THE USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN HIGH PROFICIENCY AND LOW PROFICIENCY ESL ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS: A COMPARATIVE
STUDY
BY
SITI „AISHATUL-HUMAIRAH BT MUHAMMAD FISOL
A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Human Sciences (English Language
Studies)
Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences
International Islamic University Malaysia
MAY 2015
ii
ABSTRACT
Using Halliday and Matthiessen‟s (2004) taxonomy of cohesive devices for analysis, this study investigates the use of cohesive devices in 100 argumentative compositions produced by ESL university students at two different levels of proficiency. Given the importance of cohesion in writing, this study also investigates the correlation between the use of cohesive devices and writing scores. Data were quantified and analysed by computing all occurrences of cohesive devices using the IBM SPSS software (22.0).
Descriptive statistics, Independent sample t-test, correlation coefficient and qualitative analysis were performed in order to answer the research questions. The findings reveal that the students were able to use varieties of cohesive devices in their argumentative writing. Reference was found to be the most frequent category employed by students regardless of proficiency followed by lexical category of repetition. There was significant difference in the total use of cohesive devices between high and low proficiency essays. The writing scores also reveal significant correlation in the total use of cohesive devices despite several errors identified in the writings. The results of this study are expected to lead to a better understanding of the role of learning and teaching cohesion in writing in the ESL contexts.
iii
ثحبلا ةصلاخ
ةعمالجا بلاط ىدل ٍّيجاجح ٍبيكرت ةئام في قاستلاا تاودأ مادختسا ثحبلا اذه سردي كلذو ،ةيوغللا ةءافكلا نم ينفلتمخ ينيوتسم نم ةيناث ةغل اهتفصب ةيزيلنجلإاب ينقطانلا نم مادختساب ( ينسسثام ياديلاه فينصت
عم .ليلحتلل قاستلاا تاودأ فينصتل ) 4002
تاودأ مادختسا ينب طابترلاا اًضيأ ثحبلااذه سردي ،ءاشنلإا في قاستلاا ةيهمأب ميلستلا عيجم ءاصحإب كلذو ،اًيمك تانايبلا ليلتح تم دقو .ءاشنلإا في ةلصحتلما تاجردلاو قاستلاا دختساب قاستلاا تاودأ تاراركت جمانرب ما
IBM SPSS 22.0
تاءاصحلإادادعإ تم دقو .
( رابتخا جئاتن و ،ةيفصولا ةباجلإل يفيكلا ليلحتلاو ،طابترلاا لماعمو ،ةلقتسلما تانيعلل ) t
نم ةعونتم تاودأ مادختسا ىلع نورداق بلاطلا نأ ثحبلا تبثأ .ثحبلا ةلئسأ نع ثحبلا تبثأ امك .ةيجاجلحا متهلااقم في قاستلاا تاودأ تاودأ رثكأ يه ةلاحلإا نأ
راركت ةلاحلإا يليو ،ةيوغللا متهءافك نع رظنلا فرصب ،بلاطلا ىدل اًمادختسا قاستلاا قاستلاا تاودأ تامادختسا عوممج ينب ةيئاصحإ ةللاد تاذ قورف كانهو .يمجعم رصنع صحتلما تاجردلا نأ كلذك ثحبلا دجوو .ةيوغللا ةءافكلا رابتعاببلاطلا تلااقم في نم ةل
ضعب مغر قاستلاا تاودأ تامادختسا عوممج عم ةيئاصحا ةللاد اذ اطابترا طبترت ةباتكلا
مهفلا ديوزت في ةساردلا هذه مهست نأ عقوتلما نمو .تلااقلما في تفِشُتكا تيلا ءاطخلأا
ةغل اهتفصب ةيزيلنجلإا ةغللا ملعت قايس في ةباتكلا في قاستلاا ميلعتو ملعت رودل لضفلأا
ناث
.ةي
iv
APPROVAL PAGE
I certify that I have supervised and read this study and that in my opinion, it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Master of Human Sciences (English Language Studies).
Maimunah bt Abdul Kadir Supervisor
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Master of Human Sciences (English Language Studies).
Mohamed Ismail Ahamed Shah
Examiner
This dissertation was submitted to the Department of English Language and Literature and is accepted as a requirement for the degree of Master of Human Sciences (English Language Studies).
Zahariah Pilus Head Department of English Language and Literature
This dissertation was submitted to the Department of English Language and Literature and is accepted as a requirement for the degree of Master of Human Sciences (English Language Studies).
Ibrahim Mohamed Zein Dean, Kuliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences
v
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. I also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently submitted as a whole for any other degrees at IIUM or other institutions.
Siti „Aishatul-Humairah bt Muhammad Fisol
Signature Date
vi
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA
DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT AND AFFIRMATION OF FAIR USE OF UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH
Copyright © 2015 by Siti „Aishatul-Humairah bt Muhammad Fisol. All rights reserved.
THE USE OF COHESIVE DEVICES IN HIGH PROFICIENCY AND LOW PROFICIENCY ESL ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAYS: A COMPARATIVE
STUDY
No part of this unpublished research may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the copyright holder except as provided below.
1. Any material contained in or derived from this unpublished research may only be used by others in their writing with due acknowledgement.
2. IIUM or its library will have right to make and transmit copies (print or electronic) for institutional and academic purposes.
3. The IIUM library will have the right to make, store in a retrieval system and supply copies of this unpublished research if requested by other universities and research libraries.
Affirmed by Siti „Aishatul-Humairah bt Muhammad Fisol
Signature Date
vii
THIS THESIS IS DEDICATED TO:
My beloved parents, Mak and Ayah. Their never ending prayers and endless loves have sustained me throughout my life. Thank you so much Mak, Ayah.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Alhamdulillah, All Praises to ALLAH s.w.t for everything He has granted me in this life. Only because of His blessings, mercy and will, I managed to complete my Master‟s degree.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my beloved parents, my mother, Mazidah bt Ghazi and my father, Muhammad Fisol bin Ansan for the endless love and support. Thank you so much Mak and Ayah. Both of you are the only reason for me to remain strong to go through this journey. Sincere thanks to my siblings, Kaklong, Na Luqman, Maktet Umar, Khadijah, Nusaibah, Ali and Naufal, and not to forget my sister in-law, Noor and my niece, Sarah, your presences energized and helped me to persevere in the writing of this thesis.
My utmost appreciation to my wonderful supervisor, Dr. Maimunah bt Abdul Kadir for everything she had done from the beginning of my Master‟s study until the completion of this thesis. Had it not been for her guidance, unwavering support, valuable insight and inexhaustible patience, I would not have been able to complete this thesis. Thank you so much Dr. for everything.
My special thanks to Dr. Maskanah who helped me in my SPSS analysis.
Thank you so much Dr. for your help and encouragement.
My sincere gratitude to the examiner of this thesis, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mohamed Ismail Ahamed Shah, for his constructive comments and feedbacks.
Last but not least, to my beloved friends, Nunim Dila, Kak Jannah and Nana, thank you so much for being there for me, cheered up my master‟s journey at IIUM.
To Kak Norsiah, thank you so much for your help, supports and encouragements.
May ALLAH s.w.t grant all of you His blessings, ease in life and Jannah in the hereafter.
Above all, thank you ALLAH s.w.t, the All-Mighty who sustains my strength to complete this thesis.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ... ii
Abstract in Arabic ... iii
Approval Page ... iv
Declaration Page ... v
Copyright Page ... vi
Dedication Page ... vii
Acknowledgements ... viii
List of Tables ... xii
List of Figures ... xv
List of Abbreviations ... xvi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ... 1
1.0 Background of the Study ... 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem... 2
1.2 Research Objectives... 4
1.3 Research Questions ... 4
1.4 Significance of the Study ... 5
1.5 Scope of the Study ... 5
1.6 Operational Definition ... 6
1.6.1 Cohesive Devices ... 6
1.6.2 Argumentative Essay ... 6
1.6.3 High Proficiency ESL Argumentative Essays ... 6
1.6.4 Low Proficiency ESL Argumentative Essays ... 7
1.7 Organisation of Thesis ... 7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 9
2.0 Introduction... 9
2.1 Cohesion ... 9
2.2 Cohesive Devices... 11
2.2.1 Grammatical Cohesion ... 11
2.2.1.1 Conjunction ... 11
2.2.1.1.1 Apposition ... 11
2.2.1.1.2 Clarification ... 12
2.2.1.1.3 Addition ... 13
2.2.1.1.4 Adversative ... 13
2.2.1.1.5 Variation ... 14
2.2.1.1.6 Spatio-Temporal... 15
2.2.1.1.7 Manner ... 15
2.2.1.1.8 Causal-Conditional ... 16
2.2.1.1.9 Matter ... 17
2.2.1.2 Reference ... 17
2.2.1.2.1 Personal Reference ... 18
2.2.1.2.2 Demonstrative Reference ... 18
2.2.1.2.3 Comparative Reference ... 18
x
2.2.1.3 Substitution ... 19
2.2.1.4 Ellipsis ... 19
2.2.2 Lexical Cohesion ... 19
2.2.2.1 Repetition ... 20
2.2.2.2 Synonymy ... 20
2.2.2.3 Antonym ... 21
2.2.2.4 Hyponym ... 21
2.2.2.5 Meronym ... 22
2.2.2.6 Collocation ... 22
2.3 Overview of Related Empirical Studies ... 22
2.4 The Use of Cohesive Devices across Different Group ... 23
2.5 The Use of Cohesive Devices in Different Writing Genres ... 25
2.6 The Distribution of Specific Cohesive Devices in Students‟ Writing ... 27
2.7 Cohesive Devices and Writing Quality ... 29
2.8 Argumentative Writing in ESL Context ... 29
2.9 Theoretical Framework ... 30
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ... 33
3.0 Introduction... 33
3.1 Research Design ... 33
3.2 Sample Selection ... 34
3.3 Instrumentation ... 34
3.3.1 Reliability of the Instrument ... 35
3.3.2 Validity of the Instrument ... 36
3.4 Data Collection Procedures ... 37
3.5 Data Analysis Methods ... 37
3.5.1 Research Question 1 ... 38
3.5.2 Research Question 2 ... 38
3.5.3 Research Question 3 ... 38
3.5.4 Research Question 4 ... 39
3.5.5 Research Question 5 ... 39
3.6 Pilot Study and Its Findings ... 39
3.7 Synthesis of Data Collection and Analysis Procedure ... 44
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... 45
4.0 Introduction... 45
4.1 Findings ... 45
4.1.1 RQ1: What are the cohesive devices used in high proficiency ESL argumentative essays? ... 45
4.1.1.1 Grammatical Cohesion: Conjunction ... 48
4.1.1.2 Grammatical Cohesion: Reference ... 54
4.1.1.3 Grammatical Cohesion: Substitution and Ellipsis ... 58
4.1.1.4 Lexical Cohesion ... 59
4.1.1.5 Conclusion of the Findings for Research Question 1 ... 64
4.1.2 RQ2: What are the cohesive devices used in low proficiency ESL argumentative essays? ... 64
4.1.2.1 Grammatical Cohesion: Conjunction ... 67
4.1.2.2 Grammatical Cohesion: Reference ... 72
4.1.2.3 Grammatical Cohesion: Substitution and Ellipsis ... 75
xi
4.1.2.4 Lexical Cohesion ... 76
4.1.2.5 Conclusion of the Findings for Research Question 2 ... 79
4.1.3 RQ3: What are the common problems, if any, identified in students‟ choices of cohesive devices? ... 80
4.1.3.1 Overuse of Cohesive Devices ... 80
4.1.3.1.1 Overuse of Reference Devices ... 81
4.1.3.1.2 Overuse of Conjunction ... 82
4.1.3.1.3 Overuse of Lexical Choices ... 83
4.1.3.2 Inaccurate Use of Cohesive Devices ... 84
4.1.3.3 Inaccurate Realisation of Cohesive Devices ... 86
4.1.3.4 Conclusion of the Findings for Research Question 3 ... 87
4.1.4 RQ4: Is there a significant difference between the use of cohesive devices in high proficiency ESL argumentative essays and low proficiency ESL argumentative essays? ... 87
4.1.4.1 Conclusion of the Findings for Research Question 4 ... 88
4.1.5 RQ5: Is there a significant correlation between the use of cohesive devices and writing scores? ... 89
4.1.5.1 Comparison of Correlational between High Proficiency and Low Proficiency Essays ... 91
4.1.5.2 Conclusion of the Findings for Research Question 5 ... 93
4.2 Discussion of Findings ... 93
4.2.1 Comparison on Similarities ... 94
4.2.2 Comparison on Differences ... 97
4.2.3 General Observations ... 100
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION ... 102
5.0 Introduction... 102
5.1 Summary of the Study ... 102
5.2 Summary of Research Findings ... 103
5.3 Theoretical Implications ... 104
5.4 Pedagogical Implications ... 105
5.5 Recommendations for Future Research ... 106
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 107
APPENDIX A: Conjunctive Cohesion ... 110
APPENDIC B: Reference Cohesion ... 113
APPENDIX C: Sample of Instrument ... 114
APPENDIX D: Scoring Rubric – Adapted from IELTS Scoring Rubric – Public Version ... 115
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.
2.1 Grammatical Cohesion 31
2.2 Lexical Cohesion 31
3.1 Indicators of Revised IELTS Scoring Rubric 36
3.2 Descriptive Statistics of the Total Use of Cohesive Devices in
Pilot Study 41
3.3 Descriptive Statistics of Frequency on Essay-Score in
High and Low Proficiency Groups 42
3.4 Scoring Rubric 43
3.5 Synthesis of Research Questions, Data Collection Method and
Data Analysis Method 44
4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Distribution of Cohesive Devices in
High Proficiency Essays 46
4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Total Occurrence of Major Categories of
Cohesive Devices in High Proficiency Essays 47
4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Sub-Categories of Conjunction Device in
High Proficiency Essays 49
4.4 Examples of Sub-Categories of Conjunction in
High Proficiency Essays 50
4.5 Examples of Sub-Categories of Conjunction in
High Proficiency Essays 51
4.6 Descriptive Statistics of Sub-Categories of Reference Device in
High Proficiency Essays 54
4.7 Examples of Sub-Categories of Reference in
High Proficiency Essays 55
4.8 Examples of Sub-Categories of Reference in
Proficiency Essays 55
xiii
4.9 Descriptive Statistics of Substitution and Ellipsis in
High Proficiency Essays 58
4.10 Descriptive Statistics of Categories of Lexical Cohesion in
High Proficiency Essays 59
4.11 Examples of Categories of Lexical Cohesion in
High Proficiency Essays 60
4.12 Descriptive Statistics of Distribution of Cohesive Devices in
Low Proficiency Essays 65
4.13 Descriptive Statistics of Total Occurrence of Major Categories of
Cohesive Devices in Low Proficiency Essay 66
4.14 Descriptive Statistics of Sub-Category of Conjunction Devices in
Low Proficiency Essays 67
4.15 Examples of Sub-Categories of Conjunction in
Low Proficiency Essays 69
4.16 Examples of Sub-Categories of Conjunction in
Low Proficiency Essays 69
4.17 Descriptive Statistics of Sub-Categories of Reference Device in
Low Proficiency Essays 73
4.18 Examples of Sub-Categories of Reference in
Low Proficiency Essays 73
4.19 Examples of Sub-Categories of Reference in
Low Proficiency Essays 74
4.20 Descriptive Statistics of Categories of Lexical Cohesion in
Low Proficiency Essays 76
4.21 Examples of Categories of Lexical Cohesion in
Low Proficiency Essays 77
4.22 Descriptive Statistics on the Means and Standard Deviation of Writing Scores between High Proficiency and Low Proficiency
Groups 89
4.23 Descriptive Statistics on Minimum and Maximum Value of Writing Scores between High Proficiency and Low Proficiency
Groups 90
4.24 Correlations between Writing Scores and Total Cohesive Devices 91
xiv
4.25 Correlations of Writing Scores and Total Cohesive Devices
Between High Proficiency and Low Proficiency Essays 92 4.26 Comparison between High Proficiency and Low Proficiency
Groups in the Use of Cohesive Devices 99
xv
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure No. Page No.
4.1 Distribution of Mean Scores of High Proficiency and
Low Proficiency Essays 88
xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CON Conjunction
REF Reference
SUB & ELL Substitution and Ellipsis
LC Lexical Cohesion
APP Apposition
CLA Clarification
ADD Addition
VAR Variation
ST Spatio-Temporal
MAN Manner
CC Causal-conditional
MAT Matter
PR Personal Reference
DR Demonstrative Reference
CR Comparative Reference
ESL English as Second Language
EFL English as a Foreign Language
1
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.0 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
In recent years, there has been growing research interest in the analysis of cohesive devices on various types of writing such as cohesive devices in argumentative writing (Wahby, 2014; Yang & Sun, 2012; Dastjerdi & Samian, 2011), cohesive devices in descriptive writing (Abdul Rahman, 2011), cohesive devices in narrative writing (Sadighi, 2011; Nakao, 2011) and cohesive devices in second language writing in general (Ghasemi, 2013; Akindele, 2011; Dueraman, 2007). The use of cohesive devices in writing is important in showing how meanings are realized as they contribute to the consistency of the text itself (Sanczyk, 2010). Cohesion in writing is important in realizing how it contributes to unity of a text. According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), cohesion is also concerned with “lexico-grammatical ties that show relations between messages in the text, and texture within the text is created through the use of such cohesive ties” (pp.71-73).
Cohesion can be examined in a variety of texts. Researchers in this field of study have shown interest in examining numerous texts including students‟ writings, textbooks and legal scripts (Sinicrope, 2007; Tsareva, 2010; Gocic, 2012). The study of cohesion is beneficial in providing insights into how texts are organized and meanings are expressed through certain lexical and grammatical cohesion. Martin and Rose (2007) assert that the pattern of cohesion found in a text may help readers to understand its representation of ideas; for example, “patterns of lexical cohesion that allow readers to focus on the main theme of the passage, patterns of reference devices
2
that ease tracking the entities mentioned in the passage and patterns of conjunctive relation that show the purpose of the passage” (pp. 18-20).
The current study is a comparison between the use of cohesive devices in high proficiency and low proficiency ESL argumentative essays. It also investigates the correlation between the cohesive devices and writing scores. As cohesion is an important aspect in determining comprehensibility and readability of a text, it is hypothesized that the use of cohesive devices has significant relation with writing quality. As literature shows inconsistency of results in the use of cohesive devices and its relation to writing quality, it is hoped that this study provides additional and beneficial insights in understanding the issue.
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Cohesion is important in writing in order to create a comprehended text. Halliday and Hasan (1976) claim that the use of cohesive devices is important writing as it is one of the factors that indicate whether a text is well-connected to each other or merely a group of unrelated sentences.
According to Dastjerdi and Samian (2011), cohesion is a useful mean in measuring the effectiveness and quality of a written text. It can be realised through the use of cohesive devices. In argumentative writing, students must show some form of cohesion in their presentation of ideas. Cohesion is an important aspect as it allows students‟ arguments to be presented effectively. Having problems in employing cohesive devices in writing can probably affect the quality of the text itself. Although many ESL students in tertiary level are predictable to have a good understanding on the basic grammar rules of English, some might not be able to even write academically at levels expected of them. In this case, the problems may considerably
3
somehow affect the ability on producing a cohesive writing. ESL students might face difficulties in writing a cohesive composition if their knowledge on cohesive devices is limited. Olateju (2006) reveals that the ESL students in his study lacked of competence in their use of cohesive devices despite the fact that they had been exposed to English for six years in the secondary school. This is due to the insufficient exposure to standard English because their competency whether in spoken or written was interrupted by interlanguage variable which is the varieties of English that exist within the Nigerian English itself. The varieties were identified to impose certain threats for the students to achieve a high level of English competency.
The purpose of this study is thus to examine the use of cohesive devices in ESL argumentative essays written by students who are enrolled in English classes under the Centre for Languages and Pre-University Academic Development (henceforth CELPAD). Given the importance of cohesion in argumentative writing, the researcher intends to examine how cohesion, if any, is demonstrated in the writings of these students as writing in the academic context needs to be comprehensible and readable.
Examining cohesive devices in argumentative writing is also considered important in order to see how students who produce quality argumentative writing employ the cohesive devices while those who are still struggling in writing may not do so. Previous studies such as (Azzouz, 2007; Liu & Braine, 2005; Zhang, 2005) have explored the connection between the use of cohesive devices and the quality of the writing produced. However, the results have been inconsistent and contradictory with what have been found in (Dastjerdi & Samian, 2011; Sinicrope, 2007; Castro, 2004 Zhang, 2000). Therefore, throughout the analysis, it is hoped that this study leads to better understanding of whether writing scores has significant correlation to the use of cohesive devices or not.
4 1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The study focuses on the use of cohesive devices in high proficiency and low proficiency ESL argumentative essays. Specifically, it aims to achieve the following goals:
1. To identify the cohesive devices used in high proficiency ESL argumentative essays.
2. To identify the cohesive devices used in low proficiency ESL argumentative essays.
3. To scrutinise the common problems in students‟ choices of cohesive devices, if any.
4. To examine whether there is a significant difference between the use of cohesive devices in high proficiency ESL argumentative essays and low proficiency ESL argumentative essays.
5. To investigate whether there is a significant correlation between the use of cohesive devices and writing scores.
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study is designed to seek answers to the following research questions:
1. What are the cohesive devices used in high proficiency ESL argumentative essays?
2. What are the cohesive devices used in low proficiency ESL argumentative essays?
3. What are the common problems, if any, identified in students‟ choices of cohesive devices?
5
4. Is there a significant difference between the use of cohesive devices in high proficiency ESL argumentative essays and low proficiency ESL argumentative essays?
5. Is there a significant correlation between the use of cohesive devices and writing scores?
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study investigates on the use of cohesive devices among ESL learners in their argumentative essays. Argumentative essay is a type of essay which is specific and frequently taught in English as a Second Language courses (Jenkins & Pico, 2006).
Therefore, it is important to investigate the use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing compared to other genres of writing as it is also claimed to be the most difficult form of essay to write in comparison to others like descriptive, narrative and expository writing (Yang & Sun, 2012; Dueraman, 2007). The analysis of cohesive devices in students‟ argumentative essays will reveal whether or not the students have the capacity to write cohesive sentences in their writing be it in building or even refuting their arguments. It also verifies whether or not the students are aware that they need to use cohesive devices to have cohesive sentences in their writings. As previous studies have been inconsistent and contradictory on the issue of the use of cohesive devices and the quality of writing produced, this study is anticipated to provide beneficial insights on this matter.
1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study aimed to investigate the use of cohesive devices among ESL learners in their argumentative essays. Hundred pieces of argumentative essays are analysed in
6
this study. It focuses only on the use of cohesive devices in students‟ argumentative essays but intervening variables such as errors which are not related to cohesive devices are not taken into consideration during data analysis.
1.6 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS 1.6.1 Cohesive Devices
Cohesive devices are linguistic items that play a role in showing how meaning is related between sentences or paragraphs. In this study, there are two types of cohesive devices that have been taken into consideration in analysing the collected data; (i) grammatical cohesion and (ii) lexical cohesion. These two types of cohesive devices are further elaborated in the literature review section.
1.6.2 Argumentative Essay
In this study, argumentative essay is a type of essay that has been chosen to be the instrument in analysing the use of cohesive devices in high and low proficiency groups.
1.6.3 High Proficiency ESL Argumentative Essays
High proficiency ESL argumentative essays are defined as essays which are written by selected participants enrolled in English classes such as English for Academic Writing (LE 4000) and Language for Occupational Purposes (LE 4500). As the participants come from various backgrounds, the essays are expected to garner a range of scores.
Given the fact that all the participants in this course have been exempted from International Islamic University Malaysia‟s (henceforth, IIUM) English placement test (henceforth, EPT); a test which is considered the main mechanism in measuring
7
English competency of all IIUM students, it can be generalised that they are upper intermediate learners of English. Thus, the essays written by them can be regarded as high proficiency essays.
1.6.4 Low Proficiency ESL Argumentative Essays
Low proficiency ESL argumentative essays are defined as essays which are written by selected participants enrolled in English Language courses under the Department of English Language of Centre for Foundation Studies of International Islamic University Malaysia (henceforth, CFS IIUM) who have yet to be exempted from the EPT. Thus, the essay written can be considered as low proficiency essays.
1.7 ORGANISATION OF THESIS
This thesis is organised in five chapters. The first chapter presents the background of the study, statement of the problem, research objectives, research questions, significance and scope of the study as well as the operational definitions for significant terms. The second chapter provides elaboration on cohesion and cohesive devices and their types. This chapter also reviews the necessary literature that are relevant in understanding the research areas. At the end of Chapter Two, an explanation on the theoretical framework that is used to govern this study will be presented. The third chapter provides a description on research design, sample selection, instrumentation, data collection procedure, data analysis, reliability and validity issues and also the pilot study and its findings. The results and findings of this study are presented in Chapter Four with the discussion of the analysis. The final chapter, Chapter Five, provides some concluding remarks, summary of the results,
8
pedagogical implications, limitations of the study and also some possible recommendation for further research.
