ºìÐÓÊÓƵ

Topic

The Efficacy of Explicit Instruction of Discourse Connectives on Chinese EFL Learners’ Argumentative Writing Performance Across Different Writing Proficiency Levels

School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures

Date & location

• Friday, April 25, 2025
• 6:00 P.M.
• Virtual Defence

Examining Committee

Supervisory Committee

• Dr. Li-Shih Huang, School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures, University of Victoria (Supervisor)
• Dr. Moustapha Fall, School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures, UVic (Member)
• Dr. Ben Pin-Yun Wang, Department of Pacific and Asian Studies, UVic (Outside Member)

External Examiner

• Prof. Junju Wang, School of Foreign Languages and Literature, Shandong University

Chair of Oral Examination

• Dr. Sajin Koroth, Department of Computer Science, UVic

Abstract

Argumentative writing involves cognitively sophisticated thinking and reasoning skills (Taylor et al., 2019). Using connectives to indicate the logical reasoning process is one of the challenging aspects of learning writing for English learners (Snow & Uccelli, 2009). Discourse connectives (DCs) are important for discourse coherence and “such coherence is often marked by using discourse connectives” (Zufferey et al., 2015, p. 390). Regarding the use of DCs in IELTS argumentative writing, many Chinese undergraduate English learners in China with different proficiency levels do not perform well (Yao, 2014). What is more, according to the researcher’s teaching experience in English writing classes, many Chinese students could not properly employ DCs in their argumentative writing. Therefore, due to these reasons, more empirical studies are needed in order to investigate the effects of explicit instruction of DCs on Chinese undergraduate EFL learners’ argumentative writing performance across different writing proficiency levels.

Using qualitative and quantitative research methods, this study investigated the efficacy of explicit instruction about DCs involving 96 undergraduate Chinese EFL learners across different proficiency levels (i.e., elementary proficiency level, n = 30; intermediate proficiency level, n = 32; upper intermediate proficiency level, n = 34) in their English argumentative writings. Conducted through a four-week treatment, the study used a pre- and post-test design to measure participants’ use of DCs and their writing abilities. Further, participants’ post-treatment survey provided qualitative data about participants’ use of DCs during the treatment. Through both qualitative data (i.e., content analysis) and quantitative (i.e., descriptive statistics, paired-sample t-test, and Pearson’s correlation), the results showed that the participants had stronger awareness and use of DCs and writing performance after the treatment. In the total frequency and appropriateness of using DCs, there were statistically significant differences between pre- and post-treatment writing tests across Elementary Group (EG), Intermediate Group (IG), and Upper Intermediate Group (UIG). As for the frequency and appropriateness of using three types of DCs, there were statistically significant differences on Type I DCs (e.g., in addition, finally, and similarly) and Type III DCs (e.g., because and to conclude) in EG, IG, and UIG. In Type II DCs (e.g., nevertheless, although, or, in fact, and on the other hand), there was a statistically significant difference in IG. However, there were no statistically significant differences in EG and UIG. As to their writing performance, participants in EG and IG made significant improvements but not in UIG after the treatment. Correlational analyses showed that there were significant correlations between the total appropriate use of DCs and participants’ writing scores in EG and UIG, but not in IG after the treatment. The analysis of the qualitative data revealed that explicit instruction of DCs could facilitate EG, IG, and UIG participants to overcome their challenges on using DCs in argumentative writing.