W 114 M

Introduction

Writing has always been among those skills that bear immense importance in schools, especially at universities. Since testing students' knowledge is partly based on written works, it is highly recommended that students at the English Department of Janus Pannonius University somehow attain the skills of good writing, enabling them to submit pieces of writings which are excellent in every aspect, but at least in form and structure. As Nikolov Marianne, teacher of applied linguistics at JPU, said, "The skills of proper academic writing can be taught" (personal communication, 1997.04.17.). In many universities, there is great stress on this issue, and JPU too is no exception.

Writing courses were introduced at JPU in 1986, and the main aim of these courses was to systematically develop formal writing skills (Horváth 1996 p. 88). Through the years, the
course went through continuous changing until it reached its present-day form in 1997, and, of course, it may continue changing in the future as the needs for such courses will change. To give an outline of what the course included when it was introduced, and what it includes now in 1997, it is needed to report the course themes listed in the syllabuses of these courses. Steve Starkey’s 1 syllabus included sentence, paragraph and essay organization; punctuation; and the fundamentals of good writing (Starkey ANG 1601/2/3, 1994). In 1995, plagiarism, audience, passive versus active voice, and thesis rules were incorporated into the syllabus (Gonzalez ANG 1601, 1995). To the 1997 courses, some refinements, such as group writing, reflecting on reading styles, and essays on tapes were added (Horváth ANG 1603, 1997). Although the contents of the courses changed annually, as the teachers and the list of course themes changed, the main objective remained still: to arm students with essay writing skills.

It may seem too obvious, but it is necessary to clarify who needs the course and for what purpose. This is a complex question which can be approached from three aspects. The course is most important for students because there is much stress laid on written works at JPU, in the form of essays and research papers. Cultural studies teacher, Andrew C. Rouse said, "In Hungary, spoken language is more important than written language, and as a result, there exists a gap in students' essay writing skills" (personal communication, 1997.04.17.). Since these are not taught formally in high schools, though they should be as some teachers suggested, students must acquire essay writing skills at the university. Other beneficiaries of the course, though not directly, are the teachers. In theory, the course makes their work easier, since once students complete the course teachers do not have to spend extra time explaining the basic rules of essay writing again, since it is the task of the writing course to inform students about them. The third reason the course is needed is that different types of international exams, as well as the diploma work, require the proper use of essay writing skills. If one does not know how to put thoughts in a clearly traceable sequence so that is has style then university years may become a hard and painful struggle. Now that the course objectives and the purposes are known, it can be examined whether the course could fulfill its mission or not.

The fact that there is a separate course for writing suggests that English majors need to learn essay writing skills. The cause of this might be that they were not required to submit essays earlier in their high school years. However, every English major needs to complete the writing course because it is included in the curriculum. The majority of students take the course in the first year, and since most of them complete the course, it can be deducted that they know how to write essays or at least know it in theory. However, a survey shows that "there are problematic areas even among 3rd and 4th year students" (Szamosi Gertrud, personal communication, 1997.04.16.). This might indicate two assumptions: probably there are students who will never achieve proficiency in writing, and the other supposition may be that the writing course in itself is insufficient to satisfy all the needs for attaining essay writing skills. The basic aim of this paper is to present a brief report of the successes and failures of the course, focusing on the 1996-97 term, and to give guidelines for later development; thus contributing to the process of making it more effective and enjoyable for both students and the tutor.

Methods

Before immersing into evaluating the course, it is necessary to know how information was collected. To gather information on the course, two basic methods were used: personal interviews with teachers and students, and a group writing report written by students during the 1997 spring term. Personal interviews were made with nine teachers, based on a set of questions (Appendix A). To reach high reliability, teachers were selected according to their field of specialization. Some teachers teach in more than one area; thus, their opinions were taken into account in each of their subjects. In this framework, four teachers were asked who teach cultural subjects, three who held or hold language practice courses, two teachers from the field of applied linguistics, and one each dealing with linguistics, and literature. Concerning students, ten of them were interviewed, based on a list of questions (Appendix B). To narrow down the focus of research, generally those were asked who completed the course either in the 1996 fall or 1997 spring semesters. In addition, one student was asked who finished the course earlier. Since nine students are not many out of nearly a hundred who took the course in the 1996-97 school year, a group writing report was also used to increase reliability. In the group writing activity, three groups of students - consisting of about forty participants - took part, expressing their ideas about the writing course.

During the field research which was carried out in the end of April, 1997, the following hypothesis was formulated: although the 'Writing and research skills' course is necessary - as both students and teachers confirmed - research results show that for some reason it fails to fulfill its task properly and satisfy the expectations set against it. In the following parts of this paper, the areas and the possible reasons for failure will be identified, as well as the fields where the course was successful.

Results and Discussion

In the first round, teachers were asked about their opinions and expectations on the writing course. The interviews had a similar format to a needs analysis, trying to discover for what purposes, and how teachers utilize the results of the writing course, focusing on the elements of overriding importance. Teachers' responses to the questions varied considerably, partly because of the different fields they were concerned about, and also because their practice as teachers gave them different experiences.

All teachers found it important that students have a writing course, and the reason was to attain essay writing skills. Szabó Gábor, teacher of applied linguistics and language practice, stressed that "there is a sharp contrast between those English majors who have to take the course and those Russian retrainees who do not have such courses" (personal communication, 1997.04.16). Connected to this, five of the teachers asked said that the course made their work easier, "Teachers can concentrate more on content than on technical side" (Andrew C. Rouse, personal communication, 1997.04.17.). This is not a surprise, since most courses require at least one, but rather two, essays or research papers as a term of completing the course. Those instructors who taught first year students, and tried to link the writing course to their own courses said that generally there was visible difference between those students' essays who completed the writing course and those who did not. "Language practice courses are great for experimenting because they indicate the difference. Those who already took the writing course know at least how not to write; they do not commit mistakes like those who did not complete the course yet" (Szabó Gábor, personal communication, 1997.04.16.).

Teachers also agreed that there was improvement in students' writings through the years, although it came not only from the writing course, but with experience too. As Fodor Mónika, teacher of cultural studies, put it, "The basics are laid down in the writing course, but experience also contributes to development" (personal communication, 1997.04.17.). However, there were teachers who doubted general development. As Szamosi Gertrud, teacher of cultural studies, expressed, "There are juniors and seniors who write as bad essays as freshmen" (personal communication, 1997.04.16.).

The survey also displayed that most teachers mark the formal qualities of students' essays. Generally, these qualities can make up 25-30 % of essay grades. This means that essays which are imperfect in this regard are downgraded by one or two marks. It is only the linguists who regard as subsidiary these qualities (Martsa Sándor, personal communication, 1997.04.28.). According to eight teachers out of nine, the most serious mistake that students can commit in an essay was plagiarism. As The McGraw-Hill College Handbook defines it, "Plagiarism occurs whenever you present words or ideas taken from another person as if they were your own", it continues, "Plagiarism is the most serious offense that a writer can commit. (...) Plagiarism is almost always discovered (...) The student who plagiarizes can expect a failing grade on the paper, and in almost all schools for the whole course. In many schools, plagiarism is an honors-code violation and grounds for expulsion" (Marius & Wiener, 1985 p. 517). Teachers at JPU handle plagiarism more liberally: only one teacher who was asked gave a failing grade for the course, two teachers gave fails on the paper, and most of them only reduced marks. On the list of problematic areas plagiarism was followed by paragraph organization, structure and layout. These were not so serious mistakes as plagiarism, but could also result in losing marks.
Besides the writing course, there are ways of further improving the formal qualities of writing or to fill the gaps in students' knowledge in these qualities. Most teachers provided students with feedback through comments on marked essays, but there were possibilities of personal consultation. Many teachers said they gave guidelines about how they required essays from their students, and some teachers showed students sample essays. Altogether, half of the teachers asked were content with the quality of writings. The others had problems with it. In most of the cases, the problem was the content of the essay. However, there occurred mistakes which were related to the formal part of writings.

If these findings are contrasted with the hypothesis, the results support the hypothesis in some areas. Although most teachers agreed on the importance of the writing course, many of them found that what the students gain from the course is often dissatisfactory. As John Cunningham, teacher of media studies, indicated, "There should be more courses on writing" (personal communication, 1997.04.15.). Another probable hindering factor that reduces the course's efficiency could be that there was little or no cooperation among teachers about what they require from a writing course. Vöõ Gabriella, teacher of literature, said, "Teachers should cooperate with the teacher of the Writing and research skills course, it would be helpful" (personal communication, 1997.04.29.). The hypothesis that there was little satisfactory cooperation among teachers seems to be supported by the fact that although teachers considered plagiarism as the worst mistake students can commit, in the 1997 syllabus of the writing course, it is the last one of the topics covered (Horváth ANG 1603, 1997). Further evidence on this topic is provided when evaluating students' responses to the student interviews.

Student interviews were carried out after teachers' responses had been evaluated. This format allowed asking questions which were related to the problematic parts teachers mentioned. Students had to answer questions related to five topics: earlier studies; the writing course; opinions on the course; results; and as a special topic, found most problematic by teachers, plagiarism. After the responses had been collected, the following set of data were received:
In their earlier studies, seven out of ten students had to write essays. The number of essays changed form three to a hundred (both students who wrote a hundred came from dual language high schools), the average number of essays was 45. The length of these essays ranged from 200 words to 3000, depending on the type of the writing task, the average being 500 words. Among those who wrote essays in their earlier studies, five students knew how to write essays while the remaining two persons knew it only partly.

Due to the writing course, six students indicated that the course taught them how to write essays, two knew it earlier, while one of them said that the course did not taught him to write essays, and another one had doubts about it. Students felt improvement due to the course in the following topics: paragraph development, pronoun use, word choice and style, outline, and focus. When students were asked if the course helped them a lot or no, two students said that the course did not help them much. The others profited from it at least in some areas. The students said unanimously that the course could have been better. Three students indicated that it should have been more organized, while there were some other suggestions, like there should have been more group activities, in-class essays, reading materials, essays on tape, and more essays that are not academic. The given materials in the course were helpful to only four students, the others said that given materials helped them probably. Surprisingly enough, six students out of ten did not read the required readings and three read only some, despite the fact that five respondents said that the readings were available.

Five pupils did not enjoy the lessons at all, and another three enjoyed them only sometimes. The reason they did not enjoy them was that they were boring according to four students, three said that there were no concrete subjects, two did not like the instructor's questions, which were not relevant, and one of them said that the topics were bad. On the other hand, many students liked the 'soccer essay' (Horváth 1995), the group activities and the good explanations. Students wanted to get more information on attacking plagiarism, knowing how to write effective introductions and conclusions, and get more background information. Seven students said that it happened to them that they did not know something in their studies that the course should have taught them. Most students' expectations about the course were only partly satisfied, while three of them said that they expected something else from the course and only one student's expectations were satisfied out of ten students. As a result, all of the students asked could utilize what they learned from the course. However, four students still think they are weak at writing conclusions, two at writing introductions and one each felt weak at punctuation, academic writing, cohesion, and references.

As teachers highlighted that plagiarism was the most serious offense in students' writings, students were asked about plagiarism in detail. Seven students said that they were told very little or nothing about plagiarism, two were not told about it clearly, and only one student, who did the course earlier in the 1995-96 term, said that he was told too much about it. Nine students committed plagiarism; three before, three during, and three after the course. Four students said that it was both their fault and they were not told the instructions clearly, three said that they were not told the instructions clearly while two said that it was their own fault. The results of plagiarism varied from failing the course (one student) to undiscovered (six students).

Knowing all data, the teacher responses and the student responses can be compared to each other and at the same time contrasted with the hypothesis. Vöõ Gabriella, teacher of literature, said before the student interviews were done that "reading is a way of improvement, including the compulsory readings" (personal communication, 1997.04.29). It is conspicuous that many students complain that they still do not know how to write essays or different constituents of essay writing. On the other hand, they did not read the required readings. It is also a strange fact that it happened to seven students that they did not know something the course should have taught them. This observation seems to further support the hypothesis. There is another area where the hypothesis is supported, and this is plagiarism. It is a thought-provoking fact that seven students heard hardly anything about plagiarism and how to avoid it though teachers found it the most problematic area. Knowing this, it is not a surprise to see that nine students plagiarized, and six did it because they were not told clearly how to avoid it. In three of the cases, it was not even discovered that they plagiarized. Moreover, they received good grades on their works. Therefore, it can be stated that avoiding plagiarism was one area where the writing course, with full knowledge of the facts, failed to give students satisfying information about.
A third source of information about the writing course was the group writing report. The students mainly wrote about the tasks of the course, but some parts included their personal opinions on the course.

The introduction of the ANG 1603 Group writing report is about how the course "tried to create a friendly atmosphere in the classroom" (ANG 1603, Group writing report). The student wrote, "I come to this course cheerfully each week, (...) the teacher is always interested in our opinions about the topics" (ANG 1603, Group writing report). This piece of information seems to contradict the results of the research where many students said that the classes were boring. On the other hand, it is necessary to explain how the group writing report was written: each student could choose a topic sentence and then write a paragraph about it. After it was ready, other students could revise or add to the paragraph, but sometimes a paragraph was written by only one student.

Students also wrote about the activities of the course, such as reflecting on reading styles, writing topic sentences, paragraph organization, focus, accuracy and cohesion. Among these, two activities are worth dealing with in greater detail: The essay on tape, as a special type of revision; and the group writing. The reason they are dealt with in detail is that these activities were the most popular among students.

The essay on tape was a take home essay which, after having been written, was recorded and handed in in this format. The purpose was that "all students actually read their essays" (ANG 1602, Group writing report). Its usefulness is mirrored through what students wrote about it, "This exercise proved useful in realizing how important it is to scan the text in order to reveal mistakes and inaccuracies, such as repetitions, syntactic errors, 'fat' expressions and flaws of word choice" (ANG 1602, Group writing report). Another opinion, "It gave an excellent opportunity for us to hear the effectiveness of our words. It helped us to find the most appropriate phrases to express our own thoughts. Pleasant sounding of our language was essential to make a deep impression on the audience" (ANG 1601, Group writing report). The evidence that some students enjoyed the essay on tape comes from two other extracts, "It was funny and useful at the same time", and another saying, "it also was a new and unusual idea that gave us pleasure" (ANG 1602, Group writing report). It can be deducted that the essay on tape task was a successful innovation of the writing course.

Another activity which students enjoyed was also a group activity: group writing. It was found interesting and useful because "there might be ideas that do not come to our mind when we are writing, but probably some other students have suggestions how to continue. Group writing is good for sharing each other's ideas even if these ideas are completely different. Everybody is involved in it and it urges everybody to contribute to the whole" (ANG 1603, Group writing report). Someone else wrote, "With its help we can revise our work and add more conclusion given by other students to our personal experience. Developing another student's train of thought is an interesting task and it can be a challenge for all of us" (ANG 1601, Group writing report). These opinions and the research results confirm that this was another area where the course was successful and enjoyable.

Conclusion

After the investigation of the writing course, the following conclusion can be drawn: the course had weaknesses and parts where it was successful. Its successes include the essay on tape, the group writing activity, and the fact that the majority of students could learn something new due to the course, and this knowledge could be utilized later. However, it is just as important to know, if not even more important, the areas where the course needs further improvement. These include more consistency and focusing more on the actual subject: to teach students academic essay writing skills. Some specific areas are also worth to be summarized again. Information about, and how to attack plagiarism is one area where the course needs lots of improvement, since in its present form it rather confused students about what to indicate as their thought and what to indicate as someone else's thought, and how to indicate it. It is always worth paying attention to it, since the writing course is one of the most important courses because every other course relies upon its outcome. The research results suggest that there should be more cooperation among teachers in what to include in the writing course. If attention is not paid to this issue then the possible harmful outcome will affect both students' and teachers' work: students will not know how to write essays properly, resulting in low marks and even failing a course; while teachers will have to spend extra time explaining the formal rules of writing which draws their attention from teaching and grading content. If it is considered that with little attention, extra time and effort can be saved, then it is everybody's task to cooperate.