Using Collaborative Writing To Enhance Writing Skills For Secondary School Students.pdf

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN THỊ LIÊN USING COLLABORATIVE WRITING TO ENHANCE WRITING SKILLS FOR SECONDAR[.]

NGUYỄN THỊ LIÊN

USING COLLABORATIVE WRITING TO ENHANCE WRITING

SKILLS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

MA MINOR THESIS

Major: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01

HANOI– 2021

NGUYỄN THỊ LIÊN

USING COLLABORATIVE WRITING TO ENHANCE WRITING

SKILLS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

Graduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi I also declare that this thesis is the result of my own research and efforts and it has not been submitted for any other purposes

Hanoi, 2021 Nguyễn Thị Liên

fulfillment of this minor thesis

My sincere thanks go to all of the lecturers and the staff of the Faculty of Post Graduate Studies at University of Languages and International Studies for their valuable lectures on which my minor thesis was laid the foundation

I truly wish to thank all the students of class 11A at my English center who have actively participated in the research and my colleague who have supported me

in observing the writing lessons

I am deeply grateful to my family, especially my husband and my son, for their great support and to many of my friends for their notable assistance

action research study was conducted over the period of seven weeks in a class with nine intermediate secondary school students Data was collected through students’ essay writings produced individually and collaboratively, followed by students’ survey questionnaires and classroom observations and then analysed quantitatively and qualitatively The findings showed that collaborative writings were slightly shorter than individual writings but observably more accurate and slightly grammatically and lexically more complex Furthermore, collaboratively produced writings had more main ideas and supporting ideas, as well more high-leveled words with clearer and more logical organization In addition, students had both positive and negative attitudes after the first time of implementation but all students positively reacted toward collaborative writing after two writing cycles Some students felt angry and uncomfortable because of bad relationship, different opinions and the length of time of the group activity Changes in students’ grouping were applied Students felt more interested, motivated and engaged in writing lessons when collaborating with group members and they could improve not only English writing skills but also speaking skill and build up teamwork and social skills However, training in group skills and precautions in grouping need to be taken into consideration for the desired outcomes

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale of the research 1

1.2 Aims and objectives of the research 1

1.3 Scope of the research 1

1.4 Research questions 2

1.5 Significance of the study 2

1.6 Methodology 2

1.7 Organisation of the thesis 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 4

2.1 Collaborative writing in ESL classrooms 4

2.1.1 Definition of collaborative writing 4

2.1.2 Implementing collaborative writing in EFL classrooms 5

2.1.3 Benefits of collaborative writing in teaching writing 6

2.1.4 Drawbacks of collaborative writing in teaching writing 7

2.1.5 Solutions to improve the effectiveness of collaborative writing 8

2.1.6 Learners’ attitudes toward collaborative writing 9

2.1.7 Previous studies on the use of collaborative writing 10

2.2 Teaching writing in ESL classrooms 12

2.2.1 The nature of writing 12

2.2.2 Criteria of a good writing 13

2.2.3 Approaches to teaching writing 14

2.3 Summary 17

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 19

3.1 Research context 19

3.1.1 Materials 19

3.1.2 Participants 19

3.2 Research design 19

3.2.1 Action research model 19

3.2.2 Research procedure 22

3.3 Data collection instruments 23

3.3.1 Students’ essay writings 23

3.3.2 Student survey questionnaires 24

3.3.3 Classroom observation 24

3.4 Data analysis 26

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 29

4.1 Data analysis and findings 29

4.1.1 Effects of collaborative writings 29

4.1.2 Students’ attitudes to collaborative writing 36

4.2 Discussion 42

4.2.1 To what extent does the use of collaborative writing affect secondary school students’ writing skills? 42

4.2.2 To what extent are students motivated and engaged in collaboration with their peers? 44

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 46

5.1 Conclusion 46

5.2 Implications of the study 46

5.3 Limitations of the current research 47

5.4 Recommendations and suggestions for further research 47

REFERENCES 49

APPENDICES I

Appendix 1: Individual writing I Appendix 2: Collaborative writing 1 II Appendix 3: Collaborative writing 2 III Appendix 4: Survey questionnaires IV Appendix 5: Survey questionnaire answer 1 VI Appendix 6: Survey questionnaire answer 2 XII

\Appendix 7: Observational form XVI Appendix 8: Observation sheet answer 1 XVIII Appendix 9: Observation sheet answer 2 XX Appendix 10: Quantitative analysis: Writing fluency, accuracy, complexity and ideas XXII Appendix 11: Qualitative analysis: Word levels XXIII Appendix 12: Students’ perceptions toward collaborative writing XXIX Appendix 13: Guidelines for T-units, Clauses, Errors XXXI

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Detailed research procedure 22

Table 2: Fluency of writing 30

Table 3: Accuracy of writing 31

Table 4: Complexity of writing 32

Table 5: Comparison of word levels 34

Table 6: Comparison of formal and informal language use 35

Table 7: Students’ evaluation on effectiveness of collaborative writing 36

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Action research cycles by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) 20 Figure 2: Comparison of quantity of ideas 33

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale of the research

Being an English teacher, I was well aware of the significance of writing skills

in learning a foreign language However, my students at an English center especially 6th grade and 7th grade students, were not proficient in producing a writing text Some of them struggled with writing grammatically correct sentences and some had difficulties in spelling, verb tense, word choices and supporting ideas More importantly, most of them felt bored and less motivated in writing lessons This realization motivates me to conduct an action research study to seek ways

to solve the mentioned problems I reviewed the literature about effective approaches to enhancing students’ writings and motivating students in writing lessons I was delighted when I read studies by Storch (1999, 2013); Swain (2000); Swain and Lapkin (1998, 2001) about collaborative writing and its effectiveness in dealing with students’ writing mistakes and shortage of supporting ideas Therefore, in order to tackle with my class’s problems, I decided

to undertake an action plan on using collaborative writing to enhance writing skills for my secondary school students

1.2 Aims and objectives of the research

The study aimed to explore whether the use of collaborative writing approach can enhance writing skills of the secondary school students at an English center and whether students engaged more actively in writing lessons through this approach This overall aim was specified into two following objectives:

(1) To investigate the impacts of using collaborative writing on the improvement of writing skills of the secondary school students at an English center (2) To examine whether students are more motivated and actively engaged in collaboration with their peers

1.3 Scope of the research

This study only focused on the implementation of collaborative writing approach in writing lessons to 6th and 7th grade students

Participation in this study includes the learners who were studying at an English center and had learnt English for three years there

1.5 Significance of the study

The study was significant for both theoretical and practical reasons In terms

of theory, the study was expected to contribute the understanding of the impacts of collaborative writing in teaching writing for secondary school students and the students’ engagement in collaboration with their friends

In terms of practice, the study may have some contributions to both English teachers and students The findings of the study could be used as a reference for English teachers to improve their teaching writing and simultaneously motivate students in writing lessons Secondary school students, through the study, can improve their motivation, confidence and enthusiasm to participate in learning activities in writing classes

1.6 Methodology

In this study, I used both quantitative and qualitative methods in two cycles In cycle 1, students’ essay writings, survey questionnaires and classroom observations were used to collect data Two sets of students’ essay writings were collected and analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively to examine students’ changes in each cycle Students’ survey questionnaires were collected after applying the collaborative writing lesson and then analyzed qualitatively to find out students’

attitudes towards the implementing lesson Two observations before and after the intervention to examine changes in students’ attitudes towards writing lesson In cycle 2, my data collection instruments were students’ writings and classroom observation One set of students’ writings were collected and analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively like cycle 1 Besides, one classroom observation was conducted to note down students’ collaboration and behaviors in the writing lesson

1.7 Organisation of the thesis

The thesis report consists of five chapters as follows:

Chapter 1: Introduction: presents the rationale, the aims and objectives, the scope, the research questions, the significance, the methodology and the structure of the study

Chapter 2: Literature Review: provides the definition of major related concepts and reviews the related works that compose the theoretical background of the study

Chapter 3: Research Methodology: gives a detailed description of action research design, the setting, participants, data collection instruments and procedure

of the study

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Findings: describes the analysis of data in detail and giving the summary of the findings as well as a thorough discussion of the findings of the study Some explanations and interpretations of the findings are also presented in this chapter

Chapter 5: Conclusion: summarizes the whole research, gives some teaching implications, and discusses the limitations of the study as well as suggestions for further research

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This action research was to explore whether collaborative writing can enhance writing skills for secondary school students It also aimed to investigate whether students engaged more in writing lessons when they collaborated with their peers The purpose of this chapter is then to review the literature relevant to this study This chapter is divided into two main sections The first section deals with the concept of collaborative writing in ESL classrooms, including the definition of collaborative writing, implementing collaborative writing in ESL classrooms, benefits and drawbacks of collaborative in teaching writing, solutions to improve the effectiveness of collaborative writing, learners’ attitudes toward collaborative writing and also discusses the previous studies related to collaborative writing in an EFL classroom The second section concerns teaching writing in English as the second language (ESL) classrooms, which includes the nature of writing, criteria of good writing, and approaches to teaching writing

2.1 Collaborative writing in ESL classrooms

2.1.1 Definition of collaborative writing

In order to understand the definition of collaborative writing, I would like to clarify the meaning of the term “collaboration” Collaboration means the sharing of labour or co-labour Thus, collaborative writing can be defined as the co-authoring

of a writing by two or more writers (Storch, 2013) Meanwhile, Oliu et al (2007) stressed on the responsibility and the contribution of each member of the group to the final product He states that each member contributes equally to the planning, designing and writing stages However, it is difficult to assess the equality of the writer only by reading the text Thus, the writing stages need to be observed by the different person or recorded to examine the contribution of the writers

Ede and Lunsford (1990) offer another view of collaborative writing The researchers list out three distinct features of collaborative writing, including (1) substantive interaction in the whole writing process, (2) sharing of decision-making

power and (3) duty for the product and a single written product in the end More specifically, collaborative writing should produce a single written text with purposeful interaction at every stage of the writing process Moreover, group members share responsibility to plan, to generate, and to deliberate ideas for the writing text From this viewpoint, collaborative writing is both a cooperative process and a unique product

Given that collaborative writing is a difficult term to define, each researcher and practitioner has their own definition depending on their research interest and experience From all above-mentioned definitions, I choose to refer collaborative writing in this thesis as a process in teaching and learning in which students work in pairs or groups during the writing process to produce a single written text They together brainstorm, discuss, generate and deliberate ideas for the text The writing product is the result of the whole group who shares responsibility in every writing stage

2.1.2 Implementing collaborative writing in EFL classrooms

There are various ways to implement collaboration in teaching and learning writing based on different teaching purposes and writing tasks In my thesis, students are supposed to collaborate at every stage of writing process (from pre-writing to post writing stages) Widodo (2013) suggests activities for teachers to implement in every stage of writing process, which I found suitable for my study

Pre-writing activities

Teachers initially group students by themselves or let students form groups After the writing topic is delivered, students are supposed to brainstorm together to generate the ideas, discuss, organize the ideas to make an outline

While-writing activities

In this stage, students handwrite a writing draft collaboratively until one joint writing product is completed Students can express their ideas in different ways during collaboration They may freely share their own ideas in mother tongue and

then translate them into English or else, they express their ideas in English directly (Widodo, 2013) Through collaboration, students not only share their ideas but their language (e.g vocabulary and grammar) as well

When the draft is completed, students are expected to give peer feedback They together read out the writing text and give comments for their writing’s improvements

Afterwards, students edit and revise the drafts to produce a final product They may correct mistakes in grammar, vocabulary and mechanics without changing the original ideas before submitting the final writings to teachers (Widodo, 2013)

Post-writing activities

Once students have submitted their writings, a teacher should assess students’ products Teachers decide whether they prefer holistic scoring or analytic marking While the former deals with rating or scoring rubric without stating criteria of individual writing aspects, the latter is related to details in which a teacher rates students’ writing based on different aspects of writing such as content, organization, grammar, vocabulary and mechanics

In conclusion, collaboration is applied in every stage of writing process Students brainstorm the ideas together before writing Then they together write the drafts, give peer feedback, edit and revise the drafts Last, the writings are assessed holistically or analytically depending on teachers’ decision

2.1.3 Benefits of collaborative writing in teaching writing

Collaborative writing impacts positively for both students and teachers First and foremost, teaching writing collaboratively motivates students as students may authentically experience and appreciate its communicative purposes (Hidi & Boscolo, 2006) With well-structured collaborative writing activities, students may learn from each other and thus greatly improve the quality of their writings (Graham & Perrin, 2007a, 2007b) Moreover, students can enhance cooperation and inclusiveness because they participate in a collaborative writing community with diverse learning

needs and cultural backgrounds (Ball, 2006; Pressley, Mohan, Fingeret et al., 2007) Additionally, exchanging group ideas, or group brainstorming (Osborn, 1963), are likely to effectively enhance group creativity Exchanging ideas may stimulate students’ previous knowledge so they may produce more interesting ideas

Not only students but also teachers can take advantage of collaborative writing First, teachers may reduce their workload because the number of students’ writings are fewer in group writing than in individual writing Therefore, teachers may give more constructive and detailed feedback (Boughey, 1997) Also, in collaborative writing, students may get immediate peer feedback from their group members (Hedge, 1998; Seong, 2006) Thus, not only teachers but also students give feedback to writing products Collaborative writing may work well with both process and genre-based approaches (Harmer, 2007) In the former approach, reviewing, evaluation and the generation of ideas are greatly enhanced by having more than one individual working on it In the latter approach, a group of people may analyze and create genre-specific texts more successfully than an individual does Thus, teachers may apply collaborative writing when using process and genre-based writing approaches

In conclusion, collaborative writing is beneficial to both learners and teachers

It motivates students, enhance students’ interaction and adds more ideas to joint writing products Teachers can implement collaborative writing because it helps to decrease their workload but increase detailed comments on students’ writings They may apply in the writing lessons in which they use process and genre-based approaches

2.1.4 Drawbacks of collaborative writing in teaching writing

Collaborative writing sometimes makes writing process less successfully because group members are not well collaborated When all group members cooperate and put much effort, the group product may be high Otherwise, it is truly dangerous that group members do not cooperate and consequently, collaborative work could lead to productivity loss There are at least four factors affecting

productivity loss in collaborative work

Firstly, evaluation apprehension occurs when group members may not express

ideas because they worry about what others think (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987) Moreover, in group brainstorming, group members may not feel as accountable for

producing ideas, so they devote less effort than working alone, then free riding or social loafing occurs (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987) The next factor is production blocking (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987) As working in groups, students take turns to

express their ideas; as a result, other students may forget their ideas while waiting for their talking turn Or else, when they listen to others, they may not think of new

ideas compared to working alone Lastly, performance matching refers to the

comparison of performance rates of group members In group brainstorming, group members may not want to perform at a rate that differs too much from the rates of other members of the group (Brown & Paulus, 1996) Members with low performance level may attempt to increase their performance so that they are not lazy or stupid (Seta, 1982) while members with high performance level may decrease their performance, not wanting to work as hard as they can (Kerr & MacCoun, 1985)

In short, collaborative work may cause productivity loss because of four factors including evaluation apprehension, free riding, production blocking and performance matching These factors urge interested researchers to find out solutions to improve group brainstorming accordingly

2.1.5 Solutions to improve the effectiveness of collaborative writing

There are different solutions to improve the effectiveness of collaborative writing

Firstly, teachers may ask students to brainstorm both individually and collaboratively on the same topic Paulus et al (1996) thinks that brainstorming collaboratively to individually can generate more ideas than reverse sequence because students can freely express their ideas without production blocking (Brown

& Paulus, 2002) Nevertheless, Stein (1975) states that students should brainstorm

individually first and then brainstorm in groups because students can generate their own ideas then share with group members Secondly, instead of speaking and listening, students can brainstorm the ideas by writing and reading, by which students may freely generate the ideas without others’ distraction This way is called brainwriting (Brown & Paulus, 2002) In addition to writing and reading the ideas, students may type the ideas on their computers, or called electronic brainstorming (Brown & Paulus, 2002) Moreover, teachers may train students on idea generation in group (Baruah & Paulus, 2008) or add more rules to group brainstorming (Putman & Paulus, 2009)

In conclusion, there are five mentioned solutions to deal with productivity loss

in collaborative work, which are the sequence of individual and collaborative brainstorming, brainwriting, electronic brainstorming, training and adding rules

2.1.6 Learners’ attitudes toward collaborative writing

Learners’ attitudes toward collaborative writing activities in second and foreign language contexts have been investigated in a number of studies Storch (2005) compared writings produced in individual and in pairs The interview result showed most of students who wrote collaboratively were very positive Moreover, collaborative writings gave them opportunities to work together, observe each other and learn different ways of expressions They considered that collaboration helped build up their grammar and vocabulary As mentioned above, collaboration results

in shorter but more grammatically accurate texts However, a few students considered writing should be conducted individually while pair work was applied in oral activities

Another study by Shehadeh (2011), although two EFL classes produced the same writing assignments in the entire semester, one class wrote individually while the other wrote in pairs The majority of students who wrote in pairs reflected positively and enjoyed it and found it beneficial They said that collaborative writing “enabled them to generate ideas, pool idea together, discuss and plan, generate their text collaboratively, provide each other with immediate feedback, and

put their text in better shape” (Shehadeh, 2011, p 296) Moreover, some students stated that collaborative writing not only improved their writing skills but also enhanced their speaking abilities and self-esteem

Students’ perceptions towards collaborative writing have been investigated in different contexts and learning situations Elola and Oskoz (2010), for example, examined advanced Spanish students writing collaboratively utilizing web-based social tools wikis The students in this study agreed that collaborative writing improved the overall quality of their writings Specifically, collaboration improved writing content and writing structure Nevertheless, some students preferred to write individually when working outside the classroom so that they could develop their own style and work on their available time schedule

In short, although the minority of students preferred individual writing, most

of them have reacted positively towards collaborative writing During collaboration, they could have opportunities to generate ideas, pool the ideas together, observe and discuss together and learn from each other Collaborative writing not only improved their writing products but also enhanced their second language vocabulary learning, speaking skills and self-confidence

2.1.7 Previous studies on the use of collaborative writing

There have been a lot of studies on the use of collaborative writing in the world, but there are few studies conducted in the context of Vietnam

There are a number of studies on implementing collaborative writing in teaching writing worldwide Storch (2005) compared individual writing with pair writing at an ESL class in an Australian university She concluded that pairs produced writing texts were more grammatically accurate and linguistically complex than individual products Wigglesworth and Storch (2007) compared the accuracy of pair writings and individual writings and the effect of collaboration in two different types of writing: a report and an essay The researchers found that pair writings were significantly more accurate than individual ones in both types of writing However, there were no significant differences in students’ writings in terms of fluency and complexity

Their findings are similar to the research by McDonough and Fuentes (2015)

in an EFL classroom They examined the effect of individual and pair work, as well

as students’ accuracy in two types of paragraphs – cause and effect and problem and solution at a Colombian university They concluded that pairs wrote more accurate paragraphs than individuals However, students tended to use less complex language in problem – and – solution paragraphs, but their linguistic accuracy did not differ throughout tasks

Most of the research around collaborative writing has compared learners working in pairs and individually Villarreal and Gil-Sarratea (2020) had a comparison on two groups of intermediate secondary Spanish students producing an argumentative essay Both groups had received similar instruction One group wrote

in pairs while the other did individually The author’s findings were that pair writings produced shorter but more accurate writings Moreover, collaborative writings were more grammatically and lexically complex and received higher scores

in content, structure and organization

Dobao (2012) is one of the few researchers who compared three types of groupings including individual work, pair work and small group work He compared pairs’ and small groups’ frequency, language focus (form, lexis and mechanics) and learning outcomes (unresolved, correctly and incorrectly resolved)

In the study, the same writing task was delivered by pairs, small groups and individuals Therefore, he investigated the effect the number of students had on their writing accuracy, fluency and complexity He concluded learners supported each other and even co-constructed linguistic knowledge in both pairs and groups Moreover, pairs outperformed individuals but small groups were qualitatively and quantitatively better than pairs and individuals

In the context of Vietnam, Nguyen (2014) examined the impacts of collaborative writing in 11th grade students She found that students did make progress in their writing Additionally, students were positive about the experience Bui (2015) investigated the use of collaboration and technology to enhance

Vietnamese students’ English language writing skills She found that influence of traditional pedagogy was still observed: students had difficulties in collaboration due to lack of negotiation skill in face-to-face meetings Students would like to write individually, receive summative and teachers’ feedback rather than write collaboratively and receive formative and peers’ comments

Given the teaching and learning situation, I am well aware of the importance

of collaborative writing in writing lesson The fact is that there has been little research into implementing collaborative writing to enhance students’ writing skills, especially for secondary school students Thus, I decided to conduct an action research to examine the impact of collaborative writing on the improvement of secondary school students’ writing skills and find out whether students engaged more actively in writing lessons through this approach

2.2 Teaching writing in ESL classrooms

2.2.1 The nature of writing

Many definitions of writing are mentioned by researchers in the field of language teaching and learning Byrne (1988, p 1) defined writing “the act of forming graphic symbols” such as letters or the combinations of letters In other words, any act which results in the formation of letters with or without a meaning could be considered as writing

However, Lannon (1989) had a contrast view about writing The author viewed writing as “the process of transforming the material discovered by research inspiration, accident, trial and error, or whatever into a message with a definite meaning - writing is a process of deliberate decision” (p 9) According to this view, writing is a process of “deliberate decision” in which writers try to convey any material into a meaningful message

Another definition by Tribble (1996) regarded writing as a language skill involving “not just a graphic representation of speech, but the development and presentation of thoughts in a structured way” (p 3) In other words, writing is a language skill in which writers not only produce their speech but also develop,

organize and present their thoughts

According to Sokolik (2003), as cited in Nunan (2015), writing was defined

by several contrasts First of all, the author considers writing both “a physical and mental act” (p 88) in the sense that writers are required to commit words or ideas and simultaneously to invent ideas, consider their expressions and organizations Secondly, the aim of writing is to express and impress While writers try to express their ideas or emotions, they need to impress their readers Thirdly, writing is both a product and a process Writers need to generate ideas, organize, draft, edit, read, rewrite to produce a writing product – a paragraph, an essay or a report

In the views by Byrne (1988), Lannon (1989) and Tribble (1996) are the parts

of the last definition by Sokolik (2003) Writing is not only the product of word formation, the presentation of meaningful message, the development and presentation of thoughts in a structured way, but also the process of generating ideas, organizing, writing and rewriting Therefore, I consider definition of writing mentioned by Sokolik (2003) is the most complete and the most appropriate with

my research It not only clarifies the nature of writing but also details the components of the writing process that I can apply in my research

2.2.2 Criteria of a good writing

A good writing needs to meet required criteria Heaton (1974) divided the criteria of a good writing text into four groups, including grammatical skills, stylistic skills, mechanical skills and judgment skills Grammatical skills refer to the ability to write correct sentences, while stylistic skills refer to the ability to manipulate sentences and use language effectively Mechanical skills are the ability

to use correct punctuation and spelling; meanwhile, judgment skills are about the ability to write, choose and organize relevant information purposefully and address target audience

Hyland (2003) mentioned three criteria of a good writing, including accuracy and clear exposition, actual communicative content and syntactic complexity and grammatical accuracy He meant a good writing contains accurate and clear explanation, communicative content, use of complex and grammatically correct

sentence structures

In short, different researchers have different views on criteria of a good writing For me, a good writing is a writing containing relevant content, good organization, complex and accurate grammar, appropriate vocabulary without mechanics mistakes

2.2.3 Approaches to teaching writing

There are three writing approaches reviewed in the study, which are based, process-based and genre-based approaches In each approach, I will review the advantages and disadvantages then provide my own thoughts about writing approaches

product-Product-based approaches

Product-based approaches for writing, or the controlled-to-free approach, the guided composition (Raimes, 1983; Silva, 1990), is utilized to reinforce second language writing regarding grammar and syntax It focuses on the final outcome Moreover, it also focuses on form (Tribble, 1996) and errors are not accepted but need correcting or deleting in product-oriented approach Sentence combining, the use of model paragraphs and rhetorical pattern practices are considered as product-based activities aiming to teach learners at different levels There are four stages in product-based approach (Steele, 2002) In stage 1, students read and analyze model texts in terms of structure, ideas and linguistic use In stage 2, students individually are involved in controlled practice (mechanical and with focus on accuracy) of those features In stage 3, students work to organize ideas, which is less mechanical but not really communicative In the last stage, students choose “comparable writing tasks” and appropriate structures, vocabulary and skills to create their own writing Students need to show their fluency and competency in language use The guided composition approach has both advantages and disadvantages In terms of its advantages, it is time-saving and labor-saving Learners may learn how

to produce an English composition systematically and carefully Moreover, learners learn how to use vocabulary and grammatical structures properly and correctly for

each writing genre Consequently, learners raise their writing competence with fewer grammatical mistakes in their writing

Nevertheless, there are also disadvantages of using product-based writing Firstly, the writers are likely to overemphasize on the significance of vocabulary, grammar and mechanics but not the audience and writing purpose Secondly, learners may be unmotivated and stressed in writing composition because the teachers mostly pay attention to the language accuracy rather than fluency Thirdly, it does not give students opportunities to improve their writing by correcting their mistakes

Process-based Approach

Process-based writing approach contrasts with product-based writing ones In process-based writing, learners are encouraged to explore meaning and ideas rather than practicing grammatical structures (O’Brien, 2004) Moreover, the process writing concentrates on writing process to create a complete product rather than on the final writing product Nunan (1991) states that no writings are the best, but the writers need to draft, reflect on, correct and rewrite in order to make a better writing version Teachers enable to follow four-step writing process suggested by Badge and Write (2000) so as to help learners explore their ideas and produce their own writing Four steps include “prewriting, composing/ drafting, revising, and editing” (p 154) In the first stage – prewriting, students are provided a writing task and supported to find out related vocabulary and grammar Teachers may use different strategies to help students such as brainstorming, clustering and discussion, but not focus on correcting students’ mistakes In the second stage, students use the related vocabulary and grammar to express the ideas in their first composing draft After drafting, students receive comments from their teachers or peers and think of new ideas in another draft Then, students make changes by revising, adding, deleting or rearranging ideas based on the given comments In the last stage – editing, students reread their second writing version and correct mechanics mistakes

This writing approach brings about both benefits and limitations Regarding the benefits, process-based approaches may improve learners’ writing skills thanks

to step-by-step instructions Students may have more time to discover the ideas so they may convey meaning more effectively Moreover, this approach motivates students in their writing because it encourages students’ communication of ideas, feelings and experiences (Stanley, 2007)

Despite the benefits, process writing approach has some limitations First, process writing is time-consuming because students spend a lot of time completing one particular piece of writing Moreover, it is sometimes confusing since process writing pays more attention to ideas and organization than to language and register Another limitation of process approach is that that give insufficient importance to writing text types and reasons for composing writing texts, and also give students

“insufficient input”, especially about “linguistic knowledge” (Badger & Write,

2000, p 157)

Genre-based writing

Genre-based approach is defined as the way to literacy education that includes

an understanding of both genre and genre teaching in writing lesson (Nunan & Carter, 2001) This writing approach can be known as the “English for Specific Purposes approach” (Dudley-Evan, 1997, pp 151-152) or the “English for Academic Purposes approach” (Silva, 1990, pp 16-17) Badger and White (2000) states that writing in genre-based approach is considered as an extension of product-based approach because learners have a chance to learn different writing patterns Genre approach focuses on writing purpose and the context in which writing takes place (Swami, 2008) Thus, there are different genres and types of writing associated with different contexts such as informal letters, formal letters, reports and articles

Writing procedure in genre-based approach is quite similar to that in product approaches Dudley-Evans (1997, p 154) suggests three steps in genre-based writing approach In the first step, students are given a model text of a certain writing genre Then they read and analyze the model texts In the second stage, students do some practices about language forms In the last stage, students

compose their writing

Like other approaches, genre-based writing approach has both merits and demerits First, this approach provides both knowledge of writing genres and its communicative purpose, which helps students make their written products and simultaneously successfully communicate with other people in the same discourse Therefore, learning specific writing genre may help learners produce appropriate writing in their real world outside the classroom Besides, it increases students’ awareness of writing process including organization, form and genre It also allows learners to gain writing skills consciously by imitating and analyzing writing genre (Badger & White, 2000)

However, genre-based writing approach has some demerits First, genre approaches “undervalue the skills needed to produce a text and see learners as largely passive” (Badger & White, 2000, p 157) Another negative side of genre approach is that learners may not access to the authentic texts of each writing genre, which may mislead students’ knowledge about genre features Moreover, students may have little knowledge about necessary language input of each genre

It can be generally agreed that each writing approach has their own benefits and weaknesses Depending on particular learning objectives, teachers may choose the most appropriate writing approach for their students In my research, I used process-writing approach, in which students wrote in four stages: pre-writing, drafting, revising and editing

2.3 Summary

The chapter has so far presented the relevant literature, which has helped to form the theoretical and conceptual framework for the study It is firstly concerned with presenting a review of collaborative writing in ESL classrooms with its definition as the sharing of writers or co-writers I also reviewed how to implement collaborative writing in ESL classrooms After that, I discussed the advantages and disadvantages of collaborative writing on teaching writing Then, I reviewed the learners’ perspectives towards collaborative writing and numerous previous studies

about collaborative writing in and out of Vietnam

The next part focuses on writing, including definition of writing – the act of both words and ideas expressions and different characteristics of written language Then, I reviewed four principles of teaching writing by approaches in teaching writing including product, process, genre-based writing approaches and integrated writing approach

All of these serve as a basis for an action research on using collaborative writing to enhance writing skill for secondary school students which is carried out and presented in the next chapter

The main participants of the study were nine students from one class at the English center Of the nine students, there were three boys and six girls Their speaking and listening skills were quite good (B1 level) but their writing skills needed improvement in some aspects, including their building up grammatically correct sentences, their mistakes on spelling, verb tense, word choice and supporting ideas

3.2 Research design

3.2.1 Action research model

The study was conducted as individual action research because this research

method works with my expectation of seeking solutions to improve students’ understanding and writing practice in my own classroom Moreover, this research design is appropriate with my research aim, which is to study aspects of my classroom that are unique to me and my students and then solve educational problems related to writing skills in my own setting Therefore, individual action research is the most suitable research methodology for my research aims and objectives

There are different models by Lewin (1952), Wells (1994), Calhoun (1994), as cited in Mills (2003), Sagor (2011), Stringer (2014), and so on However, I chose an action research model that comprises four steps as presented by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988)

Figure 1: Action research cycles by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988)

According to the model above, the first step is planning The researcher formulated some problems found in the class and then began to solve the problems after planning the actions Along with taking actions, the researcher also observed the teaching learning process to identify the effect of the actions and the changes when taking the actions This is also the period when the researcher gathered as much information related to the application of the actions as possible The final step was reflection when the researcher assessed and reflected on what she had done

To make the model more appropriate for my research, I adapted it concluding

in four steps in each cycle, including planning, acting, observing and reflection

3.2.1.1 Planning

In planning step, I conducted classroom observations and individual writings

in order to identify the problems Then I reviewed different professional articles and journals on the Internet and also consulted with one colleague to discuss the

problems in the writing skill to find out the most appropriate solutions To improve

secondary school students’ writing skills and motivate the students in writing

lessons, I chose collaborative writing to use in my class

3.2.1.2 Action

The identification of the students’ problems in their English writing lessons and the decision to tackle the biggest obstacles preventing the students from contributing fully to the learning activities in class have led me to choose collaborative writing approach to implement in my writing lessons The actions were implemented until students were seen to be more involved in the learning activities and to improve their writing skills The actions were carried out in two cycles consisting of one implementing lesson in the 1st cycle and one implementing lesson in the 2nd cycle Hopefully, this intervention would improve my students’

writing skills and motivate my students to learn writing

3.2.1.3 Observation

The observation was conducted while I took actions in my class My observation served two different research purposes Firstly, I observed to identify the problems the students had in learning writing skills and in writing lessons While observing, I took notes about students’ attitudes and behaviours in the writing lessons Secondly, I observed the two cycles of applying collaborative writing to find out students’ changes in terms of their attitudes and behaviors in writing lessons

3.2.1.4 Reflection

In the reflection phase, I gave detailed description of the application of the

actions and at the same time analyzed the problems in and evaluated the effectiveness of using collaborative writing in the teaching – learning process Specifically, I compared individual writings and collaborative writings using both quantitative and qualitative analyses to investigate the differences between accuracy, fluency, complexity and lexical use Besides, I transcribed and analyzed students’ survey questionnaire answers 1 and 2 (Appendices 5 & 6) and observational answers 1 and 2 (Appendices 8 & 9)

3.2.2 Research procedure

The research was developed and carried out during seven weeks in October and November, 2019 The action research was conducted using the action research cycles suggested by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) There were two cycles with the purpose of dealing with the given problems and two arising problems after the first implementing lesson related to students’ social relations and students’ collaborative skills The collection data procedure lasted in 7 weeks (in two months: October and November, 2019 The detailed procedures are shown in table 1:

Table 1: Detailed research procedure

Cycle 1 Week 1 Students were administered the individual writings The

writing topic was: Write individually (at least 150 words)

in 40 minutes about the following topic “Families are not

so close as they used to be in the past Do you agree or disagree?”

Week 2 Students and the observer were trained about collaborative

writing and how to implement collaborative writing in writing class

Week 3 Students were required to apply collaborative writing in

their writing process in one lesson The writing task was:

“Write collaboratively (at least 150 words) in 40 minutes about the following topic “Do you prefer life in the

countryside to life in the city? Explain the reasons”

During the lesson, the observer took observational notes Students were required to fill in survey questionnaires after intervention

Week 4 I analyzed the data, reflected and planned for cycle 2 Cycle 2 Week 5 Students and the observer were trained about social

collaborative skills and brainstorming process in groups Week 6 Students were required to work in groups, using

collaborative writing in week 6 The writing task was: Write collaboratively (at least 150 words) in 40 minutes about the following topic “Wearing uniform should be compulsory at schools Do you agree or disagree? Explain your reasons”

During their writing process, I used mobile phones to record students’ discussions and talks and analyzed

The observer took observational notes

Week 7 I transcribed and analyzed the data then reflected

3.3 Data collection instruments

The methodological approach was action research using different data collection tools, including students’ writings, students’ survey questionnaires and classroom observation in two cycles The combination of various data collection instruments in a cycle would provide a comprehensive overview of the students’ writing proficiency before and after intervention as well as the motivation and engagement of the students during the intervention process The following part discussed each data collection instrument used in this study in detail

3.3.1 Students’ essay writings

There were two different kinds of students’ writings, which were individual essay writings and collaborative essay writing texts The individual writings (see Appendix 1) were produced at the beginning of the study in order to find out

students’ problems in writing skills There was one set of individual essay writings The group writing texts (see Appendices 2 & 3) were produced in the try-out collaborative writing lessons Students were required to write collaboratively in two cycles There were two sets of collaborative writing texts in total, equivalent to two times of try-outs in two cycles

The essay writings then would be analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively and compared to answer the first research question about the impacts

of collaborative writing About quantitative analyses, I compared descriptive statistics including means to investigate the differences in terms of writing fluency, accuracy, complexity and the number of ideas Regarding qualitative analysis, I compared quality of ideas, task achievement, coherence and cohesion between collaborative writings and individual writings

3.3.2 Student survey questionnaires

There were several reasons for my choice of survey questionnaires in my study Firstly, this method could give me the needed data in both of quantitative and qualitative form Secondly, all nine informants have a chance

of expressing their attitudes

The questionnaire of this study (see Appendix 4) was designed to collect the data It contained six questions, which were designed to find out the answers for second research question The first question in the questionnaire was about the students’ self-evaluation on the impact of collaborative writing on writing lesson Questions from 2-6 concerned about students’ attitudes and behaviors during and after implementing writing lessons The questionnaire was delivered after the try-out lessons to find out the changes after each cycle It was written in both Vietnamese and English and students were allowed to answer in either English or Vietnamese Students were encouraged to write as much as they could I was present in order to deal with any of the students’ questions, queries, or requests for clarification Students took between 10-15 minutes to answer the survey

3.3.3 Classroom observation

Observation provided me direct data of writing lessons There were different

reasons for my choosing classroom observation in the study Firstly, observational methods are procedures and techniques based on systematic observation of events and are often used in studying language use and classroom events This study, with certain observation tasks in the classroom environment, chooses observational methods as the effective way to gather the data The second reason for the researcher’s selection of observation is that the collected data would reflect the real activities in observed classrooms Moreover, I asked my colleague for observation, which provided objective feedback on my research

There were three classroom observations conducted in my research The very first observation was made by me to identify the problems in my writing lesson I observed students’ behaviours and attitudes in the writing lessons The criteria included students’ attention, students’ cooperation, students’ participation and students’ feelings The details were as follows:

(1) Did the students fully attend in the lesson?

(2) Did the students follow the instructions and rules?

(3) Did students actively engage in the lesson or passively wait and sit? (4) How did the students feel in the lesson based on their facial expressions and actions? (unexciting: yawing, tiring face, confusing, sadness, …) The other two observations (see Appendix 7) were made by my colleague to observe and answer four questions in English related to group work division (question 1), students’ collaboration (questions 2 and 3) and students’ behaviors (question 4) The details were as follows:

(1) How did the students divide group work (equally or unequally)? (2) What did each member do in each group?

(3) How did the students collaborate?

- How active did all group members discuss?

- To what extent were the members on-task and off-task (gossip, chatting, laughing, quarreling)

(4) How did each member behave during collaboration? (friendly,

motivated, comfortable, any social problems arisen?) The observation results aimed to answer the second research question about students’ engagement in writing lessons All the questions were written in English

My colleague might answer in either English or Vietnamese

Wolfe-as well Wolfe-as for words, word types and sentences in each essay I used VocabProfilers (http://www/lextutor.ca/) to calculate the total number of words and word types I identified T-units and clauses based on the guidelines adopted from Polio’s (1997) study (see Appendix 13) I counted the number of sentences, clauses, T-units, errors, error-free T-units and error-free clauses

Fluency was measured by the mean length of T-units (words per T-unit), the mean length of clauses (words per clause) Accuracy was measured through the percentage of error-free T-units and errors per T-unit Complexity was measured through the percentage of clauses per T-unit for grammatical complexity and a type-token ratio for lexical complexity T-units consist of one main clause plus a subordinate clause attached to or embedded in it (Hunt, 1965) The T-unit has been used as a measure in previous studies on writing (Polio, 1997) and it was considered

as an appropriate way to code and find out changes regarding fluency, accuracy and complexity among different writings

Errors were marked using the error categories suggested by Ferris and Roberts (2001) and Ma (2006) Ferris and Roberts (2001) categorized errors into five components including verb errors, noun ending errors, article errors, wrong words

and sentence structure errors Ma (2006) chose three error types and gave examples

of each error category I adapted five error categories by Ferris and Roberts (2001) and examples by Ma (2006) I first found out the errors and then counted the errors

In short, the following quantitative measures were applied in this study to analyze students’ writings

Fluency

• average number of words per text

• average number of word types per text

• average number of sentences per text

• average number of clauses per text

• average number of T-units per text

• number of words per T-units (W/T)

• number of words per clauses (W/C) Accuracy

• average number of errors

• average number of error-free T-units (EFT)

• error-free T-units per T-units (EFT/T)

• error-free clauses per clauses (EFC/C) Complexity

Moreover, I also compared the quantity of ideas (both main ideas and supporting ideas) between collaborative writings and individual writings I counted different ideas in each writing, and then I calculated means Besides, I used Text Inspectors (http://www.englishprofile.org/wordlists/text-inspector) to calculate the

percentage of word level in each writing

For qualitative measures, I compared the changes in task achievement, coherence and cohesion using IELTS writing marking scheme for task 2

In order to answer the second question about students’ engagement and behaviors, I analyzed students’ survey questionnaires and classroom observations Students’ survey questionnaires were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively For the first question, I calculated the percentage of each answer to find out students’ attitudes toward the effectiveness of collaborative writing For questions 2-6, I transcribed and translated into English Tables were formed to illustrate students’ perceptions toward the impacts of collaborative writing on writing skills Then, I categorized students’ ideas into two categories: positive and negative perceptions The six-question survey questionnaires were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively The first question was analyzed quantitatively to investigate the students’ evaluation on the effectiveness of collaborative writing on students’ writing skills while the other questions were analyzed qualitatively to examine students’ attitudes and behaviors towards collaborative writings The questionnaires would be categorized into three sections, including effectiveness of collaborative writing on writing lessons (question 1), impacts of collaborative writings on writing skills (questions 2, 3, 4 and 5), and suggestions for improvement (question 6) About classroom observations, I transcribed and translated into English The results of all three instruments were compared to answer question two

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter analyzed the collected data and showed all the findings from three data collection instruments including students’ essay writings, students’ survey questionnaires and classroom observations I used Microsoft Excel software

to calculate the mean to compare individual writings and collaborative writings Besides, students’ essay writings were analysed qualitatively in terms of task achievement, cohesion and coherence and lexical resources Data collected from students’ survey questionnaires were analysed both quantitatively (question 1) and qualitatively (questions 2-6) Data from classroom observations were analysed qualitatively to investigate students’ collaboration and students’ behaviours and attitudes This chapter has provided sufficient data to answer two research questions The results of the data analysis show that students had progress in writing performance after applying collaborative writings even though the differences were minimal The students were more motivated and engaged in writing lessons Therefore, collaborative writings could help me solve my classroom’s initial problems Before analyzing the data, it should be noted that all students’ names are pseudonyms

4.1 Data analysis and findings

4.1.1 Effects of collaborative writings

The effectiveness of collaborative writings was found through the comparison

of individually and collaboratively written texts I initially compared individual writings and collaborative writings both quantitatively and qualitatively In terms of writing fluency, collaborative writings were shorter than individual writings Table

2 illustrates the summary of average results of comparing the fluency of the writings produced collaboratively and individually The mean number of word types per text written by groups was higher than those per text produced by individual learners but the average number of words, sentences, clauses and T-units

in collaborative writings was slightly lower Specifically, the average number of word types per text for groups was 118.17, whereas for individuals it was 111.00,