Content uploaded by Maya Khemlani David
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maya Khemlani David on Dec 25, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
131
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
BASIC AND ADVANCED SKILLS
THEY DON’T HAVE: THE CASE OF
POSTGRADUATES AND LITERATURE
REVIEW WRITING
1Kuang Ching Hei & 2Maya Khemlani David
1&2Faculty of Languages & Linguistic
University of Malaya
1Corresponding author: kuangch@um.edu.my
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This paper aims to identify the diffi culties postgraduate
students face in writing the literature review for their thesis and
dissertation.
Methodology – Seventy postgraduate students from 9 faculties in
one public university in the Klang Valley consented to participating
in this study. They were 49 Masters candidates and 21 doctoral (PhD)
candidates attending a workshop on academic writing. Among them,
31 were Malaysians and 39 were foreigners with majority being
Arabs and Africans. After an icebreaking session, participants were
asked what their writing diffi culties are when doing their literature
review. They were told to write their responses in English in a
paper. A linguistic analysis was then applied to the written phrases
and expressions which denote their diffi culties. These were then
categorised under common themes and manually counted in terms
of the frequency.
Findings – A total of 37 categories of diffi culties were detected.
They encompassed basic and advanced skills in reading and writing
including ‘not knowing what to read’, ‘how to read’, ‘how to start
writing’, ‘organising’, ‘doing a critical analysis’, ‘summarising’ and
‘synthesising’.
Signifi cance – The fi ndings imply that most of the participants do
not possess the necessary skills of reading and writing which are
required in most postgraduate programmes. Thus, it is imperative
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
132 Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
that institutions of higher learning develop stricter criteria for
student selection. Alternatively, a programme providing support in
reading and writing may enable these postgraduate students to raise
their level before being admitted. This kind of support can help to
mitigate the burden imposed on supervisors as well as develop better
quality postgraduate students.
Keywords: Academic writing, challenges, postgraduate students,
training.
INTRODUCTION
Of the many skills a language learner has to learn, writing is the
most diffi cult to acquire because it is a skill that has to be constantly
honed through practice as well as through reading. In the world of
academia where scholars are encouraged to research and produce
publications, good academic writing skills are important. Sometimes
viewed as scholarly writing, academic writing skills have to be learnt
because it is not just about putting thoughts into words. Academic
writing encompasses logic, credibility, conviction, clarity, precision,
cohesion and organisation, just to list a few. Academic writing
involves creating a text that is not only clear to the reader but is
also coherent enough for comprehension. It should comprise good
language, is concise, simple to understand and shows respect for the
reader such that it does not confuse the reader. Instead, the text and
its meaning is clear. A good piece of academic writing should be
well supported and should demonstrate a good element of critical
thinking.
Postgraduate candidates pursuing higher qualifi cations have
no choice but to produce a tangible thesis or dissertation as a
culmination of their tertiary pursuit. This product is then assessed
by scholars who are experts in the respective disciplines. Upon
reading, the experts would verify two matters: that the research
is conducted truthfully, precisely and systematically and that the
outcome of the research is documented in the form, format and
requirement of a thesis or dissertation. In this regard, specifi c issues
like research problems, methodology, data analysis, discussion and
relevant support extracted from previous studies are regarded with
care and severity by the examiners. The practice is to ensure that
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
133
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
the postgraduate candidate fulfi lls the criteria of being a researcher
before he/she is deemed qualifi ed. In some cases, journal articles
may also be expected from these candidates. Thus, any postgraduate
student registered in a higher learning programme in most
institutions in Malaysia must have two basic skills: the competence
to read in English and the ability to write in the English language
with satisfactory levels. This satisfactory level implies a piece of
text that is readable and comprehensible with some level of critical
analysis indicated.
In the postgraduate programme, all theses (PhD) and dissertations
(masters) must be written according to a certain format but this may
differ slightly according to institutions and disciplines. Nonetheless,
the chapters contained within these theses and dissertations are more
or less the same: Chapter 1 - Introduction, Chapter 2 – Literature
Review, Chapter 3 – Methodology, Chapter 4 – Data Analysis and
Chapter 5 – Conclusion. Of these chapters, the Literature Review
chapter (chapter 2) is of immense importance.
RESEARCH PROBLEM
The literature review, as a chapter, demonstrates to the examiners
or readers, how knowledgeable the candidate is in linking previous
studies to current study. The literature review also highlights the
competence of the candidate in critically evaluating previous works,
providing insights into the gaps or limitations of previous works and to
what degree the current study can contribute to knowledge. Although
the literature review chapter is an important chapter which exhibits
the thinking and writing skills of a candidate, few postgraduate
candidates are able to fulfi l this requirement satisfactorily. In other
words, many postgraduate students have diffi culties in developing
this chapter and this may be evidenced by the huge turnout of students
participating in workshops organised by upskill programmes offered
by an established public university (information from the Institute
of Graduate Studies (IGS), University of Malaya, June 30, 2015).
There are outcomes to the quality of postgraduate students being
admitted. For instance, postgraduate students who cannot write
academically or are unable to develop a good and coherent literature
review suffer because the work they produce for their supervisors
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
134 Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
are criticised. In addition, such kinds of postgraduate students often
burden supervisors because supervisors need to spend more time on
helping them with the contents of their work. Supervisors supervising
weak students become stressed as a result of spending so much
time going through their work and correcting their literature review
chapter for it to be up to mark. Sometimes, it can cause a confl ict
and affect the supervisor. Although the problem exists, it appears
that many postgraduate programmes offered by public universities
in Malaysia do not impose a requirement on their postgraduate
candidates to undergo courses such as ‘Critical Reading and
Writing’ (interview with postgraduate students, December 4, 2014).
It is deduced that these courses can assist postgraduate candidates
to develop the skills they require in their effort to accomplish the
writing of a thesis or dissertation. The IGS, University of Malaya,
offers upskilling programmes to its postgraduate students. These
upskilling programmes expose candidates to quantitative research
methods, qualitative research methods, academic writing, literature
review writing and critical analysis of journal articles (information
gathered from IGS, UM, June 24, 2015).
A quick survey of 58 postgraduate students attending an
upskilling workshop on ‘Critical Thinking’ (IGS, UM, March
3, 2015) indicates that all had been offered and admitted into the
postgraduate programmes based on paper qualifi cations. Candidates
selected for the language faculty, in particular, those from countries
where English is a foreign language, were admitted based on
their bachelors’ degree: Bachelor in Literature Studies, Bachelor
in Applied Linguistics or English as a Second Language (ESL),
or Bachelor in Translation Studies. It thus seems that offer for
admittance was made with the false expectation that candidates
already have the minimum profi ciency level in English where they
possess the competence to read academic works and the advanced
ability to write in English.
When the 70 postgraduate participants were asked if they had been
assessed on their writing skills, particularly academic writing skills,
before they were admitted into the programme, their answers were
negative. They also mentioned that they were not interviewed by
any personnel in their faculty to evaluate their comprehension
skills. Due to this inadequacy, the end result is that majority of the
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
135
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
postgraduate candidates experience severe diffi culties in writing
prose, particularly academic writing. This situation seems to occur
despite the fact that many had been admitted based on their TOEFL
or IELTS scores. Of those who do not possess the relevant scores,
a conditional offer is given and they are required to register for a
local university English intensive course which they need to pass.
Such intensive English courses have components encompassing the
four skills of grammar, reading, writing, and speaking. Although
these students, whether local or foreign, possess such qualifi cations
in English, few seem capable of writing adequately for their thesis
or dissertation. There is no statistic to support this claim but it poses
a major problem during supervision (see Fadi, 2010; Fadi, Hillerich,
Romero, Topp & Wnuk, 2010; Kuang, 2013; Sridevi, 2013).
RESEARCH AIM
This paper examines the diffi culties postgraduate students face in
writing the literature review for their thesis or dissertation. The
fi ndings of this paper will help to convince the administrative
division of public universities in Malaysia to provide training in
critical reading and writing to postgraduate students as a way of
ensuring that they are able to proceed with their postgraduate studies
and thereby, be better equipped to complete their postgraduate
programmes on time. The information gathered from this paper can
enable supervisors to take appropriate measures to empower their
own supervisees in academic writing skills consequently, reducing
their burden of assisting their supervisees in writing.
LITERATURE REVIEW
As a chapter, the literature review is a compulsory component in
any thesis or dissertation including journal articles. In a thesis or
dissertation, the literature review usually comes after the introduction
chapter. It is usually written for the benefi t of the reader cum examiner
who will assess the quality of the candidate’s writing and ability
to link previous works to his/her current study (Mullins & Kiley,
2002). Most examiners assess how the student discusses previous
works which include critiques and evaluations in the student’s own
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
136 Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
voice. Some people consider this a synthesis. The examiners then
make an assessment of how original the candidate is in his/her own
research by reading for the evidence and reviews of others’ works.
Occasionally, the literature review chapter enables the examiners
to confi rm the validity of the research. Besides examiners, other
readers focus on the literature review in order to trace the history
and progress of a particular research topic. Most often, the literature
review serves as the source of credibility.
Bolderston (2008) mentions that the literature review chapter is like
the gateway to a research because it informs readers about what is
current and past. It provides what is known or unknown, what is
controversial and debatable and it serves as an insight into what
could be a possible research gap or problem thereby, enabling the
formulation of research questions. As is understood, the literature
review chapter is a systematic discussion on the progress of a current
research which is done by a writer through discussing what has been
done, how this is done and in what way it is related to the current
study. Since there is no one right way to develop a literature review
chapter, many students become confused when they read different
theses with different development patterns.
Hofstee (2006) says that a good literature review is a candidate’s
credential because a well-researched, well organised and well written
literature review leaves no room for doubts. He adds that through
the selection of the works, the organisation of these reviews, the
structure of the focus and the objectivity of the discussion, readers,
particularly examiners, can be persuaded to believe the candidate’s
viewpoints and arguments. However, postgraduate students are not
used to selecting a viewpoint and then making an argument out of it
because in general, many are not aware of what an argument incurs
and how to develop an argument. This inadequacy justifi es the
necessity to provide workshops on critical thinking, critical reading
and critical writing for postgraduate students.
Cooper (1988) says that the literature review is a means of
demonstrating an author’s knowledge about a particular fi eld of
study. This knowledge may include the use of certain vocabulary,
theories, key variables and phenomena as well as specifi c research
methods and history. Cooper (1988) suggests that the literature review
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
137
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
chapter helps students to identify infl uential researchers and research
groups in their selected fi eld of study. In addition, it was noted that
a literature review, through some modifi cations, can also become
a “legitimate and publishable scholarly document” (LeCompte,
Klinger, Campbell & Menke, 2003, p. 124). Nonetheless, without
some exposure to reading and writing the literature review, it would
be extremely diffi cult for postgraduate candidates, particularly those
who are new to writing, to accomplish this requirement. Kuang
(2013) mentions that in her experience as a master’s candidate in the
1980s in England, she too did not receive such kind of support. She
iterates that she too experienced struggles with writing her master’s
thesis.
Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996) argue that the literature review is
extremely important. It can help students to: a) delimit the research
problem, b) seek new lines of inquiry, c) avoid fruitless approaches,
d) gain methodological insights, e) identify recommendations for
further research, and f) seek support for grounded theory. Expanding
on this, Hart (1998) says that the literature review should also
include the following: a) distinguish what had been done and should
have been done, b) identify important variables that are relevant
to the topic, c) synthesise and gain a new perspective, d) develop
relationships between ideas and practices, e) establish the context of
the topic or problem, f) rationalise the signifi cance of the problem,
g) enhance and acquire the subject vocabulary to understand the
structure of the subject, h) relate ideas and theory to applications,
i) identify the main methodologies and research techniques that
have been used, and j) place the research in a historical context
to show familiarity with state-of-the-art developments. All these
recommendations further compound the efforts of a postgraduate
student as he/she becomes overwhelmed by the importance of the
literature review chapter.
Inadequacies of Postgraduate Students
In a study conducted by Nelson and Amayah (2010), participants
mentioned that the most challenging section or chapter to develop is
the Literature Review followed by the Research Method, Findings,
Conclusion and the Introduction Section. The participants claimed
that the literature review is a major problem because they need to
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
138 Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
show that they understand what they had read. They also need to be
able to relate their current work to major theories that underpin what
they were doing. Many of the participants claimed that they do not
have this skill but it was not explained in detail why they lacked the
skill. Perhaps it is due to their lack of training or practice.
In looking at the medical faculty, Hutchison (1993) fi nds that
many postgraduate students who were expected to produce a thesis
or dissertation lacked the knowledge in writing a good literature
review. He mentions that many of the participants in his study were
not prepared to deal with knowing what previous research had done
and what current research is doing. However, this claim was not
supported by any evidence although it may be presumed that the
participants were not prepared because of their weakness in reading
and comprehension that has been accentuated by their language
profi ciency.
Hutchison (1993) also notes that those who had successfully
completed their thesis or dissertation could have done so through
modeling other peoples’ work. This is likely to be the main reason
because most postgraduate students are not really taught how to
write a thesis or dissertation so what better strategy to do this other
than to ‘model’ another person’s work or style. This biasness is
further exaggerated when Hutchison (1993) asserts that of the many
who had already completed their postgraduate degrees, many do not
even know how to synthesise, a claim which needs to be justifi ed
and substantiated with tangible evidence.
Focussing on how participants reviewed articles, Sargeant, Rajic,
O’Connor and Williams (2006) note that the methodological quality
discussed by many candidates even on the same topic could vary
immensely. They claim that many of the reviews had different
conclusions even though summarising skills should have been one
of the facets of doing an article review. The authors focus on 65
written articles which were published between the years 2000 and
2005. They note that these articles had addressed the effectiveness
of microbial food safety interventions through the criteria used
to measure methodological soundness in the medical fi eld.
Consequently, the authors conclude that the reviews were poorly
done, noting that none of these reviews was able to provide any
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
139
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
information on the method of locating primary research studies or
the inclusion/exclusion criteria for selecting primary studies. The
authors further add that none of the reviews had included a critical
appraisal of the methodological quality while less than half of the
reviews had stated a focused research question, explored possible
reasons for the differences in the results of primary studies, discussed
the generalizability of results, or even proposed directions for future
research. They attribute these inadequacies to the poor reviewing
skills of their participants. These claims made by the authors
are plausible for they highlight the weaknesses of postgraduate
candidates in either reading or writing. However, it appears that no
study had ventured into understanding what could be hampering
these candidates from being able to complete this task of reading
and writing successfully. The fi ndings of the current paper may be
able to shed some light in this obscurity.
In another study focussing on candidates’ skills in writing the
literature review, Smith (1997) studies 25 article reviews and fi nds
that only 14 had provided a clear purpose, with only two revealing
the search strategy that had been used to identify the articles for the
review. Smith (1997) notes that none had featured any type of quality
assessment of the primary studies nor had they stated what criteria
were used to determine the assessment, or what material had been
included or excluded. Only seven reviews had highlighted useful
areas for future research. This fi nding inevitably led Smith (1997) to
conclude that there is little evidence which could show that reviews
currently accepted for publication in anaesthesia journals had been
prepared systematically. There could be many reasons for this fl aw
and some of the evidence can be drawn from this paper.
Randolf (2009) says that faulty literature review could be one of
the many ways to blemish a dissertation. He further proposes some
pivotal information on how to write a high-quality dissertation
literature review. He recommends that the literature review should
begin with a discussion of the purpose of a review followed by
a presentation of the taxonomy of the literature reviews before
venturing into a discussion that traces the steps in conducting the
quantitative or qualitative literature review. Randolf (2009) also
thinks that a framework for self-evaluation of a literature review
could be developed for improvement because a fl awed literature
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
140 Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
review is a refl ection of a fl awed dissertation. This opinion is
supported by Boote and Beile (2005, p.3) who say, “a researcher
cannot perform signifi cant research without fi rst understanding the
literature in the fi eld”. This again reiterates the need for candidates
to have the skill to be able to write a good literature review chapter.
Of the many reasons for being unable to write a literature review
chapter well, time management could be one. Gall, Borg, and Gall
(1996) estimate that the completion of an acceptable dissertation
literature review could take anything between three to six months.
The authors comment that this is not advisable for postgraduate
candidates who are older, hold full time jobs and have families to
support because the time taken is considered too long.
Bloom (1982) says that the confl icting demands and problematic
priorities that impinge on postgraduate students who are usually self-
supporting can be another reason hampering their pursuit. Matured
adults often hold full time jobs and are expected to contribute to
the support of a spouse and children and these demands can impact
on their time and energy (Bloom, 1982). Some may even be active
in community activities which indirectly diminish their focus and
ability to write. However, whether or not such time consuming
commitments increase their anxiety or are a diversion from it, is
still to be substantiated. Bloom (1982) adds that sometimes indirect
troubles such as spouses who are not enrolled in studies can distract
their partners from writing. Women married to men not likely
to obtain an equivalent or superior education may end up with
husbands who manipulate their wives either implicitly or explicitly
thereby, sabotaging their wives’ writing-in-progress schedules.
Occasionally, these demanding husbands may become selfi sh and
demand that their wives abide by their rules such as being home by
a certain time to prepare dinner. In contrast, men graduate students
have more supportive spouses (Bloom, 1982).
Focussing on how Arabs write, Fadi (2010) studies 10 Arab
postgraduate students who were registered in the business
programme of a public university, Universiti Utara Malaysia
(UUM). The sampling comprised fi ve Jordanians, two Iraqis,
two Libyans and one Yemeni. All had sat and passed the English
Placement Test. Assessing their English writing skills via several
academic tasks (project papers, article reviews, summaries, reports,
article critiques, proposals, comparative analyses, reviews, analyses
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
141
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
and essays) Fadi (2010) concludes that these business postgraduate
students have diffi culties with vocabulary, grammar, organisation of
ideas, spelling and referencing.
Mudhovozi, Manganye and Mashamba (2013) focus on the mentors
or supervisors. Their participants commented that their own mentees
or supervisees lack “expressive skills” (Mudhovozi, Manganye, &
Mashamba, 2013, p. 298). It was further noted that the mentees’
or supervisees’ profi ciency was poor and this further impeded
their ability to understand other scholar’s work. Other weaknesses
identifi ed encompass: poor ability to “put ideas together”, cannot
“organise their writing”, unable to “come up with sub-headings,
especially in their literature review”, “cannot express themselves”,
inadequacy in “conceptualising ideas” and in “presenting arguments
logically”. The mentors also mentioned that their mentees or
supervisees lacked “scholarly writing skills” elaborating that their
mentees or supervisees also struggled with referencing and citation
problems. They complained that these students do not have respect
for good language skills because many do not even proof read their
work before submitting to their supervisors. Finally, many of their
students struggled with the ability to identify relevant literature from
the Internet and were constantly referring to outdated sources. All
these issues highlighted by the mentors suggest that these are the
very skills which a postgraduate student needs to possess in order
to be able to produce a piece of acceptable text in academic writing.
METHODOLOGY
In this paper, 70 postgraduate students (31 locals and 39 foreigners)
who were attending a workshop on writing the literature review
were asked to write down their responses to the following question:
What do you fi nd as the most diffi cult or challenging aspect of
writing the literature review? The participants were in their fi rst and
second year of their postgraduate programme with 49 pursuing their
Masters degree and 21 pursuing their doctoral degree. They were
not preselected but their consent were sought and the aim of the
study was explained to them. They were from nine faculties: Arts
and Social Science, Built Environment, Business & Accounting,
Computer Science & Information Technology, Economics &
Administration, Education, Engineering, Languages & Linguistics
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
142 Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
and Science. All had some level of profi ciency in English based on
their education and all had English scores denoted by their TOEFL,
IELTS and local Intensive English courses. Responses were written
in English in prose and point forms. Their personal details were
excluded but details like country of origin, faculty and programmes
were requested. They were told that the analysis would be used to
develop intervention programmes to help them with their writing.
Data were then linguistically analysed by focusing on specifi c
phrases or expressions. These were then manually categorized
under common themes, counted and tabulated into 37 categories
as illustrated below. Based on their frequencies, they were then
presented in percentages.
Data Analysis
Each candidate’s written response was fi rst examined for the
expressions or phrases. They were then written as statements in
columns. Data were then manually written and placed under common
themes. Every expression noted from the data was adjusted to fi t
into the 37 categories for example, ‘cannot write smooth’ would be
placed in the same theme of ‘don’t know how to write coherently’.
Every time the same theme emerges in a response, a tick is indicated
in the column to illustrate frequency. This means that one candidate
may have more than one diffi culty. Data were then divided by 70
and multiplied by 100 to get the percentage. The 37 categories are
listed below according to frequency count. Overall, more than half
of the participants had the same issues as shown in tables 1 and
2. The percentage tapers as the list increases. The # sign indicates
basic skill and the * sign indicates advanced skill. The list of 37
categories include:
1. *To be able to critically analyse the contents of what I read
(100%).
2. *To place arguments in support of the research gap (100%).
3. #To identify research gaps from my reading (97%).
4. *To be able to write in a convincing way (93%).
5. #To be able to read the volumes of literature review that I
need to read (93%).
6. #To be able to start writing the literature review (79%).
7. *To be able to relate the literature review to my topic of
research (79%).
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
143
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
8. #To be able to detect which reading materials is relevant (71%).
9. #To be able to know which part of the literature review to
read and review (70%).
10. #Remembering what I have read in the literature review (67%)
11. #Don’t know where to focus (55.7%).
12. *Don’t know how to write critically (50%).
13. #Don’t know how to write down ideas (54.3%).
14. #Don’t know how to connect the ideas (44.3%).
15. *Don’t know how to synthesise (41.4%).
16. #Don’t know how to compare what I have read (35.7%).
17. #When I read, I cannot understand (35.7%).
18. #I have problem with language (40%).
19. *Don’t know how to review (40%).
20. *Don’t know how to paraphrase (40%).
21. #Don’t know how to use transitions to show coherence (40%).
22. #Don’t know how to extract main ideas (35.7%).
23. #Don’t know how to summarise (28.6%).
24. #Don’t know how to start a paragraph (27.1).
25. #Don’t know where to start writing (25.7%).
26. *Don’t know how to project argument (21.4%).
27. #Don’t know how to organise writing (21.45).
28. #Lack focus looking for materials to read (21.45).
29. #Don’t know when to start writing (20%).
30. *Don’t know when to stop writing (20%).
31. *Don’t know how to write academically (20%).
32. *Don’t know how to give my own voice in the writing (15.7%).
33. *Don’t know where to limit myself when reading and writing
(14.3%).
34. *Don’t know how to get support for review (7.1%).
35. *Don’t know how to be precise in writing (7.1%).
36. #Don’t know how to defi ne concepts (4.3%).
37. *Don’t know how to be clear in writing (4.3%).
DISCUSSION
As the list above illustrates, more than half of the participants have
diffi culties in 13 categories with all having the diffi culty to analyse
critically and to place argument in support of research gap. Three
quarters had diffi culty in identifying a research gap, writing in a
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
144 Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
convincing manner, speed reading the relevant materials, starting
the literature review chapter, relating what is read to topic being
researched, reading relevant materials and identifying the relevant
components of materials for reading, About half of the participants
had diffi culty in remembering what was read, focussing, writing
critically and writing down ideas.
Since writing involves reading and writing, the diffi culties identifi ed
were itemised into two tables so as to illustrate the difference
between the basic and advanced skills.
Table 1
Basic and Advanced Skills in Reading
No Basic Skills % Advanced skills %
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
#To be able to identify research
gaps from my reading (93%).
#To be able to read the volumes of
literature review that I need to read
(93%).
#To be able to detect which reading
materials is relevant (71%).
#To be able to know which part of
the literature review to read and
review (70%).
#Remembering what I have read in
the literature review (67%).
#Don’t know where to focus (55.7%) .
#I have problem with language
(40%).
#Don’t know how to compare what
I have read (35.7%).
#When I read, I cannot understand
(35.7%).
#Lack focus looking for materials to
read (21.5).
93
93
71
70
67
55.7
40
35.7
35.7
21.5
1.
2.
*To be able to
critically analyse the.
contents of what I read
*To place arguments in
support of the research
gap.
100
100
From the data shown, it can be noted that most participants
experience a lack in basic reading skills while all the participants
had problems with advanced reading skills which encompass the
diffi culty to analyse the works of others critically and to develop
arguments to support their research gaps.
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
145
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
Table 2
Basic and Advanced Skills in Writing
Writing
Basic Skills % Advanced skills %
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
#To be able to start writing the
literature review (79%).
#Don’t know how to write down
ideas (54.3%).
#Don’t know how to connect
the ideas (44.3%).
#Don’t know how to use
transitions to show coherence
(40%).
#Don’t know how to extract
main ideas (35.7%).
#Don’t know how to summarise
(28.6%).
#Don’t know how to start a
paragraph (27.1).
#Don’t know where to start
writing (25.7%).
#Don’t know how to organise
writing (21.5).
#Don’t know when to start
writing (20%).
#Don’t know how to defi ne
concepts (4.3%).
79
54.3
44.3
40
35.7
28.6
27.1
25.7
21.5
20
4.3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
*To be able to write in a
convincing way (93%).
*To be able to relate the
literature review to my
topic of research (79%).
*Don’t know how to write
critically (50%).
*Don’t know how to
synthesise (41.4%).
*Don’t know how to
review (40%).
*Don’t know how to
paraphrase (40%).
*Don’t know how to
project argument (21.4%).
*Don’t know when to stop
writing 20%).
*Don’t know how to write
academically (20%).
*Don’t know how to
give my own voice in the
writing (15.7%).
*Don’t know where to
limit myself when reading
and writing (14.3%).
*Don’t know how to get
support for review (7.1%).
*Don’t know how to be
precise in writing (7.1%).
Don’t know how to be
clear in writing (4.3%).
93
79
50
41.4
40
40
21.4
20
20
15.7
14.3
7.1
7.1
4.3
As the data above show, participants have more problems with
advanced writing skills than basic writing skills although the
disparity is not very wide. The illustrations indicate that majority
seem to be hampered by the ability to start writing the literature
review chapter, putting ideas down in writing, connecting these
ideas and providing coherence in their writing. Clearly, more than a
quarter are unable to extract main ideas, summarise ideas, develop
adequate paragraphs, while the percentage tapers down to basic
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
146 Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
skills of writing and organising their writing. Less than 5% claim to
be unable to defi ne concepts.
If participants are already lacking the basic writing skills, it is thus,
not a surprise if the majority fi nd themselves unable to develop
higher writing skills including the ability to be convincing, relating
literature to their topic and making a critical assessment of the works
read. Less than half of the participants are unable to synthesise,
review adequately and to paraphrase while about a quarter are
unable to develop arguments, write in an academic manner and
place a personal voice in their writing. A small percentage indicates
that they do not know how to restrict their writing or even to fi nd
evidence to support their review. Only a few indicate being unable
to show precision and clarity.
All these issues noted are important and should be addressed as most
postgraduate programmes expect candidates to be critical in their
writing and capable of supporting ideas and arguments logically.
Naturally, if there is no precision and clarity, the writing is also
going to suffer (see Bolderston, 2008; Cooper, 1988; Hofstee, 2006).
The fi ndings of this paper imply that the quality of the postgraduate
students involved in this study is not at par with the requirements of
a postgraduate programme. In other words, they have been admitted
into a programme that requires them to be able to evaluate and assess
what they read so that they can project a critical assessment of the
readings and link these to what they hope to unravel and discuss in
their study. However, in reality, their competence seems to be below
the requirements. Although not all of the participants experienced
all the diffi culties listed in the 37 categories, it is undeniable that
even if a handful of the postgraduate students experience problems
with reading and writing, they are defi nitely going to face more
problems with their thesis or dissertation writing. This situation will
inadvertently burden their supervisors as well as their own families
if their candidature is terminated because of their poor writing skills.
Consequently, it can create extreme pressure on the candidates
themselves.
It is uncertain what criteria had been used to select these respective
candidates but it is obvious that more than half of the participants
in this study require help with advanced reading skills as well as
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
147
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
basic and advanced writing skills. Critical thinking skills seem to be
an important element as data in table 2 illustrate, “don’t know how
to write critically’ “don’t know how to synthesize” or “don’t know
how to review”, ‘don’t know how to paraphrase” and “don’t know
how to write in my own voice” all point to the lack.
CONCLUSION
The fi ndings of this paper have illustrated one aspect of supervision
which shows why many supervisors have problems guiding their
supervisees to academic completion. It is no surprise that most of
the postgraduate candidates need a lot of support to help them get
from where they currently are, that is at the prime of their research
work, to the fi nal goalpost of their academic pursuit, that is a worthy
thesis or dissertation which is adequate enough to be submitted for
examination. This situation may require more support from the
Institutes of Graduate Studies in various public institutions which
may be able to strengthen the respective programmes by providing
intervention skills similar to those of the Upskilling programmes
offered by the University of Malaya.
The fi ndings of this study provide evidence to support what the
supervisors in Mudhovozi, Manganye and Mashamba’s (2013)
study had revealed, “supervisees lack many areas of growth” and
“expressive skills” (p. 298). The fi ndings of this study also highlight
that supervisees’ language profi ciency is not the only cause of
their problem. There are other aspects of their competence such as
their skills in reading and writing which can also impact on their
academic pursuit. The fi ndings of this study have provided suffi cient
evidence which indicates that the grievances of most supervisors in
supervising weak postgraduate are justifi ed.
The results of this paper show that the postgraduate participants
need a lot of help in writing although such support may also come
from external organisations that can provide editing and writing
services. Nonetheless, it is recommended that institutions of higher
learning in this country consider these inadequacies seriously as the
impact on supervision is huge and stressful while student graduation
time is also affected, not considering that the scholarship of these
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
148 Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
candidates may also affect their future livelihoods. For example, the
psychological impact on students upon discovering that they cannot
write after having been admitted into a postgraduate programme can
be disastrous. As human beings the trauma can affect all forms of
relationships and thus, personal lives too.
On the part of the institutions, supervisors too suffer mental anguish
when their supervisees are slow in submitting and graduating. Hence,
in order to resolve this kind of challenges, institutions of higher
learning may want to set a higher criteria for candidate selection or
if selection is inevitable, then provide them with a kind of academic
support which can help to take them through in their reading and
writing skills so that their confi dence can be elevated and the quality
of the dissertations and theses further improved. This can contribute
vastly to internationalisation and globalisation needs.
REFERENCES
Bloom, L. (1982). Why graduate students can’t write: Implications
of research on writing anxiety for graduate education. Journal
of Advanced Composition, 11(1-2). 1981, 101-117.
Bolderston, A. (2008). Writing an effective literature review. Journal
of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 39 (2), 86-92.
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On
the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research
preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.
Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A
taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1(1),
104-126.
Fadi Maher saleh Al-Khasawneh. (2010). Writing for academic
purposes: Problems faced by Arab postgraduate students of
the college of business, UUM. ESP World, 2 (28), Volume 9,
1-23. Retrieved from http://www.esp-world.info
Fadi A., Hillerich, K., Romero, V., Topp, E.A., & Wnuk, K. (2010).
Supervision of a master’s thesis: Analysis and guidelines.
LTHs 6:e Pedagogiska Inspirations Conferences, 15 December
2010, 1-3. Retrieved from http://www.lth.se/fi leadmin/lth/
genombrottet/konferens2010/42_Abdallah_etal.pdf
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
149
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Education research:
An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Green, Bart, N. Johnson, Claire and Adams, Alan. (2006). Writing
narrative literature review for peer-reviewed journals:
Secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractice Medicine, 5 (3),
101-117.
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social
science research imagination. London: Sage.
Hofstee, E. (2006). Constructing a good dissertation. Johannesburg:
EPE.
Hutchison, B.G. (1993). Critical appraisal of review articles. Family
Physician, 39, 1097-1102.
Kuang, C.H. (2013). Introduction. In Kuang, C.H., Raja Maznah
R.H., & Wan Nor Liza W.M. (Eds.), Stories and refl ections
of student supervision. Kuala Lumpur: ADeC Publications,
UM, 11-18.
Kuang, C. H. (2013). Sita My Sita. In Kuang, C. H., Raja Maznah
R.H., & Wan Nor Liza W. M. (Eds.). Stories and refl ections
of student supervision. Kuala Lumpur: ADeC Publications,
UM, 22-28.
LeCompte, M. D., Klinger, J. K., Campbell S. A., & Menke, D.
W. (2003). Editor’s Introduction. Review of Educational
Research, 73(2), 123-124.
Mudhovozi, P., Manganye, L., & Mashamba, T. (2013) Mentors’
views of supervising post-graduate students undertaking
research at an institution in Zimbabwe. Journal of Social Sci,
37(3), 293-300.
Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize:
How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies
in Higher Education, 27(4), 369-386.
Nelson, F. and Amayah, A. T. (2010). Conducting a thorough
literature review: Is this the most challenging step in the
educational research process? Paper presented at the Midwest
Research-to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and
Community Education, Michigan State University. September
26-28, 2010. Retrieved from https://www.msu.edu/~mwr2p/
NelsonAmayah-MR2P-2010.pdf
Randolf, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature
review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14
(13), June, 1-13.
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
150 Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction: Vol. 12 (2015): 131-150
Sargeant, J. M., Torrence, M. E., Rajic, A., O’Connor, A.M.,
Williams, J. (2006). Methodological quality assessment of
review articles evaluating interventions to improve microbial
food safety. Foodborne Pathology Disease. 2006, Winter, 3
(4), 447-56.
Smith, A. F. (1997). An analysis of review articles published in
four Anaesthesia journals. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia,
44(4), 405-409.
Sridevi S. (2013). The supervisor as guru. In Kuang, C.H., Raja
Maznah R. H., & Wan Nor Liza W.M. (Eds.), Stories and
refl ections of student supervision. Kuala Lumpur: ADeC
Publications, UM, 99-107.
Interviews with offi cers from the Institute of Graduate Studies,
University of Malaya, June 30, 2015.
Interviews with offi cers from the Institute of Graduate Studies,
University of Malaya, June 24, 2015.
Interviews with postgraduate students in a workshop, Institute of
Graduate Studies, University of Malaya, March 3, 2015.
Interviews with postgraduate students in a workshop, Institute of
Graduate Studies, University of Malaya, December 4, 2014.
http://mjli.uum.edu.my
