Poor Writing in English: A Case of the Palestinian EFL learners in

Gaza Strip
Dr. Kamal R. Mourtaga /Islamic University of Gaza (IUG)

Abstract
This article aims to determine why Palestinian EFL learners are weak
writers. Specifically, it tests the following two hypotheses:
1. Palestinian EFL instructors misunderstand the writing process.
2. Palestinian EFL learners lack the linguistic competence in general, and practice
of writing in particular. After collecting data from a teacher questionnaire, and
using the Chi Square Test, results revealed that while Gaza EFL instructors
misunderstand the nature of the writing process, their learners do not practice
enough writing in English. Finally, some pedagogical suggestions are stated to
develop EFL writing in Gaza such as using innovative classroom techniques
within the process approach and dealing with learners in a human fashion.
Introduction  

“It is disappointing; it is terrible; it is ugly; I wish I could find one single

grammatically correct sentence in their writing; they know nothing; who is to blame?
How to overcome this; I don’t know!” This is what instructors at the Islamic
University (IUG) English Department talk about in departmental meeting. Some
suggest giving more grammar and writing courses to the learners; while others
suggest giving an entrance exam to admit only highly qualified learners. Yes, it is true
that writing is difficult as it requires intense, active thinking throughout a continuous
productive process in which thoughts and ideas are transferred into written
communication, but not just words and letters on paper. However, more often than
not, students "believe that writing is a natural gift rather than a learned skill" (Langan,
2000:12). They may add that they do not have the talent of writing. As a result, these
students do not write and do not try their best. to do so. Nevertheless, the good news
is that writing can be mastered through practice, and all what it needs is special
attention from both instructors and students.
The problem of the study
In the age of Internet, information technology and globalization, writing in English
has become so important. However, it seems that many EFL instructors and
supervisors in Gaza still misunderstand the essence of the writing process. Many of
them use traditional approaches based on memorizations and drilling. In his M.A.
thesis, Abu Gazala (2010) stated that the curricula English for Palestine are full of
such activities. He added that such activities are important, but they do not help as
most learners are unable to produce short sentences, paragraphs and letters to friends.
Therefore, this study aims at finding out the possible causes of our learners' poor
writing. In other words, the researcher hypothesizes that Palestinian EFL learners are
weak writers because of the following two causes (hypotheses):
1. Palestinian EFL instructors misunderstand the writing process.
2. Palestinian EFL learners lack the linguistic competence in general, and practice
of writing in particular.
Need for the study
Unfortunately, most of those who studied the EFL writing of Arab learners such as
Kharma, 1987; Atari, 1984; Dushaq, 1986; El-Sayed, 1982; El-Shafie, 1990 and Kamel,
1989 focused on grammatical errors at the sentence level and always attributed these
errors to L1 interference. It is clear that these EFL writing scholars neglected more
serious causes that are responsible for EFL learners’ weakness in writing such as poor
instructors and insufficient practice of writing. Therefore, this study focuses on these
two cases and that makes it a distinctive one. Finally, it is hoped that this study will
benefit EFL instructors, EFL supervisors, and EFL learners.
Purpose of the study
This study aims at achieving the following objectives:
1. Investigate whether EFL instructors in Gaza view writing as a process or a
product.
2. Investigate whether Gaza EFL instructors understand what writing is about.
3. Investigate whether Gaza EFL learners possess an adequate linguistic
competence in general and practice enough writing .
To achieve these purposes, the present researcher distributed a questionnaire among
30 male and female EFL instructors from Gaza in the academic year 2009/ 2010.
Validity and reliability of the questionnaire
As for the validity, the researcher asked his colleagues at the department of
English, Islamic University, to suggest, modify and give opinions about the
questionnaire items ad how far they reflect the importance and purpose of the study.
These colleagues, who are experienced teacher educators gave valuable feedback and
made slight, but important modifications on two of the items.
As for the reliability of the questionnaire, reliability coefficient above 0.7 is
considered satisfactory. Measuring the reliability can be achieved by using Kronpakh
Alph coefficient and Half Split Method as in the following table:
Split-Half Coefficient
person- Spearman-Brown p- Cronbach's
section
correlation Coefficient value Alpha
Technical 0.8397
0.6875 0.8148 0.000
skills
The normal range of corrected correlation coefficient 2r/(r+1) is between 0.0 and +
1.0. As shown in the table, the general reliability for all items is equal 0.8135, and the
significant (α ) is less than 0.05 . So, all the corrected correlation coefficients are
significant at α = 0.05. It can be said that according to the Half Split method, the
dispute causes group are reliable. The normal range of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
value is between 0.0 and + 1.0, and the higher values reflect a higher degree of
internal consistency. As shown in the table, the general reliability for all items is
0.8397. This range is considered high; the result ensures the reliability of the
questionnaire.
Definition of terms
1. Poor writing: insufficient word storage to express genuine ideas on paper, and
inability to produce correct spelling, grammatically and semantically correct
sentences, paragraphs and other short pieces of writing.
2. EFL: English as a Foreign Language
3. Linguistic competence: learners' knowledge of English
4. Traditional approaches to teaching writing: Approaches that focus on weekly
routine of memorization, repeated drills and spelling( Marten and Graves, 2003:35).
5. The process approach: It views writing as an interactive, recursive process
consisting of many steps where learners interact together and make peer correction,
while instructors give feedback between drafts.
Limitations of the study
       This study is limited to a sample of 30 male and female EFL instructors form
Gaza City. The study is also limited to EFL instructors in governmental junior and
senior high schools. The study , furthermore, limits itself by investigating the
possible writing problems of EFL learners from the point of view of their instructors
only.
Literature Review
Actually, there are many approaches to teaching English composition from which
instructors can choose: 1) the Controlled-to-Free Approach emphasizes grammar,
syntax, and mechanics, and gives preference to accuracy over fluency; 2) the Free-
Writing Approach emphasizes quantity of writing rather than quality, and therefore,
focuses on fluency rather than accuracy; 3) the Paragraph-Pattern Approach focuses
on paragraph organization and development; 4) the Grammar-Syntax-Organization
Approach focuses on writing as composed of non-separated skills that should be
learned sequentially; 5) the Communicative Approach emphasizes the writing and the
audience, where student writers should think of themselves as real writers writing to a
particular audience; and 6) the Process Approach states that writing is a process of
discovering and generating ideas through multiple drafts. However, understanding the
nature of the writing process first, and then knowing how to teach it are of great
importance. Zamel, who has a remarkable achievement in ESL writing research, states
that the composing process is seen as a “non-linear, exploratory, and generative
process whereby writers discover and reformulate their ideas as they attempt to
approximate meaning” (1983a: 165). Accordingly, both ‘process” and
“ideas/meaning” are always emphasized in ESL writing. Based on this definition,
EFL writing instructors need to select the most effective approach from a variety of
approaches to emphasize this sense.
Brender (1998), for instance, talked about “conferencing” as an effective
technique in teaching and improving learners’ English composition. He mentioned six
types of conferences: collaborative conferencing, small conferencing, third-person
conferencing, journaling, emailing, and journaling cum emailing. He stated that this
technique is “the most advantageous method for ESL students” and that “students
who have three or more conferences in a term not only improve their writing ability,
but also significantly improve their listening and speaking skills” (p. 2). The reading-
writing approach is another one in which both reading and writing are integrated. Abu
Rass (2001) tried out this approach with her freshman EFL students and reported that
her students enjoyed it and improved their writing though they complained about the
amount of reading.
 To conclude, the previous approaches/techniques are undoubtedly useful; however,
the present researcher believes that every teaching situation is unique. In other words,
writing instructors should select the writing approaches/techniques that work well
with their students. In addition, they can integrate some techniques with the process
approach as the present researcher suggested in the last chapter.
Using the most effective approach to teaching EFL writing is not enough if learners
do not practice enough writing. Writing is a skill acquired only through practice. It is,
like dance and sport, an activity that could be improved only through practice
(Andrews, 1999), and through “ the exposure to written texts in a natural process of
communication rather than grammatical and rhetorical rules on writing” (Leki, 1992:
17). Therefore, EFL learners do not need more work with language but rather with
writing. However, this practice requires that EFL learners have at least some linguistic
competence because competence in the organization of written discourse develops
late (El-Shafie, 1990). This is why many EFL student writers spend a long time
looking for the words they need to express already existing ideas in mind.
To conclude, the previous approaches/techniques are undoubtedly useful; however,
the present researcher believes that every teaching situation is unique. In other words,
writing instructors should select the writing approaches/techniques that work well
with their students. In addition, they can integrate some techniques with the process
approach as the present researcher suggested in the last chapter.
Methodology
Sample and Data collection
The researcher obtained much support for the claims on the causes of learners’
weaknesses in EFL writing from a questionnaire distributed among 30 male and
female teachers of English whom he randomly selected from many schools in Gaza
City (see appendix I). The schoolteachers hold a bachelor degree in English, with 7-
15 year teaching experience at both junior and senior high schools.
Procedure
At the beginning of the school year 2009/2010, the researcher distributed a short
questionnaire among 30 EFL schoolteachers in Gaza City, eliciting their response
concerning their learners’ weaknesses in EFL writing. The researcher used the Chi
Square Test to analyze the teachers’ responses on the yes/no questions in the
questionnaire.
Results and Discussions
The first two questions in the teacher questionnaire test the first hypothesis stated
above. Here is the Chi Square product for question 1:
___________________________________________________________
Response Observed N Expected N
0 24 Yes Q.1
15.0 6 No
10.800 .001
Twenty-four out of the 30 schoolteachers answered, “yes” to the first question. This
difference, according to the result above is statistically significant since the Chi
Square coefficient yields p value of .001. So, in this case, p < .05. This means that the
proportion of teachers who said ‘yes’ to the first question was much larger than the
proportion of teachers who said ‘no’. In other words, schoolteachers give their
learners enough time to write many drafts, and they also give them enough feedback
between drafts. Accordingly, they seem to follow the process approach in their
teaching of EFL writing which is highly recommended by scholars.
Unfortunately, their simple definitions stated in the second question show that their
view of writing does not exceed correct grammar and mechanics. In other words,
while they view writing as a process, as shown above, they still emphasize the form
over the content in their learners’ writing. This emphasis was clear in their definitions,
where they frequently used items such as, writing is a skill, a way to, a mechanism of,
a reflection of, a system of, correct punctuations, good sentences, good spelling,
suitable words, etc. Only five of them of them mentioned that writing is a process,
two mentioned words such as “thoughts” and “ideas”, while most of the definitions
did not reflect how writing is carried out. Therefore, it is clear that Gaza
schoolteachers misunderstand the nature of the writing process.
Gaza EFL instructors' narrow view of the writing process might have its roots in
their mother tongue (Arabic). It is well known that Arabs in general are in love with
Arabic, and when they write in Arabic, they are interested in composing a flowery
language of a complicated style, even when this is at the expense of the meaning
intended. Therefore, when Arab EFL instructors look for errors not for ideas, they in
fact give their students the impression that writing is grammatically correct sentences;
and when they give feedback at the final (only) draft, they provide their learners with
a wrong definition of writing as if it were a one-way process. What I would like to
conclude here is that although there are other factors that contribute in the problem of
writing, most often, those teachers are responsible, and the problem begins from them
not from the learners. To clarify more, let us look at the following figure:
Teachers’ definition of writing,
Instructional approaches teachers use,
Student writers’ definition of writing,
Student writers’ writing strategies,
Student writers’ success/failure at writing.
According to this figure, any writing approach teachers use will depend on how they
view writing. If they view it as a product, then the product approach will be their way
of teaching writing. Consequently, their students will view writing as a product, and
their writing strategies will be formed accordingly. This might determine the success
or failure of these learners. Here are some examples of their definitions quoted as they
are stated by these teachers:
--Having a good idea of the topic, arrange the ideas mentally, then write about each
idea using good English.
--Writing is a system that helps students to use their vocabulary and information to
write sentences good at structure and command.
--In writing, we focus on writing short paragraphs.
--Sometimes students are asked to use the mini-dictionary to find out the meaning of
the same words in English.
--Writing is a skill that learn students how to write correctly.
--Writing is a mechanism in which students use it for improving their language,
spelling, reading, and letter sound matching.
Question three and four in the questionnaire test the second hypothesis. Here is the
product of Chi Square Test for question 3:
Response Observed N Expected N p
___________________________________________________________
5 Yes Q.3
15.0
25 No
.000*** 13.3 15.0
In the above table, the difference between the observed frequencies of ‘yes’ and ‘no’
(column 2) and the frequencies that would be expected (column 3) were statistically
significant because the Chi Square coefficient yielded p values < .05. This means that the
proportion of teachers who said ‘no’ to the item was much larger than the proportion of
teachers who said ‘yes’. Consequently, EFL learners in Gaza do not have the sufficient
competence in and practice of EFL writing. Therefore, the second hypothesis was confirmed.
The insufficient competence in and practice of EFL writing of our learners is supported
by the results of the fourth question in the questionnaire. The average page number given by
these teachers was 2.15 page a week, which is nothing for a foreign learner who is seeking to
develop his/her competence in EFL writing. Accordingly, teachers believe that their students
do not practice enough writing in English, and therefore, the above assumption was
confirmed. What is left in the following section is the BIG question: how should writing be
taught in order to solve the problem? This section includes some ideas and techniques
proposed by some contemporary scholars in the field.
Summary and Suggestions
Before starting teaching, writing instructors are to be reminded that teaching is a
humanistic career, and that about 50% of learners, according to many studies, fail to learn
because their human needs (love, power, freedom, etc) are not met, and therefore, they
refrain from working hard (Maden, 1988). They also need to remember that they are not
error hunters but that their job is to create non-threatening classrooms by convincing learners
that they can write, that writing could be learned, and that nobody’s writing is perfect.
Writing is a skill acquired only through practice. It is, like dance and sport, an activity
that could be improved through practice (Andrews, 1999), and through “ the exposure to
written texts in a natural process of communication rather than grammatical and rhetorical
rules on writing” (Leki, 1992: 17). Therefore, our EFL learners do not need more work with
language but rather with writing.
To ask learners to start practicing writing, “the first lesson in teaching composition is that
the writer must find his or her own subject” (Graves, 1999: 115) Graves adds that the
“creative energy” which is the discovery experience is not found in English textbooks, but it
is in our writers’ minds. Through giving choices to our student writers, we, in fact, teach
them to take responsibility for their own learning, which is the only way to let them deeply
engaged to their education (Rief, 1999). One choice that students might and should be
encouraged to choose is “stories”. The importance of stories in the teaching of writing lies in
the fact that writing itself is personal (Graves, 1999). Murphy (1999) writes,
 The stories we tell will be deeply valuable to us, that in telling them we will define
ourselves and that we know, that in learning them we will remember who we are and
what teaching and learning have come to mean to us. (41)
To proceed in their teaching of writing, Gaza EFL instructors need to update their
knowledge by getting acquainted with the current trends in the field. The process
approach to writing, for instance, has a long time been used in many parts of the
world with innovative classroom techniques such as writing in silence, journal
writing, free writing, reflection to generate creativity, meditation, concentration,
relaxation, deep breathing, etc. Therefore, the recent research in EFL/ESL writing is
very important to these teachers in order to make a shift in their definition of writing
and errors. Sometimes mere reading of the recent research is not enough because in
most cases, “these teachers would be less likely to abandon more traditional views of
teaching writing and more likely to resist the de-emphasis on grammar characteristics
of process methodologies (Leki, 1992: 7). Therefore, it is important that these
teachers get some training in using the process approach in teaching writing.
When using the process approach, writing teachers can follow steps with their
student writers such as topic listing, pre-writing, drafting, revision, editing,
proofreading, and reflection. However, these steps are not linear because the process
approach is recursive in nature. This means learners can do any of these things at any
time during the process of producing their text. When writing instructors follow the
process approach, learners will enjoy the interactive recursive characteristics of the
approach. They will benefit from each other through beer response or peer editing
groups with guidance from their instructors. In addition, they will benefit from the in-
between draft feedback because they will incorporate it into their writing.
Following the process approach does not mean focusing on rules of correction
when evaluating student writers’ composition. First of all, research show that formal
grammar instructions and error correction have little effect on learners’ writing
quality and on their ability to reduce the number of errors in their writing (Leki, 1992,
Hartwell, 1999). In addition, it is believed that as learners are exposed to more of the
L2 and practice more EFL writing, many of the errors they commit will naturally
disappear. Therefore, it is important that teachers look for ideas and make feedback
on content first.
Finally, EFL writing instructors should not forget that learners should be
treated with sensitivity and consideration. Thus, criticizing their learners’ composition
should be avoided while praising it is essential. Such praise will create trust through
which we, as EFL writing instructors, will learn from our learners who have a lot to
say and write. It is through trust that our learners will write and write and write, and it
is writing that makes them feel brave, enhances self-esteem and confidence, increases
positive feelings, and makes them think of themselves as writers.
................................... 

References
-Abu Ghazala, I. (2010). The effect of using a comprehensive approach for teaching high
frequency words on developing the writing skills of seventh graders in Gaza.
Unpublished M.A. thesis. Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza.
-Abu Ras, R. (2001). Integrating reading and writing for effective language teaching
[Electronic version]. FORUM, 39(1), 30 – 34.
-Andrews, S. (1999). Writing as performance. In R. Graves (Ed.), Writing, teaching,
learning: A Sourcebook. (Pp.258 – 266). NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.
 -Atari, O. (1984). A contrastive analysis of Arab and American university students’
strategies in accomplishing written discourse functions: Implication for EFL.
Dissertation Abstract International, 44, 30 – 47.
-Brender, A. (1998, June 12). Conferencing. An interactive way to teach writing. The
Language Teacher on Line, 22. Retrieved September 21, 2000 from
http://Langue.hyper.chubu. ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/98/jul/brender.hml
- Dushaq, M. (1986). An Investigation into stylistic errors of Arab students learning
English for Academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 5, 27 – 39.
-El-Sayed, A. (1982). An investigation into the syntactic errore of Saudi freshmen’s
English composition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of
Pennsylvania, Indiana.
-El-Shafie, A. (1990). English language development of Arab twelfth grade students:
Case studies of six EFL writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University
of Pennsylvania, Indiana.
-Graves, R. (1999). What I learned from Verle Barnes. In R. Graves (Ed.), Writing,
teaching, learning: A Sourcebook. (Pp. 113 – 118). NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers,
Inc.
-Hartwell, P. (1999). Grammar, grammars and the teaching of grammar. In R. Graves
(Ed.), Writing, teaching, learning: A Sourcebook. (Pp.197 – 219). NH: Boynton/Cook
Publishers, Inc.
-Kamel, J. (1989). Argumentative writing by Arab learners of English as a foreign
language and second language: An empirical investigation of contrastive rhetoric.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana.
-Kharma, N. (1987). Arab students problems with the English relative clauses. IRAL, 25, 257
– 266.
-Langan, J. (2000). College writing skills. Washington: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc
-Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. NH: Boynton/Cook
Publishers, Inc.
- Madden, L. (1988). Improve reading attitudes of poor readers through cooperative reading
teams. The Reading Teacher, 42, 194 – 199.
-Marten, C. and Graves, D. (2003). Word crafting: Teaching spelling grades k-6. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann
-Murphy, R. (1999). On stories and scholarship. In R. Graves (Ed.), Writing, teaching,
learning: A Sourcebook. (Pp. 35 – 43). NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.
-Rief, L. (1999). Writing for life: Language arts in the middle. In R. Graves (Ed.), Writing,
teaching, learning: A Sourcebook. (Pp. 45 – 49). NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.
-Zamel, V. (1983a). The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies.
TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165 – 187.
..............................................
Appendix I 

Questionnaire on writing problems of Palestinian EFL learners

Dear Colleagues,
I would greatly appreciate your response to the following questions, which don’t take
much time, and are easy to answer. It is only for research purposes and has nothing to
do with the evaluation of the course or the teacher. Do not write your name, teacher’s
name or the course section number.
1. Do you allow your learners to write in English the same topic again and again
(writing drafts) with some feedback in between? Yes No
2. In the space bellow, define briefly what writing is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Do you think your learners have a sufficient competence in and practice of
writing in English?
Yes No
4. Roughly, how many pages of English do your learners write a week? ------------