Title: Comparison and contrast rhetorical markers in EFL reading-writing convergences in a

Tunisian context.

Abstract
The present study, which is inspired by Petersens (1986) model of convergence, is actually a
partial replication of Carson et als (1990) research. It mainly examines FL reading and writing
connection for Tunisian students at La Mannouba Faculty enrolled in 2 nd year English, and more
particularly the reading-writing (R/W) relationship with regard to the rhetorical organization pattern of comparison and contrast (C/C). The focus is mainly on whether students are aware of the
applicability of that grammatical structure to both reading and writing. It also intends to compare
what students think and what they perform.
The methodological tools used and triangulated in the study were a curriculum review analysis,
a questionnaire, a writing assignment, and a reading cloze.
The findings indicated that transfer across modalities, namely, from writing to reading, seemed
to be weak with reference to C/C markers. Students relied most on lexical items or content words, in
general, to draw similarities and differences on a topic. They also seemed to demonstrate a high
rate of awareness of R/W convergence in the questionnaire but their performance in the reading
and writing tasks was different from that, as they performed better in the essay than the cloze, thus
the convergence seemed to be rather weak. High correlations between students scores in R/W tests
were examined according to which students who got good marks in reading did so in writing and
vice versa. The study put forward certain recommendations in order to enhance the reading and
writing convergences.
Key words: Reading-writing convergences, rhetorical markers, interaction, integration, EFL.

Introduction
Petersens (1986) model of convergence points to an existing conjunction or correlation
between reading and writing. For him, both of these skills are cognitive processes of making
meaning. They are also means of learning rather than ends in themselves. It is in this context of
convergence that the present study can be classified. The study is a partial replication of Carson et
als (1990) research. It is motivated by three factors: First, it investigates whether Tunisian
university students of English lack the awareness of convergences between reading and writing.
Second, the reading and writing curricula are to be analysed and reviewed in order to see if they
reflect a dichotomy or rather a harmony between these two skills. Third, the teachers approaches to
teaching reading and writing will also be surveyed. It should also be pointed out that the study is
considered as a partial replication because it only focuses on FL reading-writing relationship and
not both L1 and L2 reading-writing relationship as investigated in Carson et als (1990).

Literature Review
A number of theorists and researchers (Petersen 1986; Stotsky 1983; Shanahan 1984) have noted
important convergences between composition research and research into the ways people read. That
proposed model of convergence of these two skills means that they meet at a point. Both skills
imply making meaning, that is, as the reader reads the text in order to interpret it, he makes meaning
through the writing (composing) process. Thus, they are two processes and not products. As such,
both activities include a great deal of effort, both physically and mentally. Hence, both of them can
be considered as processes of meaning-making to the extent that what counts is the readers and
writers contribution. Stotsky (1983) asserts that there is a significant relationship between reading
ability and writing quality. This means that the processes of reading and writing are convergent, that
examining them discretely allows one to draw conclusions about interactive effects, in other words,
reading influences on writing and vice versa, and that improvements gained in one skill benefit the
other.
In fact, Reading-writing connections and interactions can be studied from different perspectives,
and with regard to a number of relevant factors and variables. Researchers have elaborated on the
numerous approaches to the study of reading-writing connections in EAP courses and have reported
on the findings, in theory, research as well as in practice (See, for example Farahzad and Emam
2010). While reviewing the literature, it should be said that though quite varied, research on
reading-writing connections can be grouped into three main theoretical approaches as argued by
Fitzgerald and Shanahan (2000). The first approach is rhetorical relations according to which
reading and writing are connected because they are both communication activities. Studies suggest
that the nature of communication activities requires students to be both senders and receivers of
information. Both reading and writing are viewed as meaning-making activities. In contrast to the
view that reading is a somewhat passive act and a reader simply receives meaning from text, the
reader, much like a writer, is actively engaged in creating new meaning.
The second approach is procedural connections, which entails that reading and writing are also
functional activities and the two skills often need to work in conjunction with one another, i.e., the
functional impact of reading on writing and writing on reading as well as their impact on external
goals such as performance in academic content areas (e.g., history). The third approach is shared
knowledge, which implies that both reading and writing require a linguistic knowledge at various
levels; including phonemic, orthographic, semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic. These two skills are
connected through similar knowledge representations, cognitive processes and contextual
constraints (Fitzgerald and Shanahan 2000: 40).

From another perspective, Kinsella (2009) summarises the reading-writing connection research
as follows:
a) Reading widely and regularly contributes to the development of writing ability.
b) Good writers were read to as children.
c) Increasing reading frequency has a stronger influence on improving writing than does solely
increasing writing frequency.
d) Developmental writers must see and analyse multiple effective examples of the various kinds of
writing they are being asked to produce (as well as ineffective examples); they cannot, for example,
be expected to write successful expository essays if they are primarily reading narrative texts.
As another line of research the readingwriting relationship is described as multidirectional
where reading assists in the improvement of writing via the provision with models to the students to
follow (Garrigues 2004; Hansen 2001; Mayo 2000). In this respect, three main theories can be
distinguished as attempting to account for the relationship between reading-writing in the first
language (Ferris and Hedgcock 2004, Grabe 2003, Carson 1990, Cassany 1989). The first theory is
known as the directional perspective. According to this trend, reading and writing are acquired
using the same mechanism or structure and that once this has been acquired for one modality, it can
be transferred to the other. Transfer, however, only proceeds in one direction, that is, either from
reading to writing or from writing to reading. The second theory is the non-directional hypothesis
which contends that reading and writing derive from the same cognitive processes and believes that
transfer can occur simultaneously in either direction, so that an improvement in writing leads to an
improvement in reading and vice versa (Shanahan 1984, Grabe 2003: 247, Carson 1990: 90). The
last hypothesis, the bi-directional hypothesis, sees reading and writing as interactive but also
interdependent (Carson 1990: 92), which implies multiple relations whose nature may change
depending on language proficiency (Carson 1990: 92).
According to Hirvela (2004), one can rely on the reader-response theory to investigate the
connection between reading and writing. According to this theory, what the text conveys as
meaning is determined by the reader of that text not its author. This theory also helps in
understanding the processes of reading and writing and how they overlap (Hirvela 2004). Empirical
evidence from research in the mother tongue reveals interesting insights into the reading-writing
relationship. Three main statements have been made from research findings (Grabe 2003: 246,
Carson 1990: 88):
1) Better readers are better writers.
2) Better writers read more than poorer writers.
3

3) Learners exposed to more models of print text tend to produce better texts in syntactic and
rhetoric terms.
Many of the theories of the development of the literacy skills that were previously reviewed or
those existing in the literature are designed based on L1 data, and they assume a fully developed
oral and general language system (Carson 1990: 94). However, this is not the case for foreign
language learners and differences in reading-writing relationships in the foreign language are to be
expected. The key issues underlying the emergence of literacy skills in the foreign language are L2
proficiency and L1 literacy skills. Grabe (2003: 250) maintains that foreign language learners
manifest variability as regards their reading and writing abilities so that a good L2 reader cannot be
assumed to be a good L2 writer (Grabe 2003: 250). Research-related literature indicates that there is
a lack of conclusive results regarding this relationship.
As an example of L2 literacy studies, Agustin Llach (2010) concludes from her research that
reading and writing are related cognitive activities, but they are not identical and some other
intervening factors account for the scores on L2 reading proficiency and L2 writing ability apart
from their mutual influence. As learners become more proficient in the foreign language, readingwriting connections get closer. It seems reasonable to argue that L2 proficiency plays a central role
in establishing the nature and magnitude of the reading-writing association. For more proficient
learners, the statement good L2 readers are good L2 writers applies. Agustin Llach (2010)s
results serve as further evidence to highlight the complex nature of the interaction among L2
reading and writing and L2 proficiency. Vocabulary has been found to be the component that best
explains reading-writing relationships. Having a large vocabulary will be beneficial for both reading
and writing and learners with large vocabularies will be found to be in the high proficient group.
(Agustn Llach 2010).
AlGunaims (2005) study shows that participants' beliefs, attitudes, and experiences with regard
to using assigned readings in relation to their writing were positive; they found it to be a powerful
technique for enhancing writing competence. The same study also shows that the students have
positive attitudes toward reading-to write. The findings reveal that explicit instruction of rhetorical
structures has helped them improve their writing competence. Specifically, using models along with
instruction has resulted in various benefits concerning writing and writing structures, including
rhetorical modes, text organisation, specific use of words, sentence patterns, parallelism, run-on
sentence, revision, wordiness, content information, and motivation to use reading-writing related
activities in the future (AlGunaim 2005).
Ito (2011) conducted a study to examine the relationship between ESL reading and writing skills
as demonstrated by Japanese high school students, based on reading and writing test scores. The
4

subjects of the study were 68 Japanese high school learners learning English as a second language.
The correlation between L2 reading and writing was found statistically significant. The results
imply some influence of L2 reading skill on L2 composition in Japanese ESL high school.
A brief review of Carson et als (1990) study
Carson et al (1990) examined first language and second language reading and writing abilities of
adult ESL learners, namely, Japanese and Chinese. The objective of their study was to determine
the relationships across languages (L1 and L2) and across modalities (reading and writing) in the
acquisition of L2 literacy skills. Carson et al (1990) were particularly concerned with the
relationships (a) between literacy in L1 and literacy development in L2 (i.e., between reading in L1
and L2 and between writing in L1 and L2) and (b) between reading and writing in L1 and L2 (i.e.,
between reading and writing in L2).
The investigation was undertaken on 105 subjects, Japanese and Chinese ESL students in
academic settings. Concerning the research procedure, the subjects were asked to write an essay and
to complete a cloze passage in their L1 and L2 which is English. As far as the findings were
concerned, literacy skills could transfer across languages, but the pattern of this transfer would vary
for both language groups. First, it seemed that reading ability would transfer more easily from L1 to
L2 than writing. Second, the relationship between reading and writing skills varied for the two
language groups.
The replicated Case Study
The present study addressed the following questions mentioned below:
Research Questions:
1. Is the knowledge of grammatical structures of compare and contrast (C/C) applied to both
composing and comprehending processes for Tunisian university students of English?
2. Are rhetorical organisational patterns or modes both applicable to reading and writing (R/W) for
them?
3. Are they equally aware of those markers in both R/W?
4. Does organisation of discourse occupy the same importance in both composing and
comprehending processes for them?
Methodology and methods
Corpus
The corpus of the study comprises drafts of students' reading cloze task and writing assignment.
Students' notebooks are also examined in order to compare what students are exposed to as input
5

and the extent to which they adhere to that in their practice or performance. The course description
and the curricula of reading and writing are also going to be investigated in order to get more
background information on the two skills and provide fruitful feedback for the findings.
Subjects
The study reported in this research project examined FL reading and writing abilities of 100
Tunisian students at Mannouba Faculty, University of Tunis, enrolled in 2nd year English to
determine the relationships across modalities (reading and writing) in many ways, in general, and
the rhetorical organisation patterns of comparison and contrast, in particular. Specifically, it
investigated whether the students were aware of the applicability of that grammatical structure to
both reading and writing. In other words, it aimed at comparing the students thoughts and practices
related to these skills.
Other respondents selected for this study consisted of 5 teachers enrolled in teaching reading and
writing at Mannouba Faculty in the English Department. Teachers and students were asked to fill in
a questionnaire. The content of both questionnaires was not the same (see appendices 3 and 4). As
for the cloze test and the essay, they were only assigned to the students (see appendices 1 and 2).
The sample population of students required for the study was randomly chosen.
Methods
The present study used three techniques: a questionnaire, a cloze test and an essay prompt. The
choice of these particular tools was justified by the fact that the research was a partial replication of
Carson's et al (1990). As stated before, the present study sought to partially replicate the research on
R/W relationship, but in a Tunisian context and without considering the phenomenon of L1/L2
transfer because the scope of the present study was beyond that; such an investigation could be
undertaken in another context and on a larger scale.
Triangulation of tools was achieved by employing the methods mentioned above, together with
analysing and reviewing the reading and writing curricula and surveying the teachers approaches to
teaching reading and writing that were perceived to provide fruitful feedback to the findings of the
study.
Findings and discussion
The questionnaire illuminated some noticeable awareness of the students of the common grounds
between R/W and how these were two similar cognitive processes of making meaning as shown
from their answers in the questionnaire. Regarding the R/W tests, it seems that the Tunisian
students FL reading and writing scores tended to increase as FL proficiency increased. That is,
those students who obtained acceptable marks in writing, they should also do so in reading. There
6

appeared to be a significant positive correlation between W/R scores reaching 0.89. In writing, most
of the students who obtained acceptable scores also got acceptable scores in reading (among the 21
students who got between 4/5 as a score in writing, they obtained between 20/23 in reading).
As far as the writing drafts of students were concerned, and as shown in the qualitative and
quantitative analysis for the test, students did not rely much on the rhetorical markers to compare
and contrast any subject at hand, as only a mean of 10 rhetorical markers per student were
discovered. So, the students seemed to rely a lot on vocabulary to draw differences and similarities
between city and country living. This was also applicable to reading as well since students failed to
be aware of the syntactic and the rhetorical levels of the required type of organisation of the text;
hence, their performance in reading was inferior to that of writing.
The insight that the teachers questionnaire (n=5) provided was that teachers at Mannouba
faculty were aware of the recent findings in reading-writing research and adhered to the recent
approaches of teaching reading and writing. However, there were some misunderstandings in
certain terms and notions by teachers that led them to obscurity. It seems that some teachers needed
to be updated about some concepts like Schema Theory and Genre, both of which deserved research
in depth especially with reference to the students activities in both reading and writing.
After surveying, reviewing and analysing both the reading and writing curricula, the setting in
which reading and writing as courses or activities are taught to students, especially to 2nd year ones
at Mannouba Faculty, shows that the curricula seem to be in keeping with the recent approaches and
findings in reading and writing research and pedagogy.
Implications for teaching
Given the findings of the study, teachers are invited not to teach reading and writing as
dissociated or divergent skills (counterproductive). It should be pointed out that the teaching of
reading and writing cannot be separated, nor can they be sequenced in linear fashion. It is also
worth highlighting that the relationship between reading and writing should be illustrated explicitly
to students. The study suggests that if taught in integration, language skills will enhance learning.
Another major point to bear in mind is that students should be exposed, on equal footing, in reading
activities as in writing ones to how information is structured and organised within discourse.
Conclusion
It may be concluded that:
-The 2nd year English students at La Mannouba Faculty seem to understand and to master the use of
rhetorical markers of C/C more in writing rather than in reading.
-Their awareness of rhetorical and syntactic levels in reading text still appears to be absent.
-Their proficiency in rhetorical organisation sounds better in writing than in reading.
7

-Their processes of composing seem to show more effort and cognitive complexity than those of
comprehending.
-Writing assignments according to a comparative and contrastive genre are not likely to provide
them with input to reproduce that in their reading, hence the transfer across modalities for those
subjects appears not to be significant or it rather seems weak, which confirms their attitude towards
W-R impact in the survey.
References
Agustin Llach, M. P. (2010) Examining the role of L2 proficiency in L2 reading-writing
relationships. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 18, 35-52.
AlGunaim, A. S. (2005). ESL College Students Beliefs and attitudes About Reading-toWriting in An Introductory Composition Course: A Qualitative Study. Unpublished PhD
thesis. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Carson, J.E., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., Carrell, P., and Kuehn, P. (1990). The transfer of
literacy skills across and within languages. Paper presented at the 24th Annual TESOL
Convention, San Francisco.
Cassany, D. (1989). Describir el escribir. Barcelona: Paids Comunicacin.
Farahzad, F. and Emam A. (2010). Reading-writing connections in EAP courses:
implications and application. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1, (5), 596-604.
Ferris, D. And Hedgcock, J. (2004). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and
Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fitzgerald, J. and Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development.
Educational Psychologist, 35, (1), 39-50.
Garrigues, L. (2004). Reading the writers craft: The Hemingway short stories. English
Journal, 94, (1), 5965.
Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: second language perspectives on research
and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 242262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hansen, J. (2001). When writers read (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hirvela, A. (2004). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ito, F. (2011). L2 readingwriting correlation in Japanese EFL high school students, The
Language Teacher, 35, (5), 23-29.

 Kinsella, K. (2009). Twelve Tips to Teach the Reading-Writing Connection. Available from
http://penningtonpublishing.com/blog/reading/twelve-tips-to-teach-the-reading-writingconnection [Accessed 31 August 2012].
Mayo, L. (2000). Making the connection: Reading and writing together. English Journal,
89, (4), 7477.
Petersen, B.T. (1986). Convergences: Transactions in reading and writing. Urbana, Illinois:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory multivariate
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 466-477.
Stostky, S. (1983). Research on Reading/ Writing Relationships: A Synthesis and Suggested
Directions, Language Arts, 60, 627-642.

This paper is based on a study undertaken as part of a MA research project and thesis done by
the researcher in 2002 in Mannouba Faculty, University of Tunis, Tunisia.
Campus: Sohar University
Work email: STrabelsi@soharuni.edu.om

Name: Dr. Soufiane Trabelsi

Affiliation: Sohar University
Contact address: Sohar University GFP department, P.O. Box: 44, P. Code 311, Sohar.
Bio-data: Dr. Soufiane Trabelsi has been teaching English as EFL for 15 years. Now he has been
teaching in the Sultanate of Oman at the tertiary level for the last 8 years. He got his PhD last year
from Leeds Metropolitan University. His thesis was about the authenticity of Business English
teaching materials used for Tunisian intermediate students. His specialisation mainly revolves
round curriculum and instruction. His main research interests are: authenticity in ELT, TEFL,
reading-writing convergences, Business English, and teaching materials.

Appendix 1
The Cloze Test
Fill in the blanks with suitable words to complete the text: (the blank may be composed of one
word or more).
Education and Training
To understand the nature of liberal arts college and its functions in our society, it is important to understand the difference (1)........................education and training.
The difference between the two types (2)...............study is like the (3)..............between
the discipline (4).............exercise in a professional baseball (5).................camp and
(6).........of a Y gym. (7)....................the recruit is training to (8) ................a professional
baseball (9)...............who will make a living (10)............serve society by playing baseball; in the
other, he is training only (11)..............improve his own body and musculature. The
(12)........................at baseball camp is all relevant. The recruit may spend hours practising
(13)...............to slide into second base, (14)......................it is particularly useful form of calisthenics (15)......................because it is relevant to the game. The exercise would stop
(16).................the rules were changed so that sliding to a base was made illegal.
(17)........................the candidate for the pitching staff spends a lot of time throwing a
baseball, (18)..........................it will improve his physique-it may have quite the
(19)....................effect-(20)....................because pitching is to be (21) .....................principal
function on the team. At the Y gym, exercises have no (22).....................relevance.
Clearly the (23).............types of learning overlap. (24)...................the baseball recruit
gets rid of excess weight (25)........tightens (26)....................muscles at the baseball camp
(27).........thereby profits (28)...................he does not make the team, (29),...................the law
student sharpens his mind (30)...................broadens his understanding, even if (31)......................
subsequently fails the bar exam (32)...................goes on to make his living in an entirely
(33)...................... kind of work. His study of (34)......................gives him an understanding
(35)............... the rules under (36)............ our society functions (37).................his practice
(38) .................solving legal problems gives him an understanding (39)...........fine distinctions.
(40)...........................the Y member, whose original reason (41)................... joining may
have been solely (42)...............get himself in shape, may get caught up in the institutions baseball program (43).............. find that his skill has developed (44).......................the point where
he can play (45)........... professionally. (46)................the student who undertakes a
(47)...............of study merely because (48)...................interests him and he wants to know more
about it, may find that it has commercial value.
Taken from Common Sense in
Education by Harry Kemelman.
Name (optional):_______________________
Group:______

10

Appendix 2
The writing assignment
Topic: Write an essay about the differences and the similarities of city living and country living.

________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Name (optional):_____________________
Group:_______

11

Appendix 3
The Teachers
Questionnaire

This questionnaire aims at eliciting information about the teaching practices of reading and
writing in Mannouba Faculty according to the objectives set up. It intends to:
a) ask teachers about their procedures in teaching R/W,
b) explore the approaches according to which R/W are taught, and
c) evaluate the program in terms of practices and achievement, (theory and practice) with
reference to R-W relationship.
It is hoped that findings from this survey will improve the teaching and learning practices in
reading and writing research and pedagogy. In case you are interested in sharing with us the
findings of the questionnaire, please let us know. Thanks for your cooperation and attention.

Section I: Approach and procedures in teaching reading:

1. Do you teach reading according to
the process-approach

the product-approach

both

2. Do you apply the Schema Theory in the reading course ?

Yes

No

If yes, in processing texts, do you focus on

bottom-up
3.

Yes

both

don't know

Do you assign readings to your students? Yes

If yes,
4.

top-down

usually

rarely

occasionally

No
never

Do you establish the link between reading and writing skills?

No

If Yes, how?__________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
12

________________________________________________________________________.
5. Do you focus, in the reading course, on
the writer

the message

the process of comprehending

6. Do you assign readings of particular genres? Yes

the form

No

List same examples:

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
7. Do you teach the cultural aspect of reading? Yes
If yes, what do you do?

No

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
8. Do your students face any difficulties in reading?
Yes

No

What are they? (Specify) ______________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Section II: approach and procedures in teaching writing:
1. Do you teach writing according to,
the process-approach

the product-approach

2. In writing do you focus on

content

both
form

both

3. Do you assign writing assignments to your students? Yes

No

If yes, how often

never

usually

rarely

occasionally

4. Do you assign topics related to readings? Yes

5. Do you assign writing different kinds of genres Yes

No
No

6. While correcting writing, do you focus on (i.e., give importance to)

13

organisation

grammar

ideas

mechanics

7. While correcting writing, do you penalise students most for

grammar mistakes

irrelevant ideas

defective mechanics

others

(Specify)____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
8. Do your students face any difficulties in writing? Yes

No

Explain:____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
9. Please, indicate (Strongly Agree / Agree/ Undecided/ Disagree/ Strongly Disagree) by circling the option that applies to you
a) The process of composing a text is parallel to the process of interpreting it.
SA / A / U / D / SD
b) Writers are also readers during the writing process.
SA / A / U / D /

SD

c) Readers are also writers during the reading process.

SA / A / U / D /

SD

d) There is a correlation between writing quality and reading experience

SA / A / U / D / SD
e) The strategies of reading can be used in writing and vice versa.
SA / A / U / D / SD
Section III : Please complete the following section.
1- Name (optional):___________________
2- Gender: Male

Female

3- Age:_______
4- Number of teaching years (in general):________
5- Number of teaching years (in reading):________
6- Number of teaching years (in writing):_________
Thank you for your co-operation and attention

14

Appendix 4
The Students
Questionnaire

This questionnaire aims at obtaining some background information about the students studying
reading and writing and it also intends to assess the extent to which they are aware of readingwriting convergences and to have access to their judgement of the activities conducted in both
courses of reading and writing.
It is hoped that findings from this survey will improve teaching and learning practices in reading
and writing research and pedagogy. In case you are interested in sharing with us the findings of
the questionnaire, please let us know. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

Section I: Background information about the students learning experience of reading

1. What is the percentage of importance you give to each of the four skills?
Reading _____ %; Speaking ______ %; Writing _____ %; Listening _____ %
2. Do you read books in English? If so, how often do you read?
_________________________________________________________________________
3. What do you think the purpose of reading is?
_________________________________________________________________________
4. How can you evaluate the current reading teaching materials?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
5. What is the area of focus for you while making an effort to understand a text? (tick the option that applies to you)
Syntax_____ ; ideas_____; vocabulary_____ ; grammar_____
6. Is the time spent in the reading course sufficient or not? Explain.
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
7. What do you practise during the reading course? (tick the option that applies to you)
Answering questions______; explaining vocabulary_____; dealing with the relation of
grammar to meaning_____
8. What is your reaction when you face new vocabulary in a text?
________________________________________________________________________
15

9. Do you agree or disagree with the statements below?

a. Reading is just the passage of information from a text to a reader. _________
b. Reading is an exercise of answering comprehension questions. _________
Section II: Background information about the students learning experience of writing
10. How often do you write in English?
_________________________________________________________________________
11. What is/are the purpose(s) for which you write?
_________________________________________________________________________
12. How would you evaluate the writing materials?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
13. What do you prefer? Free ____or guided writing?____ (tick the option that applies to you)
14. Is the time given to the writing course sufficient? Explain.
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
15. What are the steps that you proceed with while writing? (put the following items in your order)
Syntax___; ideas___; vocabulary___; grammar___; mechanics___
16. Do you consider your reader when you write? If yes, how do you do that?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
17. Do you agree or disagree with the statement below?
I always read what I write.________
Section III: The students perception of the relationships between reading and writing skills
18. Do you write about what you have read? How do you do that?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________.
19. Do you read what you have written? Explain.
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________.
20. Which do you think is more effort consuming and demanding, reading or writing? Explain.
16

__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
21. Do you think reading is a process or a product or both? Explain.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
22. Do you think writing is a process or a product or both? Explain.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
23. Do you read more than you write or do you write than you read? Why do you do that?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
24. Do you think reading influences writing or writing influences reading? Can you give a percentage and explain?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
25. Do you practise reading in the writing course? Explain.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
26. Do you practise writing in the reading course? Explain
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Do you have any comments to add?
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Section IV: Please complete the following section.
1- Name (optional):___________________________
2- Gender: Male

Female

3- Age:_______
4- Number of English studying years (in general):________
Thank you for your co-operation and attention
17