Writing is one of the imperative accomplishments of communicating in English acquisition and instruction. However, surveies have shown that English scholars are unsuccessful in composing and specially in revising which its significant function in the authorship procedure is evidently known ( Midgette, Haria, and MacArthur, 2008 ) . The chief ground for pupils ‘ hapless public presentation is found to be inappropriate and narrow pedagogical methods instructors use to learn authorship ( Schriver, 1992 ) that is they do non learn the procedure of authorship and rewriting.
Revision is the most of import portion of the procedure of composing during which adept authors reread their essays from other positions to reconsider the ends of communicating with the intended audience. It is believed by most adept authors that it is indispensable to compose and rewrite bill of exchanges and travel through this procedure so many times ( Reid, 1988 ) . Students must be taught non merely about the concluding merchandise but besides about the procedure of authorship, that is composing many bill of exchanges and revising them until they can travel through the concluding 1 ( Grabe and Kaplan, 1996 ; Leki, 1992 ) . However, practicians believe that instructors do non pay adequate attending to the alteration schemes. Studies done about alteration are a batch but whether instructors apply the alteration schemes in their categories to learn pupils how to revise is under inquiry ( Reid, 1995 ) .
One of the facets to be considered in the procedure of alteration is the audience that is traveling to read the essay. Audience has been one of the angles of the rhetoric trigon since ancient clip. In order for the authors to revise and compose more efficaciously, it is necessary to see the demands, cognition, attitudes, and outlooks of the audience. However, it is observed that most of the piece of Hagiographas written by pupils are non easy to grok for us as readers ( Schriver, 1992 ) since they are non concerned about the end of composing that is pass oning with an audience. Therefore, it is important for pupils to be cognizant of the audience and ends of communicating with that audience and to larn the alteration schemes in order to better their authorship public presentation.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The procedure of authorship and rewriting is emphasized in cognitive attack, and “ process-centered attacks ” have become the footing of methodological analysis for learning EFL authorship in the last two decennaries ( Lee, 2006, p. 308 ) . However, the procedure of composing during which pupils can better their essays is being ignored by the instructors ( Reid, 1988 ) . Therefore, in authorship categories, the focal point of instructors and consequently pupils is on the merchandise and non the procedure of authorship ( Barnard and Campbell, 2005 ) , particularly when it comes to the appraisal of authorship ( Hinkel, 2002 ) . Students normally try to make their best to compose an essay that is their first and the concluding bill of exchange. They barely of all time reread what they have written to better the quality by adding new information or thoughts, and rectifying the likely errors they have made in communicating with the audience. Crawford, Lloyd and Knoth ( 2008 ) found that most of the pupils ‘ alterations are at word and phrase degree and a few figure of them are at sentence or paragraph degree even when they are asked to revise their essays.
One of the grounds why pupils go to redact their authorship in footings of grammar and mechanics is due to the manner their essays are traveling to be scored which is based on lingual competency and non communicative competency. Therefore, they frequently correct the surface structures such as grammar and spelling errors ( Polio, Fleck, and Leder, 1998 ; McCutchen, Francis, and Kerr, 1997 ; Butterfield, Hacker, and Albertson, 1996 ; Ferris, 1995 ; Fitzgerald, 1987 ) .
Another ground why pupils go for edition alternatively of alteration, and the most relevant to the current survey, is that they are non able to distinguish alteration from edition. That is due to the fact that “ fighting authors have limited constructs of revising and ill-defined ends and intents for composing ” ( MacArthure, 2007, p. 143 ) . In other words, they do non hold any clear ends established for them to concentrate on while revising ( MacArthur, 2007 ) . Therefore, when pupil from immature to college ages are asked to revise their bill of exchanges, they normally think neither about the content nor about the overall organisation of their thoughts and travel to edition phase, that is redacting grammar and mechanics at sentence degree ( Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1983 ; Hays, 1982 ; Graves, 1981 ; Newkirk, 1981 ; Atlas, 1979 ; Flower, 1979 ; Kroll, 1978 ) .
Overall, it is necessary to learn pupils the difference between alteration and edition, alteration schemes, and better their ability to revise for an audience instead than instructors by doing them cognizant of the ends of communicating with an audience. This survey is designed in order to happen out the effectual methods of learning pupils how to revise and better the quality of their essays.
1.3 Aims
The intent of this survey is to find:
The effects of general end for alteration on EFL scholars ‘ composing public presentation.
The effects of content plus audience consciousness ends for alteration on EFL scholars ‘ composing public presentation.
The differences in quality of concluding merchandises between two different end conditions, a general end to better the paper and a end to better content and communicating with an audience.
The effects of general and content plus audience consciousness ends for alteration on facets of essay authorship, Task Response ( TR ) , Cohesion and Coherence ( CC ) , Lexical Resource ( LR ) , and Grammar Rang and Accuracy ( GRA ) .
In this survey, the research worker aimed to happen out the consequence of two different alteration ends on EFL scholars ‘ composing public presentation, and to see if there was any difference between end conditions in their authorship public presentation after the intervention. Furthermore, happening out the effects of general end and content plus audience end for alteration on EFL scholars ‘ composing public presentation in each facet of essay authorship, Task Response ( TR ) , Cohesion and Coherence ( CC ) , Lexical Resource ( LR ) , and Grammar Rang and Accuracy ( GRA ) was another intent in this survey.
1.4 Research Questions
This survey seeks to turn to the undermentioned inquiries:
RQ1 Is There any difference in composing public presentation of EFL scholars in General Goal ( GG ) status and those in Content plus Audience Goal ( C*AG ) status in pre-test?
RQ2 Is at that place any difference in composing public presentation of EFL scholars between pre-test and post-test in GG status?
RQ3 Is at that place any difference in composing public presentation of EFL scholars between pre-test and post-test in C*AG status?
RQ4 Is at that place any difference in composing public presentation of EFL scholars in GG status and those in C*AG status in posttest?
RQ5 Is at that place any difference in pupils ‘ public presentation in each facets of essay composing between pre-test and post-test in GG status?
RQ6 Is at that place any difference in pupils ‘ public presentation in each facet of essay composing between pre-test and post-test in C*AG status?
RQ7 Is at that place any difference in pupils ‘ public presentation in each facet of essay composing between GG and C*AG in post-test?
1.5 Hypothesiss
Based on the above research inquiries it is anticipated that:
Ho1 There is no important difference in composing public presentation of EFL scholars in GG status and those in C*AG status in pre-test.
Ho2 There is no important difference in composing public presentation of EFL scholars between pre-test and post-test in GG status.
Ho3 There is no important difference in composing public presentation of EFL scholars between pre-test and post-test in C*AG status.
Ho4 There is no important difference in composing public presentation of EFL scholars in GG status and those in C*AG status in posttest.
Ho5 There is no important difference in TR between pretest and posttest of EFL scholars in GG status.
Ho6 There is no important difference in CC between pretest and posttest of EFL scholars in GG status.
Ho7 There is no important difference in LR between pretest and posttest of EFL scholars in GG status.
Ho8 There is no important difference in GRA between pretest and posttest of EFL scholars in GG status.
Ho9 There is no important difference in TR between pretest and posttest of EFL scholars in C*AG status.
Ho10 There is no important difference in CC between pretest and posttest of EFL scholars in C*AG status.
Ho11 There is no important difference in LR between pretest and posttest of EFL scholars in C*AG status.
Ho12 There is no important difference in GRA between pretest and posttest of EFL scholars in C*AG status.
Ho13 There is no important difference in TR between GG and C*AG conditions in post-test.
Ho14 There is no important difference in CC between GG and C*AG conditions in post-test.
Ho15 There is no important difference in LR between GG and C*AG conditions in post-test.
Ho16 There is no important difference in GRA between GG and C*AG conditions in post-test.
1.6 Operational Definitions
1.6.1 Writing
Writing is known as a agency of communicating. In cognitive attack, it is described as a “ goal-oriented ” ( Berlin, 1988, p. 481 ) problem-solving procedure ( Pittard, 1999 ; Grabe and Kaplan, 1996 ) , during which a author takes many stairss and uses many schemes to pass on with a assortment of audiences for different intents in diverse contexts.
1.6.2 Revision
Revision is defined as looking once more ( Callaghan and Dobyns, 2007 ) . It is a important measure in the procedure of composing through which authors can relook, “ reread, reflect, reconsider, respond ” and “ revision ” ( Reid, 1988, p. 79 ) in order to do some betterments. Revision is non merely focused on errors related to the lingual competency which affect the surface construction but besides on those related to the communicative competency which affect pass oning with an audience ( Midgette et al. , 2008 ) . Having the intended audience and the intent of the authorship in head, authors in this survey reexamine the essays to happen out if the ends of communicating have been achieved or non.
1.6.3 Rhetoric
Rhetoric is the art of inquiring and replying inquiries on a subject. That is to happen the best replies to person ‘s inquiries, who is besides involved in the conversation about the subject ( Callaghan and Dobyns, 2007 ) . In add-on, rhetoric is considered as an art to carry the audience to move in a manner that is desired ( Lawson-Tancred, 1991 ) . It is to impact the audience that can change from a hearer to a reader, by doing some statements on a topic.
1.6.4 Audience
Audience can be considered as a reader who can change from a kid to an aged, a schoolmate to a instructor, or a individual reader to a group of people. Writers need to be concerned about the reader ‘s demands, outlooks and likely attitudes toward the topic to do an appropriate communicating.
1.6.5 Content
Contented refers to all the information contained in a piece of authorship, which has to be appropriate based on the intent and the audience it is written to. In this survey, content means the grade to which pupils ‘ statement stated a clear sentiment about the subject, provided back uping grounds for their sentiment, elaborate their grounds with illustrations and accounts, and addressed alternate sentiments. The graduated table besides asked raters to see the presence, lucidity, relevancy, and significance of the content.
1.6.6 Performance
How linguistic communication learners perform in a authorship undertaking and how able they are in showing a high-quality statement refers to their authorship public presentation. The public presentation of the linguistic communication scholars is a agency to measure their ability in that peculiar accomplishment. EFL scholars ‘ composing public presentation, in this survey, was evaluated in footings of overall quality of the essays and the quality of each facets of essay authorship.
1.6.7 Editing
Editing is considered as correcting and taking errors, which are in the surface construction. Editing, in this survey, means doing corrections sing to the lingual constituents at word and sentence degree such as punctuation and spelling.
1.6.8 EFL scholar
EFL stands for English as a Foreign Language and non-native talkers who study English in a non-English-speaking state are considered as EFL scholars. EFL scholars vary widely in their first linguistic communication since they may come from different states with different linguistic communications. English scholars from China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, and Yemen in this survey, for case, are considered as EFL.
1.6.9 General Goal for Revision
General end for alteration in this survey is for the pupils to better their essays by and large. There is no specific direction given to the pupils in GG status in revising measure and that is what make GG status different from C*AG status.
1.6.10 Contented plus Audience Goal for Revision
Contented plus audience end for alteration is more specific than general end in that it focuses on content every bit good as audience consciousness. The direction provided for the pupils in this status contains guidelines for the respondents to better the content of their essay and do them cognizant of the intended audience to whom they are composing. Contented ends, nevertheless, “ stipulate all things the author wants to state or to make to an audience ” ( Berlin, 1988, p. 264 ) , that are dependent on the audience and rhetorical characteristics.
1.7 Restrictions of the Study
In the current survey, neither persons ‘ alterations were analyzed nor was the quality of their first and concluding bill of exchanges compared. Since pupils were consistently assigned in two homogenous groups, any difference in the quality of the concluding bill of exchanges in each status was considered as a consequence of the alteration end instructions.
In order for the survey to be generalizable beyond all ESL and EFL pupils in Malaysia, the research worker has taken a great attention in trying process and selected them from different degrees of proficiency. However, no 1 can be really confident that the sample to the full matches the intended population ( i.e. , EFL pupils in Malaya
The sample chosen for this survey is limited to a entire figure of 26 ESL/EFL pupils analyzing in school of English linguistic communication, Unity College International ( UCI ) . A little sample was chosen since close observation was necessary in order to forestall menaces to the experiment.
