The Essential Techniques Affecting the Performance of Sudanese EFL Learners in Writing: A Case Study of Three Eastern Universities of Sudan

This paper explores the English language learners’ weakness in writing because most of them do not know how to combine their sentences correctly. The paper was devoted to Sentence Combining (SC) as an essential technique or method that affects EFL learners' performance in writing English. Using the case study on fourth-level students majoring in English, the descriptive-analytical method has been applied, representing the three eastern universities in Sudan: The University of Kassala, University of Gadarif and Red Sea University. The researcher used an objective test of (83) items in Sentence Combining in English. The frequency tables and percentage were used for the five areas in the students' test (pass-fail). According to the students' outcomes, they have been proved that the Sudanese learners of English at the three eastern universities lack the awareness of methods and techniques of combining English sentences. They are not well-informed of combining English sentences by means of punctuation, co-ordination, subordination, reduction and apposition. The concept of sentence combining is unconsciously neglected by the teachers themselves, who are unaware of its importance.

A sentence-combining intervention for struggling writers: response to intervention

Children who struggle with writing are a heterogeneous group and may experience difficulties in a range of domains, including spelling, reading, and oral language. These difficulties are reflected in their writing and may influence their responsiveness to writing interventions. The effectiveness of a targeted sentence-combining intervention to improve the writing skills of 71 struggling writers, aged 7 to 10 years, was compared with a spelling intervention and a business as usual (waiting list) control condition. Some struggling writers also performed poorly on measures of reading and oral language. Children's performance on a range of writing measures were assessed at baseline (t1), immediate post-test (t2) and delayed post-test (t3). Children receiving the sentence-combining intervention showed significant improvements in the sentence combining measure at t2 and t3 compared to both the spelling intervention and waiting list controls. Exploratory regression analyses found that children in the sentence-combining intervention, with a low t1 sentence combining score, low reading skills or better t1 spelling skills, were more likely to show improvements at t2. Findings indicate that when devising interventions for struggling writers, specific profiles of skills should be considered. Specifically, sentence combining may be more appropriate for SWs whose primary area of difficulty is reading, rather than poor spelling or oral language.

The Effect of Metalinguistic Sentence Combining on Eighth-Grade Students' Understanding and Written Expression of Comparison and Contrast in Science

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine whether sentence combining with an explicit metalinguistic approach in comparison to typical science instruction was effective in improving written expression and understanding of comparison/contrast in science for eighth-grade students who struggle with literacy. Method Eighty-four eighth-grade students who struggle with literacy participated in this study. The experimental group ( n = 36) received the writing intervention of metalinguistic sentence combining (MSC) during their science class for a total of 400 min (20 intervention sessions, 20 min each), while the comparison group ( n = 48) participated in their typical science instruction. Total science instruction time was held constant for both groups. All students completed pretests and posttests to determine an increase in (a) syntactic factors of academic science text such as longer sentence length and use of syntactic forms of connectives, targeted connectives, left embeddedness, and agentless passive voice when responding to a science compare and contrast writing prompt; and (b) listing similarities and differences between two science concepts on a graphic organizer. Results Treatment was effective in improving the experimental group's score in listing similarities and differences between two science concepts on a graphic organizer. There were no significant differences between the two groups in their use of syntactic factors typical of academic text when responding to a science compare and contrast writing prompt. Conclusions MSC was effective in improving the experimental student's ability to demonstrate understanding of comparison and contrast in science. Modifications to the MSC intervention may yield better results in the experimental group's posttreatment writing in future studies. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12735950

Quantifying Sentence Variety of English Learners

This article studies students’ use of sentence variety in an ESL writing course. The study includes three sentence features: (a) sentence types, (b) sentence combining, and (c) sentence patterns. Although sentence variety is part of the curriculum, the actual use of sentence structures has not been measured so far. By understanding students’ use of sentence structures, it is possible to propose valid curricular changes in the language program. This quantitative project has been carried out by analyzing 36 paragraphs written by students in the first writing course of a B.A. in English. 433 sentences were included in the study. Each sentence was examined individually. Data shows that 14.54% of the sentences presented a type of error. The types of errors included: 12 fragments (2.77%), 29 fused sentences (6.69%), and 22 comma splices (5.08%). The remaining number of traditional sentences studied was 370 (85.45%). Results demonstrate that students favor certain types of structures and ignore others. Therefore, the demands of the curriculum and the written production of students lack coherence. Consequently, curricular changes must be incorporated to improve students’ written production.

Why Children With Dyslexia Struggle With Writing and How to Help Them

PurposeChildren with dyslexia often have related writing difficulties. In the simple view of writing model, high-quality writing depends on good transcription skills, working memory, and executive function—all of which can be difficult for children with dyslexia and result in poor spelling and low overall writing quality. In this article, we describe the challenges of children with dyslexia in terms of the simple view of writing and instructional strategies to increase spelling and overall writing quality in children with dyslexia.MethodFor spelling strategies, we conducted systematic searches across 2 databases for studies examining the effectiveness of spelling interventions for students with dyslexia as well as including studies from 2 meta-analyses. To locate other instructional practices to increase writing quality (e.g., handwriting and executive function), we examined recent meta-analyses of writing and supplemented that by conducting forward searches.ResultsThrough the search, we found evidence of effective remedial and compensatory intervention strategies in spelling, transcription, executive function, and working memory. Some strategies included spelling using sound-spellings and morphemes and overall quality using text structure, sentence combining, and self-regulated strategy development.ConclusionsMany students with dyslexia experience writing difficulty in multiple areas. However, their writing (and even reading) skills can improve with the instructional strategies identified in this article. We describe instructional procedures and provide links to resources throughout the article.