issues in graduate students’ academic writing

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 27, 2021

1

Issues in Graduate Students’ Academic Writing

Prof. Gila Shilo

Chairman of the Israeli Association of Applied Linguistics, Department of Hebrew

Language, Faculty of Society & Culture, Beit Berl Academic Cokkege, Israel

Abstract

Studies indicate the importance of teaching student the art of writing, and particularly

academic writing. Other studies refer to the types of errors found in students‟ writing, but

focus mostly on grammar. Given the prevailing dissatisfaction with students‟ achievements,

this study seeks to examine common issues in the graduate students‟ seminar papers. Given

the importance of this exercise to their future academic development, and assuming that all

are required to write at least one such paper during the course of their studies. This article

reports a two-stage examination: one examined errors in each particular chapter and the other

examined errors in the paper as a whole. I found that the stylistic errors listed by Andrea and

Karen Lunsford (2008) constitute an important part of these errors, but another important part

has to do with the overall structure of the paper. Based on these findings, several corrective

actions are recommended.

Introduction

Studies indicate the importance of teaching student the art of writing, and academic writing

of various types in particular (Ezer, 2016; Geisler, 1994; Gilbert & Graham, 2010). Other

studies refer to the types of problems frequently found in students‟ writing, but focus mostly

on grammar. Given the prevailing dissatisfaction with students‟ achievements in that regard

(Ezer, Margolin, & Sagi 2012), this study seeks to examine common problems in the

graduate students‟ seminar papers, given the importance of this exercise to their future

academic development, and assuming that all are required to write at least one such paper in

the course of their studies.

Review of the Literature

In recent years, both educators and linguists are active in efforts to improve both reading and

writing among K-12 students (Ezer 2002; McCarthey & Mkhize, 2013). These efforts are

important given the educational benefits of writing: it stimulates thinking, organizes ideas

into a coherent whole, and requires concise, articulate, and unambiguous phrasing to deliver

an effective message.

In the 1970, the educational focus in the West has been on reading skills. Only in the 1980s,

did educators come to recognize that reading was an independent skill rather than a direct

continuation of reading, and that it should therefore be cultivated in parallel with reading;

whereas reading is a process of examining and collecting information, writing involves

reviewing that information and processing it into a personal statement (Geisler, 1994; Flower,

1979). The advent of the information age in the 1990s has meant that unprecedented amounts

of information are at every reader‟s fingertips, but that written expression tends to be laconic


2

and underdeveloped, writing skills have become increasingly neglected, and the overall

quality of writing is in decline.

In both Israel (Ezer, 2002) and worldwide (Gilbert & Graham, 2010), the importance of

teaching written expression as a subject matter in its own right and as part of the teaching of

other subjects in school has been recognized. The Nevo Committee, Ezer, 2002) called for

more systematic training of teacher education students in written expression as part of the

teaching of particular subject, such that the expert on writing on a specific subject would be

the subject teacher rather than the written expression teacher.

The growing attention recently devoted to writing in the education system, as well as in

discourse and linguistic studies, all over the world is a response to the deterioration in writing

skills and the narrowing of the vocabulary, the shortening of messages and the inarticulate

language used by so many writers have mobilized educators, as well as linguists and other

scholars, to sound the alarm. They have been joined by schools, colleges and universities who

are increasingly aware of the need to not only invest more in the teaching of argumentative

and academic writing, but also foster students‟ personal voice and creativity, particularly with

the emerging awareness of the need to educate for diversity (see, e.g. Ezer, 2002, 2016;

Livnat, 2011). Despite the growing awareness to the need to improve student's writing, only

limited number of hours is dedicated to these courses (Kellogg & Raulsen, 2007).

The present article focuses on academic writing required in higher education as part of the

students‟ training. This training is provided by lessons dedicated to academic writing, lessons

that combine subject matter and writing studies, lessons that prepare students for seminar

papers, etc. The literature has described several approaches for teaching this genre, as well a

specific lesson contents. Of particular relevance to the present study is the literature on

typical problems in seminar papers. Lunsford and Lunsford (2008), for example, listed 20

major errors in the writing of undergraduates, suggesting concomitant training emphases. In

the Israeli context, Ezer and Margolin (2008) evaluated several indicators in students‟

undergraduate seminar papers – content, structure, syntax and style – and recommended

greater emphasis on structure; greater focus on prepositions as a source of grammatical

problems; and teaching argument structure as part of the preparation for writing the papers.

Despite the importance recently attached to this issue in the literature and the growing

attention devoted to it in undergraduate and graduate studies, students‟ writing is still far

below the standards of academic writing (Perlin, 2013). Ezer et al. (2012), for example, found

a significant gap between lecturers and students‟ perception on that regard. I have therefore

decided to examine recurring problems in seminar papers submitted by graduate teacher

education students. To the best of my knowledge, beyond Lunsford and Lunsford‟s (2008)

study of undergraduates, no such examination has been conducted among graduates writing

in their own language (Bitchener, Young and Cameron (2005) have studied English errors by

non-native English speakers, an issue that is beyond the present scope). This study is

informed by the errors listed by Lunsford and Lunsford (2008), as well as by guidelines

provided to Israeli students on the structure of three types of seminar papers.

Most of the errors listed by Lunsford and Lunsford (2008, PP)1 are related to punctuation,

spelling, missing words, ambiguous word choices and other errors affecting both clarity and

1 The complete list is: Wrong Word; Incomplete or Missing Documentation; Vague Pronoun Reference;

Spelling; Mechanical Error with a Quotation; Unnecessary Comma; Unnecessary or Missing Capitalization;


3

comprehensibility and the way the text is phrased. This suggests the question, whether there

are problems of other kinds that have to do with delivering the message in a way appropriate

for the academic genre.

The three types of academic paper proposed to students in higher education institutes in Israel

are as follows:

TYPE 1. Empirical paper that examines a hypothesis or phenomenon based on data:

Abstract covering the main points of all sections, half a page

Table of Contents with sections numbered conventionally: 1, 1.1, 1.2; 2, 2.1, 2.2, etc.

Introduction that presents the study‟s theoretical background, rationale, research questions

or hypotheses

Method: Sample, participants, instrument (questionnaire, review of the literature), and

findings (presenting the data, graphs, tables)

Discussion of findings with reference to the research questions and literature review, theories

presented in the introduction, practical implications of the findings, research limitations and

recommendations

References (all those included in the paper must be included in this list, and this list must not

contain any sources not referred to in the main text)

Appendices (questionnaire forms, observations, etc.)

Writing: Clear and coherent, according to APA rules, font size 12, line spacing 1.5

TYPE 2. Theoretical paper that relies on the available literature but must present a new

aspect such as implementation, combination/integration, etc.



Introduction that presents the study‟s subject and sections, research questions and objectives

Theoretical sections that address the phenomenon under study (explanatory theories, various

aspects)

Discussion: Summary of the various sections and reference to the paper‟s contribution to the

study of the issue at hand



Missing Word; Faulty Sentence Structure; Missing Comma with a Nonrestrictive Element; Unnecessary Shift in Verb Tense; Missing Comma in a Compound Sentence; Unnecessary or Missing Apostrophe (including its/it's); Fused (run-on) Sentence; Lack of pronoun/antecedent agreement; Poorly Integrated Quotation; Missing or Unnecessary Hyphen; Sentence Fragment.


4

TYPE 3. Combined Theoretical-Empirical paper – a theoretical paper that has a certain

empirical component. It is thus a qualitative study that combines a quantitative aspect. The

paper will be structured accordingly:



Introduction that presents the study‟s subject and sections, research questions and objective

Theoretical sections that address the phenomenon under study (explanatory theories, various

aspects)

Method: Sample, participants, instrument (questionnaire, review of the literature), and

findings (presenting the data, graphs, tables)

Discussion of findings with reference to the research questions and literature review, theories

presented in the introduction, practical implications of the findings, research limitations and

recommendations



Objective

Given the above, the Lunsford and Lunsford‟s 2008 study that dealt mostly with style

problems and the guidelines for the three paper types, my objective was to examine seminar

papers written by graduate students to identify common problems and offer recommendations

for improved writing. As for the style problems, I presented them but there is no point in

quantifying them since, while they occur frequently in any group of writers, their nature is

liable to vary across groups and moreover, there is no paper without style problems. My goal

is therefore to encourage instructors to comment on this matter and emphasize its importance

for the conveying of a clear and coherent message.

Method

Twenty-four seminar papers written by students with different majors studying for a

postgraduate degree in a teacher education college in Israel. Half the students were women,

and their ages ranged from 28 to 40. The papers dealt with different issues relevant to school

texts (examining curricula, examining and comparing textbooks, examining tests, etc.), and

were written at the end of their second year. All students have written at least one seminar

paper before, usually at least one during their BA and one during their MA.

In the first stage, I examined the specific sections of each paper, in themselves and as part of

the overall organization of the paper, to see if they meet the criteria of academic writing. In

the second stage, I examined problems related to the overall logic, structure and grammar of

the entire paper as a unit, regardless of the division into sections.

Results

Table 1 shows the number of problems in every section and subsection of the seminar paper.

Various common style problems have been found but not quantified. The idea was to present

them as an example for learning issues of appropriate language without determining which

issues should be taught – in order to raise the lecturers‟ awareness of these issues that are

often avoided, as they are considered the exclusive purview of grammar teachers/lecturers


5

(see Subsection 9 of the Discussion for an explanation of style problems). Figures 1 & 2

illustrate the number of problems in each section and in the entire paper, respectively.

Table 1: Number of problems in each section of the paper

Problem Frequency

(out of N=24)

1 Introduction, Theoretical Background

1.1 Partial theoretical information 9

1.2 Issues missing in the introduction despite being referred to elsewhere 6

1.3 Irrelevant details 5

2 Subject, Research Questions, Methods

2.1 No distinction between the subject and research question 4

2.2 Lack of relevant details 14

2.3 Incompatibility between subject and research question 2

3 Results

3.1 Lack of guiding sentences in presenting the findings 9

3.2 Use of concepts not introduced in the introduction 10

3.3 Presenting findings without explaining them 11

4 Discussion and Conclusions

4.1 Repeating the text of the introduction 5

4.2 Repeating the text of the results 7

4.3 No suggestion or conclusion 5

4.4 Conclusion does not derive from the findings 5

4.5 Statements and questions without proof or answer 13

5 References 22

Problems with the Entire Paper


6

6 Disproportion between the different sections 5

7 Details out of place 7

8 Lack of and inappropriately structured sections and subsections

8.1 No numbering 18

8.2 Lack of subsections under the major sections 10

8.3 Mismatch between the Table of Contents and the actual contents 3

Figure 1: Number of problems in each section


7

Figure 2: Number of problems in the entire paper

Discussion

In what follows, I refer to the problems arising from the findings in detail. Sections 1-5 will

enumerate the problems specific to each section, while Sections 6-8 will refer to problems

relevant to the entire paper. Section 9 will then present stylistic problems that include both

grammar and rhetorical problems. The most common will be detailed and could be used for

presentation to the learners, but any lecturer is free to choose the type of corrections to be

taught or highlighted in her class.

1. Introduction, Theoretical Background

The main problem here is mismatch between the Introduction and the entire paper, as in lack

of information about issues to be discussed in the paper or mentioning subjects that are not

discussed subsequently. Moreover, details completely irrelevant to the subject of the paper

have also been found.

1.1 Providing partial theoretical information on the subject. If there is any reason to

provide partial material, this must be indicated and explained. However, when the

review is lacking and the reason for the shortage of material is not indicated, this is an

error.

For example, (Participant 6), given the subject “Comparison between Reading

Comprehension in English as a Second Language and Reading Comprehension in

Hebrew as a Native Language”, we would expect a review of reading comprehension

in a second language, but the theoretical background on that is lacking.

1.2 Discussion subjects not introduced in the Introduction or Theoretical Review

leads to a situation where the reader first stumbles on subjects in the middle of the

paper without having first received a theoretical review or background that may be

necessary for her to understand or evaluate statements in the main sections.


8

For example, (P 8): “Coherence and Question Levels: Comparison between two

History Textbooks for the Tenth Grade”. In the analysis, the participant writes about

reflexivity, despite the fact that it has not been mentioned in the introduction.

1.3 Irrelevant details in the theoretical background. Relevance is, well, relevant to

every section. Indeed, Grace (1975) and Reinhardt (1980) consider it a major aspect

of textual coherence. In this study, however, we found this problem only in the

Introduction and not in other sections.

For example, (P 1), given that the subject is “Comparing to Issues of a Scientific

Textbook – Physics”, the writer needs to provide a theoretical background as a basis

for the comparison, including introduction to scientific texts and textbooks, as well as

reference to the comparison tools. This paper, however, provided a very broad

theoretical background not directly relevant to the space-limited paper. For example,

he described the difference between speech and writing, the relation between

language and the brain or different definitions for discourse.

2. Subject, Research Question(s), Methodology

Some papers included separate headings for the research question(s) and methodology, while

others included them in the introduction. In any case, information on the paper‟s subject,

research question(s) and methodology must be included in the paper. Several problems were

found in this section.

2.1 No distinction between the research question and subject. Two headings were

written, but the content was identical. There was no question, but a statement restating

the subject.

For example, (P 14), “Research Question: Communication between teachers and

students using computerized learning management systems and differences between

students in the humanities and exact sciences tracks. Subject: Communicating

between teachers and students using computerized learning management systems”.

2.2 Lack of essential details in the research question(s), methodology or objective.

Participant 5, for example, included the following research question in the

introduction: “Which of the two textbooks is written more articulately, coherently and

clearly for the reader? Can the writers‟ political-ideological worldview be identified

in each?” Subsequently, she writes, “This paper will compare the two textbooks‟

styles”, but does not indicate how – the methods are missing.

The tools to be provided to the reader also include the criteria according to which the

textbook is evaluated, whether indicated in the Introduction or the Methodology. In

any case, there were missing in many papers.

2.3 Mismatch between the stated subject, on the one hand, and the research

question(s) and contents: the research question includes matters that are not included

in the selected subject, and are not indicated in the Table of Contents.

For example (P 9), “This study examines whether there are discursive difference in

different subject matters at school – a subject from the exact sciences compared to the

humanities – and whether the differences are responsible for the success or lack of

success in these subjects. The article will compare the discourse in computer class and

the discourse in grammar class, and assess the tools available to the teacher in the two

types (in computer class there are additional lab lessons)”. In fact, however, the “tools

available to the teacher” were not examined.


9

3. Findings 3.1 Including findings such as diagrams and examples without introducing them or

explaining how they contribute or are relevant to the paper. For example, the

subject of Participant 13‟s work was “Comprehension Questions: The Principles of

Teaching for Understanding in Evaluative Texts”. Subsequently, in the Review of the

Literature, two diagrams are included – Good Learning Question and Table of

Question Characteristics – but no sentence introduces them or connects them to the

paper. They appear “out of the blue” with the heading, and it is left for the reader to

figure out how they relate to the subject.

3.2 Using terms not previously introduced. Key terms used in the paper must be

mentioned in the introduction first, and often explained and their relevance to the

subject clarified – otherwise, it is an error.

For example, in her Findings section, Participant 15 presented a table distinguishing

between three levels of cognition, using terms not introduced previously: “Table 1:

Results of the Comparison of Mathematics Question Levels… cognition levels:

verbal, interpretation, application”.

3.3 Listing findings as examples without analyzing them. Even if a sentence introduces

the next example brought as proof, we would still expect it to be analyzed and

explained to understand how it relates to the subject or proves the claim.

For example, Participant 14, who wrote about the computerized systems, brought

examples for the characterizing different types of text using various criteria, such as

the use of a writing sample, but this was not analyzed or characterized as a particular

type of writing.

4. Discussion and Conclusions 4.1 Repeating the Introduction. In the Discussion section, the writer repeats content

included in the theoretical review. For example, in Participant 11‟s paper on

“Differences between Computer-Aided and Traditional Teaching and the Effects of

the Use of IT Systems in Teaching on Learning and Achievements”, the Discussion

and Conclusions section once again enumerates the main problems preventing

successful integration of IT systems in the education system, as done in the

Introduction.

4.2 Repeating the Findings. Participant 7 provided examples and explanations about a

comparison between two 9th

-grade history curricula, but in the Discussion that needs

to discuss the implications of these findings and arrive at conclusions, the writer once

again repeated the examples in detail, and even quotes herself.

4.3 No suggestion or conclusion. As a rule, the paper must end with a concluding

section/subsection that may include a summary of matters discussed in the paper,

conclusions, suggestions or recommendation. Despite its importance, many students

fail to make proper use of it. Participant 6, for example, who wrote about comparing

reading comprehension in English and in Hebrew made no comment or offered no

conclusion regarding the comparison or any of the languages in particular.

4.4 Conclusion that is not derived from the findings. At the end of the paper, we find a

conclusion that is not derived from the findings. For example, in Participant 3‟s paper

on differences between two civics textbooks, she wrote in the summary as follows:

“An analysis of the findings suggests that in the book Being Citizens in Israel, the


10

author tries to express his personal opinion, albeit in a relatively limited extent. In

Israel: A Jewish and Democratic State, the book is mostly neutral and to the point,

and we found no attempt to present the author‟s opinion”.

4.5 Unsupported statements and unanswered discussion questions. Sometimes,

statements or claims appear in different sections of the paper without any kind of

support. Alternatively, statements from the theoretical background that need to be

proven by the study or arguments made by the writer without proof. For example, in

his paper about English and Hebrew reading comprehension, Participant 6 described a

certain text ad belonging to the “affective-argumentative” type, without providing any

proof. This is highly problematic since this and other findings form the basis of the

discussion and subsequent conclusions.

A related problem is that questions are raised, which the reader expects to be

answered, but none is forthcoming. For example, Participant 9 presented the

following questions in the Introduction: “We wanted to examine whether the

discourse characterizing the lessons in this subject were significantly different than in

other subject, whether the difference is positive or negative, and whether the type of

discourse, language and student requirements enable the students to better understand

the material”. Unfortunately, the last and perhaps most important question is not

answered anywhere in the paper.

In another example, Participant 18 argued that “examining the question based on level

of understanding suggests that most questions in the text are on the level of

interpretation, and fewer questions are on the verbal or application level”. This

statement remained unproved – we could expect the writer to produce numerical data

to support it.

Finally, students often offer examples to prove their hypothesis, but these are in fact

not related, or at the very least no explanation is suggested as to how the example

proves what it is supposed to. For example, Participant 21 brought a text from a

poem/comedy sketch and said it indicated a certain phenomenon, but did not prove it

based on the text itself but only stated it in general. Such an example cannot be

considered proof before it is deconstructed into sections that prove the statement.

5. References

The following types of bibliographic errors were found both in the reference list at the end of

the paper and in in-text quotes:

Reference items listed in the main text were not included in the list and vice versa.

No consistence in citing sources in the main text and reference list: for example, a

first name appearing once in a single letter and once as a full name, a book name

once in bold and once in italics, etc.

Different ways of referring to the same source in the main text.

Citing without indicating the year.

Errors in page numbers, punctuation, and alphabetical order.


11

6. Disproportionate Sections

The division into sections and their relative proportions must be logical and serve the

purpose, which is presenting findings and discussing them to prove a hypothesis. About a

fifth of the students erred in that, and wrote excessively long Introduction and Review

sections, a long Discussion and a Conclusion that was too short.

For example, Participant 4 wrote about different mathematics textbooks for elementary

school. The Review of the Literature included a “review of mathematics teaching,

development of mathematic cognition skills, text development, the uniqueness of the

mathematical discourse and a review of the literature on mathematic curricula”. The review

of the curricula was long and tiresome, and the level of detail was excessive and did not serve

the purpose of the paper.

In another example, Participant 5 compared two civics textbooks. The Discussion section was

long and tedious, with multiple instances of repeating the findings as well as the literature

review. It was followed by a Conclusion that repeated several problems for the third time.

7. Misplaced Details

Thirty percent of the students erred in placing details that belong in a certain section in

another, indicating a misunderstanding of the role of the given section within the entire scope

of work. For example, Participant 14 included the subject of the paper in the research

question, and actually did not write a proper question. The subsections of this paper‟s Method

section were Sample, Population, Instruments, Procedure, and Design. Upon examination,

however, we found that Sample actually reported on the population, while Procedure and

Design were identical.

In another example, Participant 7 included methodical details in the Findings section: “In this

section, we will compare the history curriculum for grades 6-9 in secular state schools with…

in religious state schools, and then compare two history textbooks, one for the religious state

schools and the other…”. In addition, the same paper‟s Discussion included a reference – for

the first time – to a major finding.

8. Disorder in Section and Subsection Headings

Some 75% of the participants did not number the headings, probably because their lecturers

did not require that. I find numbering important because it makes it easier for the lecturer to

review the paper and discuss it with the students.

A more serious problem was the lack of a logical division into subsections with appropriate

headings, with 40% of participants erring in that. The reader expects the Table of Contents to

help her understand the various components of the paper, and if subheadings are not detailed,

an overview of the paper only becomes possible after reading it in full.

Finally, in 50% of the papers, there was mismatch between the Table of Contents and the

actual contents.

8.1 Unnumbered headings. Often, both the headings and subheadings are not numbered,

either in the Table of Contents or in the main text. Sometimes, the writer uses a larger


12

font for the main headings, but this does not resolve the problems arising from the

lack of numbering.

8.2 Lack of subheadings. The main sections of the paper are sometimes long and

necessarily made up of subheadings. If the student does not provide subheadings,

however, reading is made more difficult as the reader is required to make that division

mentally.

Participant 5 wrote in the Introduction about the methods, hypothesis and objective,

but did so in a disorganized manner without the reader being able to view the division

into subsections, so that it is only understood after the first reading. In the same paper,

a long discussion with multiple repetitions is not divided into subsections. Had the

writer added subheadings, she would have identified these repetitions and thus

improved her writing.

8.3 Mismatch between the Table of Contents and actual contents. Participant 3 wrote

as follows in the Table of Contents: “1. Introduction; 2. Review of the Literature; 3.

Methodology…”. However, in the main text Section 2 is divided into three

subsections not referred to in the table.

9. Stylistic Problems

This section is divided into two subsections. The first covers grammar errors related to both

semantics and syntax. The second covers rhetorical problems related to the academic style,

which make it difficult for the reader to read fluently and understand the text.

9.1 Grammar Errors

9.1.1 Grammatical agreement. Although the students can easily distinguish between

male and female, single and plural forms, but sometimes they use long and

convoluted sentences and the writer forgets the subject that requires a predicate; as a

result, the predicate matches that part of the sentence that is closer to it, rather than the

subject. Sometimes, the predicate is close but still matches the nearest word rather

than the subject.

For example (P 1), “Presenting examples from the findings will be presented in the

following pages”.

Sometime, the subject is in plural, while the predicate is singular. For example (P 4),

“The nature of teaching and teachers’ professional development is supposed to be

based on the students‟ way of thinking”.

9.1.2 Prepositions must be used accurately. One type of problem is related to their use

in an incorrect meaning or context. For example (P 6), “No questions were found that

had problems in [with] formulation”.

Another type of problem is the avoidance of repeating the preposition before each

relevant part of the sentence, designed to make it clear to the reader that all the

different parts are equivalent in terms of the message delivered by the sentence. For

example (P 1), “Acquiring the proper way to write by working on well-written text

will have an important impact on the perception of language and [on] its use in the

student‟s subsequent life as an adult”. Often, the result is an ambiguous meaning that

should be avoided.

9.1.3 Punctuation is important in guiding the reader and helping her understand the

text. We found lack of punctuation marks such as period or comma, and misuse of


13

punctuation. Sometimes, the meaning of the sentence will have become clear itself

even if the punctuation is incorrect, once we have read the next sentence or the entire

paragraph, but this is certainly a problem, particularly in the academic genre which

requires a coherent and readable text.

One common example was colon misuse: (P 4) “It would appear that their difficulties

derive mainly: from reliance on a limited set of problems, focus on marking… and

focus on the calculation of certain set values…”.

9.1.4 Transition words are text markers that direct the reader and create a semantic

link to the next part of the sentence; for example, “thus” or “therefore”. Lack of

transition words makes the reading less fluent, while incorrect transition words lead to

misunderstandings. The use of transition words in their proper form is also important.

For example, several participants use “on the one hand” without the other, and even

more often the other way around. Participant 8 wrote: “This enables us to recognize

the normative importance of history as a discipline taught in schools. On the other

hand, the same curriculum also offers…”.

Sometimes, participants omit a transition word since they feel this conveys a higher

register. For example (P 7), “We thought of a subject out of the core subjects [that] we

believe…”.

9.2 Rhetorical-Stylistic Problems

These problems lead to incongruity with the circumstances of writing, with the

register that is theoretical academic writing, preventing the reader from reading

fluently and understanding the text as it is read.

9.2.1 Use of low-register words. The writers are not always aware that some of the

words they use are actually slang or informal words, or ones that are otherwise

inappropriate for academic writing. For example (P 9), “The ability to think out of the

box and look at things differently”. Sometimes, participants choose to use a rhetorical

device, perhaps because they believe it is a good way to deliver the message, or

perhaps because they are not aware of an appropriate alternative. This is often

accompanied by inappropriate use of quotation marks: (P 2) “We believe it is

important to retain the memory of the Holocaust and not let it „fade away‟ once the

survivors are gone”.

9.2.2 Repetitions. As we have seen, this problem plagued many of the papers,

particularly in the Discussion section where participants repeated background

passages from the Introduction or parts of the Findings (see Author (2016) for the

phenomenon of repetition in theoretical texts). Repetition in the Discussion is

redundant since this section‟s purpose is to interpret the findings and explain them in

view of the objectives. It may be that because of the word processor‟s easily

accessible cut-and-paste options, students do not stop to think about their writing and

do not process the findings but prefer to simply repeat them in the Discussion.

9.2.3 Titles. In academic writing, titles require precision and focus to enable the writer

to convey a concise message (Al-Awqati, 2006; Haggan, 2004; Labassi, 2009). The

problems found include the use of general titles that do not accurately reflect the

content of the text. For example (P 4): “Discourse as Structure and Process”; the

purpose was to discuss the mathematical discourse, and the title does not reflect that.

Others use specific titles, but their formulation is still incongruent with the text: (P 21)


14

“Linguistic Text Analysis”; the section beginning with that heading is not about

linguistic analysis but about the methods for organizing texts of different kinds.

9.2.4 Disorganization. Text organization involves the selection, omission and

connection of items (Spivey & Kink, 1989). Before writing, the writer reads about the

subject and decides what is most interesting or relevant for his paper. He also decides

how the text will develop and organizes it by sections. When this organization fails,

the text is unfriendly to the reader.

One of the frequent manifestations of disorganization is the transition from one

subject to the other without gradual development, or referring to one subject, moving

on to another, and then returning to the first and discussing it further (Participant 2).

Participant 20, for example, mentioned several matters related to the same subject, but

gave no indication of that, whether by using subheadings, numbers or guiding

sentences. Finally, an extreme form of disorganization is the omission of an entire

section: in Participant 5‟s paper, there was no Conclusion.

Summary and Recommendations

The findings show that problems in the students‟ writing are not only grammatical as

described in the literature (SOURCE, 2008), but also related to the way the message is

conveyed in the various sections of the paper. These problems appear time and time again

despite the vaunted writing manual used in colleges and universities worldwide, and the

lecturers are rightly displeased (Ezer et al., 2012). These problems lead to miscomprehension

and compromise the coherence of the text as one that develops and leads up to a conclusion.

What can be done to improve this state of affairs? Apparently, many of the problems have to

do with the organization of the paper and the sections‟ contents. Although the main sections

are almost always written and ordered according to the recommendations reviewed in the

Introduction above and although there seems to be a clear division into distinct sections, our

perusal of the sections‟ contents and their internal organization revealed quite a few

problems. Accordingly, the following recommendations are designed to improve the

students‟ writing so that they are able to express themselves clearly and understandably – and

therefore persuasively.

1. The essential purpose of academic research writing must be made clear to the

students. The scientific paper presents a hypothesis and proves it with findings. No

statement that is unexplained and unproven is acceptable, as this clashes with the

essence of scientific writing – and thinking. Students must also understand that any

conclusion must derive from the findings.

2. Emphasize and practice the strong link between the Introduction and the paper as

a whole. The Introduction with its theoretical background prepares the reader for

what lies ahead. Therefore, the student cannot provide a partial background without a

well-argued case. Conversely, new subjects not mentioned in the Introduction cannot

be accepted in other sections.

3. Stress the importance of relevance of certain details. Including only details that are

relevant is essential in all sections. Interestingly, in this sample the problem was

found only in the Introduction, perhaps because the participants failed to plan what

exactly would be included in the Introduction, and when they found a theoretical


15

background passage, they included ideas not directly related to their subject. On the

other hand, we found that in the Methods section, details necessary to understand the

research design and its purpose were missing.

4. Repetitions in this genre are unnecessary and only compromise the fluency of

delivery. Check where they usually occur and demonstrate their redundancy to your

students. This does not include repetitions that contribute to coherence or emphasis, or

to the linking of different sections together (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Hohnstone,

1987; Labov, 1972).

5. Sections and subsections prove difficult for the students. Although the division into

sections is presented clearly, students struggle with dividing sections into subsections

and organizing them – they are often missing, confusing or mismatched, with

subheadings not related to the content.

6. More attention should be devoted to references and in-text citations. Despite the

clear and simple rules provided in manuals, and extensive online resources, students

repeatedly err here.

7. Finally, we recommend that you discuss fundamental style problems that include a

correct language, coherent argument structure and appropriate register. Practice all

these problems with your students.

Overall, the lecturer needs to be more meticulous and specific. The students need to

understand that papers failing to meet requirements will be rejected, and that accepted papers

that do not follow them completely will be graded accordingly. The lecturer needs to give a

personal example and follow these rules herself. To make sure the students understand what

is required of them, each aspect of the writing should be practiced. Initially at least, the

students should demonstrate that each problem has been resolved and write each section

separately, before organizing them into a paper. Finally, the lecturer must provide clear and

unambiguous instructions, and make sure they are followed to the letter.

References

1) AL-Awqati, Q. (2006). A general theory of titles, International Society of

Nephrology, 69, 947-948.

2) Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of

corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14,

191-205.

3) Ezer, H. (2002). Writing and its teaching: A process approach. Reading – Theory and

Practice, 5(10). [Hebrew]

4) Ezer, H. (2016). The identity of the scholar-writer in academia. Israel Studies in

Language and Society 8(1-2), 91-110 [Hebrew].

5) Ezer, H., & Margolin, B. (2008). The writing quality of teacher education students of

different groups at the start and end of their studies: Argument writing evaluation.

Levinsky College Research Report. [Hebrew]


16

6) Ezer, H., Margolin, B. & Sagi, R. (2012). Academic writing in a college of education:

Students and lecturers' perceptions regarding writing tasks, the required skills, the

means of teaching and the difficulties in the use of different types of writing. Dapim,

53, 76-97 [Hebrew].

7) Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing.

College English, 41(1), 19-37.

8) Geisler, C. (1994). Literacy and expertise in the academy. Language and Learning

across the Disciplines, 1(1), 35-57.

9) Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4-

6: A national survey. Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494-518. University of

Wisconsin Writing Center. Available at http://www.writing.wisc.edu/31/10/2016.

10) Grice, H. P., (1975) Logic & conversation. Syntax & Semantics,3, 41-58.

11) Haggan, M. (2004). Research paper titles in literature, linguistics and science:

Dimensions of attraction. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 293-317.

12) Halliday, M. A. K, & Hasan, R. (1976), Cohesion in English, London: Longman.

13) Johnstone, B. (1987). Introduction: Perspectives on repetition. Text, 7(3), 205-214.

14) Kellogg, R. T., & Raulerson, B. A., Improving the writing skills of college

students. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 14(2), 237-242.‏

15) Labassi, T. (2009). Reading titles of empirical research papers. The Reading Matrix,

9(2): 166-174.

16) Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

17) Livnat, Z. (2011). Rhetoric of the Scientific Article. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University

Press [Hebrew].

18) Lunsford, A. A. & Lunsford, K. J. (2008). “Mistakes are a fact of life”: A national

comparative study. College Composition and Communication, 59, 781-806.

19) McCarthey, S. J., & Mkhize, D. (2013). Teachers' orientations towards writing.

Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 1-33.

20) Perin, D. Literacy skills among academically underprepared students. Community

College Review, 41(2), 118-136.‏

21) Reinhart, T. (1980). Conditions for text coherence. Poetics Today, 1(4), 161-180.

22) Authour. (2016). Repetition: Its appearance and functions. International Journal of

Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 3(4), 16-22.

23) Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources.

Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 7-26.

http://www.writing.wisc.edu/31/10/2016

issues in graduate students’ academic writing

Documents