Nghiên cứu ứng dụng phương pháp diễn ngôn trong giảng dạy môn Viết học thuật tại Đại học ngân hàng TP Hồ Chí Minh

esting enough. Some students 
explained that such model texts written by experts 
34 KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰSố 14 - 7/2018
v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY 
were perfect; therefore, it was monotonous to 
analyze them. One solution may be giving students 
the writings of past students to analyze. Besides 
those written by experts, the students can explore 
the strengths and weaknesses of those written by 
fellow students. Text analysis, thus, may become 
more relevant and interesting.
7. CONCLUSION AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, the present study has offered 
an insight into the students’ attitudes towards the 
new method and its effectiveness. Although the 
results did not reveal a significant change in the 
students’ performance compared to the controlled 
class, they still indicated a positive impact on 
students’ writing ability, interest and confidence. 
Those responses are quite consistent with other 
discourse studies in methodology (e.g. Kaplan & 
Grabe, 2002; Hyland, 2004; Belcher & Liu, 2004).
In the light of what the study has revealed, 
several implications for future research arise. It 
is worth stating that the external validity of the 
project is relatively slow due to its small sample 
size and short time frame. Thus, an understanding 
of discourse approach could be beneficial more 
from longitudinal research with larger scale of 
participants. Besides, more qualitative methods 
such as interviews and observations should be 
conducted to explore the actual in-class procedures 
as well as to reveal how this method could re-
orientate the learners’ writing habits, which is 
the main aim of the writing class. As a result, the 
students may adopt a more versatile approach to 
essay writing and they can have a greater control 
over their own learning process./.
References: 
Al-Ahmad, S. (2003). The Impact of Collaborative 
Learning on L2 College Students’ Apprehension 
and Attitudes towards Writing. Dissertation 
Abstracts International 64(5), pp. 1621-1622.
Belcher, D. & Liu, J. (2004). Conceptualizing 
Discourse/ Responding to Text. Journal of 
Second Language Writing 13, pp. 3-6.
Dang, T. T. (2010). Learner Autonomy in EFL 
Studies in Vietnam: A Discussion from 
Sociocultural Perspective. English Language 
Teaching, 3(2), pp. 3–9. Retrieved on 21 
February, 2018 from <
com/pqcentral/w/838890027/32D8AEC89C8
C4C4FPQ/1?accountid=62831>.
Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). 
Educational Research: An Introduction (8th 
ed.). Berkshire: Allyn and Bacon.
Hanauer, D. (1988). The Effect of Three Literary 
Educational Methods on the Development 
of Genre Knowledge. Journal of Literary 
Semantics 27, pp. 43-57.
Henry, A. & Roseberry, R. L. (1998). An Evaluation 
of a Genre-based Approach to the Teaching of 
EAP/ESP Writing. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1), 
pp. 147-156. 
Hyland, L. (2004). Disciplinary Interactions: 
Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing. 
Journal of Second Language Writing 12, pp. 
17-29.
Kaplan, R.B. & Grabe, W. (2002). A Modern 
History of Written Discourse Analysis. Journal 
of Second Language Writing 11, pp. 191-223.
Kramsch, C. (2001). Reading into writing: 
Rhetorical Models of Understanding. English 
Teaching Forum 38. Retrieved on 5 March, 
2018 from <
education/engteaching/rhmodels.html>. 
Lloyd, R. (2005). Considerations in Survey 
Design, Data Analysis and Presentation: A 
Guide for ELT Practitioners. EA Journal 22(2), 
pp. 36-60. 
Massi, M. P. (2001). A Task-based Discourse 
Approach to Writing. The Internet TESL 
Journal 7(6). Retrieved on 25 February, 2018 
from <
WritingTasks.html.> 
35KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰSố 14 - 7/2018
PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v
Nguyen Thi Mai, H., & Hall, C. (2016). Changing 
Views of Teachers and Teaching in Vietnam. 
Teaching Education, 6210, pp. 1–13. Retrieved 
on 28 February, 2018 from <https://doi.org/10
.1080/10476210.2016.1252742>. 
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd ed.). 
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
The “BlackBox” Survey of the Proficiency 
Output Standards of BUH’s English-majored 
Graduates from the Perspectives of Employees. 
(2015). Banking University of HCMC.
Wennerstrom, A. (2003). Discourse Analysis in 
the Language Classroom (Vol. 2). Ann Arbor: 
University of Michigan Press.
Zainuddin, H. & Moore, R. A. (2003). Audience 
Awareness in L1 and L2 Composing of 
Bilingual Writers. TESL-EJ 7(1), p. 42. 
Zaki, A. A., & Md Yunus, M. (2015). Potential of 
Mobile Learning in Teaching of ESL Academic 
Writing. English Language Teaching 8(6), pp. 
11-19. Retrieved on 21 February, 2018 from 
. 
Appendix 
QUESTIONNAIRE
AN EVALUATION OF THE DISCOURSE APPROACH TO THE ACADEMIC WRITING CLASS
This questionnaire is designed to investigate your attitudes and the effectiveness of the method used 
in this writing course. Your responses are greatly appreciated as they might suggest some solutions to 
improve the language learning process. All the information on this questionnaire will be confidential.
GENERAL EVALUATION
For question 1, please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 5 that is most closely the same as your situation. 
The scale of 1 - 5 represents the following ratings: 
1 = least useful, 2 = a bit useful, 3 = useful, 4 = quite useful, 5 = most useful.
1. How useful were the following activities for improving your writing? 
using model writing texts 1 2 3 4 5
analyzing model texts 1 2 3 4 5
constructing new texts in groups and in pairs 1 2 3 4 5
writing essays individually 1 2 3 4 5
For question 2, please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 5 that is most closely the same as your situation. 
The scale of 1-5 represents the following ratings: 
1= least interesting, 2= a bit interesting, 3= interesting, 4= quite interesting, 5= most interesting.
2. How interesting were the following activities for improving your writing? 
using model writing texts 1 2 3 4 5
analyzing model texts 1 2 3 4 5
constructing new texts in groups and in pairs 1 2 3 4 5
writing essays individually 1 2 3 4 5
36 KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰSố 14 - 7/2018
v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY 
USE OF MODEL TEXTS
3. Do you prefer to learn writing from the textbook or from the model texts (e.g. taken from the 
Internet and other books)?
 textbook model texts 
4. How often did you use the information in model texts in your writing?
5. In what way did you benefit from the model texts? (You can choose MORE THAN ONE)
getting ideas
 learning the layout of a topic
 learning the steps of writing each type of writing
identifying the purpose and the use of each type of writing
learning new vocabulary relating to the topics
learning grammar structures
learning transitions
other: 
ANALYSIS OF MODEL TEXTS
6. Do you think that analyzing model texts can help you become .. (Please CIRCLE the answers)
 aware of the texts patterns (layout and steps)? Yes No
aware of specific grammar structures used in each type of writing? Yes No
more proficient in using vocabulary for each topic? Yes No
aware of the ideas, cohesion, and coherence? Yes No
other: 
BRAINSTORMING AND OUTLINING IDEAS
7. Do you think that working in pairs and in groups can help you .... (Please CIRCLE the answers)
 brainstorm the ideas more easily? Yes No
organize the ideas more logically? Yes No
 checking mistakes more effectively? Yes No
other: 
LEANERS’ SATISFACTION WITH THEIR PROGRESS
For questions 8-12, please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 5 that is most closely the same as your 
situation. The scale of 1-5 represents the following ratings: 
1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= no opinion, 4= agree, 5= strongly agree.
8. I feel more confident in writing descriptive essays. 1 2 3 4 5
9. I feel more confident in writing narrative essays. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I feel more confident in writing argumentative essays. 1 2 3 4 5
37KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰSố 14 - 7/2018
PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v
11. I have become aware of different aspects of 1 2 3 4 5 
 writing, e.g. cohesion, coherence.
12. I feel I have improved my writing ability. 1 2 3 4 5
LEARNERS’ INTEREST
For questions 13-14, please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 5 that is most closely the same as your 
situation. The scale of 1-5 represents the following ratings: 
1= not interested, 2= not much interested, 3= interested, 4= very interested, 5= most interested
13. How would you rate your interest in English learning before this course? 
 1 2 3 4 5
14. How would you rate your interest in English learning after this course? 
 1 2 3 4 5
15. Do you want to study with this method in the next course?
Yes No
16. If there was any or no improvement in your interest, what do you think was the cause?
...
SUGGESTIONS
17. What do you like best in this course? Please explain why.
18. If you could change or add anything in this course, what would your change be? Please explain.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!
AN INVESTIGATION INTO USING DISCOURSE APPROACH TO TEACH ACADEMIC 
WRITING AT BANKING UNIVERSITY, HO CHI MINH CITY
 NGUYEN QUANG NHAT 
NGUYEN NGOC PHUONG DUNG
Abstract: For years, it has been observed that traditional methods are still dominant in many 
Vietnamese writing classes at tertiary level. Therefore, a course applying discourse approach into 
teaching academic writing was taught to find out whether this method may bring about any better 
improvement in learners’ achievements and attitudes. 30 Vietnamese English-majored students at 
Banking University of Ho Chi Minh City participated in the study during the second semester of 
2017. Through questionnaires and final test comparison, the responses suggested that discourse 
approach could be quite beneficial as this technique helped improve learners’ performance and 
attitudes in academic essay writing.
Keywords: academic writing, discourse approach, performance and attitudes
Received: 02/3/2018; Revised: 11/4/2018; Accepted for publication: 20/6/2018