Republic of Sudan

Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

Nile Valley University
College of Graduate Studies

Assessing Students’ Writing Skills

in King Faisal School; a Teachers’ Perspective
A case study of Middle Year Programme
at King Faisal School in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

A research submitted by

Wael Mohamad Hassan Eid Ramah

Supervised by

Professor Ibrahim Alfaki

2019
 Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to my parents and family for their faithfulness, love, and support.

To my mother who taught me all the best in my life

To the soul of my father who taught me the value of persistence and hard work

To my beloved wife who has always been a great asset in my life

To my wonderful children

To my sister and brother for their care and love

To my best friends for their help and support

i
 Acknowledgments

First and foremost my gratitude and thankfulness should be paid initially, finally and
consistently to my Creator and Sustainer, the most generous, the most knowing who guides,
helps and supports me in all my good deeds, and protects me in all my weaknesses and needs.

Then I have to pay the tribute of all my success to my mother and my wife who always
support and stand behind me, and whose prayers and effort respectively played a great role in
guiding my way and making my life easier and happier.

Gratitude and thankfulness should also be extended to my supervisor, Prof. Ibrahim Alfaqi
without whom none of my ideas could have come to light. His patience, kindness, guidance
and readiness have saved my time and effort and made it easier for me to tackle my research
alongside with my work and other duties.

In addition, sincere thanks should go to all my colleagues who paid willingly from their
invaluable time to participate in my research for the sake of my benefits. Very special thanks
and gratitude I genuinely pay to Dr. Ean Orlando Alleyne and Mr. Khaled Qattawi who
helped me in reviewing my research tool.

Finally my best thanks and wishes should be paid to all my friends whose prayers and
supplications were always present and effective in times of needs.

ii
 Abstract

This research study is conducted for the purpose of investigating the low level of King Faisal
School’s students in writing skills from the teachers’ perspectives. It is based on the
descriptive quantitative approach to collect and analyse the responses of participant teachers
via the survey questionnaire used as a tool of the research. The dissertation aims to assess
and identify the level of King Faisal School students’ writing skills. The researcher, therefore,
conducted a survey questionnaire to collect teachers’ responses to the following areas of
inquiry: students’ writing level, writing teaching methodology used, and areas of
development in writing. The results of study showed that there is a statistically significant
difference between teacher’s perspectives regarding adopting communicative approach.
These results indicated that using communicative approach made it easier for students to
communicate in conversation or dialogues by using their speaking skills, while it diminished
the opportunities of developing their writing skills. They also showed that the lack of
academic reading passages that students are exposed to affects the type and range of sentence
structure and vocabulary structure they use, which in turn affects their ability to connect their
ideas in writings skills. As a result, it’s been recommended to introduce and adopt different
methods in teaching English, in other words to adopt eclectic method so that teachers can
eschew the defects of adopting specific teaching method. This will help teachers to have a
balance in their teaching focus which will be reflected on the expected outcomes to develop
the students’ writing skills, in particular. It is also recommended to use specific rubric to
assess writing skills so that results can be easily classified and analyzed to inform teaching
process and curriculum planning.

iii
 Table of Content
Dedication i

Acknowledgments ii

Abstract iii

Table of Content iv
Chapter One Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem 1

1.3 Objectives 2

1.4 Significance of Research 2

1.5 Research Questions 3

1.6 Hypotheses 3

1.7 Delimitations of the Study 3

1.8 Definition of Terms and Concepts 4

1.9 Review of Related Literature 4

1.10 Methodology 5

Chapter Two Review of Related Literature 6

2.0 Introduction 6

2.1 Writing Skills 6

2.1.1 Factors Affecting Writing Skills Development 7

2.1.2 Types of Writing for ESL Learners 8

2.1.3 Common Areas of Weakness in Writing Skills 9

2.2 Teaching Writing for ESL in Different Teaching Methodologies 13

2.2.1 Communicative Approach 14

2.2.2 Grammar Translation Method 16

2.2.3 Eclectic Method 17

iv
2.3 Learning English in International Baccalaureate’s Philosophy 19

2.4 Previous Studies 20

Chapter Three Research Methodology and Designs 28

3.0 Introduction 28

3.1 Research Methodology 28

3.2 Population and Sample of the Study 28

3.3 Method of Data Collection 28

3.4 Survey Questionnaire Validity and Reliability 29

3.4.1 Survey Questionnaire Validity 30

3.4.2 Survey Method Reliability 30

3.4.3 Data Analysis Techniques 31

Chapter 4 Data Analysis 32

4.0 Introduction 32

4.1 Discussion 32

4.2 Interpretation 47

4.3 Testing Research Hypotheses 50

Chapter Five Findings and Recommendations 54

5.1 Summary 54

5.2 Findings 54

5.3 Recommendations 56

References 57

Appendix 61

v
 Chapter One

1.1 Background

King Faisal School is one of the schools that adopt International Baccalaureate (IB)
philosophy and standards. All IB schools have to abide to certain philosophy, standards and
practices preset by IB organization in Switzerland. Language for IB is the main and most
crucial discipline as it’s the vehicle by which people can communicate their thoughts and
feelings. It’s inextricably linked with culture.
The National Center for Cultural Competence defines culture as an “integrated pattern of
human behavior that includes thoughts, communications, languages, practices, beliefs,
values, customs, courtesies, rituals, manners of interacting and roles, relationships and
expected behaviors of a racial, ethnic, religious or social group; and the ability to transmit
the above to succeeding generations” (Goode, Sockalingam, Brown, & Jones, 2000). Thus
language which is the natural reflection of culture should be taught or acquired in an
integrated approach. That means that language skills should be taught as one entity, not
separately. Teaching English language skills altogether using an integrated approach and
eclectic method could help teachers to raise their students’ levels in all skills, and avoid
strengthening one skill while weakening the other.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

It has been noticed that the students of the middle year programme or the intermediate
students in King Faisal School demonstrate a low level in writing skills although they show
good level at other skills. Therefore, this research is conducted to find out the answers to the
following questions in teachers’ point of view:

1
 1.3 Objectives
1- Assess and identify the level of King Faisal School students’ writing skills.
2- Explore other reasons affecting King Faisal School students’ writing skills.
3- Examine the weakness points of King Faisal School writing conventions.
4- Suggest some solutions to improve King Faisal School students’ writing skills.

1.4 Significance of Research

The importance of this research is based on the internal need for it as it’s clearly observed in
King Faisal School how struggling its students are when it comes to writing competent
academic essays compared to their actual levels at English. The research is also helpful when
discussing the same issue for schools or institutions having the same or similar
circumstances and surroundings. It adds to the literature of research more inquiry about the
relation between the different skills of the language. Other researchers might be inspired to
argue the effectiveness of some suggestions about solving this research problem, specifically
when applied to other communities having different contexts and surrounded by different
circumstances.
This study helps teachers of English language to deal with writing problems, and to find out
practical solutions that can develop their students’ writing skill. It also sheds the light on the
importance of considering different teaching approaches that can address different skills, and
a variety of learning resources that can result in a wide range of written language production.
In other words, this study emphasizes the following points:
1- The importance of teaching English skills in integration not in isolation.
2- The importance of exposing students to a varied range of language; i.e., academic formal
language, literary language, authentic language, and colloquial language so that students can
produce different kinds of language register.
3- The importance of direct contextual teaching for grammatical conventions, cohesive devices,
paragraph or essay format.
4- The difference between spoken and written language and how to consider such differences in
teaching writing.
2
 1.5 Research questions

1- What is the view of teachers of King Faisal School about their students' writing skills?
2- Why are students’ writing skills weaker than any other skill?
3- What are the weakest points in students’ writing?

1.6 Hypotheses

1- King Faisal School’s Students are stronger in their spoken language than their writing.

2- Communicative approach made it easier for students to communicate in conversations or

dialogues by using their speaking skills while it diminished the opportunities of developing
their writing skills, which led to the weakness of their writing skills compared to their
speaking ones. In addition, the lack of academic reading passages that the students are
exposed to compared with literature texts affected the type and range of sentence structure
and vocabulary students use.

3- Coherence, cohesion, punctuation, and lack of vocabulary are the main areas of writing
weakness for most of the students.

1.7 Delimitations of the Study

This study is limited to:

- The middle year programme male students' writing skills in King Faisal School, Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia during the first semester of the academic year 2018\2019.
- The following aspects of writing (content, organization, vocabulary,
language use, and mechanics).

3
 1.8 Definition of Terms and Concepts

1- Integrative Approach: The integrative approach is intended to provide an authentic language

environment for learners to develop listening, speaking, reading and writing skills in a
meaningful context. One of the functions of language is to fulfill social purposes. An
integrated approach allows learners to explore, gather, process, refine and present
information about topics they want to investigate without the constraints imposed by
traditional subject barriers” (Pigdon and Woolley, 1992 Chap 1 – 3).
Eclectic Approach: The eclectic approach is the label given to a teacher's use of techniques
and activities from a range of language teaching approaches and methodologies. The teacher
decides what methodology or approach to use depending on the aims of the lesson and the
learners in the group (Masum Billah Friday, 13 February, 2015).

2- Register: the style of language, grammar, and words used for particular situations. Reference

1.9 Review of Related Literature

Hundreds if not thousands of researches and papers have been introduced to deal with the
problem of writing for English learners in various ages. The research entitled Effects of an
Integrated Reading/Writing Approach on Improving Writing Skills of EFL Students by
Hamad Al-Dosari is an example. The researcher tried through his research to prove the focal
importance of reading to improve writing skills. “Crudely put, writing ability, which is
more demanding than other language skills, developed more in the experimental treatment
group than the control group because integrated reading and writing skills teaching helped
and supported overall language development for communicative purposes.” “This confirms
previous research findings and extrapolations in relevant literature on the topic of integrated
skills teaching in foreign/second language teaching (Sehlaoui, 2001; Hao &Sivell, 2002;
Heffernan, 2006; Al-Ghamari, 2004; Oxford, 2001; Faydi, 2003; Bose, 2003)”
Another research was conducted by Hasnaa Sabry Abdel-Hamid Ahmed Helwa, entitled
“Using "Wikis" in Developing Writing Performance and

4
Motivation among EFL Students at Majmaah University” ascribed the participants’
development in writing skills to using some web based social learning applications.
A third study by Samya Moayd Khamees shed the light on the importance of the use of
reflective writing journals in improving English writing skill of second grade secondary
female students. The study, which used various statistical approaches, proved and
recommended the effectiveness and the use of reflective writing journals in teaching English
language.
Other researches emphasize the use of social media, blogs, and web quests in English to
improve English writing skills for young students.
Using the Eclectic Method in Developing the Writing skills at the Basic Education Level is
another related research conducted by Hamza Almahdy and supervised by Dr. Diaa Aldee
Mohamad Alhasan in Alnileen University. It stresses the importance of developing writing
skill through applying different approaches of teaching English language.

1.10 Methodology

The researcher used the descriptive research methodology which suits the nature of the study
which is built on collating data and evidence to discuss, analyse and finally reach
conclusions that help find solutions to the stated problem. The descriptive methodology used
for this research is deemed to be the quickest and the most effective when dealing with the
problem from the teachers’ point of view. It also makes it very direct as the teachers are the
most suitable ones to be asked about their students’ levels and performances. They are also
enough qualified to detect any flaws and to come up with the right solutions due to their
expertise.

5
 Chapter Two

Review of Related Literature

2.0 Introduction

This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part is devoted to the theoretical literature
related to the study and the second part reviews would be about the empirical previous
studies done in the area of the research.

Theoretical literature will be divided into writing skills, teaching methodologies, and
teaching language in the International Baccalaureate philosophy.

2.1 Writing Skills

Not only is teaching writing a complex process, but the definition of what counts as writing
has been contested. Behizadeh and Engelhard (2011) argued that in the past century writing
theory has contributed three different answers to the question, what is writing? They
characterized the three different answers as (1) form, (2) ideas and content, and (3) a socially
and culturally contextualized process. This is not to say that writing is ever just one of these
but that writing theory over time has privileged either “(1) form, including mechanics,
grammar, and isolated skills; (2) idea and content, including creative solutions, applied skills
to authentic situations and poetic, new or thought-provoking content; or (3) the sociocultural
context of writing, the social and cultural settings in which writing occurs” (Behizadeh &
Engelhard, 2011, p.193).

Writing as a skill is considered by many educationalists and learners the most difficult and
the last skill to be learnt and/or acquired and developed. A text of an effective ESL writer
must be cohesive, logical, clearly structured, interesting and properly organized with a wide
range of vocabulary and mastery of conventions in mechanics (Jacobs & L, 1981; Hall,
1988). Nunan (1989) argues that writing is an extremely difficult cognitive activity which
requires the learner to have control over various factors. These factors vary from academic
background and personal interest of the writer to various psy-chological, linguistic and
cognitive phenomena (Dar & Khan, 2015; Haider, 2012).

6
Kellogg (2001) opines that writing is a cognitive process that tests memory, thinking ability
and verbal command to successfully express the ideas; because proficient composition of a
text indicates successful learning of a second language

2.1.1 Factors affecting writing skills development

Researchers and practitioners in the fields of ESL/EFL have recently recognised the
importance of reading in developing writing and other language skills. Calls for advocating
an integrated language teaching approach have been strongly voiced in relevant literature
(Mekheimer, 2011).Very early, Krashen (1984) claims that “it is reading that gives the writer
the ‘feel’ for the look and texture of reader-based prose” (p.20). No wonder then that Carson
and Leki (1993) have asserted that “reading can be, and in academic settings nearly always is,
the basis for writing” (p.1).

Stotsky (1984) detected some consistent correlations between the skills of reading and
writing, specifically that "better writers tend to be better readers", and that "better writers
tend to read more than poorer writers," and finally, yet more importantly that "better readers
tend to produce more syntactically mature writing than poorer readers" (p.16). Tierney and
Leys (1986) concurred that" selective reading experiences definitely contribute to writing
performance" (p. 25) while Salvatori (1996) argued that reading was seen as "an analogue
for thinking about one's own and other's thinking, about how one's thinking is ignited by the
thoughts of others," and this has a stimulant and procreative effect on students' writing (p.
446). By the same token, Petrosky (1982) could observe that writing significantly
contributed to the development of reading skills and sub-skills, concluding that "the only
way to demonstrate comprehension is through extended discourse where readers become
writers who articulate their understandings of and connections to the text in their responses"
(p. 24). In a similar vein, Vivian Zamel (1992) noted some "profound ways" in which writing
induces to enhanced performance in reading, now that "the process of writing shares much in
common with the process of learning. [W]riting allows one to discover and consider one's
stance, one's interpretation, one's immediate reactions to a text. [I]t makes these responses to
text overt, concrete, and tangible" (p. 470).

7
In the meantime, McCormick (1994) revealed that when ESL/EFL learners are taught
reading and writing skills as separate courses, these beneficial effects are lost. Students
usually write essays that fundamentally digest a reading with some personal observations
drawn from their reading.

Recent researchers have acknowledged that reading has actually become the basis of writing
because the information acquired through reading contains print-encoded messages as well
as clues about how the messages’ grammatical, lexical, semantic, pragmatic, and rhetorical
constitutes combine to make the message meaningful (Ferrris and Hedgcock, 2005, p.31).
Pertinently, Hirvela (2004) argued that reading supports writing through “meaningful input”.
In this regard, meaningful input constitutes not only of facts, but specific components that
build up the writing ability and metacognitive skills associated with it, such as thinking
through and seeking to resolve the problems embedded in the writing process (Bolch and Chi,
1995).

In this regard, Hirvela (2004) contended that reading and writing abilities share various
constructs such as rhetorical structure, linguistic features of writing, and examining lexical as
well as stylistic characteristics of writing (p.115). A survey conducted by Tierney and
Shanahan (1991) which synthetically analyzed large portions of correlational studies has
indicated from 25% up to 50% overlap between reading and writing abilities.

2.1.2 Types of Writing for ESL learners

There are only four general purposes that lead someone to write a piece, and these are known
as the four styles, or types, of writing. Knowing all four different types and their usages is
important for any writer.

Here are the categories and their definitions:

1. Expository
Expository writing's main purpose is to explain. It is a subject-oriented writing style,
in which authors focus on telling you about a given topic or subject without voicing
their personal opinions. These types of essays or articles furnish you with relevant
facts and figures but do not include their opinions. This is one of the most common

8
 types of writing. You always see it in textbooks and how-to articles. The author just
tells you about a given subject, such as how to do something.
2. Descriptive
Descriptive writing's main purpose is to describe. It is a style of writing that focuses
on describing a character, an event, or a place in great detail. It can be poetic when the
author takes the time to be very specific in his or her descriptions. The author
visualizes what he or she sees, hears, tastes, smells, and feels.
3. Persuasive
Persuasive writing's main purpose is to convince. Unlike expository writing,
persuasive writing contains the opinions and biases of the author. To convince others
to agree with the author's point of view, persuasive writing contains justifications and
reasons. It is often used in letters of complaint, advertisements or commercials,
affiliate marketing pitches, cover letters, and newspaper opinion and editorial pieces.
4. Narrative
Narrative writing's main purpose is to tell a story. The author will create different
characters and tell you what happens to them (sometimes the author writes from the
point of view of one of the characters—this is known as first person narration). Novels,
short stories, novellas, poetry, and biographies can all fall in the narrative writing style.
Simply, narrative writing answers the question: “What happened then?”

2.1.3 Common Areas of Weakness in Writing Skills

Weaknesses in writing could be classified into two categories: major and minor. The major
weakness category could encompass the weakness resulted from the inability to develop
ideas and content.

Major Weaknesses:

The following six problems could be described as the main features indicating poorly
developed ideas and content:

1- A too-broad thesis statement (weak, vague or poorly developed introduction)

2- A poorly formulated thesis
9
 3- Inadequate or unfocused topic sentences
4- Writing off-subject
5- Failing to anticipate objections
6- An inadequate conclusion
1. The too-broad thesis statement

Many papers fail largely because the writer attempts to write on a subject so broad that he
cannot adequately address. Narrowing down the topic to one that interests the writer, and for
which source information is available so that the writer can discuss adequately in the length
assigned could be claimed to be the best solution for this problem.

2. The poorly formulated thesis

A thesis should treat a discussable point-that is, a topic that merits discussion because more
than one point of view is sane and plausible.

3. Inadequate or unfocused topic sentences

Out of enthusiasm, haste, or laziness, the writer (the student) abandons the basics of
paragraph structure for paragraphs subsequent to his/her thesis statement. From start to finish
the paper should follow a consistent progression leading coherently to a reasonable, well
thought out conclusion. Therefore, the student should make sure every single paragraph in
his paper contains its own clearly stated topic sentence as well as the specific details to
support each.

4. Writing off-subject

Thesis statement is a promise to readers about what they will cover in the student’s paper.
However, some students write "off" this subject including sentences that do not support or
elaborate on this main idea.

5. Failing to anticipate objections

Especially for an argumentative or persuasive paper, students forget to acknowledge or

attempt to overcome objections to their thesis.

10
6. An inadequate conclusion

Usually, student writers should write a concluding paragraph that summarizes the topic
sentence (in words different from those used earlier) and restates the thesis (again, in
different words). The conclusion should include the most important idea from the paper, the
one the student mostly wants his readers to remember. (Some papers may differ; the
conclusion to a narrative essay, for example, may not follow this pattern.)

An effective conclusion "returns" to the material in the introduction–the imagery, metaphor,

or analogy found there, for instance. A satisfying conclusion may also contain one last
anecdote to illustrate the thesis. The student should choose a technique that seems
appropriate to his subject matter and the tone of his paper.

Minor Weaknesses

In addition to the major weaknesses above, minor errors can diminish the apparent strength
of the writer’s argument and result in a paper that is merely adequate. The following are
examples of minor weaknesses hindering students’ writing development:

-Sentence errors including

-Unintentional fragmentary sentences

-Run-on sentences, especially the "comma splice"–using a comma to separate two

sentences

-Short, choppy sentences or lack of sentence variety

-Poor or nonexistent transitions

-Awkward sentences due to lack of parallel structure or due to dangling or misplaced

modifiers

-Word errors such as

-Use of the wrong word or phrase, for example, its or it's

-Nonstandard English–"they was," "he don't,"-use of double negatives, and so on

11
-Trite expressions such as "hit the hay," "gave me a turn," "acid test"

-Monotonous or ineffective repetition

-Wrong word choice for the style, tone, or content: formal language in an informal paper, for
example, or informal language in a formal paper.

-Verb tense disagreement

-Wrong use of subjunctive verb forms, such as in conditional statements

-Subject/verb non-agreement

-Errors in pronoun reference

-"Padding"–using words simply to fill space

-Plagiarizing, that is, failing to cite source material

Common writing weaknesses at the college-level or lower could also be identified through
the following classification:

Vague, General Statements and Fluff

In other words, failure to state thesis statement in a clear, specific, and impactful way.

Redundancy and Wordiness

Use and repetition of unnecessary words in a way that doesn’t serve the content or develop
ideas.

Imprecise and Incorrect Word Choice

This could be ascribed to the lack of vocabulary.

Run-on Sentences and Sentence Fragments

This may seem like a grammar problem, but it’s often really just a problem of flow that
might lead to confusing or awkward sentence structure.

12
Confusing or Awkward Sentence Structure

While these types of sentences are “technically” correct, they are often unreadable. It’s not as
important that the student follows the grammar rules he was taught in school as it is that he
communicates well to his reader.

Bad Metaphors and Comparisons

Good metaphors can take a good argument and make it a great one. They can provide
excellent illustration or evidence, giving readers a new, persuasive perspective. Bad
comparisons make an argument confusing and hard to follow.

Lack of or Weak Transitions

Transitions are one of the most neglected areas in essay writing.

2.2 Teaching writing for ESL in Teaching Methodology

Across ages and places, educationalists spend their valuable times thinking and researching
about suitable teaching methodology to teach languages. Therefore when writing about
teaching methodology, we can list a myriad of names and types such as grammar translation
method, direct method, audio-lingual method, the structural approach, suggestopedia, total
physical response (TPR), communicative language teaching (CLT), the silent way, the
lexical syllabus, the natural approach, task-based language learning, immersion, community
language learning…etc.

Each and every method of the aforementioned and others has its own merits and demerits
according to the context, the community, the learners’ backdrops, and the expected outcomes.
However, at some cases when focusing or targeting some specific skills, it would be better to
use some definite approaches rather than others. For example, communicative language
teaching is definitely useful when the focus is on speaking and communication skills rather
than writing skills.

Hence, the researcher bases his hypothesis on the fact that the learner aspires to learn the
language as a whole body; i.e., including all its skills, so the learner needs to be taught in
13
different ways and approaches according to the expected outcomes. In addition, reliance
upon a single theory of teaching has been criticized because the use of a limited number of
techniques can become mechanic. Therefore, an eclectic approach is supposed to represent
an ideal approach as it can benefit from all advantages of other methods, and simultaneously
avoid their defects.

In the following paragraphs, I’ll be writing about some approaches characteristics with the
intention of not criticizing any of them as they all have their strengths and positive sides, but
to try to figure out the locus point for each method and its impact on teaching writing skills.

2.2.1 Communicative approach

The communicative approach is based on the idea that learning language successfully comes
through having to communicate real meaning. When learners are involved in real
communication, their natural strategies for language acquisition will be used, and this will
allow them to learn to use the language. As a result there may be more emphasis on skills
than systems.

Communicative language teaching (CLT), or the communicative approach, is an approach to

language teaching that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of
study.

Language learners in environments utilizing CLT techniques, learn and practice the target
language through the interaction with one another and the instructor, the study of "authentic
texts" (those written in the target language for purposes other than language learning), and
through the use of the language both in class and outside of class.

According to CLT, the goal of language education is the ability to communicate in the target
language. This is in contrast to previous views in which grammatical competence was
commonly given top priority. CLT also focuses on the teacher being a facilitator, rather than
an instructor. Furthermore, the approach is a non-methodical system that does not use a
textbook series to teach English, but rather works on developing sound oral/verbal skills
prior to reading and writing.

14
There is a good reason to sequence the learning objectives in a foreign language course from
the simple to the complex that is from the easy to the difficult. There is, however, no
possibilities of sequencing the communicative values according to complexity since nearly
every function can be expressed with simple or complex language. These observations call
for an approach that regards the structural system of the language to be learned as the
guideline for planning the course. However, the work of the curriculum designer or the
teacher moves from structures to communicative values, in order to reach the inalienable aim
of communicative competence.

Ridge notes that CLT has nonspecific requirements of its teachers, as there is no completely
standard definition of what CLT is; this is especially true for the teaching of grammar (the
formal rules governing the standardized version of the language in question). Some critics of
CLT suggest that the method does not put enough emphasis on the teaching of grammar and
instead allows students to produce utterances which are grammatically incorrect as long as
the interlocutor can get some meaning from them. (Ridge, Elaine (1992)

Where confusion in the application of CLT techniques is readily apparent is in classroom

settings. Swan suggests that CLT techniques often suggest prioritizing the "function" of a
language (what one can do with the language knowledge one has) over the "structure" of a
language (the grammatical systems of the language). This priority can leave learners with
serious gaps in their knowledge of the formal aspects of their target language. Swan, Michael
(1985-04-01). "A Critical look at the Communicative Approach”. Also it can be noticed that
the L2-model adopted is flexible and can deviate from the L2-standard.

Gianfranco Conti, 2016 summarizes CLT’s main weakness as follows:

“Its main weakness relates to the fact that by prioritizing communication and fluency
development, it does not emphasize grammar sufficiently. Thus, learners often develop a
pidgin ridden language with grammatical flaws at morphological and at grammatical level.
Because the teacher corrective intervention is selective and focuses mainly on errors that
impede understanding, learner’s mistakes often become automatized and consequently
difficult to eradicate. Also, the scarce focus on grammatical knowledge does not help the
learners develop the metalinguistic and analytical skills necessary for L2-students to learn
15
grammar independently and to produce and comprehend texts that contain sophisticated
syntax.”

2.2.2 Grammar Translation Method

The grammar–translation method is a method of teaching foreign languages derived from the
classical (sometimes called traditional) method of teaching Greek and Latin. In grammar–
translation classes, students learn grammatical rules and then apply those rules by translating
sentences between the target language and the native language. Advanced students may be
required to translate whole texts word-for-word. The method has two main goals: to enable
students to read and translate literature written in the source language, and to further
students' general intellectual development.

In its purest form this methodology follows a Structural Syllabus (White, 1998) that is a
syllabus in which each unit of work centers around a core grammatical structure.

There are two main goals to grammar–translation classes. One is to develop students' reading
ability to a level where they can read literature in the target language. The other is to develop
students' general mental discipline. The users of foreign language wanted simply to note
things of their interest in the literature of foreign languages. Therefore, this method focuses
on reading and writing and has developed techniques which facilitate more or less the
learning of reading and writing only. As a result, speaking and listening are overlooked.

It should also be pointed out that in this instructional methodology the L2 taught is normally
the standard variety in its purest and prescriptive form and in its highest register. Thus, the
syntax the students will learn is more than often the language of literature or academia.
Occasionally, both the lexis and the syntax taught is anachronistic and may occasionally
sound flawed to a non-scholarly native ‘ear’.

In conclusion the main features of GT are:

1- The major focus is on reading and writing with little or no systematic attention to
listening and speaking.
2- Vocabulary words are chosen from the reading text used. Teachers teach vocabulary
words through memorization, bilingual word list, and dictionary.
16
 3- The basic unit of teaching and language practice is the sentence. Most of the lesson is
in sentence translation from and into the target language.
4- Deductive method is used in grammar. Rules are presented and studied. Then, students
will practice through translation exercises.
5- New grammatical or vocabulary items in the target language are explained in students’
native language in order to have a comparison between the target language and the
students’ native language.
6- Students are expected to attain high standards in translation. They must be accurate in
translating the sentences into their target language and vice-versa.
On his paper, ”Grammar translation and Communicative Language Teaching Compared”
January 12, 2016, Gianfranco Conti stated that GTM’s main shortcomings are that (1) it does
not train learners in using the language to communicate; (2) it does not provide enough
practice in oral and aural skills; (3) the emphasis on grammar may alienate students who are
not analytical learners; (4) the emphasis on accuracy and correction may demotivate less able
learners more prone to inaccuracies ; (5) it does not develop independent learners. Its main
strength is that it develops grammar and lexical accuracy. However, by not promoting
oral/aural skills, the students are likely to be very slow at producing spoken output and
seriously impaired when confronted with the task of understanding L2-native speakers.

2.2.3 Eclectic Method

The eclectic approach is the label given to a teacher's use of techniques and activities from a
range of language teaching approaches and methodologies. The teacher decides what
methodology or approach to use depending on the aims of the lesson and the learners in the
group. (Masum Billah Friday, 13 February, 2015).

Eclectic method of learning is an integral part of the total learning process. Larsen-Freeman
(2000) and Mellow (2000) both have used the term principled eclecticism to describe a
desirable, coherent, pluralistic approach to language teaching. It is a very democratic
approach to language allowing for a freedom of choice. (Tarone & Yule 1989:10). Wills
(1990) sees an eclectic approach as a response to the conflict between syllabus and

17
methodology, which are not discrete options." Brumfit (1984) recommends that a language
learning program should provide a balance of activities.

Time and experience has shown clearly that sticking blindly to a single ' pure' method or
approach to ELT leads to marginal results and short-lived competencies in restricted areas of
the foreign language practice. For example, students who are taught in an environment of
communicative approach philosophy might end up with some weakness in their abilities to
write competent pieces due to the lack of accuracy for the benefit of fluency. Conversely,
grammar translation method produces learners who have deep knowledge about the language;
however, they fail to have authentic conversations with native speakers. Therefore, both
approaches should be integrated within an eclectic syllabus (Gianfranco Conti, 2016). As a
result, eclecticism appears to have a very strong advantage to recommend it under various
constrained circumstances. It involves a philosophy of local solutions to local problems.

There are varied approaches and methods, other than GT or CLT, used for language teaching.
In eclectic approach, the teacher can choose from these different methods and approaches:

1- Direct Method: In this method the teacher refrains from using the students' native
language. The target language is directly used for teaching all the four skills—
listening, speaking, reading and writing.
2- Structural-situational Approach: In this approach, the teacher teaches language
through a careful selection, gradation and presentation of vocabulary items and
structures through situation based activities.
3- Audio-lingual/Audio-visual Method: In this style of teaching students are taught
through a system of reinforcement. Here new words and grammar are directly taught
without using the students' native language. However, unlike direct method, audio-
lingual method does not focus on vocabulary. Instead, the teacher focuses on grammar
through drill and practice.
4- Bilingual Method: The word 'bilingual' means the ability to speak two languages
fluently. In bilingual method, the teacher teaches the language by giving mother
tongue equivalents of the words or sentences. This method was developed by C.J.
Dodson.

18
 5- Total-Physical Response: It is based on the theory that memory is enhanced through
association with physical response.
6- The Silent Way: In this method the teacher uses a combination of silence and gestures
to focus students' attention. It was developed by Caleb Gattegno.

Advantages of Eclectic Method

1- The teacher has more flexibility. Therefore, the teacher can adopt any skill-specific
approach or technique for more focus on one of the language skills when needed.
2- No aspect of language skill is ignored.
3- There is variety in the classroom.
4- Classroom atmosphere is dynamic.

2.3 Learning English in International Baccalaureate’s Philosophy

The IB is an international educational system that offers four programmes to students from
age 3 to 19. It is based on the idea that students need to be taught to think critically and
independently so that they can face challenges and solve problems they might encounter in
the future.

As man is inherently a social creature, language is a key to develop students’ interpersonal

communicative skills. Our individual ways of talking or using language are developed by the
process of socialization. Language for the IB is a strong enculturating force. Language
shapes our thinking; specific patterns of dialogue and discourse help develop particular type
of learning and cognitive processes. Thus learning language in IB is basically focused on its
function and role as a means of communication and expressing identity. As a result, most IB
schools adopt the communicative approach to teach English language.

King Faisal School is one of the leading IB schools in the Middle East. Its students descend
from the richest and royal families in Saudi Arabia. Hence King Faisal School’s students
usually spend their vacations abroad, which makes it easy for them to speak like native
speakers, and communicate effectively and clearly with them. In addition, a large number of
their teachers are native speakers of English as the language of instructions in the school is
19
English. However, it’s clearly noticed that the students’ levels at writing is incomparable to
their speaking or listening skills, which urges the researcher to embark on this study to try to
find out about the students’ weakness areas at writing, and then investigate reasons for these
weaknesses.

2.4 Previous Studies

Hundreds if not thousands of research papers have been conducted to deal with the
problem of writing for English learners in various ages. The following are examples
of what the researcher investigates more closely for their relation to his study.

1. The research entitled Effects of an Integrated Reading/Writing Approach on

Improving Writing Skills of EFL Students by Hamad Al-Dosari in English
Department, King Khalid University, Saudi Arabia (2016). is an example. The
researcher tried through his research to prove the focal importance of reading to
improve writing skills. “Crudely put, writing ability, which is more demanding
than other language skills, developed more in the experimental treatment group
than the control group because integrated reading and writing skills teaching helped
and supported overall language development for communicative purposes.” “This
confirms previous research findings and extrapolations in relevant literature on the
topic of integrated skills teaching in foreign/second language teaching (Sehlaoui,
2001; Hao &Sivell, 2002; Heffernan, 2006; Al-Ghamari, 2004; Oxford, 2001;
Faydi, 2003; Bose, 2003)”
The objective of this study is to explore the effects of reading on writing in an
integrated fashion during the learning process of EFL learners learning writing in
King Khalid University. The researcher used the quasi-instrumental approach to
overcome the issue. The sample is all male students whose average age is of 20-22
years in the Department of English. In this research, ways of reading which are
likely to promote the development of writing through integration of skills were
sought for EFL reading instructions to answer the question: How can we help EFL
learners develop their writing ability? The study concludes that integrated reading
has a direct influence on the quality of writing as it gives positive effects on
20
 literacy development which helps students consider efficiently genre of writing in
the learning process according to the percentages of t- test. T is equal to (9.100) in
the level of (0.01) for reading as compared to (t) which is equal (7.417) in the same
level for writing. This comparison shows an indication of improvement in the latter
statistically.

2. Using the Eclectic Method in Developing the Writing skills at the Basic Education
Level (8th class teachers perspectives) is another related research conducted by
Hamza Almahdy. It stresses the importance of developing writing skill through
applying different approaches of teaching English language.
This Study Aims at investigating the eclectic method for teaching English language
in the basic level schools. Research population consists of language teachers in
Gadarif state and of which (62) teachers were randomly chosen as research sample.
The researcher used the descriptive approach, the questionnaire for data collection
and the SPSS software program data analysis. The most important results are:
1. A number of teaching methods is used in the basic level schools among which is
the eclectic method.
2. Spine syllabus has benefited from the eclectic method in writing development.
3. Teaching aids are also used for writing development
The most important recommendations are:

1. To improve the teaching methods in the basic level.

2. To involve modern technology in the teaching learning process.
3. To invent further techniques to support teaching of English language.
3. A study entitled “The Effect Of Using English Language Via Social Media On
Developing The Writing Skills Of Secondary Stage Students In Private Schools In
Amman” was conducted by Al Rifaie, Ghassan Aouf (2015). This study aimed at
investigating the effect of social media such as Facebook as one of the effective
tools of teaching and learning a foreign language, and measuring its effect on

21
developing the writing skills of secondary stage students at private schools in
Amman. The study tried to answer the following questions:

1- What is the effect of using English language via social media on developing the
writing skills of secondary stage students in private schools in Amman?

2- Are there any statistical significant differences in the development of students'

writing skills that might be ascribed to gender?

The sample of the study consisted of (40) students, (20) males and (20) females
during the second semester of the scholastic year 2014/ 2015 at Victoria College
Schools in Amman. The design of this study was quasi experimental, for the
sample was not randomly-chosen. Data were collected within three months. To
assess the effect of using social media on EFL students᾿ writing skills, and before
the beginning of each lesson on Facebook, the researcher urged the students to use
the Facebook and they followed the researcher's instructions until they got used to
using it. Students in both groups (male &female) sat for a pre-test on writing, so as
to determine their actual knowledge before starting the experiment. After three
months, they were retested. The tests were corrected on the basis of the TOEFL,
IBT test with its rubric. The results of the study indicated that the post-test showed
better results in the writing performance due to the communication via Facebook.
No significant difference was detected between the male & female groups' post–
tests calculated by using t-test. According to the findings of the study, it is
recommended that using English language via social media that could be
developing the Writing Skills. It is recommended that social media technology can
be adapted to most classes, in teaching writing skills. Accordingly, the researcher
recommends using the social media technologies for teaching writing skills.

4. “The Effect of Rubric-Referenced Self-Assessment on Developing the Writing

Skill of Ninth Grade Students in Jordan” is a study conducted by Ayman B.
Hantouleh, and Adnan H. Al-Jadiri (2014). This study aimed at investigating the
effect of rubric-reference self-assessment on the development of the writing skill of
ninth grade students in Jordan. The study utilized the quasi experimental design
22
since the groups of the study were purposefully chosen from the ninth grade
students in the Golden Jubilee School for Boys /Fourth Directorate of Education in
Amman. Sixty- six students in two sections were assigned to the two groups of the
study, thirty-two in the experimental group and thirty-four in the control group, and
the study was conducted during the second semester of the scholastic year
2012/2013.The two groups of the study were found to be equivalent upon
analyzing the data on the pre-achievement test by using the t-test. The instrument
of the study was the writing achievement test which was approved by a jury of
judges. The researchers administered the pre-and post –tests and the results were
calculated using t-test for equivalent groups. The findings of the study revealed
statistically significant differences in favour of the rubric referenced self-
assessment. There was a statistically significant difference at (µ = 0. 05 ) in the
mean scores of the ninth grade students' writing performance between the
experimental group and the control group that can be ascribed to the rubric-
referenced self – assessment. The researchers recommended that the rubric-
referenced self-assessment be used in teaching and assessing English as a foreign
language.

5. “The Effect of Using WebQuests on Improving Seventh Grade Female

Students' Writing Skills in Southern Al-Mazar Directorate of Education” is the title
of a study conducted in Jordan for Mutah University, College of Graduate Studies,
2015, by Al Awasa, Asmaa Salem. The purpose of this study is to investigate the
effect of using WebQuest on improving seventh grade female students' writing
skills in southern AL-Mazar of education. To achieve the purpose of the study, a
pre-post-test was constructed to measure students' achievement in writing skills of
11 items on English language. The sample of the study comprised (100) seventh
grade female students who were randomly selected from three schools, and was
distributed into two groups: the control group (30) female students which was
taught using the conventional method and two experimental group; the first group
was (35) female students who were trained for (2 hours) and the second group was
(35) female students who were trained for (4 hours) on using webquest. The

23
findings of the study indicated that there were statistically significant differences at
(α =0.01) between the experimental group and the control group in favor of
experimental group, and there were statistically significant differences at (α =0.01)
between the (two hours) and (four hours) at experimental group in favor of the
(four hours). In light of the findings of the study, the researcher suggested the
following recommendations; the need to apply the WebQuests in the educational
process in the Jordanian schools and the need to training teachers in how to use the
WebQuests and its application in the educational process.

6. “The Effectiveness of Using Blogs to Develop English Writing Skills of Saudi

EFL Students” is a study conducted by Saleh Abdullah S Alghusn in Qassim
University, College of Arabic Language & Social Studies, Department of English
Language & Translation, 2016. The purpose of this study was to explore the
effectiveness of using blogs to develop English writing skills of Saudi EFL
students. In the second place, it attempts to examine Saudi students’ attitudes
toward using blogs to learn English writing. The study was based on a quasi-
experimental design. To this end, sixty male Saudi secondary school students
participated in the study. To homogenize the participants’ level of proficiency, the
pre-writing test was conducted on sixty seven students, and the participants with
the intermediate level of proficiency were selected. Then, the participants were
randomly divided into two groups: thirty students representing the experimental
group studied five units practicing English writing through blogs, while thirty
students representing the control group studied the same units following the regular
instruction (board, paper and pen). Research data were gathered through a writing
test and a questionnaire. The experiment consisted of a total of six weeks of
teaching English writing skills. The post-test scores in the treatment group were
compared not only with those of students in the control group but also with their
pre-test scores. The data from the writing test were statistically analyzed using
mean scores, standard deviation scores, and t-test for dependent samples and
paired-sample. The obtained quantitative data were coded and analyzed using SPSS
computer software. The study results indicated that practicing writing with blogs

24
benefitted the students a great deal in terms of the quality of their writing (content,
organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics). The analysis of the data
obtained from the questionnaires revealed that students in the experimental group
had a positive attitude towards using blogs for learning English writing after their
involvement in the experiment. The results of the study can also be useful for
teachers and curriculum planners when designing future curricula textbooks.

7. “The Use of Reflective Writing Journals in Improving English Writing Skill of

Second Grade Secondary Female Students” is a study conducted by Samya Maeedh
Khamees for Umm Alqura University, Saudi Arabia. The study aimed to explore
the effectiveness of reflective writing journals in developing the English language
writing skills of second grade secondary female students in Tail. The quasi-
experimental design with two groups: experimental and control was used and the
sample was (52) second grade secondary female students in Taif city. The writing
skill test prepared by the researcher was administered to the two groups before and
after the experiment. The validity and reliability of the test was calculated. A pilot
study was conducted to identify the status of teaching writing to the 2nd grade
secondary female students in Taif. Then the study tools were designed: an English
writing skill list appropriate for the 2nd grade secondary female students, a test for
the writing skill, and a teacher's and a student's guide for the activities of reflective
writing journals. Five hypotheses were statistically treated. The results showed that
there were statistically significant differences at ( a= 0.001) level between the mean
scores of the experimental group, and the control group in the post-performance in
content, organization, language in use, and mechanics skills separately, and in all
these skills collectively; in favor of the experimental group. In the light of the study
results, the most important recommendations were:

Benefiting from the writing skill list reached in the study in teaching secondary
stage students, using the reflective writing journals to improve other English
writing skills for other grades, using other kinds of reflective writing journals to
improve other writing skills, and training teachers and student teachers to use
reflective writing journals in teaching English language.
25
8. “Using Some Web Based Social Learning Applications for Developing EFL
Secondary Stage Students' Writing Skills and Self-Esteem” is the title of the study
conducted by Helwa, Hasnaa Sabry Abd Alhamid Ahmed, Faculty of Education-
Benha University- Egypt. The aim of this research was to investigate the
effectiveness of using some web based social learning applications in developing
EFL secondary stage students' writing skills and self-esteem. The design of the
research was a mixed research methodology. It combined both quantitative and
qualitative methods of inquiry. The participants of the study were thirty students
enrolled in second year at Met-Kenana Secondary School for Girls, Qalubia
Governorate, Egypt .They tested before and after the intervention. They taught
through a program based on some web based social learning applications (Edmodo,
Facebook, and Twitter). The instruments of the research included an EFL writing
skills test, self-esteem scale, and a semi-structured interview. Results revealed a
statistically significant difference between the mean score of the study participants
in the pre and post administration of the EFL writing skills and self-esteem in favor
of the post administration. These results were ascribed to using some web based
social learning applications.

9. The study entitled” The Effect of Using an Interdisciplinary Integration Program

in Developing Preparatory Students English Language Writing Skills” by Amani
Mohamed Wassim Shit and supervised by Professor Zeinab Ali El-Naggar and Dr.
Delia Ibrahim, Ain Shams University in 2015 is another example. The aim of the
study is to investigate the effect of using an Interdisciplinary Integration Program
in developing Preparatory Students English Language Writing Skills. The problem
of this study was identified in second year preparatory stage students' poor level in
writing. The study adopted the quasi-experimental one group pre-post test design.
The subjects of this study were (25) participants who were selected from B-Kamak
Language School; second year preparatory. The researcher designed a writing pre-
post-test and a holistic scoring rubric as instruments for the study. The results of
administering the pre-post test showed that there is a statistically significant
difference between the mean of the students' scores on the pre-post test of students'

26
writing skills favouring the post application. The findings of the present study
revealed that the use of the proposed program has a positive effect on developing
preparatory stage students' writing skills. Therefore, it is recommended that the
proposed program can be adopted by teachers for developing EFL writing skills at
the preparatory stage and also at other stages.

Chapter Three
Research Methodology and Designs

27
3.0 Introduction
This chapter is devoted mainly to present the research methodology to achieve the main
objective of the study, which is to assess and identify the level of King Faisal School
students’ writing skills. Therefore, in this chapter the researcher will determine the methods
through which data needed are collected, and how these data are being analyzed, in addition
to determining the population and sample of the study from which to obtain the needed data,
as well as specifying the statistical techniques used for data analysis.

3.1 Research Methodology

This current study is based on quantitative approach, whereby the hypotheses of the
proposed research can be tested. Quantitative research approach was defined by Creswell
(2012, P: 15) as the type of research that is explaining phenomena by collecting numerical
data that are analyzed using mathematically based method. With regard to this current
research, the research is aiming to answer the research questions, which concentrate on the
weakness of writing skills of the students according to the teachers’ views.

3.2 Population and Sample of the Study

Population was defined by Mcmillan and Schumacher (2010, P: 129) as "a group of elements
or cases, whether individuals, objects, or events, that conform to specific criteria and to
which researchers intend to generalize the results of the research."
In this current study, the population of the study was determined as all English language
teachers working at King Faisal School in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia. In this study the
population of the study is specified to be the sample of the study.

3.3 Method of Data Collection

There are various methods used for data collection to achieve research objectives, and the
most important of these methods include: survey questionnaires, interviews, observations,
published documents. In this current research the survey questionnaire method was
constructed in order to contribute in providing the data that will help to achieve the research
objectives and answering the research questions, and testing the research hypotheses. The
28
researcher prepared a survey questionnaire method that is addressed to the target sample of
the study through the electronic web (www.googledrive.com).
The survey questionnaire method constructed includes 35 items, classified into three main
dimensions, and each dimension includes a set of items, as follows:
Dimension one: students’ writing level, this dimension includes 6 items.
Dimension two: writing teaching methodology used, it contains 6 items.
Dimension three: areas of development in writing, this dimension include 23 items.

3.4 Survey Questionnaire Validity and Reliability

3.4.1 Survey Questionnaire Validity
The survey questionnaire validity was examined by measuring the association between each
item scores, with the total scores of the dimension to which related and the results are
demonstrated as in the table here down:

Table 3.1: shows the questionnaire validity.

Dimension one: Dimension Two:

Dimension three: areas of development
students’ writing learning
in writing
level methodology used

Item Correlation Item Correlation Item Correlation Item Correlation

No. coefficient No. coefficient No. coefficient No. coefficient
1 0.740** 7 0.199 13 0.403* 25 814**
2 0.478** 8 0.516** 14 0.754** 26 0.446*
3 0.585** 9 0.646** 15 0.666** 27 0.587**
4 0.659** 10 0.491** 16 0.794** 28 0.623**
5 0.675** 11 0.531** 17 0.779** 29 0.419*
6 0.041 12 0.839** 18 0.727** 30 0.431*
19 0.676** 31 0.613**
20 0.821** 32 0.517**
21 0.421* 33 0.655**
22 0.715** 34 0.717**
29
 23 0.721** 35 0.499**
24 0.776**
** indicated that correlation coefficient is significant at the (0.01) significant level
* indicated that correlation coefficient is significant at the (0.01) significant level

It was noticed from the results of Person’s correlation coefficient in the table No.(3.1), that
the majority of subscales items are statistically correlated with the scale or dimension to
which it related, and it was obvious that the values ranged between (0.419-0.814), and all
values of correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the (0.01) level. Hence, it
could be concluded that all items achieved the purposes of measurement in the survey
questionnaire method.

3.4.2 Survey Method Reliability

To measure the survey method reliability statistics, Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient was
calculated, and the results are shown in the table below:
Table 3.2, survey method reliability
Cronbach's
No of
Alpha
items
coefficient
Overall reliability 35 0.860

It was noticed from the result in table no. (3.2) which measures survey questionnaire
reliability that the overall survey instrument reliability is reaching (0.860) which is very high
to guarantee that the survey instrument as a method of research has a very high reliability.
That means the survey instrument is suitable to collect the data needed to achieve the
research objectives.

3.4.3 Data Analysis Techniques

30
To analyze the data collected through the survey questionnaire in this study, the researcher
uses descriptive statistics methods including frequencies, percentages, mean, and standard
deviation in order to answer the research questions. In addition to that, Person’s correlation
coefficient was used to test the survey questionnaire method validity while Cronbach’s
Alpha coefficient was used to measure the survey method reliability.

Chapter 4
31
 Data Analysis
4.0 Introduction
This chapter is mainly specified for data analysis collected by a survey questionnaire method
addressed to teachers participating in the study at King Faisal Schools at Riyadh city, KSA.
The researcher was able to collect around (27) responses from the population (sample) of the
study, which represented about (75.0%) of the target sample. To conduct data analysis,
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used to enter the data collected. Suitable
statistical methods are used for answering research questions and testing the research
hypotheses.
Based on the previous, the data analysis in this chapter would proceed according to the
following sections:
Section one: research questions.
Section two: testing research hypotheses
Therefore, the researcher in this chapter would concentrate to provide answer to the research
main questions, and testing the underlined research hypotheses, as will be presented in the
following:
Section one: research questions
This section is devoted to provide answer to the following research questions:
1- What do teachers of King Faisal School know about their students' writing skills?
2- Why are students’ writing skills weaker than any other skill?
3- What are the weakest points in students’ writing?
4.1 Discussion
This section is devoted mainly to discussions of results concluded by the study, taking into
consideration, the main objective of the study which is to assess and identify the level of
King Faisal School students’ writing skills. It can’t be overstated that assessing students’
writing skills will help to provide suggestions and strategies for the sake of developing
writing skills.

Results of question one stated “What do teachers of King Faisal School know about
their students' writing skills?”
32
 To answer this research question based on the perspectives of English language teachers in
King Faisal schools in Riyadh, the results are demonstrated as in the table no.4.1, here down:

Table No.4.1, participant teachers’ perspectives regarding knowledge about the students’
writing skills.
Item No.

Strongly

Strongly
disagree
disagree

ranking
Neutral

Mean
agree

agree
SD

Most King Faisal MYP F 15 7 3 0 0

students are stronger in their
1 4.37 0.79 1
speaking and /or listening % 55.6 25.9 18.5 0.0 0.0
skills than writing skills.
Most King Faisal DP F 9 9 9 0 0
students are stronger in their
2 4.00 0.83 4
speaking and /or listening 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0
skills than writing skills. %
Most MYP students achieve F 7 16 4 0 0
3 lower levels at writing tasks 4.11 0.64 3
% 25.9 59.3 14.8 0.0 0.0
unless it’s homework.
Most DP students achieve F 4 10 11 2 0
lower grades at writing tasks
4 specifically when they are 3.59 0.84 5
% 14.8 37.0 40.7 7.4 0.0
done at school, not as
homework.
Most MYP/DP students F 9 14 4 0 0
prefer to do collaborative
5 4.19 0.68 2
speaking or presentation % 33.3 51.9 14.8 0.0 0.0
tasks than writing essays or

33
 even paragraphs.
It's not interesting for my F 4 13 6 2 2
6 students to express their 3.56 1.09 6
% 14.8 48.1 22.2 7.4 7.4
ideas in writing.
Overall mean value 3.97 0.40

The results in table No.(4.1) showed the teachers participants’ perceptions with regard to
their knowledge about their students’ writing skills. It could be noticed that the overall mean
value of participants’ perspectives regarding this issue is reaching (3.97), with standard
deviation (0.40), which indicated that the majority of the teachers, respondents in the current
study, know a lot of things about their students’ writing skills. Therefore, this means that,
English language teachers in King Faisal schools understand the level of their students
writing skills, and the reasons behind that.

Here down the researcher will conduct the detailed analysis of the teachers' perspectives
concerning what they do know about their students’ writing skills as one of the English
language skills as a second language:

With regard to participants’ perspectives towards the statement No.1, stated that (Most King
Faisal MYP students are stronger in their speaking and /or listening skills than writing skills),
the results showed that the overall mean value is equal to (4.37) with standard deviation
(0.79). This mean value indicated that the majority of the teachers participated in the current
study strongly agreed that King Faisal MYP students are stronger in speaking and or
listening skills compared with their writing skills. The high level of responding is supported,
as there are 55.6% of the teachers strongly agreed, while 25.9% agreed that students are
stronger in their speaking and or listening skills than writing skills, whereas only 18.5%
have neutral responses.

While, when participants of the current study provide their perspectives regarding the
statement No.5, which stated that: (Most MYP/DP students prefer to do collaborative
speaking or presentation tasks than writing essays or even paragraphs), the results showed

34
that, the mean value to teachers responses is reaching (4.19) with standard deviation (0.68).
The results also revealed that there are about 33.3% of the respondents who strongly agreed
that most students prefer to do collaborative speaking or presentation tasks than writing
essays or even paragraphs, while the majority 51.9% strongly agrees, whereas 14.6% provide
neutral views. Thus, we conclude that the majority of the teachers perceived that most
students prefer to do collaborative speaking or presentation tasks than writing essays or even
paragraphs.

Whereas, when respondents provide their opinions with regard to the statement No.3, stated
that (Most MYP students achieve lower levels at writing tasks unless it’s homework), the
results in table 4.1 revealed that there are about 25.9% of the teachers strongly agreed,
whereas, 59.3% agreed that most students achieve lower levels at writing tasks unless it’s
homework, while 14.8% of the participants were neither agree nor disagree. Thus, it could be
concluded that the majority of teachers in King Faisal schools agreed that most students
achieve lower levels at writing tasks unless it’s homework. This high agreement was
supported by the mean value equal to (4.11) with standard deviation (0.64).

On the other hand, when teachers respondents of the current study were being required to
provide their opinion regarding the statement No.2, stated that (Most King Faisal DP
students are stronger in their speaking and /or listening skills than writing skills), the results
in table 4.1 showed that there are about 33.3% of the teachers strongly agreed, whereas
33.3% agreed that most students are stronger in their speaking and / or listening skills than
writing skills, while 33.3% of them were neither agree nor disagree. Thus, it could be
concluded that the majority of teachers in King Faisal schools understand that most King
Faisal DP students are stronger in their speaking and/or listening skills than writing skills, as
the mean value to their responses is equal to (4.00) with standard deviation (0.83).

On line with that, when participants of the study were providing their responses regarding
the statement No.4, stated that (Most DP students achieve lower grades at writing tasks
specifically when they are done at school, not as homework), the results in table No.4.1
revealed that there are about 14.8% of the participants strongly agreed, while 37.0% out of
the total participants agreed that most DP students achieve lower grades at writing tasks
35
specifically when they are done at school, not as homework, whereas 40.7% of the teachers
stand at the crossroad, where only 7.4% disagreed. Thus it could be concluded that there are
more than half of the teachers support that most DP students achieve lower grades at writing
tasks specially when they are done at schools, not as homework, as the mean value reaching
(3.59) with standard deviation (0.84)supported that. This low achievement in grades in
writing tasks during the classroom is basically related to weakness in vocabulary capacity
obtained by the students.

Finally, when participants of the study provide their responses with regard to the statement
No.6, stated that (It's not interesting for my students to express their ideas in writing), the
results in table No.4.1 showed that there are about 14.8% of the respondents strongly agreed,
while the majority 48.1% agreed that it is not interesting for students to express their ideas in
writing, whereas 22.2% have neutral views, where 7.4% disagreed, and 7.4% strongly
disagreed. Thus, based on the mean value equal to (3.56) with standard deviation (1.09), it
could be concluded that most teachers agreed that most students found it not interesting to
express their ideas in writing.

Therefore, based on the teachers' perspectives concerning questions one of the current study,
regarding teachers knowledge about the students’ writing skills, the results found that the
most important things that teachers know are as follows: most students are stronger in their
speaking and /or listening than writing skills, secondly most students prefer to do
collaborative speaking, or presentation tasks than writing essays or even paragraphs, and
most students achieve lower levels at writing tasks unless it is homework, and finally, most
King Faisal DP students are stronger in their speaking and / or listening skills than writing
skills. The main reasons might be related to lack of vocabulary or students’ lack of interest in
reading and writing.

Results of question two stated “Why are students’ writing skills weaker than any other
skill?”

To provide answer to this research questions, the participants' perspectives presented as in

the table below:
36
 Table No.4.2, The teachers perspectives regarding why students’ writing skills weaker than
any other skill.
Item No.

Strongly

Strongly
disagree
disagree

ranking
Neutral

Mean
agree

agree
SD

Teaching at KFS adopts a F 3 17 7 0 0

7 3.85 0.60 1
communicative approach. % 11.1 63.0 25.9 0.0 0.0
Teaching English language
3 9 15 0 0
F
and literature at KFS is more
focused on studying a wide-
8 3.56 0.70 5
variety of literary works rather
11.1 33.3 55.6 0.0 0.0
than academic non-literary
texts or articles. %
Grammar and sentence F 1 5 10 11 0
structure are not explicitly
taught to MYP/DP students as
9 2.85 0.86 6
teachers don’t tend to use % 3.7 18.5 37.0 40.7 0.0
grammar-translation method
in their teaching.
Most MYP/ DP students use F 6 14 4 3 0
more informal or colloquial
10 3.85 0.91 2
language than formal register % 22.2 51.9 14.8 11.1 0.0
in their writing.
Time spent in teaching texts; F 2 14 9 2 0
literary, non- literary, or
11 3.59 0.75 4
scientific is more than time % 7.4 51.9 33.3 7.4 0.0
spent in teaching writing.
Students rarely follow a F 7 7 10 3 0
12 specific writing process when 3.67 1.00 3
% 25.9 25.9 37.0 11.1 0.0
producing a writing text.

37
 Overall mean value 3.56 0.45

The results in table No.(4.2) present the teachers’ perceptions concerning why students'
writing skills are weaker than any other skill at King Faisal schools in Riyadh city, Saudi
Arabia. The results show that the overall mean value of participants’ perspectives regarding
this issue is reaching (3.56), with standard deviation (0.45), which indicated that the majority
of the teachers participated in the current study agreed that there are various factors leading
to weakness in students writing skills.

For more details regarding the major factors behind the weakness of the students writing
skills, the researcher will conduct the analysis of the participant's perspectives as follows:

With regard to teachers’ perspectives towards the statement No.7, stated that (Teaching at
KFS adopts a communicative approach), the results revealed that the overall mean value is
equal to (3.85) with standard deviation (0.60). This mean value indicated that the majority of
the teachers agreed that teachers at King Faisal schools adopt a communicative approach.
This indicated that adoption of a communicative approach is considered as one of the main
factors behind the students' writing skills weakness. The participants high level of
agreement is also supported, as there are 11.1% of the teachers strongly agreed, while 63.0%
agreed that teachers adopts a communicative approach, whereas 25.9% have neutral
responses.

When teachers participants of the current study are required to provide their views
concerning the statement No.10, stated that (Most MYP/ DP students use more informal or
colloquial language than formal register in their writing), the results in table 4.2 showed that
there are about 22.2% strongly agreed that most MYP/DP students use more informal or
colloquial language than formal register in their writing, while the majority 51.9% agreed,
whereas 14.8% stand at the crossroad, where 11.1% disagreed.

Therefore, it could be concluded that one of the most important factors behind the weakness
of students writing skills is that most students use more informal or colloquial language than
formal register in their writing.

38
Whereas, when teachers participants of the current study, provide their opinions regarding
the statement No.12, stated that, (Students rarely follow a specific writing process when
producing a writing text), the results in table 4.2 showed that, there are about 25.9% strongly
agreed that most students rarely follow a specific writing process when producing a writing
text, while 25.9% agreed, whereas 37.0% stand at the crossroad, where 11.1% disagreed.
Thus, it could be concluded that most students rarely follow a specific writing process when
producing a writing text.

On the other hand, when teachers participants of the study were being required to provide
their views regarding the statement No.11, stated that (Time spent in teaching texts; literary,
non-literary, or scientific is more than time spent in teaching writing), the results in table 4.2
show that there are about 7.4% of the subjects of the study strongly agreed, while 51.9%
agreed that time spent in teaching texts, literary, non-literary, or scientific is more than time
spent in teaching writing, whereas 33.3% neither agree nor disagree, where 7.4% strongly
disagreed. Thus, based on the mean value reaching (3.59) with standard deviation (0.75), it
could be concluded that most teachers agreed that time spent in teaching texts, literary, non-
literary, or scientific is more than time spent in teaching writing. Therefore, this is
considered as one of the factors leading to weakness in students’ writing skills.

While when teachers, subjects of the current study, were providing their perspectives
regarding the statement No. 8, stated that (Teaching English language and literature at KFS
is more focused on studying a wide-variety of literary works rather than academic non-
literary texts or articles), the results in table 4.2 showed that there are about 11.1% of the
participants strongly agreed, while 33.3% of them agreed that teaching English language and
literature at KFS is more focused on studying a wide variety of literary works rather than
academic non-literary texts or articles, whereas 55.6% neither agree nor disagree. Therefore,
based on the mean value of participants responses which is equal to (3.56) with standard
deviation (0.70), it is obvious that there are estimated number of teachers confirmed that
teaching English language and literature at KFS is more focused on study a wide variety of
literary works rather than academic non-literary texts or articles.

39
 Finally, when subjects of the study show their perspectives concerning the statement No.9,
which stated that (Grammar and sentence structure are not explicitly taught to MYP/DP
students as teachers don’t tend to use grammar-translation method in their teaching), the
results in table 4.2 revealed that there are 3.7% strongly agree, while 18.5% agreed, whereas
37.0% neither agree nor disagree, where the majority 40.7% disagree. Thus, it was noticed
that overall teachers, subjects of the study, disagreed that grammar and sentence structure are
not explicitly taught to MYP/DP students, as teachers don’t tend to use grammar –translation
method in their teaching. Therefore, this might not be one of the factors contributed in
weakest points in students writing skills.

Therefore, in conclusion it could be noticed that the most important factors that contributed
in creating weakness in students’ writing skills could include that: Teaching at KFS adopts a
communicative approach, and most MYP/ DP students use more informal or colloquial
language than formal register in their writing, in addition to that Students rarely follow a
specific writing process when producing a writing text.

Results of question three stated “What are the weakest points in students’ writing?”
To answer this research question, the researchers presents the teachers’ perspectives as in
table no. 4.3.

Table No.4.3, The teachers', subjects of the study, perspectives regarding the weakest points
in writing skills of the students at KFS
Item No.

Strongly

Strongly
disagree
disagree

ranking
Neutral

Mean
agree

agree

SD

In their writing tasks, most F 2 14 4 7 0

KFS students present
13 3.41 0.97 2
sufficient content relevant to % 7.4 51.9 14.8 25.9 0.0
the topic
Most students use topic F 0 7 8 12 0
14 sentences to develop 2.81 0.83 12
0.0 25.9 29.6 44.4 0.0
paragraphs. %
40
 Most students develop F 0 7 6 14 0
paragraphs adequately by
15 2.74 0.86 14
example, by comparison, by % 0.0 25.9 22.2 51.9 0.0
details, or by reason.
Most students make F 0 7 7 12 1
16 organization evident in 2.74 0.90 15
% 0.0 25.9 25.9 44.4 3.7
paragraphs.
Most MYP/ DP students use F 0 2 11 12 2
parallel structure when
17 2.48 0.75 21
drawing parallel ideas to % 0.0 7.4 40.7 44.4 7.4
construct arguments.
Most MYP / DP students F 1 3 10 13 0
18 show maturity of thought and 2.70 0.82 18
% 3.7 11.1 37.0 48.1 0.0
expression in writing.
Most MYP / DP students use F 2 4 9 11 1
19 exact words, give evidence of 2.81 1.00 13
% 7.4 14.8 33.3 40.7 3.7
vocabulary growth.
Most MYP / DP students write
F 1 4 7 13 2
effective sentences: avoid
20 vagueness, unnecessary 2.59 0.97 19
repetition, omission of words, % 3.7 14.8 25.9 48.1 7.4

wordiness.
Most MYP / DP students use F 2 9 8 7 1
21 3.15 1.03 5
resources for gathering data. % 7.4 33.3 29.6 25.9 3.7
Most MYP / DP students write F 0 7 8 9 3
22 2.70 0.99 16
legibly and neatly. % 0.0 25.9 29.6 33.3 11.1
Most MYP / DP students F 0 4 6 13 4
observe suitable forms, e.g.
23 2.37 0.93 22
margins, indention, % 0.0 14.8 22.2 48.1 14.8
bibliography.

41
 Most MYP / DP students
F 1 4 6 13 3
formulate complete sentences:
24 2.52 1.01 20
avoid fragments, comma
% 3.7 14.8 22.2 48.1 11.1
splice, run-on errors.
Most MYP / DP students use F 1 4 13 9 0
correct verb forms: subject-
25 2.89 .80 11
verb 4ment, tense, principle % 3.7 14.8 48.1 33.3 0.0
parts.
Most MYP / DP students use F 0 15 10 2 0
26 correct pronouns and 3.48 0.64 1
% 0.0 55.6 37.0 7.4 0.0
reference.
Most MYP/ DP students avoid F 0 5 15 6 1
27 2.89 0.75 10
misplaced modifiers. % 0.0 18.5 55.8 22.2 3.7
Most MYP / DP students F 0 8 10 8 1
apply correct grammar and
28 2.93 0.87 9
usage, e.g., avoid double % 0.0 29.6 37.0 29.6 3.7
negative.
Most MYP / DP students spell F 1 9 9 7 1
29 correctly all common words 3.07 0.96 6
% 3.7 33.3 33.3 25.9 3.7
and contractions.
Most MYP / DP students F 0 5 18 3 1
30 divide words correctly at the 3.00 0.68 8
% 0.0 18.5 66.7 11.1 3.7
end of the line.
Most MYP / DP students F 1 10 7 8 1
31 3.07 1.00 7
capitalize correctly. % 3.7 37.0 25.9 29.6 3.7
Most MYP / DP students
F 0 3 2 19 3
punctuate for clear meaning:
32 end punctuation, comma, 2.19 0.79 23
semicolon, colon, apostrophe, % 0.0 11.1 7.4 70.4 11.1
quotation marks.

42
 Most MYP / DP students F 0 3 15 7 2
follow preferred practice in
writing, e.g., avoiding
33 2.70 0.78 17
improper abbreviations, or % 0.0 11.1 55.6 25.9 7.4
incorrect form for writing
numbers.
In their writing tasks, most F 1 7 15 3 1
MYP / DP students avoid
34 3.15 0.82 4
starting each sentence in the % 3.7 25.9 55.6 11.1 3.7
same way.
Most MYP / DP students vary F 2 8 13 3 1
35 the length and form of their 3.26 0.90 3
% 7.4 29.8 48.1 11.1 3.7
sentences in writing.
Overall mean value 2.86 0.55

The results in table No. (4.3) present the teachers’ perceptions with regard to the weakest
points in students’ writing at King Faisal schools in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia. It could be
clearly observed that the overall mean value of participants’ perspectives is reaching (2.86),
with standard deviation equal to (0.55), which generally indicated that teachers, subjects of
the study, neither agreed nor disagreed about the weakest points in students writing skills.

For more details regarding the weakest points in students’ writing skills, the researcher will
conduct the analysis of the teachers’ perspectives as will be shown in the following:

With regard to teachers' perspectives towards the statement No.26, which stated that (Most
MYP / DP students use correct pronouns and reference), the results revealed that the overall
mean value is equal to (3.48) with standard deviation (0.64). This mean value indicated that
the majority of the teachers believed that most MYP/DP students use correct pronouns and
reference. The teachers' level of agreement is supported, as there are 55.6% of the teachers
agreed, while 37.0% neither agree nor disagree, whereas 7.4% of them disagreed. Therefore,

43
we conclude that more than half the students use correct pronouns and reference, which
means that it is not among the weakest points in students' writing skills.

While when teachers provide their perspectives towards the statement No.13, stated that (In
their writing tasks, most KFS students present sufficient content relevant to the topic), the
results found that the overall mean value is equal to (3.41) with standard deviation (0.97).
This mean value indicated that there is an estimated number of the teachers support that most
KFS students present sufficient content relevant to the topic. The teachers’ responses to that
also showed that there are about 7.4% strongly agreed, while 51.9% of the teachers agreed,
while 14.8% neither agree nor disagree, whereas 25.9% of them disagreed.

The results in table 4.3, show that when teachers, subjects of the study, provide their
perspectives regarding the statement No.35, stated that (Most MYP / DP students vary the
length and form of their sentences in writing), it was noticed that the mean value to
participants’ responses is equal to (3.26), with standard deviation (0.90), which shows that
teachers neither agree nor disagree that most students vary the length and form of their
sentences in writing. Furthermore, the results showed that only 37.0% who provide positive
perspectives, while the majority 48.1% stand at the neutral, whereas 14.8% show negative
responses. Thus, it could be concluded that teachers, subjects of the study, have different
views regarding that, most MYP/DP students vary the length and form of their sentences in
writing.

Furthermore, when teachers, subjects of the study, show their responses with regard to the
statement No.34, stated that (In their writing tasks, most MYP / DP students avoid starting
each sentence in the same way), the results in table 4.3, revealed that the overall mean value
to participants’ responses is equal to (3.15) with standard deviation (0.82). The mean value
indicated that the majority of teachers stand at the crossroad. That means teachers neither
agree nor disagree that most of students in their writing tasks avoid starting each sentence in
the same way. In addition to that, the results revealed that, there are about 29.6% of the
teachers support that, while the majority 55.6% stand at the crossroad, where 14.8% provide
negative responses.

44
Whereas, when teachers, subjects of the study, provide their views regarding the statement
No.21, stated that (Most MYP/ DP students use resources for gathering data), the results
show that the overall mean value is reaching (3.15) with standard deviation equal to (1.03).
This means value indicated that teachers have different opinions regarding that the students
use resources for gathering information. The results also reveal that there are only 30.7% of
the participants who support that, whereas 29.6% have neutral responses, while 29.6%
provide negative responses. This means that there is no common agreement between teachers
concerning the students’ use of resources for gathering information.

On the other hand, the results in table No.4.3 with regard to the statement No. 17, stated that
(Most MYP/ DP students use parallel structure when drawing parallel ideas to construct
arguments) the participants responses showed that the overall mean value is equal to (2.48)
with standard deviation (0.75). This means that the majority of subjects of the study did not
agree that most students use parallel structure when drawing parallel ideas to construct
arguments. The non-consent of the teachers is also supported as there are about 7.4% only
who agreed, whereas 40.7% have neutral views, while 44.4% disagree, when 7.4% strongly
disagree. Thus, it could be concluded that the majority of participants 51.8% did not support
that students use parallel structure when drawing parallel ideas to construct arguments,
which can be considered among the weakest points in students writings’ skills.

At the same time, when teachers, subjects of the study, provide their perspectives regarding
the statement No.23, stated that (Most MYP / DP students observe suitable forms, e.g.
margins, indention, bibliography), the results in table 4.3 revealed that the overall mean
value to participants’ perceptions is reaching (2.37) with standard deviation (0.93). This
indicated that, the majority of teachers, subjects of the study, disagreed that most students
observe suitable forms such as margins, indention, and bibliography. The disagreement of
teachers is also supported as there are about 48.1% disagreed, whereas 14.8% strongly
disagree, whereas the neutral responses comprised about 22.2%, where only 14.8% agreed.

Thus, we conclude that the students’ lack the ability to observe suitable forms such as
margins, indention, and bibliography can be considered among the weakest points in
students' writings.

45
Finally, when participants of the study provide their perceptions regarding the statement
No.32, stated that (Most MYP / DP students punctuate for clear meaning: end punctuation,
comma, semicolon, colon, apostrophe, quotation marks). The results found that there are
about 70.4% disagree, while 11.1% strongly disagree that students punctuate for clear
meaning, end punctuation, comma, semicolon, colon, apostrophe, quotation marks, whereas
7.4% stand across, where 11.1% agree. Thus based on the mean value reaching (2.19) with
standard deviation equal to (0.79), we can say that, the majority of students did not have the
sufficient skill to punctuate for clear meaning, end punctuation, comma, semicolon, colon,
apostrophe, and quotation marks.

Based on the previous analysis of participants' perspectives regarding the weakness points in
students' writing skills, the results show that there are various weakness points in students
writing skills. The most important of these points include the following: the students’
punctuation for clear meaning, end punctuation, understanding comma, semicolon, colon,
apostrophe, and quotation marks is among the weakest points. In addition to that, students’
lack of observing suitable forms, such as formulation of complete sentences, beside that
students’ lack to write effective sentences, to avoid vagueness, and unnecessary repetitions,
and omission of words. Further the students’ use of parallel structure when drawing parallel
ideas to construct arguments are all among the weakest points in writing. In addition, there is
a need for students to show maturity of thoughts and expression in writing, in line with that,
the students should follow preferred practice in writing e.g., avoiding improper abbreviations,
or incorrect form for writing numbers.

Therefore, for improvement of students’ writing skills, major strategies of English language
teaching should be adopted and practiced by the teachers in classroom, which would
contribute to the improvement of writing skills.

4.2 Interpretation

1. What do teachers of King Faisal School know about their students' writing skills?

46
Searching to provide an answer to this research question according to the participants'
perspectives that provide us with information about the teachers' knowledge about their
students' writing skills, the results show that teachers understand that most students are
interested in or concentrate on speaking and listening, and most of them prefer to do
collaborative speaking or presentation tasks than writing essays or paragraphs. In addition,
most students achieve lower levels in writing tasks. This indicated that students at King
Faisal Schools at Riyadh city, KSA, did not pay more attention to their writing skills, while
instead of that, they prefer speaking and listening more than writing skills. Therefore, they
achieve low level in any writing tasks. Furthermore, the lack of using strategies to develop
writing skills is one of the main factors behind the deficiency in students' writing skills. The
literature reviewed has presented various reasons supporting the deficiency in writing skills
as one of the English language skills encountered by the students at King Faisal School as
non-native learners. A study conducted by Al-Dosari (2016) in English Department, King
Khalid University, Saudi Arabia regarding the Effects of an Integrated Reading/Writing
Approach on Improving Writing Skills of EFL Students, The researcher tried through his
research to prove the focal importance of reading to improve writing skills. “Crudely put,
writing ability, which is more demanding than other language skills, developed more in the
experimental treatment group than the control group because integrated reading and writing
skills teaching helped and supported overall language development for communicative
purposes.” The study concludes that integrated reading has a direct influence on the quality
of writing as it gives positive effects on literacy development that helps students consider
efficiently genre of writing in the learning process. In line with that, a study conducted by
Almahdy (2016), with the aim to investigate the eclectic method for teaching English
language in the basic level schools, concluded that the availability of teaching methods used
in the basic level school among which is the electronic method, and spine syllabus has
benefited from the electronic method in writing development, while teaching aid is another
motivator for writing development. Another study conducted by, Aouf(2015) at Victoria
College Schools in Amman, aiming to assess the effect of using social media on EFL
students᾿ writing skills, revealed that the post-test showed better results in the writing
performance due to the communication via Facebook. This result explained clearly that using

47
social media has a positive influence on the EFL learners’ writing skills due to the practicing
of writing through social media such as Facebook, WhatSapp, Twitter, etc.

2. Why are students’ writing skills weaker than any other skill?

The results of the current study showed that the most important factors or reasons that
contributed to the decline of students’ writing skills can be listed as follows: Teaching at
KFS adopts a communicative approach, most MYP/ DP students use more informal or
colloquial language than formal register in their writing, and students rarely follow a specific
writing process when producing a writing text. The previous literature reviewed found
various challenges that affect negatively students’ writing skills. The study; conducted by
(Fareed, et al, 2016) regarding ESL writing skills problems, factors and suggestion, found
that the major problems in Pakistani undergraduate ESL learners' writing are insufficient
linguistic proficiency including command over grammar, syntax and vocabulary, in addition
to writing anxiety, lack of idea, reliance on L1, and weak structure organization. A study
conducted by (Sajid, 2015) aims to investigate lack of academic writing skills in English
language at higher educational level in Pakistan, concentrated on causes, effects and remarks.
The results revealed that there are various causes stand behind the students’ lack of learning
capacity of the language. In addition, the study reported that cognitive abilities, learning
disability beside other deficiencies relating to memory or poor motivation might be some of
the causes to writing problem. Furthermore, some studies show that in most of the schools
teachers teaching English language either have no relevant degrees in the field of applied
linguistics or lack modern means and methods of teaching language, especially writing skills.
3. What are the weakest points in students’ writing?
The current study shows that according to the participants’ perspectives there are a variety of
areas of weakness in students’ writing skills. The majority of students do not use the correct
punctuation marks that help them convey their messages, such as end punctuation, comma,
semicolon, and colon. In addition, students have low knowledge of how to formulate
complete sentences. Also students have low skills about how to write effective, meaningful
sentences to avoid vagueness, and unnecessary repetitions, and omission of words.
Furthermore, students have not enough skills of using parallel structure in particularly when
drawing parallel ideas to construct arguments. In addition, there is a need that students must
48
show maturity of thoughts and expression in writing, in line with that, the students should
follow preferred practice in writing e.g. , avoiding improper abbreviations, or incorrect form
for writing numbers. The literature reviewed shows that there are various methods that can
be implemented to improve the students' writing skills. Al Rifaie (2015) in his study
recommended that social media technology could be adapted to most classes, in teaching
writing skills. In line with that, a study conducted by Hantouleh & Al-Jadiri (2014)
recommended the rubric-referenced self-assessment as one of the methods that could be
useful in teaching and assessing writing English as a foreign language. At the same time, the
study conducted by Salem (2015), recommended that there is a need to apply the WebQuests
in the educational process in the Jordanian schools and the need to training teachers on how
to use the WebQuests and its application in the educational process in order to improve
writing skills. Another study conducted by Madini and Alsubaie (2018) to investigate the use
of web blogs as a supplementary tool for teaching English, which focusses on studying the
effectiveness of using blog exchanges for enhancing the Saudi female university students'
English writing skills, in particular, the use of varied vocabulary. The findings indicated an
improvement in the students' writing performance after using the blog entries.
On the other hand, the result of testing hypothesis one revealed that, that there is a
statistically significant difference between teachers' perspective regarding that the students of
King Faisal schools are stronger in their spoken language compared with their writing skills.
Again, this result proved that, the students’ writing skills are weak, which needs more
effective methods to improve. Furthermore, the results proved that there is a statistically
significant difference between teachers’ perspectives regarding adopting communicative
approach. These results indicated that using communicative approach made it easier for
students to communicate in conversation or dialogues by using their speaking skills, while it
diminished the opportunities of developing their writing skills. The literature reviewed
provides various indications supporting the above result of the current study. Among these
researches, the study conducted by Helwa (2016). The study found that there was a
statistically significant difference between the mean score of the study participants in the pre
and post administration of the EFL writing skills and self-esteem. In addition, the study that
conducted by Hantouleh & Al-Jadiri (2014) aimed at investigating the effect of rubric-
reference self-assessment on the development of the writing skill of ninth grade students in
49
Jordan. The result showed that there was a statistically significant difference at (µ = 0. 05 ) in
the mean scores of the ninth grade students' writing performance between the experimental
group and the control group that can be ascribed to the rubric- referenced self – assessment.

4.3 Testing Research Hypotheses

This section was specified to test the underlined research hypotheses. The results analyzed as
shown in the following:

1. Results of Testing Hypothesis One, stated that

“King Faisal School’s Students are stronger in their spoken language than their writing
because they are more exposed to speaking language opportunities than reading texts”.
To test this research hypothesis, one -sample T-Test statistics was performed, and the results
are displayed in table No.4.4:
The hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H0: There is no statistically significant difference between teachers, subjects of the study,
regarding that KFS students are stronger in their spoken language than their writing skills.
H1: there is a statistically significant difference between teachers, subjects of the study,
regarding that KFS students are stronger in their spoken language than their writing skills.
Table No.4.4 presents the results of one sample T-test to examine if KFS students are
stronger in their spoken language than their writing

Test value Man value SD T-test value Df P-value

(sig.)
3 4.37 0.79 8.994** 26 0.00

**Indicated that the difference is significant at the (0.00) level.

The results of one-sample T-test show that the value of T-test statistics is equal to (8.994)
which is statistically significant at the (0.01) level as (α=0.00). These results indicated that
there is a statistically significant difference between teachers’ perspectives concerning KFS
students’ spoken language and their writing skills. Therefore, we will reject the null
hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis, which stated that there is a statistically

50
significant difference between teachers' perspective regarding the students of King Faisal
School’s spoken language compared with their writing skills.

2. Results of Testing Hypothesis Two, stated that

“Communicative approach made it easier for students to communicate in conversations or

dialogues by using their speaking skills while it diminished the opportunities of developing
their writing skills, which led to the weakness of their writing skills compared to their
speaking ones”.
The hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H0: there is no statistically significant difference between teachers' perspectives regarding
that communicative approach made it easier for students to communicate in conversations or
dialogues by using their speaking skills, while it diminished the opportunities of developing
their writing skills.
H1: There is a statistically significant difference between teachers perspectives regarding
that communicative approach made it easier for students to communicate in conversations or
dialogues by using their speaking skills, while it diminishes the opportunities of developing
their writing skills.
Table No.4.5 presents the results of one sample T-test to examine that using communicative
approach made it easier for students to communicate in conversations or dialogues by using
their speaking skills, while it diminished the opportunities of developing their writing skills.

Test value Man value SD T-test value Df P-value

(sig.)
3 3.85 0.60 7.359** 26 0.00

**Indicated that the difference is significant at the (0.00) level.

The results of one-sample T-test in table No. 4.5 found that the value of T-test statistics is
equal to (7.359) which is statistically significant at the (0.01) level as (α=0.00). This result
indicated that there is a statistically significant difference between teacher’s perspectives
regarding adopting communicative approach. These results indicated that using
communicative approach made it easier for students to communicate in conversation or

51
dialogues by using their speaking skills, while it diminished the opportunities of developing
their writing skills.

3. Results of Testing Hypothesis Three, stated that

“Coherence, cohesion, punctuation, and lack of vocabulary are the main areas of writing
weakness for most of the students”.
To test this hypothesis, the researcher calculated the descriptive method including the mean
standard deviation to assess if the coherence, cohesion, punctuation, and lack of vocabulary
are the main areas of writing weakness for most of the students. The results demonstrated in
the table below:
Table No.4.6
Standard
The main areas of writing weakness Mean
deviation
Most students punctuate for clear meaning, end
punctuation, comma, semicolon, colon, apostrophe, 2.19 0.79
quotation marks.
Most students observe suitable forms, e.g. margins,
2.37 0.93
indention, bibliography
Most students use parallel structure when drawing parallel
2.48 0.75
ideas to construct arguments
Most students formulate complete sentence avoid
2.52 1.01
fragments, comma splice, run on errors.
Most students write effective sentences, avoid vagueness,
2.59 0.97
unnecessary repetitions, omission words, wordiness.

The results indicated that all mean values support that most students’ lack the coherence,
cohesion, punctuation, and lack of vocabulary are the main areas of writing weakness facing
most students at King Faisal Schools in Riyadh city, KSA.
4. Results of Testing Hypothesis four, stated that

52
“The lack of academic reading passages that the students are exposed to compared with
literature texts affected the type and range of sentence structure and vocabulary students use.
It also affected the way they connect their ideas in writing”.
To test this research hypothesis, Spearman’s correlation coefficient is run, and the result is
presented in in the table No.4.6.

Table No.4.7 shows the results of Spearman’s correlation relationship between lack of
academic reading passages that students exposed to, and type and range of sentence structure
and vocabulary structure use.

Lack of academic reading passages

that students exposed to
Person’s correlation P-value
coefficient (Sig.)
Type and range of sentence structure and
0.475* 0.012
vocabulary students use

*Indicated that the correlation is significant at the (0.05) level.

The result in table 4.6 shows that the value of Spearman’s correlation coefficient is equal to
(0.475) which is statistically significant at the (0.05) level. This result supports that the lack
of academic reading passages that students exposed to affects the type and range of sentence
structure and vocabulary structure they use. Therefore, due to the fact that the lack of
academic reading passages the students exposed to has a significant influence on the students
understanding of how to structure sentence and vocabulary, it in turn affects their own ability
to connect their ideas in writings skills. Therefore, this result supports the acceptance of
hypothesis four.

Chapter Five

Findings and Recommendations

5.1 Summary

53
This research is conducted for the purpose of investigating the low level of King Faisal
School’s students in writing skills from the teachers’ perspectives. It is based on the
descriptive quantitative approach to collect and analyse the responses of participant teachers
via the survey questionnaire used as a tool of the research. The dissertation aims to assess
and identify the level of King Faisal School students’ writing skills, explore other reasons
affecting King Faisal School students’ writing skills, examine the weakness points of King
Faisal School writing conventions, and to suggest some solutions to improve King Faisal
School students’ writing skills. The researcher, therefore, conducted a survey questionnaire
to collect teachers’ responses to the following areas of inquiry: students’ writing level,
writing teaching methodology used, and areas of development in writing.
The researcher benefited a lot from previous related studies such as Using the Eclectic
Method in Developing the Writing skills at the Basic Education Level (8 th class teachers’
perspectives) which is conducted by Hamza Almahdy in Alnileen University (2016). It
stresses the importance of developing writing skill through applying different approaches of
teaching English language. The study entitled” The Effect of Using an Interdisciplinary
Integration Program in Developing Preparatory Students English Language Writing Skills”
by Amani Mohamed Wassim Shit and supervised by Professor Zeinab Ali El-Naggar and Dr.
Delia Ibrahim, Ain Shams University in 2015 is another example. The aim of the study is to
investigate the effect of using an Interdisciplinary Integration Program in developing
Preparatory Students English Language Writing Skills.

5.2 Findings

Based on data analysis, the study conducted concluded with the following findings:

1. The most important things teachers know include that most students are stronger in

their speaking and /or listening than writing skills.

2. Most students prefer to do collaborative speaking or presentation tasks than writing
essays or even paragraphs, and most students achieve lower levels at writing tasks
unless it is homework. Finally, teachers understand that most King Faisal DP students
are stronger in their speaking and / or listening skills than writing skills.

54
3. The results of the study showed that the most important factors behind students’

writing skills weakness include that teaching at KFS adopts a communicative

approach, and most MYP/ DP students use more informal or colloquial language than
formal register in their writing.
4. Students rarely follow a specific writing process when producing a writing text.

5. With regard to the weakest points in students' writing skills, the results found that the

most important weakest points in students’ writing skills are as follows: the students’
punctuation, end punctuation, understanding comma, semicolon, colon, … etc.;
students’ lack of observation for suitable forms; in addition to that, students’ inability
to formulate complete sentences.

6. The results of the study found that the weakest points in students’ writing skills are

that the students don’t have enough skills to write effective sentences avoiding
vagueness, unnecessary repetitions, and omission of words.

7. Another point is the students’ lack of parallel structure use, in particular when drawing

parallel ideas to construct arguments. In addition, students’ lack of maturity of

thoughts and expression in writing is a clear point too.

8. The results of the study proved that there is a statistically significant difference

between teachers’ perspectives, concerning how stronger KFS’s students are in their
spoken language than their writing skills.

9. The results of study showed that there is a statistically significant difference between
teacher’s perspectives regarding adopting communicative approach. This result
indicated that using communicative approach made it easier for students to
communicate in conversation or dialogues by using their speaking skills, while it
diminished the opportunities of developing their writing skills.

55
 10. The results of the study explored that most students’ lack the coherence, cohesion,

punctuation, and lack of vocabulary are the main areas of writing weakness facing
most students at King Faisal schools in Riyadh city, KSA.

11. The results of the study showed that the lack of academic reading passages that

students are exposed to affects the type and range of sentence structure and vocabulary
structure they use, which in turn affects their ability to connect their ideas in writings
skills.

5.3 Recommendations
The study recommends the following in order to develop the students’ writing skills:
1. It is very necessary to introduce and adopt different methods in teaching English, in other
words to adopt eclectic method so that teachers can eschew the defects of adopting specific
teaching method. This will help teachers to have a balance in their teaching focus which will
be reflected on the expected outcomes to develop the students’ writing skills, in particular.
2. It is very important to increase and raise the capacity of vocabulary for the students on a
systematic base, providing them with a range of sophisticated vocabulary through wide
exposure to academic reading passages.
3. Training teachers to teach English language skills, specifically writing skills, is very
important to raise the capabilities of the teachers to dedicate time to teach students how to
develop their writing skills using, for example, writing process.
4. Teachers should use specific rubric to assess writing skills so that results can be easily
classified and analyzed to inform teaching process and curriculum planning.

References

56
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2013). Writing Instruction That Works: Proven Methods
for Middle and High School Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Billah, Masum. "Eclectic Approach to Teaching Language ." 13 Feb 2015. Web. 12 Oct
2018. <Http://Www.Observerbd.Com/2015/02/13/72233.Php>

Chafe, W. L. Meaning and The Structure Of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1970.

Conti, Gianfranco . "Grammar translation and Communicative Language Teaching

Compared." The Language Gym. 12 Jan 2016. Web. 10 Oct 2018.
<https://gianfrancoconti.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/grammar-translation-and-
communicative-language-teaching-compared/>.

Dar, M. F., & Khan, I. (2015). Writing Anxiety among Public and Private Sectors Pakistani
Undergraduate University Students. Pakistan Journal of Gender Studies,10 (1), 121–136.

"Designing Tasks for The Communicative Classroom." AustinwritingshopNunan, D, 27 May

2016. Web. 10 Oct 2018. <Http://Austinwritingshop.Com/Common-Writing-Weaknesses>

George E. Newell, Jennifer Vanderheide and Allison Wynhoff Olsen. "High School English
Language Arts Teachers' Argumentative Epistemologies for Teaching Writing." National
Council of Teachers of English. 49.2 (2014): 24.
Web.<Https://Www.Jstor.Org/Stable/24398670>.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., 8t Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward A Theory of Teacher

Community. Teachers College Record, 103, 942-1012.

Harris, J. (2006). Rewriting: How to Do Things with Texts. Logan: Utah State University.

Herrington, Anne J.. "Reviewed Work: How Writing Shapes Thinking: A Study of Teaching
and Learning by Judith A. Langer, Arthur N. Applebee." College Composition and
Communication. 40.1 (1989): 3. Web.<https://www.jstor.org/stable/358190>.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on Written Composition. Urbana, IL: National Confer-
Ence On Research In English.

57
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1999). Ways of Thinking, Ways of Teaching. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (2011). Teaching Argument Writing: Supporting Claims With Evidence
And Clear Reasoning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The Development of Epistemological Theories:

Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing and Their Relation To Learning. Review of
Educational Research, 67, 88-140.

Hunt, K. W. Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. Research Report No. 3.
Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1965.

Hunt, K. W. Early and Late Blooming Syntactic Structures. In Cooper, C. & Odell, L. (Eds.)
Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of
Teachers Of English, 1977.

Ivanki, R. (2004). Discourses of Writing And Learning To Write. Language And Education,
18, 220-245.

Jacobs, & L, H. (1981). Testing Esl Composition: A Practical Approach. English

Composition program. Newbury House, Massechautes.

Johnston, P., Woodside-Jiron, H., &. Day, J. (2001). Teaching and Learning Literate Episte-
Mologies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 223-233.

Juzwik, M. M., Curcic, S., Wolbers, K., Mox- Ley, K. D., Dimling, L. M., & Shankland, R.
K. (2006). Writing into The 21st Century: An Overview Of Research On Writing, 1999 To
2004. Written Communication, 23, 451-476.

Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Long-Term Working Memory in Text Production. Memory & Cogni-
Tion,29 (1), 43–52

Loban, W. Language Development: Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. Research Report

No. 18. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1976.

58
Lunsford, A. A., Ruszkiewicz, J. J., 8c Walters, K. (2001). Everything's An Argument.
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Lunsford, K. J. (2002). Contextualizing Toul- Min's Model in The Writing Classroom: A

Case Study. Written Communication, 19, 109-174.

Mccarthey, S. J„ & Mkhize, D. (2013). Teachers' Orientations Towards Writing. Journal of

Writing Research, 5, 1-33.

Mccutchen, D. (1984). Writing as a Linguistic Problem. Educational Psychologist,19

(4),226–238

Mcneill, D. Developmental Psycholinguistics. In Smith, F. & Miller, G. (Eds.) The Genesis

Of Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1966.

Meer, Syed Hunbbel. "Four Different Types of Writing Styles: Expository, Descriptive,
Persuasive, and Narrative." Owlcation. 10 Oct 2016. Web. 12 Oct 2018.
<https://owlcation.com/humanities/Four-Types-of-Writing>.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices 8c Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in
History/Social Studies, Science, And Technical Subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.

N. Beatrice , Manyasi . "Integrated Approach in Teaching English Language: The Practice in

Kenya." International Journal of Education and Research . 2.4 ( 2014): 12.
Web.<www.ijern.com>.

Newell, G. E., Beach, R., Smith, J., & Vanderheide, J. (2011). Teaching And Learning
Argumentative Reading And Writing: A Review Of Research. Reading Research Quarterly,
46, 273-304.

Newell, G. E., Tallman, L., 8c Letcher, M. (2009). A Longitudinal Study of Consequential

Transitions in The Teaching Of Literature. Research in The Teaching Of English, 44, 89-126.

59
O'Hare, F. Sentence Combining: Improving Student Writing Without Formal Grammar
Instruction. Research Report No. 15. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English,
1973.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in The College Years.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, 8c Winston.

Pigdon, K. & Woolley, M. (1992). The Big Picture. Chap 1 – 3. Victoria: Eleanor Curtain
Publishing.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context.

Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Roger L., Cayer and Sacks Renee K.. "Oral and Written Discourse of Basic Writers:
Similarities and Differences." Research in the Teaching of English. 13.2 (1979): 8. Web

Shaughnessy, M. P. Errors and Expectations: A Guide for The Teacher Of Basic Writing.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Smagorinsky, P. (2009). Is It Time To Abandon The Idea of "Best Practices" in The

Teaching of English? English Journal, 98, 15-22.

Smagorinsky, P., Johannessen, L, Kahn, E., & Mccann, T. (2010). The Dynamics of Writing
Instruction: A Structured Process Approach for Middle and High School. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

Wilkinson, A., Stratta, L., & Dudley, P. The Quality of Listening. Basingstoke and London:
Macmillan Education, Ltd., 1974.

Zollinger, Marian. "Developing Competence in Writing." The English Journal. 41.8 (1952):
5. Web

Appendix

60
No List of Tables Page
1 Table 3.1: shows the questionnaire validity 29
2 Table 3.2, survey method reliability 30
3 Table No.4.1, participant teachers’ perspectives regarding knowledge 33
about the students’ writing skills.
4 Table No.4.2, The teachers perspectives regarding why students’ 37
writing skills weaker than any other skill.
5 Table No.4.3, The teachers', subjects of the study, perspectives 40
regarding the weakest points in writing skills of the students at KFS
6 Table No.4.4 presents the results of one sample T-test to examine if 50
KFS students are stronger in their spoken language than their writing
7 Table No.4.5 presents the results of one sample 51
8 Table No.4.6 The main areas of writing weakness 52
9 Table No.4.7 Lack of academic reading passages that students 53
exposed to

Questionnaire

Dear Colleagues,

Trying to exert the needed effort to develop our students' performance in English, and
building on the fact that all IB teachers are deemed to be language teachers, I’d like to seek
your support and cooperation in my research, which aims to seek more as to how teachers at
KFS assess MYP /DP students' writing levels and skills. This research is a supplementary
part of a study aiming at developing writing skills at King Faisal School.

By answering the following questionnaire, you will be helping the researcher to determine
some specific points based upon which a developmental action plan could be drafted. The
questionnaire is divided into three sections of thirty five multiple choice questions in all
using a Likert scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.

It will take approximately 15 minutes to respond to this questionnaire. Your personal details
will be maintained in strictest confidence and will only be used for the purposes of the given
research.

Please note that you may withdraw from this study at any time without having to give an
explanation.

61
I freely give my consent to participate in this research study.

Thank you in advance for your valuable time.

1- Students' Writing Levels

1- Most King Faisal MYP students are stronger in their speaking and /or listening
skills than writing skills.

2- Most King Faisal DP students are stronger in their speaking and /or listening
skills than writing skills.

3- Most MYP students achieve lower levels at writing tasks unless it’s homework.

4- Most DP students achieve lower grades at writing tasks specifically when they
are done at school, not as homework.

5- Most MYP/DP students prefer to do collaborative speaking or presentation tasks

than writing essays or even paragraphs.

6- It's not interesting for my students to express their ideas in writing.

2- Teaching Methodology Used

7- Teaching at KFS adopts a communicative approach.

8- Teaching English language and literature at KFS is more focused on studying a

wide-variety of literary works rather than academic non-literary texts or articles.

9- Grammar and sentence structure are not explicitly taught to MYP/DP students
as teachers don’t tend to use grammar-translation method in their teaching.

10- Most MYP/ DP students use more informal or colloquial language than formal
register in their writing.
62
 11- Time spent in teaching texts; literary, non literary, or scientific is more than
time spent in teaching writing.

12- Students rarely follow a specific writing process when producing a writing text.

3- Areas of Development in Writing

13- In their writing tasks, most KFS students present sufficient content relevant to
the topic.

14- Most students use topic sentences to develop paragraphs.

15- Most students develop paragraphs adequately by example, by comparison, by

details, or by reason.

16- Most students make organization evident in paragraphs.

17- Most MYP/ DP students use parallel structure when drawing parallel ideas to
construct arguments.

18- Most MYP / DP students show maturity of thought and expression in writing.

19- Most MYP / DP students use exact words, give evidence of vocabulary growth.

20- Most MYP / DP students write effective sentences: avoid vagueness,

unnecessary repetition, omission of words, wordiness.

21- Most MYP / DP students use resources for gathering data.

22- Most MYP / DP students write legibly and neatly.

23- Most MYP / DP students observe suitable forms, e.g. margins, indention,
bibliography.

24- Most MYP / DP students formulate complete sentences: avoid fragments,

comma splice, run-on errors.

25- Most MYP / DP students use correct verb forms: subject-verb agreement, tense,
principle parts.

63
26- Most MYP / DP students use correct pronouns and reference.

27- Most MYP/ DP students avoid misplaced modifiers.

28- Most MYP / DP students apply correct grammar and usage, e.g., avoid double
negative.

29- Most MYP / DP students spell correctly all common words and contractions.

30- Most MYP / DP students divide words correctly at the end of the line.

31- Most MYP / DP students capitalize correctly.

32- Most MYP / DP students punctuate for clear meaning: end punctuation, comma,
semicolon, colon, apostrophe, quotation marks.

33- Most MYP / DP students follow preferred practice in writing, e.g., avoiding
improper abbreviations, or incorrect form for writing numbers.

34- In their writing tasks, most MYP / DP students avoid starting each sentence in
the same way.

35- Most MYP / DP students vary the length and form of their sentences in writing.

64