VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES
*********

PHẠM THỊ NGỌC BÍCH

BẢN TÓM TẮT LUẬN VĂN
COMBINING BRAINSTORMING AND MODELLING
TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL: AN ACTION
RESEARCH AT PHU THO CENTRE FOR FOREIGN
LANGUAGES AND INFORMATICS

(Nghiên cứu hành động về việc kết hợp hoạt động tìm ý
với bài viết mẫu nhằm nâng cao kỹ năng viết tiếng Anh cho học viên
tại Trung tâm Ngoại ngữ - Tin học Phú Thọ)

M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60.14.10
Hanoi – 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration………………………………………………………………………………………i
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………… ii
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………… iii
Table of contents……………………………………………………………………………….iv
List of abbreviations………………………………………………………………… vii
List of figures, tables and charts…………………………………………………… viii
PART A: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………1
1. Rationale…………………………………………………………………………………… 1
2. Objectives of the study……………………………………………………………………….2
3. Research questions………………………………………………………………… 2
4. Scope of the study………………………………………………………………………… 2
5. Method of the study………………………………………………………………………….2
6. Significance of the study…………………………………………………………………… 2
7. Design of the study………………………………………………………………… 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT………………………………………………………………….4
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………….4
1.1. Definitions of writing…………………………………………………………… 4
1.2. The role of writing in language teaching and learning…………………………………….4
1.3. Approaches to teaching writing……………………………………………………… 5
1.3.1. Product approach……………………………………………………………………6
1.3.2. Process approach…………………………………………………………………….7
1.4. The pre-writing stage ………………………………………………………………….10
1.4.1. Definition………………………………………………………………………… 10
1.4.2. Types of pre-writing techniques………………………………………………… 10
1.4.2.1. Brainstorming…………………………………………………………… 11
1.4.2.1.1. Definition……………………………………………………….11
1.4.2.1.2. Rules of brainstorming……………………………………… 12



vi
3.5. Some major findings and discussions………………………………………………… 36
PART C: CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………… 39
1. Recapitulation …………………………………………………………………………… 39
2. Implications for classroom practice……………………………………………………… 40
3. Limitations of the study…………………………………………………………………….40
4. Suggestions for further studies…………………………………………………………… 41
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………… 42
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………I
viii LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND CHARTS

Figure 1: Action research cycle
Table 1: Students’ writing performance in pre-test
Table 2: Students’ attitudes towards writing and their interests in writing lessons
Table 3: Students’ writing habits
Table 4: Students’ difficulties in writing lessons
Table 5: Students’ writing performance from Unit 8 to Unit 12
Table 6: Students’ writing performance in post-test
Table 7: Students’ attitudes towards writing and their interests in writing lessons
Table 8: Students’ writing habits
Table 9: Students’ opinions about the combination of brainstorming and modelling activities
Chart 1: Students’ writing performance at average to excellent level from pre-test to post-test
via the action plan implementation (Pre-test, Unit 8, Unit 9, Unit 10, Unit 11, Unit 12 and
post-test)

pencil-chewing, foot-shuffling agony” (Hedge, 1988: 5). They find it difficult to generate ideas
and organize ideas in a logical sequence but “ideas should arguably be seen as the most
important aspect of writing” (Ur, 1996: 163). This fact has inspired the researcher to find out
the way to help them overcome difficulties in generating and organizing ideas when writing in
English. In this regard, brainstorming and modelling are possibly effective activities which
provide learners with ideas in writing. Thus, the author has conducted a research on combining
brainstorming and modelling with a view to helping the students improve their writing skill

2
2. Objectives of the study
This study is designed to improve the students’ writing skill by combining brainstorming
and modelling. Thus, it has two objectives:
- Exploring the possible reasons for students’ weak writing competence
- Justifying the effects of the combination of brainstorming and modelling on students’
writing skill
3. Research questions
In order to achieve the objectives mentioned above, the study seeks to answer three
following questions:
1. What are the reasons that lead to students’ weak writing competence?
2. How does the combination of brainstorming and modelling affect students’ writing
skill at PTCFI?
3. What are the students’ opinions about the combination of brainstorming and modelling?
4. Scope of the study
The research was carried out in an English supplementary training class with 30
students at Phu Tho Centre for Foreign Languages and Informatics. Regarding its scope, the
research focused on justifying the effects of the combination of brainstorming and modelling at
the pre-writing stage on the students’ writing performance in terms of content, organization,
vocabulary, language use and mechanics.
5. Method of the study
The method employed in this study is an action research, with the use of a number of

4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter will present the theoretical background of the study, including the insights
of teaching writing. It reviews issues related to writing such as the definition of writing, the
place of writing in second and foreign language learning, approaches to teaching writing, the
pre-writing stage with the detail of brainstorming and modelling activities and the fitness of the
study into the field
1.1. Definitions of writing:
Writing has been defined in a variety of ways in the literature of research into writing.
According to Byrne (1988:1) writing can be seen as “the act of forming graphic symbols”
(letters or combinations of letters). However, according to White and Arndt (1991: 3), “writing
is far from being a simple matter of transcribing language into written symbols; it is thinking
process in its own right. It demands conscious intellectual effort, which usually has to be
sustained over a considerable period of time”. Sharing the same opinion with White & Arndt,
Harris (1993: 10) states that “writing is a process that occurs over a period of time, particularly
if we take into account the sometimes extended periods of thinking that precede creating an
initial draft”.
Especially, in language teaching, writing is considered to be a productive and taught
language skill. Ur (1996: 161) claims that "most people acquire the spoken language (at least
their own mother tongue) intuitively, whereas the written form is in most cases deliberately

for teachers to collect information about their students' progress and then to enable them to
evaluate and feedback on students' learning.
In short, writing brings a number of benefits to both learners and teachers. To the former
group, writing provides opportunities for language practice, professional enhancement,
development of creative/imaginative language. For the latter one, writing serves as a device for
evaluation, examination and feedback. Therefore, writing in the language learning context
should be taken into consideration
1.3. Approaches to teaching writing
It is confirmed that teaching and learning writing is really complicated work. For
students, they must have knowledge of content, organization, discourse, syntax, lexis, and

6
mechanical elements. For teachers, they may be confused of a variety of approaches. In other
words, approaches to teaching ESL/ EFL writing have long been a topic of controversy for
them, even for researchers. Writing is being taught in many different ways. And how to teach
writing effectively depends on types of students, the text type being studied, the school system
and many other factors. Here the researcher would like to clarify the two most popular
approaches used in ESL/EFL classroom, namely product approach and process approach
1.3.1. Product approach
With the traditional product approach, the final outcome of a writing process is paid
much attention to and the production of only one writing version of the task is needed.
According to Nunan (1991: 86), this approach “focuses on the end result of the learning
process- what is that the learner is expected to be able to do as a fluent and competent user of
the language”. Sharing the same opinion, Harmer (2001: 257) states that “when concentrating
on the product we are only interested in the aim of the task and in the end product”.
Product approach model comprises of four stages (Steele, 2004, cited in Hasan &
Akhand, 2010)
 Stage 1: Model texts are read, and then features of the genre are highlighted. For
example, if studying a formal letter, students' attention may be drawn to the
importance of paragraphing and the language used to make formal requests. If

process approach devotes increased attention to writers and the activities in which writers
engage when they create and produce a text. It differs much from the product approach which
gives primary focus on the texts. Clark (2003: 7) describes the process approach:
"Reacting against pedagogy oriented towards error correcting and formulaic patterns
of organization, the process approach as it evolved during the 1960s and 1970s, was concerned
with discovering how writers produce texts, developing a model of the writing process, and
helping writers find a process that would enable them to write more effectively and continue to
improve as writers"
And according to Nunan, D (1991), Process approach focuses more on the various
classroom activities which are thought to promote the development of skilled language use.
With this approach, writers are encouraged to get their ideas on paper in any shape or form
without worrying too much about formal correctness. It also encourages collaborative group

8
work among learners as a way of enhancing motivation and developing positive attitudes
towards writing
Many researchers have the same point of view that writing is a process and it consists of
some stages and the activities in each stage are similar. However, there have been different
ways to divide the stages in a writing process, resulting different implications for teaching
writing in the classrooms. According to Hedge (1988), the writing process is involved with the
following stages.
Being Getting Planning Making Making Revising Editing and
motivated → ideas → and → notes → a first → replanning → getting ready
to write together outlining draft redrafting for publication
(Hedge, 1988: 21)
Troyka, L.Q & Nudelman, J (1994: 13-14) provides a different view in dividing writing
stages into five basic stages such as prewriting, drafting, revising, editing and proofreading:
Step 1: Prewriting
In this step, students think and plan for their writing. To do this, they explore their ideas
about their topic, gather additional information, and begin to organize their material

work out the best content, form, and language for fulfilling a particular assignment.
Nevertheless, these five steps in the writing process offer a useful sequence that will help
students work efficiently
In short, in the process approach, writing is viewed as a multi-stage process that the
writers have to go through. It may include pre-writing, drafting, revising, editing and
proofreading. Under the light of this division in particular and the process approach in general,
students are seen as independent producers of the text and are able to show their creativeness in
their language. However, this approach has also received criticisms. “One such criticism is that
the process approach confines children largely to narrative forms and that this represents a
serious limitation on their ability to master text types such as reports, expositions and
arguments which are essential for academic success at school and beyond” (Nunan, 1991: 87).
Furthermore, Horowitz (1986, cited in Nunan, 1991: 88) criticizes that this approach “gives a
false impression of how university writing will be evaluated, and that choice of topic, an
important process writing principle, is irrelevant in most university contexts”

10
Therefore, it cannot be denied that each approach has both strengths and weaknesses.
The product approach can provide students with models or sources of language whereas the
process one can help students become more creative in producing the target texts. Deciding
which approach to use depends on many factors such as the teacher, the students and the genre
of the text. Formal letters or postcards, for example, in which the features are very fixed, would
be perhaps more suited to the product approach, in which the focus on the layout, style,
organization and grammar could greatly help students in dealing with this type of writing tasks.
Other genres, such as discursive essays and narrative, may lend themselves to process approach
which focuses on students' ideas. A combination of two approaches is, therefore, necessary to
maximize the benefits of writing.
1.4. The pre-writing stage
1.4.1. Definition
“Pre-writing is simply the first stage in writing” (O’Keefe, 1991: 2). It is often believed
to be the hardest part of writing. A blank page, begging to be filled with ink, can be

numerous viewpoints and backgrounds to a problem”. They also indicate that brainstorming
works particularly well when you really do not know what to do or think, or when you cannot
make a decision. You must create a receptive atmosphere, an environment that accepts all ideas
as possible solutions for the problems or steps toward the goal.
O’Keefe, J (1991) considers brainstorming as a prewriting technique in which you list
as fast as possible whatever comes to mind, regardless of whether or not it makes any sense
Veit, Gould & Clifford (2001) have an agreement that brainstorming is “a way of
bringing to mind as many ideas about a topic as possible. Brainstorming not only provides raw
material to work with; it also gets your creative juices flowing” (p.15)
In short, the above mentioned researchers have the same opinion that brainstorming is
an effective way of generating ideas. It gives students a chance to share ideas about a certain
topic before writing. Because of its usefulness and fun, brainstorming is well worth trying out
in language classes (Cullen, 1998)

12
1.4.2.1.2. Rules of Brainstorming
According to Sue Steege (1999), the four guidelines for divergent thinking are critical to
the process of brainstorming. The guidelines are the rules for successful brainstorming. They
are deferring judgment, striving for quantity, freewheeling and seeking combinations.
 Defer judgment. This guideline is really the basis for the other three guidelines.
It implies the process of waiting to judge ideas and options until after there are many ideas
and options generated. The ability to defer judgment is important both externally (when
considering the ideas of others) and internally (when considering one’s own ideas).
Deferring judgment helps to generate a higher quantity and quality of ideas.
 Strive for quantity. In creative problem solving, we believe that with quantity,
one is more likely to get quality. If one generates many ideas while brainstorming, there is
a likely chance that one or more of them will be the creative solution to the problem.
 Freewheel. This guideline suggests capturing every idea that comes into one’s
mind, even if it seems crazy or out there. While brainstorming, it is helpful to give one’s
self permission to be playful and strive for originality. This guideline necessitates use of

- The overall message
- How the items are organized
- Specific phrases and sentences used
- Distinctive grammatical features
- The style and tone
- The effect on the reader
He claims that it is often helpful if students see models of the kind of texts they are
working on. Teachers can offer this activity early or later in the writing work. If this activity is
given out early, the final product may be substantially similar to the original, especially in
layout and organization, but with substitutions of content. If it is given out later, learners will
probably see the text as something to give them extra support and ideas, but may not
significantly change their own overall structure and content.
1.4.2.2.3. Some arguments against modelling
There are some objections to modelling in teaching and learning writing. Goby, V.P
(1997) argues that in writing, we have to encourage students to be creative. If we introduce a

14
particular topic via a model writing, “we rob students of the chance to assume responsibility for
the creative process” (p.30). He also claims that another drawback to giving models is the
actual models themselves. “A model is generally composed by one person whose style of
writing substantially reflects one cultural context….It is difficult if not impossible to
incorporate the local usage patterns into these models. Communication styles are such deeply
entrenced reflections of anthropological facts that they are not easy to eradicate”. Thus,
models are not well suited to the local cultural context. With the similar point of view, Kees
(2009) mentions the complex high level of models. He states that “what students need is
language that is at their target level or very slightly above. This kind of language is accessible.
This kind of language is highly learnable”. Model essays, however, often have complicated
language or structures as they are composed by “a native or writer of native-like proficiency”
Writing with model texts has also been criticized by other researchers for laying
emphasis on form not on content (Collins & Gentner, 1980; Judy, 1980, cited in Abe, 2008).

such as brainstorming, mind-mapping and freewriting. His study proved that the strengths of
each approach can complement each other and help teachers develop learners’ writing
competence by providing appropriate input of knowledge and skills in the writing procedure.
Tham Bich Phuong (2008) recommended brainstorming and modelling be two useful
separated activities in idea-generating in teaching writing for high school students. The research
gap is that the combination of these two activities might solve the problem of generating and
organizing ideas at the pre-writing stage. As a result, this gap has intrigued the researcher to
conduct the study “combining brainstorming and modelling to improve students’ writing skill:
An action research at Phu Tho centre for foreign languages and informatics”
In summary, this chapter reviews some theoretical issues of teaching writing and
brainstorming, modelling activities at the pre-writing stage. Definitions of writing, role of
writing and approaches of writing have been elaborated. Also, general features of
brainstorming and modelling have been presented to clarify their definitions, their rules and
the fitness of the study into the field. In the next chapter, the methodology of the research will
be described in detail
16
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
This chapter provides the rationale for the use of an action research in the field of the study.
In addition, it gives information about the setting of the study, the participants, and the research
procedures as well as research instruments used for this study.
2.1. Rationale for the use of an action research
Teachers in general and teachers of English in particular actually carry out action
research for most of their time. Whenever s/he identifies a problem which is happening in the
class, it is his/her task to find ways to solve that problem. Therefore, action research is
inevitably a very common practice
As defined by Scrivener (2005: 379), “action research is a teacher’s personal study of
his/her own teaching or of the students’ learning”. Kemmis and Mc Taggart (1988, quoted in

skill because of the fact that action research means “act upon research”. An action research

18
enables the teacher to have a thorough investigation on the writing problems of the students on
a daily basis. Thanks to this, the findings of the research would be up to date and mostly
reliable
2.2. The context of the study
2.2.1. An introduction of Phu Tho Centre for Foreign Languages and Informatics
Phu Tho Centre for Foreign Languages and Informatics, which belongs to Phu Tho
Department of Training and Education, was established in 1996. As the name has suggested,
the Centre has two main training aspects: Foreign Languages and Informatics, which are very
important in the globalization age today. The Centre has the major task of providing
supplementary training courses of Foreign Languages and Informatics for Phu Tho State
officials. It also cooperates with some universities to open in-service classes of Languages and
Informatics.
The learners at the centre are adults with the age arranging from 18 to over 50. Most of
them come from different Departments of Phu Tho province such as Department of Planning
and Investment, Department of Technology and Environment, Department of Medicine and
Department of Training and Education, etc. They work full time, so they often attend the class
in the evenings, at weekends or in the summer.
2.2.2. The English Language Teacher Group
The group now has 11 teachers of English aged between 27 and 58. Among them, three
graduated from English Department, University of Foreign Languages and International Studies,
Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Two of them graduated from English Department, Thai
nguyen University. And the rest attended in-service training courses at Phu Tho centre for
continuing education. Thus, their English proficiency and teaching methods are not equally
qualified. At present, three out of 11 teachers are doing an MA course. All the teachers have
never taken part in any training courses abroad; they only participated in workshops on
teaching methods organized in Phu Tho province. In general, the teaching staff is always eager
for knowledge, energetic and willing to apply better ways to fortify their teaching quality.