Effect of Précis Writing Instruction on the Creation of Cohesive Text by Iranian High School EFL Learners

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

Department of English, Hamadan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamadan, Iran

Abstract

Being expert in establishing cohesion and coherence in writing is not an easy task. The EFL learners are to pass through very long, uneven paths such as précis exercise to achieve this skill. The present study was launched to explore the effect of précis writing on the creation of a compact text. To this end, a true-experimental method of research with the pretest-posttest control design was employed. Via double-stage sampling, 40 female students were selected at Fatemeh-al-Zahra High School in Kabutarahang, Hamedan, Iran. The control group was taught some grammatical structures such as active and passive voices, reduced adjective clauses, and different tenses in English during twelve sessions; while the experimental group received a lesson plan consisting of twelve sessions of précis writing. To analyze the data collected via pretest and posttest, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was run. The findings of the study indicated that the participants in the experimental group performed better in producing cohesive and qualified texts than those in the control group. The conclusion drawn was that teaching précis, as a basic skill, can improve the writing ability and provide the students with more opportunities to utilize the cohesive devices and consequently produce more cohesive pieces of text.

Keywords


References

Alexander, L. G. (1962). 60 steps to précis writing. Longmans         

Alexander, L. G. (1965). A first book in comprehension précis and composition. London:  Longman Group Limited.

Azzouz, B. (2009). A discourse analysis of grammatical cohesion in student’s writing. Retrieved June 28, 2014 from www.scribd.com/doc/208168390/A-Discourse- Analysis-     

Bae, J. (2000). The construct validation of certain components of English and Korean writing ability in children participating in either a two-way immersion program or monolingual classes: A writing assessment and latent variable approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Behnam, B., & Ali Akbari Hamed, L. (2009). The role of formal schemata in the development of précis writing in an EFL Context. Retrieved June 28, 2014 from  www.academia.edu/7113897/

Bleck, B. (2001). Three types of summary: Paraphrase, summary and précis. Retrieved June 29, 2014 from http://www.LEO.com .

Chomskey, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.

Conner, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross- cultural aspects of second language writing.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crossley, S. A. & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computationally assessing lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 119-135.

Emig, J. (1971). The composition process of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Flower, L., & John, R. H. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College English, 44, 765-777.

Ghasemi, M. (2013). An investigation into the use of cohesive devices in second language writings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(9), 1615-1623.

Grabe, W. (1996). Written discourse analysis. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (Vol. 5, pp. 101–123). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grabe, W. &  Kaplan, R. B. (1997).Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 375-377.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman Group Limited.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language and social semiotics: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London and Baltimore, MD: Arnold and University Park Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). The act of meaning. In J.E. Alatis (ed), Language, communication, and social meaning (pp. 7-21). Georgetown University Round Table on language and linguistics 1992. Washinton DC: Georgetown University Press.

Hoey, M. (1983). On the surface of discourse. London: Allen and Unwin.

Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Harlow: Longman.

Kerns, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler-Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in earning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.

Nandhini, K. & Balasundaram, S. R. (2013). Improving readability through extractive ummarization for learners with reading difficulties. Department of ComputerApplications, National Institute of Technology, Tirucirappalli, India.                       

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Newbury House: Teacher Development.

Olateju, M. A. (2006). Cohesion in ESL classroom written texts. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 15(3), 314–331.

O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121–152.

Olson, J. (2006). Mountain Pointe High School. Retrieved June 27, 2014 from www.yorku.ca/khoffman/Psyc3010/Writing%20a%20Precis.ppt.WritingTasks.html.

Pilus, Z. (1993). Considerations in developing materials for the teaching of writing at the pro-university level. The Redeaing Teacher,22, 258-272.

Richards,J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (eds) (2002), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology  of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rohmah, F. (2010). The cohesion and coherence of thesis abstracts written by students of English letters and language department of UIN Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang. Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University of Malang. (unpublished MA thesis).

Sharp, A. (2002). Chinese L1 schoolchildren reading in English: The effects of rhetorical patterns. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14 (2), 1-20.

Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In K. Barbara (ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp.11- 23). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Writing. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 251-266). London: Arnold; New York: Oxford University Press.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Uso- Juan, E., & Alicia Martinez, F. (eds) (2006). Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Wall, D. (1981). A pre-sessional academic writing course for postgraduate students in economics. Practical Papers in English Language Education, 4, 34 -105.

Winter, E. O. (1977). A clause relational approach to English texts: A study of some predictive lexical items in written discourse. Instructional Science, 6 (1), 1- 92.

Xin-hong, Z. H. (2007). Application of English cohesion theory in the teaching of writing to Chinese graduate students. US-China Education Review, 4(7), 31-37.