Download_PDF Article
Download Graphical Abstract

Enhancing Academic Writing Proficiency among English as a Second Language Users at the Undergraduate Level: A Comparative Analysis of Student-Lecturer Perspectives and Strategies

Abstract

Academic writing is a pivotal concern in the tertiary phase of education, yet with a great deal of drawbacks and challenges. The current study investigates academic writing-related challenges and possible mechanisms to overcome them. Therefore, the study delves into the avenue of academic writing hurdles faced by undergraduate students whose second language (L2) is English, specifically in the domain of sciences. This also examines the tactics formulated, from the standpoint of lecturers in tackling these impediments effectively. This research underscores both commonalities and disparities that resonate with the themes documented in prior scholarly works by harnessing qualitative data from a sample of undergraduate students and lecturers. The investigation identifies substantial contrasts between the viewpoints of students and lecturers concerning the challenges inherent in academic writing. While the preeminent concern for most L2 undergraduate students pertains to intricacies at the compartmentalised linguistic features, the focal point for most lecturers revolves around the holistic level, which encompasses a wider range of linguistic attributes. Moreover, the study unravels specific coping mechanisms students employ to navigate academic writing challenges. These discernments carry profound pedagogical implications, accentuating the imperative for providing pertinent writing models and interventions tailored to the individual requirements of L2 science undergraduates.

Keywords

Academic Writing, Undergraduates, Educators, English as a Second Language (ESL), Academic Discourse.

JEL Classification

I20, I21

1. Introduction

Background of the Study with Literature
The domain of English academic writing presents a tough challenge to writers across the world (Canagarajah, 2008), which is notably magnified for individuals navigating English as a second language (L2) and English as a foreign language (EFL), particularly among undergraduates from the ESL context (Wang & Greenwood, 2015). This complex encounter has stimulated a wealth of research in the sphere of higher education, because a dominant proportion of the currently internationalised education systems worldwide are conducted in English Medium Instruction (EMI). In order to perform at a satisfactory level in academic encounters, the English language plays a significant role (Fernando & Lalitha, 2017). Thus, confident and flexible language handling always acts as an open avenue for academic and professional opportunities. Thus, it is vital to explore how academic writing significantly acts as a positive catalyst in the smoother function of navigating the educational landscape.

According to the existing scholarly contributions, the prevailing dilemma that undergraduates encounter predominantly pertains to vocabulary, which is further investigated by two other pivotal facets of academic writing: (i) register, tone and style, and (ii) organisation, encapsulating cohesion and coherence (Evans & Morrison, 2018; Hinkel, 2011). A clearer version of the prevailing scholars’ perspective regarding vital factors that affect academic writing is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Pivotal Facets of Academic Writing

Source: Evans & Morrison, 2018; Hinkel, 2011

Among the limited spectrum of research endeavours that have sought to dissect the predicaments encountered by undergraduate students in their academic writing activities, three investigations stand out as particularly noteworthy. Hyland & Shaw (2016), one of the pioneering studies in the articulation of students’ perspectives, through performing a questionnaire and interviews conducted focusing on L2 students, explored the writing-related challenges confronted by undergraduates. This study unveiled that the majority of students approached their academic writing ventures through an iterative process of trial and error, often referred to as “probing in the dark and learning from mistakes”.

Still, many students used model academic writings as guiding templates to overcome the complexities (Macbeth, 2010). Despite reservations voiced by particular academics regarding potential textual appropriation and the consequent risk of plagiarism, some students effectively leveraged the textual resources as instructional guides (Menke & Paesani, 2019; Rubens et al., 2014; Spada & Tomita, 2010). Additionally, they harnessed peer support networks and their chosen academic discourse communities as sources of assistance in their academic writing pursuits (Brandon et al., 2015; Menke & Paesani, 2019).

2. Literature Review

In spite of the challenges highlighted by many researchers, a conspicuous scarcity of research delves into the issues faced by English as a Second Language (ESL) undergraduate students in the realm of academic writing. The scholarly investigations conducted within the field of undergraduate student learning experiences have predominantly concentrated on trajectories of student learning (Canales Sánchez et al., 2022; Tomlinson, 2008), interactions between language instructors and students (Spada & Tomita, 2010), and methodologies for composing academic documents and drafting research proposals and theses (Khozaei Ravari & Tan, 2019). The qualitative study on the optimal success of doctoral students and graduates identified three crucial factors for the success such as (i) timely and constructive feedback from academics, (ii) steadfast dedication on the part of students, and (iii) a supportive network (Odena & Burgess, 2017), and the concept is presented in Figure 2 for a better understanding.

Figure 2. Crucial Factors for the Success of Academic Writing

Source: Odena & Burgess, 2017

ESL students at the undergraduate level face even more challenging circumstances when engaging in academic writing, which can be revealed by the aforementioned three interconnected factors, such as time and constructive feedback, the dedication of the students and the supportive network (Mateos & Solé, 2012). Many students from the ESL context have yet to undergo formal practice in academic writing before embarking on their educational journeys. This predicament is exacerbated by the need for more emphasis on assessing candidates’ academic literacy before enrolling in academic programs. Although the medium of instruction (MoI) in these programmes is English, meeting specific language score requirements in English language tests like the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), Pearson’s Test of English or the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) is often the sole language-related criterion for admission in international contexts (Wang & Greenwood, 2015). All these English language tests are primarily designed for university admissions, and they demand only a limited level of academic writing proficiency to attain an acceptable score (Johnson & Tweedie, 2021; Kunnan et al., 2022). Thus, the students have a lot more language skills to practice and sharpen when they gradually advance their academic path.

2.1 Contextual Validity of the Study

However, a notable aspect emerged when examining the university admissions process for Sri Lankan students within the local education system of Sri Lanka. Accordingly, the requirement for a well-defined criterion for evaluating English language proficiency is mandatory in the Sri Lankan context. Addressing this matter and reformulating policy implementation in the contemporary Sri Lankan context warrant significant attention as it would benefit the students for their smooth transition between the senior secondary and tertiary phases. On the other hand, though the GCE Advanced Level consist of a subject called General English aiming to provide a sufficient level of English language inputs for a better transition and effective continuation of the tertiary phase, it is pathetic to identify the inefficient way it functions in the education system (Wijesekera, 2012). Reasons like uneven facility distribution and the vast disparity in qualified resource persons in the rural areas of the country act as crucial factors to omit the General English subject as a mandatory requirement for university entrance (Prasangani, 2018). This omission itself acts as a negative factor for the students to pay less attention to general English.

When referring back to the decades of the academic history of the Sri Lankan tertiary education system, the efforts taken to minimise prevailing drawbacks in the system were effortlessly disregarded (Karunarathna, 2020). One effective step that has been taken to minimise the language-caused disparities in the tertiary phase is the implementation of introductory English programmes prior to the beginning of the prescribed curricula in tertiary education. However, the internalised attitudinal problems of young adult learners and wide exposure to the L1-based outer environment cause a huge negative impact on the L2/English language development (Gutiérrez Estrada & Schecter, 2018).

Therefore, integrating academic writing into the undergraduate curriculum must be improved in numerous practical and effective ways. This lacuna that remains in the tertiary education system highlights significant concerns, particularly in light of the absence of a significant correlation between students’ writing skills and the duration of their higher education tenure (Lin & Morrison, 2021). This suggests that competence in writing might not progress congruently with the intellectual and cognitive advancement that usually accompanies students’ ascension to higher academic levels (Curtis, 2019).

2.2. Background of the Institution and Currently Practising Curriculum

The present study was conducted based on a faculty that offers spatial science degrees at a state university in Sri Lanka, which can be stated as the only state university that offers degrees related to spatial sciences with national and international accreditations. Since 2015, the degrees offered by the faculty have been accredited by the Royal Institution of Charted Surveyors (RICS). The specialised area of Hydrographic Surveying has been recognised by the International Board on Standards of Competence (IBSC) for Hydrographic Surveyors and Nautical Cartographers in Category B level (FIG/IHO/ICA – CAT B) (Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, 2019). The context employs English as the primary medium of instruction. Within its academic framework, the university provides courses and workshops tailored to undergraduate students, encompassing English for general purposes, academic purposes and professional purposes, as displayed in Figure 3.

These offerings are designed to address generic aspects of writing and proficiency in scholarly communication. These courses are compulsory, and the students have to complete these courses before embarking on their specialisation areas and thesis composition. The majority of the students tend to fulfil these requirements within the initial two years of their undergraduate studies. It is noteworthy to specify that the students were enrolled on the Spatial Sciences degree without considering their English language proficiency as it is the generally practiced method in state university entrance of Sri Lanka. Thus, for a smoother transition from the L1-based learning environment to the L2-based learning environment, core English courses were offered.

According to the curriculum, the prime objective of provision of the core English subjects during the first three semesters (15 weeks period per semester) of the bachelor’s degree, is to provide sufficient input into their academic performances, including effective answering to examinations, continuous class assignments, report preparations of land surveying field works, assignment preparations during student’s specialisation courses and industrial training, proposal drafting and for the completion of final year research thesis and technical papers. Hereafter, the first three semesters of the academic curriculum will be named YI-SI, YI-SII and YII-SI. A clear demonstration of the academic curriculum of undergraduates in the selected study context, is given in Figure 3.

Those claims were apparent in the study conducted by Masum et al. (2017), which found that the remaining gap between equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities in spatial science is a significant challenge for surveyors in the international market. As the English language plays a pivotal role as a window to new knowledge and daily updating technological avenues, it is vital to inculcate the language as a safeguarding factor to step into international grounds with confidence. Sufficient knowledge of English language skills provided at the initial stage will help the students after graduation to excel in their profession, particularly specialising in the fields of hydrography, surveying, remote sensing and GIS, with higher demand for jobs around the world (Prasanna, 2023).

Figure 3. Flowchart of Provision of Required English Language-based Inputs According to the Curriculum

2.3. Contribution of the Current Study to the Existing Body of Research

Due to the prevailing circumstances in the Sri Lankan education system, as discussed above, English language performances at the undergraduate level have a severe impact on their academic performances. Due to the diverse range of backgrounds merged in the tertiary phase, each student has a different level of language proficiency. A dominant cluster of undergraduates remains at a low level of English proficiency (Navaz, 2016). This study aims to address the gaps that remain in the perceptions of academic writing challenges between the lecturers and the undergraduates. In doing so, the study attempts to identify the significance of the holistic picture of the academically written pieces and focus on isolated linguistic features in academic writing that diverge between L2 spatial science undergraduates and lecturers. Furthermore, the study explores the prevailing strategies utilised by the L2 spatial sciences undergraduates in order to manage the challenges encountered in their academic writing and how those strategies align with the lecturer’s expectations. Through an empirical examination of these inquiries, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of the dynamic inherent within the realm of academic writing instruction and proficiency within the investigated academic domain. Thus, the study expects to identify what possible lags remain in the academic writing of undergraduates that affect the low scores they obtain in the final grades.

3. Methodology

Data for this study was primarily collected based on the qualitative approach by deploying two research tools: (i) a questionnaire survey and (ii) a series of semi-structured interviews. Based on the qualitative thematic analysis, the collected data were analysed, and the whole research methodology is visualised in Figure 4.

As visualised in Figure 4, the study engaged participants from two distinct strata, namely students and lecturers from the selected faculty of a state university in Sri Lanka with a further stratification of the student cohort into three discrete segments as YI-SI, YI-SII, and YII-SI. The primary avenue for data acquisition involved the systematic administration of a questionnaire survey which tested the same set of academic writing skills with students and lecturers.

Subsequent to this, the obtained results underwent a process of validation through a series of semi-structured interviews. Ultimately, employing qualitative thematic analysis, the study described and developed upon findings, leading to the formulation of potential recommendations. This methodological framework is designed to enhance the rigour and comprehensiveness of the investigation, aligning with established academic standards and conventions.

Figure 4. Methodology of the Study

3.1. Data Collection

A comprehensive approach was employed to gather qualitative data for this study through printed questionnaires. Participation in the survey was strictly voluntary, and all responses were kept anonymous. Informed consent was secured from all participants before their involvement.

The questionnaire design was adapted based on the instruments employed in previous studies (Evans & Morrison, 2018; Hyland & Shaw, 2016), which investigated the writing challenges of L2 tertiary students and required adaptions were done according to the Sri Lankan state university context focusing the clusters of the sample.

The present study identified eight survey items based on the existing research studies (Alsehibany & Abdelhalim, 2023; Bennett, 2009; Hirst, 2003; Kornhaber et al., 2016; Lekamge et al., 2024), such as planning academic papers, organising arguments, maintaining the literary style, citing sources, sentence connectivity and grammatical accuracy, and employing technical vocabulary. To minimise ambiguity, these items were formulated using terminology and concepts taught in the writing courses attended by respondents.

Respondents were asked to indicate the challenge level for each item on a continuum ranging of the difficulty levels (70% – 100%, 50% – 75%, 25% – 50%, Less than 25%). The survey underwent a pilot phase involving seven undergraduate students, with revisions made based on pilot results. For analysis, only data from students who had studied at the university for at least one year were included, ensuring their exposure to an academic writing course. This criterion was enforced to guarantee participants’ full comprehension of the skills referenced in each item.

From the open-ended section of the questionnaire, the study focused on gaining strategies deployed by the students to tackle the encountered writing-related challenges. The second data set was derived from semi-structured interviews, intended to yield more specific insights. The interview data complemented and verified the information acquired from the survey, enhancing the depth of understanding regarding the perceived problems.

The interviews were conducted in English and their respective mother tongue according to their preference, predominantly exploring two main domains (i) challenges in academic writing and (ii) strategies to mitigate those challenges. While following an overarching structure based on four guiding questions, probing inquiries were employed to elicit clarification, expansion, and elaboration on comments, perceptions, and other relevant issues arising during the interviews. The interviews lasted between 15-20 minutes, were audio recorded and subsequently transcribed and translated into English for thematic analysis.

3.2. Respondents

The survey encompassed 90 undergraduates and 10 lecturers from the research context. Relevant details concerning the duration of study periods and the lecturer’s years of teaching experience are displayed in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.

Table 1 portrays the attributes of the selected sample of undergraduates. A substantial proportion of the student participants represented the initial two years of their undergraduate studies. Thirty participants from each batch who have continued their studies in the respective year and semester were counted for the questionnaire survey. None of the students cohort were native English speakers; over three-quarters were proficient in Sinhala, and the rest spoke Tamil as their mother tongue (MT). After participating in the questionnaire survey, respondents were invited to volunteer in a semi-structured interview series, where only 6 undergraduate students participated.

Table 1. Details of the Student Participants

Table 2 displays the attributes of the sample of lecturers who participated in the study. A predominant number of the lecturers possessed more than five years of teaching experience. The majority of the lecturers primarily consisted of L1/MT Sinhala speakers and two Tamil speakers.

None of the samples were native English speakers. After participating in the questionnaire survey, respondents were invited to take part in a semi-structured interview, where only two lecturers volunteered to engage in the interviews. One lecturer has more than fifteen years of teaching experience, and the other one has less than five years of teaching experience.

Table 2. Details of the Lecturers’ Sample

3.3. Data Analysis
The collected qualitative data was analysed utilising a manual thematic analysis. The process of the analysis encompassed several steps, including reading and annotating the transcriptions, categorising and sub-categorising codes and composing recurring themes. The categorisation process was guided by the approach described in (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018). It involved iteratively reading, comparing, and cross-checking the remarks of the participants to ensure that all relevant text was appropriately grouped.

4. Results and Discussions

This section presents the analysis of the results gained from the questionnaire survey that aimed to identify the differences and similarities in how students and lecturers perceive the challenges associated with academic writing. The analysis is organised under three key directions: (a) differences in perceptions, (b) challenges at the discourse level, and (c) strategies to overcome the challenges, as depicted in Figure 5. Students rated the challenge levels of their academic writing skills lower than the expectations of the lecturers, where three significant differences were found between these two groups.

Figure 5. Key Areas of Observation

4.1. Perceptional Differences Related to Academic Writing Skills between Lecturers and Undergraduates
The study delved into the perceptions of the respondents in academic writing and language use by analysing data from the questionnaire survey, validating and gaining more elaborated explanations for the given insights through the semi-structured interviews. This section further allowed participants to comment on their perceptions and justify their ideologies.

Figure 6 portrays the rates of the difficulty levels of tested writing skill components during the YI-SI of the spatial sciences undergraduates. Thus, the most crucial hurdles remain in the tasks, with the higher difficulty level ranging between 75% – 100%, were (i) organising ideas clearly and logically (27 out of 30 students), (ii) summarising and paraphrasing (28 out of 30 students) and (iii) using appropriate academic style (26 out of 30 students). When compared to the other two clusters, that of YI-SII and YII-SI student groups, as displayed in Figure 7 and Figure 8, the most critical situations of English writing remain during the YI-SI. As they progress in their academic journey, along with the inputs from the core English course units and additional language exposure gained from the other subject contents in English, the difficulty levels display a considerable reduction, as in Figure 7. A clear difficulty range deduction from “75% – 100%” to “50% -75%” is visible in the tasks of organising ideas clearly and logically and summarising, paraphrasing and using appropriate academic style components. Further, when compared to Figure 8, the difficulty level of the majority of the YII-SI students remains ranges between 25% – 50% of the difficulty level, which can be considered a further improvement in academic writing.

Figure 6. Rates of the Difficulty Level of the Tested Writing Skills- YI-SI

It is vital to note that Figure 7, showing the difficulty level of writing skills of YI-SII students, clearly shows a gradual reduction of the difficulty levels of the tested writing skill components considered in the study. For the majority of YI-SII students, the tasks of using appropriate academic style, summarising and paraphrasing academic sources range between 50% – 75% and planning a long writing text, explaining and supporting ideas have got better in comparison to the initial phase, which is during YI-SI.

Figure 7. Rates of the Difficulty Level of the Tested Writing Skills – YI-SII

When considering the results displayed in Figure 8, it is noticeable that a considerable reduction has been observed in the majority of challenges associated with academic writing-related concerns. In view of Figure 3 and comparison along with Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8, a visible reduction of the difficulty levels is detectable, which hinders the positive impact caused by the English course contents and direct exposure to the EMI contents. Adherence to the task using an appropriate academic writing style remains constant through YI-SII and YII-SI.

Further, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 collectively signify a visible decrease in the difficulty level pertaining to the utilisation of technical vocabulary. For evidence, which focuses on YI-SI student’s difficulty levels, has spread in the range between 25% – 100%, and when comparing the same with YI-SII (Figure 7), it only has distributed in the difficulty range of 25% – 50% and less than 25% range. The majority of all three clusters of students belong to the less than 25% difficulty range (82 respondents out of 90). Evidently, the complexity associated with the task of employing technical terminology has exhibited a consistent and relatively static pattern (remains in the difficulty level below 50%). As deduced from the survey results, this phenomenon can be attributed to the participants’ practical exposure to technology, which has facilitated the assimilation of technical terms relevant to their respective fields of study.

Figure 8. Rates of the Difficulty Level of the Tested Writing Skills – YII-SI

It is also noteworthy to consider the perspective of the lecturers (Figure 9) on the undergraduates’ writing-related challenges according to their experiences in the field of teaching. Figure 9 shows a similar representation of less than 25% difficulty level between the perspectives of the lecturers (90%) and students (86%), specifically in the realm of proficient utilisation of technical terminology, which hinders the technical terminology acquirable easily when the students directly deal with technology and related field practical.

Figure 9. Rates of the Difficulty Level of the Tested Academic Writing Skills According to the Lecturers’ Perspectives

The thematic analysis was done based on the code classification of the open-ended answers of the questionnaire survey along with the transcribed and translated interview series. Thus, the key codes were categorised under the below-mentioned themes.

4.1.1. Vocabulary Use and Grammar
Almost half of the challenges commented on by the students were related to isolated language components like grammar, linking sentences, citations, summarising and paraphrasing, etc. Among these, the most prominent concern was the appropriate use of vocabulary, closely followed by correct grammar usage. The majority of the respondents remain in the difficulty level range of 50%-75% in the vocabulary and grammar-related aspects of academic writing, as shown in Figure 10. Qualitative data from interviews with students highlighted their difficulties in lexical use and choosing synonyms appropriately.

Figure 10. Tasks Tested Under Vocabulary Use and Grammatical Concerns

4.1.2. Holistic Level vs Compartmentalised Level Skills
There was a notable difference between the responses of students and lecturers regarding the academic writing concerns, which were later identified as holistic level and compartmentalised level skills, as displayed in Figure 11 and Figure 12. Students expressed more worries about compartmentalised level skills, while the lecturers had more significant concerns about holistic level skills. This suggests that students were more focused on MT influence and L1/MT language features, while lecturers were more concerned about the overall coherence and organisation of students’ writing. The most dominant gap in the given priority concerns is displayed in the two tasks, which are planning long writing texts (53% gap) and explaining and supporting ideas (51% gap).

Figure 11. Comparison of Lecturers’ and Students’ Validation of Holistic Level Skills

Collected data, as displayed in Figure 12, focuses on the tested compartmentalised level skills in academic writing, and it reveals substantial perspectival gaps in specific tasks. It highlights the following critical areas that need to be prioritised when catering for the course contents: (i) 30% gap in linking sentences and grammar concerns, (ii) 44% gap in summarising and paraphrasing academic sources, and (iii) 27% gap in citing academic sources. These findings are crucial for understanding the most important areas that need to be addressed when delivering course content and when learning academic writing. By scrutinising these gaps, educators can tailor their instructions to better support students in required areas, ultimately improving their academic writing skills.

Figure 12. Comparison of Lecturers’ and Students’ Validation of Compartmentalised Level Skills

4.1.3. Compartmentalised Level Skills
Both the survey results and open-ended answers highlighted challenges related to compartmentalised level skills. These challenges included sentence connection, textual organisation, logicality, and intertextuality, along with grammatical concerns. The lecturers demonstrated lesser validity on compartmentalised level skills while their priority focused more on the overall figure of the answer, as shown in Figure 11.

4.1.4. Intertextuality
Lecturers also emphasised the importance of intertextuality, which involves effectively using existing sources to support the academic contribution of new pieces of academic answers and composing research papers and field reports. This skill is crucial for crafting effective introductions and literature reviews in the aforementioned practical tasks in their academic phase and will be continued in their professional avenues. 80% of the lecturers commented that intertextuality is a priority for undergraduates when providing an academically solid answer to the academia.

4.1.5. Holistic Language Features
Lecturers who contributed to the interview series frequently discussed the relationship between holistic and compartmentalised level skills. They stressed the importance of the overall picture of the answer and language features in academic writing, including logic, coherence, and argumentation (To et al., 2020). 60% of the cluster of lecturers indicated that while language editing services can address compartmentalised-level issues, they need help fixing logical problems that hinder the overall sense of a written piece.

Overall, the findings from both the survey and interview series suggest that students are more focused on compartmentalised-level language challenges (86%), such as isolated language components like vocabulary and grammar. At the same time, academic representatives (90%) are more concerned with holistic language features, coherence, and argumentation in academic writing. This disconnected gap underscores the importance of addressing the requirement between the two extremes of language skills to enhance students’ academic writing proficiency and reach the expected level of the quality academic community.

Indeed, the absence of cognitive and psychological stability acts as a significant cause that negatively affects the academic performances of the students. According to the survey results, 68% of the students and 87% of the lecturers highlighted the importance of cognitive and psychological concerns as an essential facet of academic writing, as displayed in Figure 13. The discrepancy underscores the significance of this set of skills and its role in conveying information effectively within scholarly communication. 60% of the lecturers emphasised the fact that the importance of conciseness in academic writing, particularly in the technical fields, has undeniable validity as it prioritises effective communication sharply. In order to obtain effective written communication, cognitive and psychological aspects function in an active manner. The lecturers also suggested that students might sometimes over-elaborate or repeat ideas, leading to unnecessarily lengthy sentences or paragraphs due to carelessness, nervousness and traumatic mental conditions in youth, which aligns with the findings of Harpin & Foster (2014).

The focus on psychological aspects in lecturers’ comments resonates with the broader academic writing principles discussed in the existing literature under the terms of conciseness, clarity, and precision (Luby & Southern, 2022). Thus, it is often considered a symbol of clear and effective academic writing that allows authors to convey their ideas concisely and directly to the reader. Scholars have emphasised the significance of concise expression in academic writing (Prasanna, 2023; Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, 2019). It reinforces the notion that academic writing is about communicating complex ideas with precision, clarity, and economy of language (Hirst, 2003; Hyland & Shaw, 2016). It encourages students to critically evaluate their writing for unnecessary repetition, redundancies, and wordiness (Grant-Davie, 1995). Incorporating these insights into instructing or teaching can help students develop a more precise understanding of academic writing style and the role of conciseness within it. By recognising the value of psychological concerns, students can refine their writing skills to meet the academic community’s expectations.

Figure 13. Perspective-wise Priorities of Lecturers and Students

4.2. Strategies for Managing Writing Challenges
The alignment between students and lecturers on the effectiveness of specific strategies highlights the potential for constructive collaboration between educators and learners in addressing writing challenges. This section aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge on academic writing, providing valuable insights into the strategies that can help L2 undergraduate students overcome challenges and produce high-quality work. By examining the effectiveness of these strategies, we can provide guidance to students and educators, helping them improve their writing skills and achieve their academic goals. Thus, the ratings given for the strategies that the educators and students have practised are clearly visualised in Figure 14.

Each component is clearly analysed under the below-mentioned points. Thus, the most popular methods that have obtained higher validation from the sample are following a practised model answer (65%), external (70%) and peer assistance (75%), lecturers’ feedback (62%) and utilising online resources (72%).

4.2.1. Reading and Following Model Academic Papers
The agreement between students and lecturers on the efficacy of this strategy emphasises the pedagogical value of using exemplar texts to model effective writing practices. Students can internalise appropriate writing conventions, organisation, and argumentation by studying well-crafted academic essay-type answers. This aligns with the notion that exposure to high-quality writing can contribute to improving one’s writing skills (Elliott & Higgins, 2012; Grant-Davie, 1995; Macbeth, 2010).

4.2.2. Careful Planning
Recognising cautious planning as a valuable strategy underscores the significance of pre-writing activities in the writing process (Luby & Southern, 2022). Planning enables writers to structure their ideas, outline arguments, and establish a coherent text flow. Acknowledging planning is important for students and educators as it reinforces the role of strategic thinking in effective academic writing, again highlighting the importance of psychological and cognitive concerns in academic writing (Harpin & Foster, 2014).

4.2.3. Seeking External Assistance
Both students and lecturers agreeing on the benefits of seeking external assistance (70%) highlight the role of a supportive learning environment(Lekamge et al., 2024). This support could come from peers, instructors, writing courses, or workshops. Collaborative learning, feedback, and guidance are essential elements in helping students overcome writing challenges (Canales Sánchez et al., 2022). The results of the interview series revealed the importance of the guidance shared by the English Teaching Unit of the faculty as it plays a vital role in crafting the students’ academic writing skills.

4.2.4. Utilising Peer Support
Recognising peer support (75%) as a valuable resource aligns with contemporary pedagogical approaches emphasising social learning (Laland, 2004). Engaging with peers who share similar challenges can provide an avenue for an academic conversation on constructive feedback, idea sharing, and mutual encouragement (Woodhouse & Wood, 2022). Notably, this approach taps into the strengths of learning communities and encourages a culture of academic collaboration (Wentzel & Watkins, 2002).

4.2.5. Lecturer’s Feedback
The agreement on the feedback of the lecturers (62%) significantly reflects the instructors’ pivotal role in guiding students’ writing development. Constructive feedback from experienced faculty members can offer specific guidance for improvement and help students align their writing with academic expectations (De Silva, 2015; Jiang & Qiu, 2022). The resemblance in strategies recommended by lecturers and those reported by students indicates a shared perspective on effective methods for addressing writing challenges (Mao & Liang, 2020). This suggests that educators’ insights into successful writing practices are well-aligned with students’ experiences. The strategies identified in this study can serve as a basis for developing targeted interventions and instructional approaches to help students navigate their writing difficulties and develop academically solid writing skills (De Silva, 2015). The identified differences between the students and lecturers regarding specific strategies for managing writing challenges provide valuable insights into their perspectives and approaches to addressing these challenges.

4.2.6. Use of Dictionaries and Grammar Books
The fact that 19% of the sample stated that using dictionaries and grammar books has a significant impact on developing their writing skills while no lecturer recommended that as an effective method in developing academic writing at the undergraduate level, suggests a disparity in perceived effectiveness. Nearly 20% of students believe dictionaries and grammar books are valuable tools for addressing specific academic writing-related issues. However, the lecturers, who are likely more focused on the overall figure of writing concerns, did not recommend these resources. This discrepancy underscores the importance of and recognising learners’ distinct needs in developing isolated linguistic features like grammar and vocabulary. Yet, according to the perspective of the lecturers, the tertiary phase is not the most suitable platform to focus on isolated language components. Thus, the students should practice integrated approaches to develop their academic writing without addressing isolated language components.

4.2.7. Use of Online Resources
The difference in the use of online resources, particularly Google Translate and newly invented AI software like Google Bard, ChatGPT, QuiltBot, etc., highlight the influence of modern technology on academic writing practices. While some students resort to online translation tools for convenience, utilising online AI tools to compose their educational content can lead to unintended inaccuracies and inaccurately translated content (Rubens et al., 2014; Spada & Tomita, 2010; S.-C. Tsai, 2019). 90% of the cluster of lecturers revealed the potential drawbacks and pitfalls of such practices and strongly rejected online resources as a sustainable strategy to uplift the existing academic writing hurdles remaining at the undergraduate level. This discrepancy emphasises the need for educational institutions to promote responsible and effective use of technology for academic purposes.

Figure 14. Rate of the Importance of the Strategies Used in Overcoming Academic Writing-Related Challenges

These differences shed light on the challenges of balancing students’ immediate needs and preferences with the pedagogical expertise of the lecturers. While students might resort to quick-fix solutions like online translation tools and AI tools (S.-C. Tsai, 2019), educators recommended the requirement of providing successful and effective guidance to undergraduates through more effective and reliable strategies for developing academically solid writing skills. Bridging these differences through informed pedagogy and ongoing communication between students and educators can lead to more successful writing outcomes.

4.3. Possible Recommendations to Enhance Academic Writing
A multifaceted approach is essential to enhance the academic writing skills of L2 undergraduate students (Curtis, 2019). The following recommendations, based on the research presented, can help educators and institutions provide a comprehensive learning experience that equips students with the necessary writing skills (De Silva, 2015).

4.3.1. Providing Appropriate Writing Models
Offering students well-regarded academic papers as models, especially those relevant to their field, can be a legitimate and effective learning strategy (Karunarathna, 2020). Lecturers’ collaboration is essential to ensure that students are exposed to appropriate examples and avoid inappropriate model usage (De Silva, 2015). An interdisciplinary approach involving language teaching units and content departments (Applebee et al., 2007) can contribute to creating valuable writing resources.

4.3.2. Delivering Timely Writing Interventions
Designing and implementing writing interventions tailored (Powers & Nelson, 1995) to the needs of L2 undergraduate students is crucial. These interventions can include instruction on analysing academic papers’ structures and primary moves, enhancing intertextuality skills, and developing cohesive devices (Lin & Morrison, 2021). Such interventions can be particularly beneficial for students who may be tempted to rely on machine translation tools like Google Translate and AI tools.

4.3.3. Promoting Language Skills in Crafting the Overall Figure of the Answer
The study underscores the importance of teaching discourse-level language skills, such as cohesion, coherence, and conciseness (To et al., 2020). Educators should prioritise interventions that enhance students’ abilities to connect sections of an academic text logically and concisely. These skills contribute to effective academic writing and can help students avoid redundancies (Hiramoto & Park, 2014; Hirst, 2003) and maintain clarity. Further, the partial contribution that should appear in order to maintain the cognitive and psychological concerns that are mentioned in the current study should be accomplished from the lecturer’s side as well as from the students’ side.

4.3.4. Fostering Corpus-based Pedagogy
Incorporating corpus-based tools and resources (S.-C. Tsai, 2019; Y.-R. Tsai, 2021) can be instrumental in developing students’ lexical knowledge. This approach encourages students to learn vocabulary in context, understand collocations, and gain insights into lexical properties used in academic writing. It can bridge the gap between isolated vocabulary learning and effective word usage in academic texts (Alsehibany & Abdelhalim, 2023).

4.3.5. Balancing “Wants” and “Needs”
Acknowledging and addressing both students’ self-perceived language skill gaps (“wants”) and lecturers’ expectations for writing skills (“needs”) is essential. By offering support that aligns with both student concerns and educator requirements, educators and curricula developers can provide a comprehensive learning experience that equips L2 undergraduate students with the necessary academic writing skills.

4.3.6. Early Provision of Support
Providing support in the form of writing models (Fathi & Rahimi, 2022) and interventions in the initial phase of undergraduate programmes can set a strong foundation for academic writing skills. Furthermore, this will enable the students to have better practice and gradual development in academic writing when they step into the final year of thesis writing.

4.3.7. Collaborative Approach
Collaboration between language teaching units and content departments is crucial for effective support. By working together, educators from different disciplines can contribute their expertise to create comprehensive and targeted writing resources that address the specific challenges of L2 undergraduate students in surveying and other fields (De Silva, 2015). Thus, addressing the academic writing challenges of L2 undergraduate students requires a multifaceted approach that combines appropriate writing models, targeted interventions, and collaboration between educators from various disciplines. By tailoring support to both student concerns and educators’ expectations, institutions can empower L2 undergraduate students to become proficient and confident academic writers in their respective fields.

6. Conclusions

The findings of the study underscore the comprehensive nature of academic writing challenges faced by undergraduates who derive from the English as a Second Language (ESL) context and the varying perspectives of both students and educators. The study revealed that the existing challenges in academic writing are different from the perspective of students and lecturers. While students may struggle with compartmentalised language features (86%) like vocabulary and grammar, educators are more concerned with higher-level skills (90%) such as coherence, organisation, and argument development. This discrepancy emphasises the importance of effective communication between the lecturers and students to bridge the gap in understanding and expectations. Further, the difficulty level rates of the tested academic writing tasks reflected a gradual reduction in the student’s progress in their academic journey. When considering the most effective strategies recommended by the sample: (i) following a practised model answer (65%), (ii) external (70%) and peer assistance (75%), (iii) lecturers’ feedback (62%) and (iv) utilising online resources (72%) are prominently valued. Apart from the gap between the catered and the required contents, the contribution of cognitive and psychological factors also considerably impacts composing an academically solid written piece. Accordingly, 68% of the students and 87% of the lecturers highlighted the importance of cognitive and psychological concerns as an essential facet of academic writing. Thus, it is vital to consider the mandatory availability of the compartmentalised layer skills of academic writing, holistic layer skills of academic writing, and a cognitive and psychologically positive environment in order to develop academically solid written pieces.

A comparison between the current study context and other Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematical (STEM) disciplines or humanities disciplines will enable us to check the applicability of whether challenges and perceptions are unique to spatial sciences disciplines or common with other academic disciplines. Another avenue for research is applying the same differences of the other three main English language skills, namely, reading, listening and speaking. Additionally, research could focus on educator development programs aimed at enhancing their understanding of L2 undergraduate students’ writing challenges and their capacity to provide effective feedback and support.

About the Authors

Rashmika Lekamge

ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5995-9916

Department of Surveying and Geodesy, Faculty of Geomatics, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Belihuloya, Sri Lanka

rashmi@geo.sab.ac.lk

Jenan Rajavarathan

ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6734-448X

Department of Surveying and Geodesy, Faculty of Geomatics, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, Belihuloya, Sri Lanka

School of Geography, Planning, and Spatial Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart-Tasmania-7001, Australia

rjenan@geo.sab.ac.lk

References

Alsehibany, R. A., & Abdelhalim, S. M. (2023). Overcoming academic vocabulary errors through online corpus consultation: The case of Saudi English majors. Computer Assisted Language Learning, pp. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2249503.

Applebee, A. N., Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (2007). Interdisciplinary Curricula in Middle and High School Classrooms: Case Studies of Approaches to Curriculum and Instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), pp. 1002–1039. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308219.

Bennett, M. J. (2009). Defining, measuring, and facilitating intercultural learning: A conceptual introduction to the Intercultural Education double supplement. Intercultural Education, 20(sup1), S1–S13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980903370763.

Brandon, C., Jamadar, D., Girish, G., Dong, Q., Morag, Y., & Mullan, P. (2015). Peer Support of a Faculty “Writers’ Circle” Increases Confidence and Productivity in Generating Scholarship. Academic Radiology, 22(4), pp. 534–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.12.006.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2008). The Politics of English Language Teaching. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 213–227). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_16.

Canales Sánchez, D., Bautista Godínez, T., Moreno Salinas, J. G., García-Minjares, M., & Sánchez-Mendiola, M. (2022). Academic trajectories analysis with a life-course approach: A case study in medical students. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2018118.

Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds? Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(6), 807–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019.

Curtis, C. (2019). The effects of writing proficiency on cognitive skills development among international students. Journal of Global Education and Research, 3(1), pp. 71–84. https://doi.org/10.5038/2577-509X.3.1.1026.

De Silva, R. (2015). Writing strategy instruction: Its impact on writing in a second language for academic purposes. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), pp. 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541738.

Elliott, N., & Higgins, A. (2012). Surviving grounded theory research method in an academic world: Proposal writing and theoretical frameworks. Grounded Theory Review, 11(2).

Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2018). Adjusting to higher education in Hong Kong: The influence of school medium of instruction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(8), pp. 1016–1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1228600.

Fathi, J., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Electronic writing portfolio in a collaborative writing environment: Its impact on EFL students’ writing performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2097697.

Fernando, S., & Lalitha, R. (2017). Determinants of Academic Performance of Undergraduates of the Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce of the University of Sri Jayewardenepura in Sri Lanka. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), pp. 1077–1101. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.32.10771101.

Grant-Davie, K. (1995). Functional Redundancy and Ellipsis as Strategies in Reading and Writing. JAC, 15(3), pp. 455–469. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866044.

Gutiérrez Estrada, M. R., & Schecter, S. (2018). English as a “Killer Language”? Multilingual Education in an Indigenous Primary Classroom in Northwestern Mexico. Journal of Educational Issues, 4, p. 122. https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v4i1.12849.

Harpin, A., & Foster, J. (Eds.). (2014). Performance, Madness and Psychiatry: Isolated Acts. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137337252.

Hinkel, E. (2011). What research on second language writing tells us and what it doesn’t. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 2, pp. 523–538.

Hiramoto, M., & Park, J. S.-Y. (2014). Anxiety, insecurity, and border crossing: Language contact in a globalizing world. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 24(2), pp. 141–151.

Hirst, R. (2003). Scientific Jargon, Good and Bad. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 33(3), pp. 201–229. https://doi.org/10.2190/J8JJ-4YD0-4R00-G5N0.

Hyland, K., & Shaw, P. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge Handbook of English for academic purposes. Routledge.

Jiang, F. (Kevin), & Qiu, X. (2022). “These findings are very astonishing”: Hyping of disciplinary research in 3MT presentations and thesis abstracts. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 42(3–4), pp. 300–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2023.2180320.

Johnson, R. C., & Tweedie, M. G. (2021). “IELTS-out/TOEFL-out”: Is the end of general English for academic purposes near? Tertiary student achievement across standardized tests and general EAP. Interchange, 52(1), pp. 101–113.

Karunarathna, J. A. M. B. (2020). Improving the Use of Language Hedges in Academic Writing through Reading Journal Articles. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 11(3), p. 17. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.11n.3p.17.

Khozaei Ravari, Z., & Tan, K. E. (2019). A qualitative investigation of strategies and experiences of non-native students writing master’s theses. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11(2), pp. 310–324.

Kornhaber, R., Cross, M., Betihavas, V., & Bridgman, H. (2016). The benefits and challenges of academic writing retreats: An integrative review. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), pp. 1210–1227. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1144572.

Kunnan, A. J., Qin, C. Y., & Zhao, C. G. (2022). Developing a Scenario-Based English Language Assessment in an Asian University. Language Assessment Quarterly, 19(4), pp. 368–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2022.2073886.

Laland, K. N. (2004). Social learning strategies. Animal Learning & Behavior, 32(1), pp. 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196002.

Lekamge, R., Jayathilake, C., & Smith, C. (2024). Language-Related Barriers and Insights to Overcome the Challenges of English Medium Instructed Learning Environment for Undergraduates. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.12193460.

Lin, L. H. F., & Morrison, B. (2021). Challenges in academic writing: Perspectives of Engineering faculty and L2 postgraduate research students. English for Specific Purposes, 63, pp. 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.03.004.

Luby, S., & Southern, D. L. (2022). Achieving Clarity and Conciseness. In S. Luby & D. L. Southern, The Pathway to Publishing: A Guide to Quantitative Writing in the Health Sciences (pp. 73–86). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98175-4_6.

Macbeth, K. P. (2010). Deliberate false provisions: The use and usefulness of models in learning academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(1), pp. 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.08.002.

Mao, Z., & Liang, P. (2020). The Politics of English Second Language Writing Assessment in Global Contexts: Todd Ruecker and Deborah Crusan (eds) New York & Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2018, x + 244 pp. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 40(1), pp. 133–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2018.1559714.

Masum, F., Groenendijk, L., Mansberger, R., & Martin, A. (2017). Enhancing the role of surveyors: Bridging the gap between demand for and supply of professional education. Proceedings of FIG working week.

Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2012). Chapter 4: Undergraduate Students’ Conceptions and Beliefs about Academic Writing. In M. Castelló & C. Donahue (Eds.), University Writing: Selves and Texts in Academic Societies (pp. 53–67). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781780523873_005.

Menke, M. R., & Paesani, K. (2019). Analysing foreign language instructional materials through the lens of the multiliteracies framework. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 32(1), pp. 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1461898.

Navaz, A. M. M. (2016). Challenges Faced by Students in English Medium Undergraduate Classes: an Experience of a Young University in Sri Lanka. Researchers World : Journal of Arts, Science and Commerce, VII(4(1)), pp. 158–166. https://doi.org/10.18843/rwjasc/v7i4(1)/19.

Odena, O., & Burgess, H. (2017). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: A qualitative approach. Studies in Higher Education, 42(3), pp. 572–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1063598.

Powers, J. K., & Nelson, J. V. (1995). L2 writers and the writing center: A national survey of writing center conferencing at graduate institutions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), pp. 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90003-9.

Prasangani, K. S. (2018). English Language Education in Sri Lanka Link with the Learners’ Motivational Factors.

Prasanna, H. M. I. (2023). Faculty of Geomatics as the focal point in geomatics education in Sri Lanka. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, X-5/W1-2023, pp. 51–57. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-X-5-W1-2023-51-2023.

Rubens, N., Kaplan, D., & Okamoto, T. (2014). E-Learning 3.0: Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime, and AI. In D. K. W. Chiu, M. Wang, E. Popescu, Q. Li, & R. Lau (Eds.), New Horizons in Web Based Learning (Vol. 7697, pp. 171–180). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43454-3_18.

Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka. (2019). Undergraduate Hand Book 2018 -2019 Faculty of Geomatics. Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka. https://www.sab.ac.lk/geo/student-handbook-2018-2019.

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), pp. 263–308.

To, V., Thomas, D., & Thomas, A. (2020). Writing persuasive texts: Using grammatical metaphors for rhetorical purposes in an educational context. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 40(2), pp. 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2020.1732867.

Tomlinson, M. (2008). ‘The degree is not enough’: Students’ perceptions of the role of higher education credentials for graduate work and employability. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(1), pp. 49–61.

Tsai, S.-C. (2019). Using google translate in EFL drafts: A preliminary investigation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5–6), pp. 510–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527361.

Tsai, Y.-R. (2021). Exploring the effects of corpus-based business English writing instruction on EFL learners’ writing proficiency and perception. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33(2), pp. 475–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09272-4.

Wang, C. C., & Greenwood, K. M. (2015). Chinese nursing students’ culture-related learning styles and behaviours: A discussion paper. International Journal of Nursing Sciences, 2(3), pp. 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2015.07.009.

Wentzel, K. R., & Watkins, D. E. (2002). Peer Relationships and Collaborative Learning as Contexts for Academic Enablers. School Psychology Review, 31(3), pp. 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.12086161.

Wijesekera, H. (2012). Dreams deferred: English language teaching in Sri Lanka. Dreams Deferred: English Language Teaching in Sri Lanka. In HV Ratwatte (Ed) Vistas Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 7.

Woodhouse, J., & Wood, P. (2022). Creating dialogic spaces: Developing doctoral students’ critical writing skills through peer assessment and review. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), pp. 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1779686.

Appendix – Questionnaire Survey

Dear Participant,

This questionnaire is conducted solely for research purposes in exploring academic writing-related challenges of undergraduates. You have been selected to answer this questionnaire as a member of our target group. This survey is aimed at identifying your perspectives in relation to the academic writing-related challenges and coping mechanisms utilised for developing academic writing skills. The information collected in this survey is strictly confidential and your individual information will not be revealed to any person or agency.

Your kind assistance in this regard is highly appreciated.

SECTION 1 – DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

1.1 Age (In number) :……………………..

1.2 Gender :

1.3 Residential sector:

1.4 Residential district:

SECTION 2 – EDUCATIONAL PROFILE

2.1 UNIVERSITY

- 1. Name of the University
  2. Period of study
  3. Medium of instruction
  4. Degree (General/Honours)
  5. Field of Specialization
  6. Other subjects
  7. Name of the Degree
  8. Attainment Class/Merit/GPA
  SECTION 3 – CHALLENGES OF ACADEMIC WRITING
  1. 1. 1. Are you willing to develop your current level of writing skills? Yes No
      2. If yes, which programme would you like to follow?
    2. 1. Academic writing course
        
        English for general purposes
        
        English for Professional Purposes
        
        All three above
    3. C. Write the additional areas that you like to follow:

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………
D. What kind of materials/strategies would you prefer as a teaching aid (Rank Your Choice)?

E. What are the challenging areas of composing an academic answer?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
G. According to your view what are the prime concerns when you composing an academic answer?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

H. What are the strategies you use to develop your academic writing?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
I. According to your view what are the possible recommendations that you can suggest to develop your academic writing skills?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Name of the Enumerator:

Date:

Thank you very much for your kind cooperation.

Appendix B – Drafted areas for the semi-structured interview series

Where are you from? Is it an urban setting or a rural setting?
Tell me about your family.
Do you receive the support of your family in your studies? What type of support is it?
How long are you learning English?
What type of English language learning background was there for you since your childhood?
What is the language that you use for your day-to-day purposes within the family and outside?
What are the difficulties you faced when you entered the university, in relation to language?
What are the language-related difficulties you faced during your written assignments, composing field reports, and facing university exams?
Do you think that you have obtained any English language development after the university entrance? What are they?
How do you develop your writing skills?
What are the most important areas that you focus on when writing an academic answer?
Can you recommend some possible implementations that we can practically use for developing your academic writing skills?

Gallery

Social Media: