca.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/docview/2065114836?accountid=29083

Mills, G. E., & Gay, L. R. (2019). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and

applications (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Milson-Whyte, V. (2015). Academic writing instruction for Creole-influenced students.

Kingston, Jamaica: The University of the West Indies Press.

Ministry of Education, Youth & Culture. (2001). Language education policy. Kingston:

Ministry of Education, Youth and Culture. Retrieved from

http://www.moeyc.gov.jm/policies/languagepolicy.pdf

Mizza, D. (2014). The first language (L1) or mother tongue model vs. the second

language (L2) model of literacy instruction. Journal of Education and Human

Development, 3(3), 101-109.

Motlanthe, K. (2010, April 22). Speech presented at the Higher Education Summit.

Bellville, South Africa: Cape Town.

Mulligan, C., & Garofalo, R. (2011). A collaborative writing approach: Methodology and

90
 student assessment. The Language Teacher, 35(3), 5-10.

Murray, R., & Moore, S. (2006). The handbook of academic writing: A fresh approach.

United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill Education.

Musa, F. (2010). Teaching writing to post-secondary students: Procedure and

technicalities in an EFL classroom. Paper presented at the First National

Conference on English Language Teaching, Al-Quds Open University, Palestine.

Retrieved from

http:www.qou.edu/English/conferences/firstNationalConference/pdfFiles/farouq

Musa.pdf

Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing processes and error

analysis in student texts. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second

Language, 6(2), A–1.

Nasiri, S. (2012). Academic writing: The role of culture, language and identity in writing

for community. International Journal of Learning & Development, 2(3), 21-40.

National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work… or a ticket out: A

survey of business leaders. Retrieved

from http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-

ticket-to-work.pdf

Negari, G. M. (2012). A study on strategy instruction and EFL learners’ writing skill.

International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 299-307.

Nero, S. (2006). Language, identity, and education of Caribbean English speakers. World

Englishes, 25(3-4), 501-511.

91
Nero, S. (2014). Classroom encounters with Caribbean Creole English: Language,

identities, pedagogy. In A. Mahboob, & L. Barratt (Eds.). Englishes in

multilingual contexts: Language variation and education (pp. 33-46). New York,

NY: Springer.

Nordquist, R. (2018a, June 27). What is a second language (L2)? Retrieved from

https://www.thoughtco.com/second-language-1691930.

Nordquist, R. (2018b, December 6). The meaning of the term "mother tongue". Retrieved

from https://www.thoughtco.com/mother-tongue-language-1691408.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing communicative tasks and activities. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Oenbring, R. (2017). College composition in the Anglophone Caribbean: The search for a

Caribbean identity. Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging

Pedagogies, 4(1), 533-545.

Oenbring, R. A., Jaquette, B., Kozikowski, C., & Higgins, I. (2016). First year English at

the College of The Bahamas: Student perceptions. International Journal of

Bahamian Studies, 22(1), 43-53.

Patrick, P. L. (1999). Urban Jamaican Creole: Variation in the mesolect. Amsterdam,

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Patrick, P. L. (2004). Jamaican Creole morphology and syntax. In B. Kartmann and E. W.

Schneider (Eds.), A handbook of varieties of English: Morphology and syntax (pp.

407-438). Berlin, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

Pineteh, E. A. (2012). Using virtual interactions to enhance the teaching of

92
 communication skills to information technology students. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 43(1), 85-96.

Pineteh, E. A. (2014). The academic writing challenges of undergraduate students: A

South African case study. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 12-22.

Rahman, M. S. (2017). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and

quantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment"

research: A literature review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 102-112.

Ramsay, P. (2011). Much writing begets good writing: Some considerations for teaching

writing in an Anglophone Creole context. Caribbean Curriculum, 18, 27–42.

Ravichandran, S., Kretovics, M., Kirby, K., & Ghosh, A. (2017). Strategies to address

English language writing challenges faced by international graduate students in the

US. Journal of International Students, 7(3), 764-785.

doi://dx.doi.org.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/10.5281/zenodo.570033

Richards, J. C. (1971). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. English Language

Teaching, 25(3), 204-219.

Richards, J. C. (2014). Error analysis: Perspective on second language acquisition (2nd

ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rusinovci, X. (2015). Teaching writing through process-genre based approach. US-China

Education Review, 5(10), 699-705.

Russel, D. R., Lea, M., Parker, J., Street, B., & Donahue, T. (2009). Exploring writings of

genre in “academic literacies” and “writing across the curriculum”: Approaches

across countries and context. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, & D. (Eds.), Genre in a

93
 changing world: Perspectives on writing (pp. 395-423). Fort Collins, Colorado:

The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.

Sala-Bubaré, A., & Castelló, M. (2018). Writing regulation processes in higher

education: A review of two decades of empirical research. Reading and

Writing, 31(4), 757-777.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9808-3

Samigullina, A. D. (2018). Teaching first year students features of academic writing

(complexity, formality, objectivity, responsibility). Russian Linguistic Bulletin,

2(14) ,38-41.

Sari, E. M. P. (2016). Interlingual errors and intralingual errors found in narrative text

written by EFL students in Lampung. Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora, 17(2), 87-95.

Sawalmeh, M. H. M. (2013). Error analysis of written English essays: The case of

students of the preparatory year program in Saudi Arabia. English for specific

purposes world, 14(40), 1-17.

Singleton-Jackson, J. A., & Colella, J. A. (2012). An online odyssey: A case study of

creating and delivering an online writing course for undergraduate

students. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 24. Retrieved

from https://trevecca.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/docview/1499783561?accountid=29083

Smith, D., & Stewart-McKoy, M. (2017). Under examination: An analysis of students’

performance on the UTECH proficiency test in English. Journal of Arts Science and

Technology, 10, 156-182.

94
Sommers, N., & Saltz, L. (2004). The novice as expert: Writing the freshman year.

College Composition and Communication, 56(4), 124-149.

Souriyavongsa, T., Rany, S., Abidin, M., & Mei, L. (2013). Factors causes students low

English language learning: A case study in the National University of

Laos. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 179-192.

doi:10.5296/ijele.v1i1.3100

Thompson, N. W. M. (2011, January 2). Public affairs: Jamaica’s language crisis.

Retrieved from http://jamaica-

gleaner.com/gleaner/20110102/cleisure/cleisure2.html

Touchie, H. Y. (1986). Second language learning errors: Their types, causes, and

treatment. JALT Journal, 8(1), 75-80.

Virtue, E. (2013, January 27). Bloody English! UWI, UTech students struggle with

language. Retrieved from

http://jamaicagleaner.com/gleaner/20130127/lead/lead71.html

Wahyuni, S. (2014). Student teams-achievement division to improve students’ writing

skill. INFERENSI: Jurnal Penelitian Sosial Keagamaan, 8(1), 1-22.

Whitaker, A. (2009). Academic writing guide 2010: A step-by-step guide to writing

academic papers. Bratislava, Slovakia: City University of Seattle.

Wilkes, J., Godwin, J., & Gurney, L. J. (2015). Developing information literacy and

academic writing skills through the collaborative design of an assessment task for

first year engineering students. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 46(3),

164-175. DOI: 10.1080/00048623.2015.1062260

95
Williams, J. D. (2003). Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory, and practice (3rd

edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Williams-Pinnock, S. (2019, December 3). Our children are struggling to read.

Retrieved from http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/letters/20191203/our-children-

are-struggling-read

Wittek, A. L., Solbrekke, T. D., & Helstad, K. (2017). You learn how to write from doing

the writing, but you also learn the subject and the ways of reasoning. Outlines:

Critical Practice Studies, 18(1), 81-108. Retrieved

from https://trevecca.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/docview/1914859075?accountid=29083

Zascerinska, J. (2009). Information and communication technology within English for

academic purposes studies. Signum Temporis, 2(1), 131-138.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/10.2478/v10195-011-0027-4

Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic

writing and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 13(1), 29-48.

96
 APPENDIX A

Dr. Amber Miller Survey Approval

97
98
 APPENDIX B

Dr. Raymond Oenbring Survey Approval

99
100
 APPENDIX C

Dr. Hoi Chan Interview Protocol Approval

101
102
 APPENDIX D

Consent Form for The Daly-Miller Test

103
 CONSENT FORM- DALY-MILLER WRITING APPREHENSION TEST

Purpose: This consent form is a request for your participation in a research study
by Tashieka Burris-Melville, a doctoral candidate at Trevecca Nazarene University. This
research is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. William Tripp. The purpose of
this research is to investigate the challenges students face academic writing and to
recommend strategies that can be implemented to improve their academic writing skills.

Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary.

Moreover, you may discontinue participation at any time and for any reason without
negative consequences by contacting the researcher using the contact information below.

Explanation of Procedures: You will be asked to complete the Daly-Miller Test

regarding students’ writing challenges. The survey will take approximately five to ten
minutes to complete.

Confidentiality: You will be asked to provide a signature at the bottom of this

page signifying that you understand the information contained in this consent form. The
researcher will keep this document separate from your completed survey such that there
will be no way to connect survey responses with individual respondents. Moreover,
minimal demographic and identifying information will be collected in order to help
preserve your privacy

Completed surveys and the signed consent forms will be kept in a locked filing
cabinet in the researcher’s office. After collection, survey data is often entered into a
password-protected Excel file and stored on a private password-protected computer to
which only the researcher has access.

Discomforts and Risks: Risks from participation in this study are minimal. One
potential risk is an accidental breach of confidentiality. As outlined above, various steps
will be taken to maintain confidentiality

Expected Benefits: There are no anticipated benefits from participating in this

research other than contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Use of Research Data: The information from this research will be used only for
scientific and educational purposes. It may be presented at scientific meetings and/or
published in professional journals or books, or used for any other purposes, which
Trevecca Nazarene University considers proper in the interest of education, knowledge,
or research. As noted earlier, data will be analyzed and presented in the aggregate such
that all individual responses will be kept confidential.

104
 Approval of Research: This research project has been approved by the
Institutional Review Board at Trevecca Nazarene University.

Liability/Limitations: Trevecca Nazarene University, its agents, trustees,

administrators, faculty, and staff are released from all claims, damages, or suit, not
limited to those based upon or related to any adverse effect upon which may arise during
or develop in the future as a result of participation in this research. Please understand
that this release of liability is binding upon you, your heirs, executors, administrators,
personal representatives, and anyone else who might make a claim through or under you.

Consent to Participate: By signing below, I consent to voluntarily participate in this

study. I acknowledge that:

1. I have read and understand the above description of the study.

2. I understand that if I participate I may withdraw at any time without penalty.

Should you have any questions/concerns about your rights as a research participant,
please contact TNU’s Institutional Review Board at IRB@trevecca.edu

Tashieka Burris-Melville, Doctoral Candidate, tsburris-melville@trevecca.edu

Participant’s printed name: _________________________________

Participant’s signature: _____________________________________

105
 APPENDIX E

Consent Form for The Student Perception Survey

106
 CONSENT FORM- STUDENT PERCEPTION SURVEY

Purpose: This consent form is a request for your participation in a research study
by Tashieka Burris-Melville, a doctoral candidate at Trevecca Nazarene University. This
research is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. William Tripp. The purpose of
this research is to investigate the challenges students face academic writing and to
recommend strategies that can be implemented to improve their academic writing skills.

Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary.

Moreover, you may discontinue participation at any time and for any reason without
negative consequences. If you would like previously submitted survey responses omitted
from the study, please contact the researcher using the contact information below.

Explanation of Procedures: You will be asked to complete a survey regarding

students’ perceptions of the possible causes of academic writing challenges. The online
survey will take approximately fifteen to twenty minutes to complete.

Confidentiality: The website you have accessed, Survey Monkey, is a secure

website that uses the latest data encryption technology to securely collect and store data.
While there is no guarantee the information cannot be intercepted by a third party, the
chance of this occurring is extremely unlikely. Minimal demographic and identifying
information will be collected in order to help preserve your privacy.

Your survey data will be maintained in the online database until ready to be used
for analysis. At that time, all data will be downloaded into a password-protected Excel
file and stored on a private password-protected computer to which only the researcher has
access. Once the study has been completed, the data will be stored in the investigator’s
laptop. Individual responses will be summarized in group format, further ensuring that
the information you provide remains private.

Discomforts and Risks: Risks from participation in this study are minimal. One
potential risk is an accidental breach of confidentiality. As outlined above, various steps
will be taken to maintain confidentiality.

Expected Benefits: There are no anticipated benefits from participating in this

research other than contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Use of Research Data: The information from this research will be used only for
scientific and educational purposes. It may be presented at scientific meetings and/or
published in professional journals or books, or used for any other purposes, which
Trevecca Nazarene University considers proper in the interest of education, knowledge,
or research. As noted earlier, data will be analyzed and presented in the aggregate such
that all individual responses will be kept confidential.

107
 Approval of Research: This research project has been approved by the
Institutional Review Board at Trevecca Nazarene University.

Liability/Limitations: Trevecca Nazarene University, its agents, trustees,

administrators, faculty, and staff are released from all claims, damages, or suit, not
limited to those based upon or related to any adverse effect upon which may arise during
or develop in the future as a result of participation in this research. Please understand
that this release of liability is binding upon you, your heirs, executors, administrators,
personal representatives, and anyone else who might make a claim through or under you.

Consent to Participate: By clicking “yes” below and completing the survey, I am

authorizing my consent to participate in this study. I also hereby acknowledge that:

3. I have read and understand the above description of the study.

4. I understand that if I participate I may withdraw at any time without penalty.

Should you have any questions/concerns about your rights as a research participant,
please contact TNU’s Institutional Review Board at IRB@trevecca.edu

Tashieka Burris-Melville, Doctoral Candidate, tsburris-melville@trevecca.edu

☐ Yes, I agree to participate in this study.

☐ No, I do not agree to participate in this study

108
 APPENDIX F

Consent Form for The Faculty Perception Survey

109
 CONSENT FORM- FACULTY PERCEPTION SURVEY

Purpose: This consent form is a request for your participation in a research study
by Tashieka Burris-Melville, a doctoral candidate at Trevecca Nazarene University. This
research is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. William Tripp. The purpose of
this research is to investigate the challenges students face academic writing and to
recommend strategies that can be implemented to improve their academic writing skills.

Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary.

Moreover, you may discontinue participation at any time and for any reason without
negative consequences. If you would like previously submitted survey responses omitted
from the study, please contact the researcher using the contact information below.

Explanation of Procedures: You will be asked to complete a survey regarding

lecturers’ perceptions of the possible causes of academic writing challenges. The online
survey will take approximately fifteen to twenty minutes to complete.

Confidentiality: The website you have accessed, Survey Monkey, is a secure

website that uses the latest data encryption technology to securely collect and store data.
While there is no guarantee the information cannot be intercepted by a third party, the
chance of this occurring is extremely unlikely. Minimal demographic and identifying
information will be collected in order to help preserve your privacy.

Your survey data will be maintained in the online database until ready to be used
for analysis. At that time, all data will be downloaded into a password-protected Excel
file and stored on a private password-protected computer to which only the researcher has
access. Once the study has been completed, the data will be stored in the investigator’s
laptop. Individual responses will be summarized in group format, further ensuring that
the information you provide remains private.

Discomforts and Risks: Risks from participation in this study are minimal. One
potential risk is an accidental breach of confidentiality. As outlined above, various steps
will be taken to maintain confidentiality.

Expected Benefits: There are no anticipated benefits from participating in this

research other than contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Use of Research Data: The information from this research will be used only for
scientific and educational purposes. It may be presented at scientific meetings and/or
published in professional journals or books, or used for any other purposes, which
Trevecca Nazarene University considers proper in the interest of education, knowledge,
or research. As noted earlier, data will be analyzed and presented in the aggregate such
that all individual responses will be kept confidential.

110
 Approval of Research: This research project has been approved by the
Institutional Review Board at Trevecca Nazarene University.

Liability/Limitations: Trevecca Nazarene University, its agents, trustees,

administrators, faculty, and staff are released from all claims, damages, or suit, not
limited to those based upon or related to any adverse effect upon which may arise during
or develop in the future as a result of participation in this research. Please understand
that this release of liability is binding upon you, your heirs, executors, administrators,
personal representatives, and anyone else who might make a claim through or under you.

Consent to Participate: By clicking “yes” below and completing the survey, I am

authorizing my consent to participate in this study. I also hereby acknowledge that:

5. I have read and understand the above description of the study.

6. I understand that if I participate I may withdraw at any time without penalty.

Should you have any questions/concerns about your rights as a research participant,
please contact TNU’s Institutional Review Board at IRB@trevecca.edu

Tashieka Burris-Melville, Doctoral Candidate, tsburris-melville@trevecca.edu

☐ Yes, I agree to participate in this study.

☐ No, I do not agree to participate in this study.

111
 APPENDIX G

Consent Form for Student Interviews

112
 CONSENT FORM- STUDENT INTERVIEWS

Purpose: This consent form is a request for your participation in a research study
by Tashieka Burris-Melville, a doctoral candidate at Trevecca Nazarene University. This
research is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. William Tripp. The purpose of
this research is to investigate the challenges students face academic writing and to
recommend strategies that can be implemented to improve their academic writing skills.

Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary.

Moreover, you may discontinue participation at any time and for any reason without
negative consequences. If you do not wish to be recorded, please contact the researcher
using the contact information below.

Explanation of Procedures: You will be asked to participate in an interview

regarding students’ perceptions of the possible causes of academic writing challenges.
The interview will take approximately fifteen to twenty minutes to complete. The
researcher will take notes during the interview as well recording the interviewing process.

Confidentiality: You will be asked to provide a signature at the bottom of this

page signifying that you understand the information contained in this document. To
ensure your confidentiality, the researcher will keep this document separate from all other
documents, surveys, and/or forms that you might complete as part of this study.
Moreover, minimal demographic and identifying information will be collected in this
study in order to help preserve your privacy

Data collected in this study, along with the signed consent forms, will be kept in a
locked filing cabinet in the researcher’s office. In addition, study data is often entered
into a password-protected Excel file and stored on a private password-protected computer
to which only the researcher has access.

Discomforts and Risks: Risks from participation in this study are minimal. One
potential risk is an accidental breach of confidentiality. As outlined above, various steps
will be taken to maintain confidentiality.

Expected Benefits: There are no anticipated benefits from participating in this

research other than contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Use of Research Data: The information from this research will be used only for
scientific and educational purposes. It may be presented at scientific meetings and/or
published in professional journals or books, or used for any other purposes, which
Trevecca Nazarene University considers proper in the interest of education, knowledge,

113
or research. As noted earlier, data will be analyzed and presented in the aggregate such
that all individual responses will be kept confidential.

Approval of Research: This research project has been approved by the

Institutional Review Board at Trevecca Nazarene University.

Liability/Limitations: Trevecca Nazarene University, its agents, trustees,

administrators, faculty, and staff are released from all claims, damages, or suit, not
limited to those based upon or related to any adverse effect upon which may arise during
or develop in the future as a result of participation in this research. Please understand
that this release of liability is binding upon you, your heirs, executors, administrators,
personal representatives, and anyone else who might make a claim through or under you.

Consent to Participate: By signing below, I consent to voluntarily participate in

this study. I acknowledge that:

7. I have read and understand the above description of the study.

8. I understand that if I participate I may withdraw at any time without penalty.

Should you have any questions/concerns about your rights as a research participant,
please contact TNU’s Institutional Review Board at IRB@trevecca.edu

Tashieka Burris-Melville, Doctoral Candidate, tsburris-melville@trevecca.edu

Participant’s printed name: _________________________________

Participant’s signature: _____________________________________

114
 APPENDIX H

Consent Form for Faculty Interviews

115
 CONSENT FORM- FACULTY INTERVIEWS

Purpose: This consent form is a request for your participation in a research study
by Tashieka Burris-Melville, a doctoral candidate at Trevecca Nazarene University. This
research is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. William Tripp. The purpose of
this research is to investigate the challenges students face academic writing and to
recommend strategies that can be implemented to improve their academic writing skills.

Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary.

Moreover, you may discontinue participation at any time and for any reason without
negative consequences. If you do not wish to be recorded, please contact the researcher
using the contact information below.

Explanation of Procedures: You will be asked to participate in an interview

regarding lecturers’ perceptions of the possible causes of the academic writing challenges
students encounter. The interview will take approximately fifteen to twenty minutes to
complete. The researcher will take notes during the interview as well recording the
interviewing process.

Confidentiality: You will be asked to provide a signature at the bottom of this

page signifying that you understand the information contained in this document. To
ensure your confidentiality, the researcher will keep this document separate from all other
documents, surveys, and/or forms that you might complete as part of this study.
Moreover, minimal demographic and identifying information will be collected in this
study in order to help preserve your privacy

Data collected in this study, along with the signed consent forms, will be kept in a
locked filing cabinet in the researcher’s office. In addition, study data is often entered
into a password-protected Excel file and stored on a private password-protected computer
to which only the researcher has access.

Discomforts and Risks: Risks from participation in this study are minimal. One
potential risk is an accidental breach of confidentiality. As outlined above, various steps
will be taken to maintain confidentiality.

Expected Benefits: There are no anticipated benefits from participating in this

research other than contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Use of Research Data: The information from this research will be used only for
scientific and educational purposes. It may be presented at scientific meetings and/or
published in professional journals or books, or used for any other purposes, which

116
Trevecca Nazarene University considers proper in the interest of education, knowledge,
or research. As noted earlier, data will be analyzed and presented in the aggregate such
that all individual responses will be kept confidential.

Approval of Research: This research project has been approved by the

Institutional Review Board at Trevecca Nazarene University.

Liability/Limitations: Trevecca Nazarene University, its agents, trustees,

administrators, faculty, and staff are released from all claims, damages, or suit, not
limited to those based upon or related to any adverse effect upon which may arise during
or develop in the future as a result of participation in this research. Please understand
that this release of liability is binding upon you, your heirs, executors, administrators,
personal representatives, and anyone else who might make a claim through or under you.

Consent to Participate: By clicking “yes” below and completing the survey, I

am authorizing my consent to participate in this study. I also hereby acknowledge that:

1. I have read and understand the above description of the study.

2. I understand that if I participate I may withdraw at any time without penalty.

Should you have any questions/concerns about your rights as a research participant,
please contact TNU’s Institutional Review Board at IRB@trevecca.edu

Tashieka Burris-Melville, Doctoral Candidate, tsburris-melville@trevecca.edu

☐ Yes, I agree to participate in this study.

☐ No, I do not agree to participate in this study.

117
 APPENDIX I

Consent Form for Students’ Writing Scripts

118
 CONSENT FORM- STUDENTS’ WRITING SCRIPTS

Purpose: This consent form is a request for your participation in a research study
by Tashieka Burris-Melville, a doctoral candidate at Trevecca Nazarene University. This
research is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. William Tripp. The purpose of
this research is to investigate the challenges students face academic writing and to
recommend strategies that can be implemented to improve their academic writing skills.

Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary.

Moreover, you may discontinue participation at any time and for any reason without
negative consequences.

Explanation of Procedures: You will be asked to give permission for your writing
scripts to collected and analyzed for this research in order to determine your academic
writing challenges.

Confidentiality: You will be asked to provide a signature at the bottom of this

page signifying that you understand the information contained in this document. To
ensure your confidentiality, the researcher will keep this document separate from all other
documents, surveys, and/or forms that you might complete as part of this study.
Moreover, your names and any other identifying information will be removed in order to
help preserve your privacy.

Data collected in this study, along with the signed consent forms, will be kept in a
locked filing cabinet in the researcher’s office. In addition, study data is often entered
into a password protected Excel file and stored on a private password-protected computer
to which only the researcher has access.

Discomforts and Risks: Risks from participation in this study are minimal. One
potential risk is an accidental breach of confidentiality. As outlined above, various steps
will be taken to maintain confidentiality.

Expected Benefits: There are no anticipated benefits from participating in this

research other than contributing to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Use of Research Data: The information from this research will be used only for
scientific and educational purposes. It may be presented at scientific meetings and/or
published in professional journals or books, or used for any other purposes, which
Trevecca Nazarene University considers proper in the interest of education, knowledge,
or research. As noted earlier, data will be analyzed and presented in the aggregate such
that all individual responses will be kept confidential.

119
 Approval of Research: This research project has been approved by the
Institutional Review Board at Trevecca Nazarene University.

Liability/Limitations: Trevecca Nazarene University, its agents, trustees,

administrators, faculty, and staff are released from all claims, damages, or suit, not
limited to those based upon or related to any adverse effect upon which may arise during
or develop in the future as a result of participation in this research. Please understand
that this release of liability is binding upon you, your heirs, executors, administrators,
personal representatives, and anyone else who might make a claim through or under you.

Consent to Participate: By signing below, I consent to voluntarily participate in

this study. I acknowledge that:

1. I have read and understand the above description of the study.

2. I understand that if I participate I may withdraw at any time without
penalty.

Should you have any questions/concerns about your rights as a research

participant, please contact TNU’s Institutional Review Board at IRB@trevecca.edu

Tashieka Burris-Melville, Doctoral Candidate, tsburris-melville@trevecca.edu

Participant’s printed name: _________________________________

Participant’s signature: _____________________________________

120
 APPENDIX J

The Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test

121
122
123
124
 APPENDIX K

Student Perception Survey

125
 Student Perception Survey

1. My gender is

Male
Female

2. My enrollment status is

1st year
2nd year
3rd year
4th year

3. My program of study is
____________________________________________________

4. English is my first language

Yes
No

5. Given a choice I would never take an academic writing course

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

6. I find academic writing courses useful for assisting me with my writing

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

7. I am satisfied with the content provided in academic writing courses

Strongly Agree
Agree

126
 Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

8. This course helped me to synthesize information effectively

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

9. This course helps me to think critically and apply critical thinking skills to my
everyday life

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

10. I attend classes regularly

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

11. This course is effective in helping me to correct assignments based on adequate

feedback from the lecturer

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

12. This course helps me to plan and write essays effectively

Strongly Agree
Agree

127
 Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

13. This course helps me to consider the audience and purpose when writing an essay

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

14. This course assists me in learning how to document sources appropriately

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

15. This course helps me analyze arguments and apply them to real life

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

16. This course makes me feel empowered to become a better writer

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

17. This course makes me feel confident about sharing my ideas

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain

128
 Disagree
Strongly Disagree

18. Having a rubric tremendously helps me to understand the criteria for a given
assignment

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

19. The number of students in the class is appropriate for me to receive adequate
feedback

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

20. This course is extremely challenging

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

21. I find this course challenging because I do not prepare adequately for classes

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

22. I struggle with paraphrasing

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain

129
 Disagree
Strongly Disagree

23. I struggle to write sentences that follow a logical sequence

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

24. I find writing effective paragraphs challenging

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

25. I regularly use punctuation marks incorrectly

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

26. I make several spelling errors

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

27. I am not able to use in-text citation well

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

130
28. I find it challenging to compile a reference list correctly in APA

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

29. My poor academic writing skills affect my performance in my other modules

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

30. My content lecturers emphasize the importance of effective academic writing in

their modules

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

31. The lecturer is usually prepared and encourages course engagement

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

32. The lecturer explains the material clearly and adjusts to the students' pace of
understanding

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

131
33. The lecturer is available for consultation outside of class time

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

34. The lecturer shows genuine concern for student learning and the quality of
teaching

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

35. Being provided with instructions for a particular writing assignment helps me to
understand the course content in the class

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

36. Having a written rubric that explains the lecturer's criteria for grading assignments
helps me to improve my writing

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

37. The lecturer responds well to questions

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

132
 APPENDIX L

Faculty Perception Survey

133
 Faculty Perception Survey

38. I am a
Full-time Faculty Member
Part-time Faculty Member
Adjunct Faculty Member

39. I teach
Academic Writing I
Academic Writing II
Writing Workshop
Business Communication

40. I have been teaching

0- 1 year
1- 3 years
3- 5 years
Longer than 5 years

41. The teaching of academic writing to students is important in higher education

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

42. The module focuses on the development of language skills

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

43. The module is designed to assist students with their organizational skills
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

44. The module encourages the development of critical thinking skills

Strongly Agree

134
 Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

45. Most of your students find academic writing challenging

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

46. Students use verb tenses incorrectly

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

47. Students make several spelling errors

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

48. Students struggle to write sentences that follow a logical sequence

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

49. Students use punctuation marks incorrectly

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

50. Students are unable to write cohesive paragraphs

135
 Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

51. Students are not able to produce clear and coherent academic essays
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

52. Students struggle with paraphrasing

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

53. Students find synthesizing very challenging

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

54. Students referencing skills are poor

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

55. Students find academic writing challenging because English is not their first
language
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

136
56. Students find academic writing challenging because their level of unpreparedness
for class
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

57. Students find academic writing challenging because content lecturers do not give
sufficient writing activities in their classes
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

58. Students find academic writing challenging because of lack of motivation

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

59. Students find academic writing challenging because of their poor work ethic
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

60. Providing oral and written feedback to students about their writing help students
understand course content in this class
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

61. Providing oral and written feedback to students about their writing help students
improve their writing skills
Strongly Agree
Agree

137
 Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

62. The process writing approach help students understand the course content
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

63. The process writing approach help students improve their writing skills
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

64. Providing a written rubric that explain the lecturer’s criteria for grading written
assignments help students understand course content
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

65. Providing a written rubric that explain the lecturer’s criteria for grading written
assignments help students improve their writing skills
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

66. Having a writing center on campus would help students improve their writing
skills
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

138
67. A Writing-Across-the-Curriculum (WAC) approach would help students improve
their writing skills
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

68. Encouraging students to read would improve their writing skills

Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

69. Providing students with a sample or model of a writing assignment help students
understand course content
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

70. Providing students with a sample or model of a writing assignment help students
improve their writing skills
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

71. Overall, completing writing assignments help students understand course content
in this class
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

72. Overall, completing writing course assignments help students improve their
writing skills
Strongly Agree
Agree

139
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

140
 APPENDIX M

Student Interview Protocol

141
 Interview Protocol for Students

Structured Interview Topic: Students’ perceptions of the possible causes of academic

writing

challenges by students attending UTECH.

Opening: (INSERT STUDENT’S NAME HERE) you are an undergraduate

student at UTECH. In order to successfully complete your

program, you are required to take at least two academic writing

modules. I’m interested in learning about your perceptions of the

academic writing challenges you encounter and what you think are

the possible causes of these challenges. I have prepared questions;

however, please feel free to add any comment you deem necessary

that might help me to understand your views better.

1. What academic writing module or modules have you taken already?

2. Have you applied any writing strategies discussed in your academic writing class

to writing assignment in your other classes?

b. If yes, what strategies have you applied?

3. What challenges, if any, have you or are you experiencing as you try to become a

better academic writer?

4. What aspects of academic writing do you have the most difficulty with?

5. What do you perceive to be the causes of the challenges you are experiencing?

142
 6. Do you think that your academic writing lecturer or other lecturers understand the

difficulties you face?

Follow up to Question 6:

a. If yes to Q6, what has he or she done to help you resolve these difficulties?

b. Has this been helpful? How?

c. If no to Q6, why do you think he or she hasn’t been able to help you

7. What have you done to work on the challenges you have or experiencing?

8. Do you think that the design and content of the academic writing modules are

effective in helping you and other students become better academic writers?

9. a. In your opinion, what has been the most helpful aspect of the academic writing

module or modules you have taken or are taking?

b. In your opinion, what has been the least useful aspect of the academic writing

module or modules you have taken or are taking?

10. Besides the academic writing modules you have taken or are taking, what kind of

resources do you utilize to help you with your academic writing (e.g. writing

center, tutors, peers)

Closing: Thank you ________________for answering these questions relating to

your perception of the academic challenges students encounter at UTECH.

In case you think of any other ideas that you would like to share with me,

please feel free to contact me.

143
 APPENDIX N

Faculty Interview Protocol

144
 Interview Protocol for Lecturers

Structured Interview Topic: Lecturers’ perceptions of the possible causes of academic

writing challenges by students attending UTECH.

Opening: (Insert faculty’s name here), you are an academic writing lecturer

here at UTECH. I’m interested in learning about your perceptions

of the academic writing challenges that students encounter and

what you think are the possible causes of these challenges. I have

prepared questions; however, please feel free to add any comment

you deem necessary that might help me to understand your views

better.

1. What academic writing module or modules have you taught?

2. In an average semester, how many students are enrolled in each of your academic

writing class?

b. Of that number, how many students experience academic writing challenges?

3. What are the aspects of academic writing that students have the least difficulty

with?

4. What are the aspects of academic writing that students have the most difficulty

with?

5. What do you perceive to be the causes of students’ academic writing challenges?

145
 5. What strategies have you utilized to help students in minimizing those challenges?

6. Do you think reading influences the quality of students’ writing?

b. If yes, what do you do to help students make the connections between reading and

writing in your course? How? Why?

Closing: Thank you ________________for answering these questions relating to

your perception of the academic challenges students encounter at UTECH.

In case you think of any other ideas that you would like to share with me,

please feel free to contact me.

146
 APPENDIX O

Categories and Codes from Student Interviews

147
 Table showing Categories and Codes of Students’ Interview Transcripts

CATEGORY CODE

1. APA

Writing Strategies Applied 2. The writing process

3. Structure of the academic essay

4. Rhetorical/ organizational/ developmental

strategies

5. Paraphrasing

6. Referencing

7. APA formatting

8. Constructing different rhetorical paragraphs

9. Oral/ written expression

Academic Writing 10. Being concise/ adhering to word count

Challenges 11. Grammar

12. Writing essays

13. Synthesizing

14. Applying critical thinking

15. Summarizing

16. Locating and documenting scholarly

sources

148
 17. Reading academic texts

18. Punctuation

19. Spelling

20. Expressing ideas in a clear manner

21. Evaluating

22. Paraphrasing

23. Vocabulary

24. Writer’s block

25. Writing/ formulating thesis statements

26. Identifying tone

27. Identifying writing styles

Perceived Causes of 28. Mind-set/ mind block

Academic Writing 29. The Jamaican language situation

Challenges 30. Patois/ Jamaican Creole/ Mother tongue

31. Writing is not a focus across the curriculum/

disciplines

32. Social media/ texting

33. Content lecturers are not competent to guide

the development of writing

34. Content lecturers only focus on content

149
 35. Content lecturers give conflicting

information from academic writing lecturers

36. Lack of exposure to English

37. Writing apprehension/ fear of writing

38. Lack of sufficient writing practice

39. Inadequate reading

40. Low self-esteem

41. Perception that English is not necessary

42. Lack of focus

43. Lack of preparation/ planning

44. Lack of motivation

45. Ask peers for help

46. Use the APA manual

Student Intervention to 47. Engage in self-reflection

Address Challenges 48. Focus on improving weak areas

49. Use Standard English more

50. Read more

51. Practice

150
 52. YouTube

53. Textbook

Resources used to Aid in 54. The internet/ online sources

Writing Development 55. Pinterest

56. Grammarly

57. Library

58. Teacher/ tutor

59. Purdue OWL

60. Create YouTube Channel and upload

academic writing content

61. Create template/ samples of what is

Student Recommendations expected

62. Each academic writing module should be

tailored toward students’ discipline

63. Class time is too long

151
 64. More grammar activities

65. Motivation

66. Encouragement

Teacher Intervention 67. Support

68. Resources

69. Give suggestions

70. Use of writing process

71. Computer assisted language learning

(CALL)

152
 APPENDIX P

Categories and Codes from Faculty Interviews

153
Table showing Categories and Codes of Faculty Interview Transcripts

CATEGORY CODE

1. Class size too large

Class Size 2. Class size is adequate

3. Limited time for detailed feedback

4. Too much time spent marking

5. Grammar

6. Mechanics

7. Comprehension

8. Writing essays

9. Summary writing

Academic Writing 10. Referencing

Challenges 11. Research

12. Thinking through ideas

13. Critical reviews

14. Case studies

15. Vocabulary

16. Expressive skills

17. Receptive skills

18. Poor organization skills

154
 19. Fear of English

20. Negative comments heard about the

modules

21. Grammar not taught at the

secondary level

22. The Jamaican language

situation/Creole interference

23. Laziness

24. Lack of preparation

25. Insufficient reading and writing in

formative years

Perceived Causes of 26. Weak foundation in English

Academic Writing language learning

Challenges 27. Literacy skills not important

28. Lack of reading

29. Lack of focus

30. Lack of motivation

31. Poor foundation in language and

reading skills

32. Inability to transfer reading

skills/principles

33. Poor grammar

155
 34. Students see English as being hard

35. Fear of writing

36. Approaches to teaching English

37. Social media

38. Students are not independent/ self-

directed learners

39. General lack of knowledge

40. Too many skills involved

41. Lack of critical thinking skills

42. Poor comprehension skills

43. Poor writing skills

44. Referral to L.T.R.C

45. Referral to online sources

46. Mandatory use of Standard English

in class

46. Review common errors

Teaching and Learning 47. Teach grammar rules

Strategies for Minimizing 48. Use of Schoology learning platform

Challenges 49. Discussion forums

50. Self and peer review analysis

51. Writing reflections

156
52. Worksheets

53. Guides

54. Exemplars/Modelling

55. Reading and writing opportunities

56. discussion on the relevance and

importance of AW

57. Use of the process approach to

teaching AW skills

58. Teach APA

59. Self-directed activities

60. Providing detailed and timely

feedback

61. Break down assignments into

manageable parts

62. Repetitive and exhaustive individual

work

63. Pop quizzes

64. Journal writing

65. Vocabulary exercises

66. Teach paraphrasing skills

67. One on one consultation/

conferencing

157
 68. Collaborative group and whole class

discussions

The Effect of Reading on

Writing 69. Reading has an impact on the quality

of students writing

70. Practice reading

71. Pronunciation exercises

72. Vocabulary building skills

Strategies for Making the 73. Encourage and motivate students to

Connections between read more

Reading and Writing 74. Discussion of the interrelatedness of

language skills at the beginning of the

course

75. Reflections

76. Evaluating reading materials

77. Summarize articles

78. Write responses to articles

79. Engage in individual and group

reading activities

158
80. Questioning

81. Self-directed reading activities

82. Research new words and phrases

83. WOW- learn a word each week

84. Teach how to analyze a text

rhetorically

85. Thorough analysis of arguments

159