Stage One

A 13-week study was conducted at the outset of this research and it

involved thirty students who were enrolled in an academic writing course

in the third semester of their Pre-Law programme at UiTM. First, a two-

day pilot testing of the questionnaires and written protocols was carried

out for the purpose of refining these instruments.

This stage of the study revealed several weaknesses in the approach taken

for data collection and helped determine the final data collection

procedure. Firstly, several questionnaires were administered to obtain

information on the students’ background and their self-assessment of their

writing ability. One was administered at the beginning and another at end

of the 13-week period to evaluate the effectiveness of SRSD instruction. In

addition, other questionnaires such as the learning style questionnaire, the

Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire, and the

writing self-efficacy questionnaire were administered both as pre and post

instruction protocols. The use of numerous questionnaires made the

students feel uneasy and took up time that could have been used more

effectively for strategy instruction. The use of multiple questionnaire

resulted in too many variables being investigated although the learning

style and self-assessment questionnaires were administered primarily to

raise awareness among students about their learning style as well as the

strengths and weaknesses in their language ability. Although this practice

is part of the psychological preparation that is advocated in learner training

and is intended to promote learner autonomy (Dickinson, 1992; Lum,

research subjects and this was considered in the final research design. The

number of questionnaires was thus reduced to only three compared to the

six, which were used earlier.

Stage One also revealed that the weekly two-hour sessions allocated for

SRSD instruction were insufficient and the effect of this writing strategy

instruction on the Pre-Law students was questionable as these students

were already doing two other courses in English which involved reading

and writing for academic purposes. Therefore, the results of the study,

which indicated a favourable response to strategy training, may have partly

been influenced by the instruction provided in these two courses. Also, as

there was only one group of students taking the third semester Pre-Law

programme at the time of the study, it was not possible to validate the

findings in the absence of a control group. Pre-Law students were initially

the subjects of the study as they were the only ones doing EAP course at

the time of the study and also, it was the intention of the researcher to

investigate students’ response to the SRSD instruction in academic writing

which is vital for their academic success.

Based on these insights, changes were incorporated into the design of the

present study. One major change involved the selection of subjects for the

study. The aim of the present study is to investigate how students who

have not had any prior training in EAP manage their writing tasks.

Another change was in the selection of the EAP course as the earlier

course did not offer the researcher sufficient time to effectively apply

course, namely English for Academic Purposes (BEL 311) would be a

better option as it was a six-hour a week course focusing on reading,

writing and speaking. This course would allow the researcher-cum-

instructor to utilise at least four hours a week for SRSD writing

instruction.

Besides that, the number of questionnaires administered was also reduced

to just three compared to the six distributed in Stage One of the Pilot

Study. However, this was done without compromising the intent of

providing some form of psychological preparation in learner training.

Certain elements from the learning style questionnaire (i.e. independent

learner or group learner, and preference for oral expressiveness or written

expressiveness) as well as the self-assessment questionnaire were included

in an adapted version of the ESL Student’s Background and Writing

Ability questionnaire (Appendix C).

The evaluation questionnaire for the SRSD writing course, on the other

hand, was replaced with interview sessions to elicit information on the

progress of the learner and the effectiveness of the course while also

gaining insights into the impact the SRSD model had on the learner.

Another important improvement to the research instruments was the

inclusion of the goal setting component, which is an important strategy in

self-regulation (Graham & Harris, 2003). While SRSD has been

that its inclusion is necessary to promote generalisation or transfer of

strategies (Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992).

Another change resulting from observations during the pilot study

involved the written protocol. It was decided that the research subjects

would no longer be given a timed essay to complete in class (Biedenbach,

2004). Instead, they would be allowed to take home their writing

assignment and submit the completed typed assignment within a stipulated

period of time, in this case within one week’s time. This change was

necessary in view of the fact that research in EAP and process writing has

recognised that writers need time to generate ideas and think over these

ideas before composing, and then revising what they have composed

(Williams, 2005). This makes the whole exercise more authentic and the

research relevant to the process a learner actually goes through for an EAP

writing assignment.