INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
In Vietnam, English has gained significant importance among families, companies, and institutions due to the country's rapid economic and social development, with around 90% of tertiary students choosing it as a compulsory subject (Canh, 2007) Writing, although crucial for effective communication, is often perceived as the most challenging language skill to master Nunan and Carter (2001) emphasize that writing is a social communication act, especially as education shifts from teacher-centered to learner-centered approaches Collaborative activities are now prevalent in language classrooms (Shehadeh, 2011), and research indicates that collaborative writing enhances students' writing abilities and fosters additional skills through teamwork Handayani (2012) expands on the concept of collaborative writing, highlighting that it involves more than just cooperation; students can learn from each other through feedback and idea discussions Moreover, Johnson and Johnson (1999) found that collaboration leads to better writing performance compared to individual efforts.
Collaborative writing is widely utilized in language classrooms globally, and numerous studies highlight innovative methods and techniques that can enhance this process.
In fact, Qiao and Mu (2015) show that collaboration created and assisted by technology can help students develop their writing ability Besides, Fuchs
(2014) also indicates that new advanced technologies assist language acquisition processes efficiently, particularly the writing skill
Therefore, the study aims to use an online platform so as to improve students’ writing performance including writing fluency and writing accuracy.
Statement of the problem
English writing instruction has long been a topic of research, yet many students still struggle with it Nguyen (2009) highlights that learning to write effectively in English poses significant challenges for students Since 2018, the author has been an English lecturer at Vien Dong College, where English is a mandatory subject divided into four levels: Basic English, English Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 The college emphasizes language communication skills, but students often prefer practicing speaking, listening, grammar, and vocabulary over writing This preference may stem from insufficient focus on writing in earlier courses, as it is not tested in examinations Consequently, students lack familiarity with writing instruction, resulting in poor writing performance in their assessments.
The author aims to enhance English writing skills at their workplace by utilizing collaborative writing techniques and the Padlet platform, drawing on their practical teaching experience and a strong desire to address the existing challenges in writing education.
Research aims
An English lecturer at Vien Dong College investigates the effectiveness of collaborative writing using Padlet, focusing specifically on students' attitudes towards this innovative approach.
In order to fulfill these goals, the writer concentrates on answering the following research questions.
Research question
The study was conducted to answer the two questions below:
1/ To what extent does the collaborative writing via Padlet make an impact on student’s writing performance?
2/ What are the students’ attitudes towards collaborative writing via Padlet?
Significance of the research
This study offers valuable insights for Vien Dong College, especially in enhancing English writing instruction Additionally, it contributes to the existing Vietnamese literature by exploring the use of collaborative writing to improve writing skills and student attitudes in higher education.
The primary significance of enhancing writing skills at Vien Dong College lies in addressing students' tendencies to prioritize communication skills like speaking and listening over writing proficiency Collaborative writing using Padlet presents an effective solution for teachers to improve students' writing abilities, ultimately leading to better performance in this essential skill.
Collaborative writing can significantly assist lecturers by allowing them to implement flexible and adaptable writing instruction This approach not only facilitates student practice but also helps alleviate the anxiety associated with writing, as collaboration is a natural human behavior.
Collaborative writing is significantly enhanced for millennial students when they are equipped with digital literacy skills, especially when utilizing ICT tools like Padlet This approach not only boosts the effectiveness of writing activities but also fosters a welcoming online classroom atmosphere conducive to learning the English language.
In conclusion, the advantages outlined highlight that utilizing the Padlet platform for collaborative writing is highly effective in enhancing writing skills in higher education, particularly in vocational institutions such as Vien Dong College.
Scope of the study
The study examined the changes in writing performance and attitudes among 61 non-English major college students enrolled in an English 1 course Data collection was conducted to assess these changes effectively.
During the second semester of the 2020-2021 school year, a study was conducted over 11 weeks at Vien Dong College in Ho Chi Minh City to investigate the impact of collaborative writing using Padlet on students' writing performance and their attitudes towards the activity.
Outline of the study
The study has five primary chapters
The introduction of this study offers a comprehensive overview, detailing the background, problem statement, research objectives, key questions, significance, scope, and the overall structure of the research.
Chapter 2 is Literature Review, which examines and analyses literature related to the research such as collaborative writing, Padlet platform, writing performance, attitudes and previous studies The research gap and conceptual framework end the chapter
Chapter 3 is named Methodology, presents the descriptions of the methodology implemented in the study The essential parts in the chapter are research site, participants, research design, instruments, the data collection process, and the instrument’s reliability and validity
Chapter 4 is presented with the Findings and Discussion The data were illustrated and analysed, then some discussions were concluded from the findings
Chapter 5 is the Conclusion and it is also the last chapter which ends the study The conclusion, contributions, limitation, recommendations, and suggestions for future research are mentioned.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Collaborative learning and collaboration in writing
Pair and small group activities are widely utilized in language classrooms, supported by psychological and sociological perspectives (Dobao, 2012) Collaborative learning, rooted in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (1978), emphasizes that collaboration transforms the learning process Rojas (2013) notes that a well-structured collaborative learning environment encourages students to engage actively in their own learning experiences While the foundations of collaborative learning are drawn from social constructivist and social independence theories, it is through social and collaborative interactions that learners construct knowledge through communication (Johnson & Johnson, 1994).
Collaborative learning significantly enhances language skills, particularly writing, as noted by Brown (2008, cited in Shek & Shek, 2013) Luna and Ortiz (2013) emphasize that students benefit from working in groups during the writing process, which prepares them for teamwork-based assignments Collaborative writing involves several stages, including drafting, discussion, proofreading, and producing a revised document with input from multiple writers (Dillon, 1993) This cooperative approach immerses students in a teamwork environment, thereby strengthening their writing abilities.
Collaborative writing fosters a process of sharing and decision-making among participants, enhancing their writing experience (Storch, 2013) It serves not only as a creative pedagogical tool but also as a motivating learning environment for students (Montero, 2005) The rise of advanced technologies has led to the widespread adoption of collaborative writing in education (Ming et al., 2018) Consequently, it is believed that collaborative writing can take various forms as an active process, facilitated by technology (Alsubaie & Ashuraidah, 2017).
Collaborative learning fosters an environment that enhances the learning process among students through cooperative activities, particularly in writing This approach is exemplified by teamwork and the collective achievement of educational goals In language writing instruction, collaborative learning allows students to work together, engaging in the writing process to meet specific targets established by the teacher.
2.1.1 Characteristics and benefits of collaborative writing
Caplan and Farling (2017) outline a structured approach to collaborative writing, beginning with the teacher informing students about the cooperative writing task The process starts with a planning stage where students discuss their writing topic, supported by the teacher's guidance on relevant language and vocabulary Following this, students engage in collaborative writing, culminating in a presentation stage where they share their work and receive feedback from the teacher.
Collaborative writing offers numerous benefits, including reducing the challenges associated with writing, as noted by Baker (2013) Talib and Cheung (2017) emphasize that such activities motivate students to engage in writing while enhancing their critical thinking skills Research highlights the responsibility and teamwork fostered among students, with Vanhanen-Nuutinen (2006) suggesting that collaborative writing promotes developmental transfer through collective efforts Storch (2019) adds that students participating in collaborative writing share the responsibility for producing the final text Hirvela (2011) points out that students can apply their language knowledge and collaborate effectively Furthermore, Storch's 2005 study indicates that collaborative writing improves language accuracy, a finding supported by Shehadeh (2011), who outlines various advantages, including content and organization However, some studies, such as those by Biria and Jafari (2013) and Zabihi and Rezazadeh (2013), reveal that while accuracy may improve, writing fluency does not significantly benefit from collaborative writing.
Collaboration in writing involves key characteristics like planning, writing, and reporting, and offers numerous benefits It enhances writing skills and motivates students while fostering responsibility and teamwork Additionally, collaborative writing improves academic performance and encourages problem-solving and knowledge sharing However, it is important to note that while writing accuracy improves, writing fluency may not see the same level of enhancement in collaborative settings.
Writing is a productive skill that allows learners to express their ideas and feelings in the target language According to Behroozizad and Abdollahzadeh (2015), it serves as a medium for conveying information and sharing thoughts Bouguerne (2011) emphasizes that writing is an active process requiring students to take responsibility for their work Furthermore, Richards and Schmidt (2010) highlight that writing involves decision-making, procedures, and strategies, encompassing several steps such as planning, drafting, and revising.
Writing is often regarded as the most challenging language skill due to its various components, including grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word choice (Hapsari & Sukavatee, 2018) To write effectively, language learners must achieve both writing fluency and writing accuracy.
A study by Lannin (2007) highlights that writing fluency is determined by the volume of words produced in a given timeframe, as well as the coherence and cohesion of ideas Additionally, Van Gelderen and Oostdam (2005) emphasize that a key aspect of writing fluency is the ability to generate diverse word combinations and sentence structures Furthermore, Tavakoli and Rezazadeh (2014) identify factors such as speech rate, pauses, and repair fluency as significant influences on writing fluency.
Accuracy in language production refers to the correctness of sentences and phrases that learners can express in both speaking and writing It is defined as the ability to produce language that adheres to the norms of the target language (Skehan & Foster, 1997) Furthermore, Wolfe-Quintero et al (1998) demonstrate that the level of writing accuracy can be assessed by analyzing the grammatical and vocabulary errors made by students.
The study examines writing fluency and accuracy, which are evaluated through the concepts of "content" and "language." These terms are rooted in the writing scale assessment outlined in the 2020 test handbook for the selected standardized test, KEY A2.
Padlet platform
Technology significantly enhances language learning and acquisition, particularly in writing Hirvela (2005) highlights the growing reliance on computers in tertiary writing instruction, making them essential tools for guidance Numerous studies demonstrate improvements in writing skills through technological tools, with Levy (2009) noting the prevalent use of word processors for writing tasks Elola and Oskoz (2010) explored individual versus group writing completed via wikis, while Chun (2008) pointed out that advanced technologies have shifted communication from emails and forums to blogs, wikis, and social networks Additionally, Zhi and Su (2015) illustrate how Padlet can facilitate collaborative knowledge building through visualized processes.
Padlet is one of the common platforms which has been used in education
An online wall serves as a digital bulletin board where students can share various file types, including photos, documents, and multimedia The wall's creator has the ability to manage content, customize the layout and design, and adjust privacy settings Additionally, educators can provide feedback and instructions, allowing students to engage with each other's posts through comments Lecturers can assign tasks and share results, enabling all students to access a broader range of ideas beyond just their immediate peers.
By adjusting privacy settings on a Padlet wall, developers can determine who has access, making it either private or public Access can be shared through QR codes or direct links, and designers can manage visitor permissions, allowing them to read, write, or edit their posts Content is moderated by the author before visibility, ensuring quality control Once created, wall content remains permanent until deleted Padlet supports multiple users posting simultaneously, with real-time updates, requiring an internet connection A key advantage of Padlet is the option for anonymity, as participants can contribute without needing to register, reducing anxiety about their input.
& Kurniawan, 2018) Kharis et al (2020) also points out Padlet helps to rise students’ grades and encourage students to involve actively into the classroom activities
In summary, this section highlights the features of the Padlet platform and reviews previous research on its effectiveness in collaborative learning and writing The findings from earlier studies demonstrate that Padlet is a valuable tool in educational settings, particularly for fostering collaboration among learners.
Learner attitude
Numerous studies highlight the significance of attitude in both first and second language acquisition, emphasizing its essential role in the learning process Researchers like Gardner advocate for the integration of attitude-focused strategies within language classrooms to enhance student engagement and success.
Lambert (1972) asserts that students' attitudes toward a target language significantly influence their language acquisition success Mastery of language skills is achievable when students engage positively in the learning process De Bot et al (2005) emphasize the importance of recognizing positive attitudes among teachers, researchers, and learners, as these attitudes enhance second language learning Consequently, understanding learners' perceptions of language acquisition is crucial, as it offers numerous benefits for both teachers and students in the language classroom.
Attitude is a complex concept that has been explored by numerous researchers Baker (1988) identifies key characteristics of attitude, including cognition, favorability, and the ability to modify experiences.
According to Saracaloglu (2000), the affective domain encompasses interest, values, and tendencies, all of which significantly influence attitudes Ajzen (2005) defines attitude as the inclination to respond positively or negatively to a stimulus Furthermore, Montano and Kasprzyk (2008) highlight that an individual's beliefs play a crucial role in shaping their attitudes, where strong positive beliefs lead to a favorable attitude and negative beliefs result in the opposite.
According to a widely accepted definition of attitude from 1991, attitudes consist of three key components: the cognitive domain, which encompasses participants' views about the object; the affective domain, which relates to feelings about the object; and the behavioral domain, focusing on consistent actions or intentions regarding the item This comprehensive definition of attitudes and their domains was utilized in the current study.
Attitudes play a crucial role in language learning, significantly influencing both the learning process and the achievements of language learners These attitudes can be categorized into three domains: cognitive, affective, and behavioral The cognitive domain pertains to learners' views and ideas, while the affective and behavioral components relate to their feelings and intentions.
Previous studies about collaborative writing and Padlet
Padlet has been effectively used in educational settings to enhance collaborative learning and student engagement Research by Putman (2014) indicates that Padlet facilitates quick interactions and self-expression among students Additional studies (Qiao & Mu, 2015; Garnham & Betts, 2018; Nadeem, 2019) confirm that Padlet fosters a collaborative classroom environment that captivates students, leading to improved engagement in lessons when they have opportunities to work together online.
Zhi and Su (2015) highlight that Padlet serves as a valuable tool for teachers and students, facilitating collaborative tasks, resource sharing, and research suggestions Fuchs (2014) emphasizes that Padlet fosters a supportive classroom environment that enhances collaboration Furthermore, Kharris et al (2020) suggest that increased writing encouragement and constructive feedback from instructors can significantly motivate students to improve their writing skills Collectively, these studies demonstrate that Padlet not only offers an effective platform for collaboration but also allows students to share ideas and learn from one another through an accessible online bulletin board displayed on an overhead projector.
This section reviews previous studies on Padlet and collaborative writing, highlighting the potential for their integration to enhance students' writing performance Consequently, the subsequent part addresses the research gap identified in this study.
Research gap
Research indicates that collaboration significantly enhances writing skills, and tools like Padlet can create an engaging online collaborative environment However, two key issues have captured the writer's attention in this context.
English writing proficiency is crucial among language skills, as highlighted by Pham and Duong (2017) Nguyen and Bao (2020) further emphasize the positive attitudes of both teachers and students towards using blogs for teaching English writing While Pham and Duong advocate for a competence-based approach to writing courses, the collaborative writing technique remains underutilized in enhancing writing instruction within the Vietnamese context.
Technology plays a crucial role in enhancing education, with numerous platforms designed to support teaching and learning One notable tool is Padlet, an online board widely utilized in educational settings It fosters a collaborative learning environment and actively engages students in lessons (Lestari & Kurniawan, 2018; Fukuda et al., 2020; Kharris, 2020).
The writer decided to conduct a research study examining the impact of collaborative writing through Padlet on students' writing performance and attitudes The findings indicate that both collaborative writing and the Padlet platform can effectively address the identified gaps in writing education.
Conceptual framework
The study is based on a theoretical-conceptual framework designed to highlight key components, including collaborative writing and the Padlet platform These concepts are integrated to establish a treatment environment for students Ultimately, the study evaluates students' writing performance through metrics of writing accuracy and fluency, as well as their attitudes towards writing A figure summarizing the study's conceptual framework is provided.
Figure 2.1 The conceptual framework of the study
To effectively conduct a lesson on collaborative writing using Padlet, educators should follow three key steps: Planning, Discussion, Writing, and Reporting on Padlet Integrating collaborative writing with the Padlet platform significantly enhances students' writing performance and attitudes Specifically, this approach is believed to improve the accuracy and fluency of students' writing Furthermore, students' attitudes are evaluated across cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains, revealing their perspectives, feelings, and engagement with collaborative writing This method fosters improvements in writing skills, boosts motivation and confidence, encourages collective effort and responsibility, enhances problem-solving abilities, facilitates knowledge exchange, and contributes to overall academic success.
Summary of chapter 2
This article provides a comprehensive theoretical background on the research topic, focusing on collaborative learning, collaborative writing, and writing performance It details the features of the Padlet platform and reviews prior studies involving Padlet Additionally, it discusses attitudes and relevant domains related to the research The chapter concludes by identifying the research gap and outlining the conceptual framework of the study, followed by a section that describes the methodology employed in this research.
METHODOLOGY
Research design
According to Polit et al (2001), research design is crucial for addressing research questions by detailing how, when, and where data is collected In this study, an experimental design was utilized, with participants divided into an experimental group (EG) and a control group (CG) The EG engaged in collaborative writing using Padlet, while the CG completed writing tasks without this collaborative tool The study included a pre-test, treatment, and post-test to evaluate the impact of Padlet on the EG's writing performance Additionally, a questionnaire gathered data on the participants' responses to collaborative writing in the EG Both groups faced the same writing topics during the English 1 course at Vien Dong College, but only the EG received the treatment and questionnaire The study measured two dependent variables: students' writing performance through tests and their attitudes via the questionnaire.
Research site
Vien Dong College, situated in District 12 of Ho Chi Minh City, serves over 1,000 students across nearly ten faculties In the second term of the 2020-2021 academic year, the college provided each student with a one-month subscription to ELSA Speak, an AI-driven application designed to enhance English pronunciation skills Additionally, all English classrooms are equipped with projectors and sound systems, with some featuring interactive boards to facilitate an engaging learning environment.
In the second term of the 2020-2021 academic year, the school had around 400 freshmen enrolled in communication English courses To ensure proper class placement, the school board conducted a placement test at the semester's start, resulting in four distinct levels: Basic English, English 1, English 2, and English 3 Non-English major students are required to complete their assigned course and any subsequent levels, as English is a mandatory subject.
Participants
The study employed a convenience sampling method, as outlined by Fraenkel and Wallen (2009), which is utilized when conducting random or systematic nonrandom sampling proves challenging.
At Vien Dong College, the writer did not have the authority to select classes or students for teaching, yet the students demonstrated reliable proficiency levels through a placement test The study involved 61 freshmen, aged 18 to 21, who were non-English majors enrolled in two English-1 classes Among them, 29 students formed the control group, while 32 students comprised the experimental group, representing various faculties such as business administration, accounting, nursing, beauty care, electricity, information technology, and automobile All participants were required to take an English placement test prior to the course, ensuring their English abilities were at a consistent level.
The table below illustrates demographic data of the participants in the study
Percentage Number of students Percentage
Self- assessment on writing ability
Self- evaluation on writing learning style
The study revealed that the majority of participants in the experimental group (EG) were female, with 26 females compared to 6 males, while the control group (CG) showed an equal gender distribution Most participants, aged 18-20, represented nearly two-thirds of both groups, indicating minimal age variation in the study The years of English learning were relatively consistent across the three options, with each group receiving about one-third of the responses Notably, no participants rated their writing ability as "very well" or "very bad," with approximately half of both groups selecting "average" and only about five rating it as "well." Regarding writing practice, around 60% of participants indicated they practiced individually, about one-fourth learned in groups, 9 provided no answer, and only one practiced writing with a friend.
Upon completing the course, all participants in the experimental group successfully filled out a questionnaire, demonstrating full engagement with the survey process.
Instruments
Quantitative data were collected in the study According to Creswell
(2012), a variety types of data should be collected to increase the inquiries of the study Therefore, two types of instruments were selected in the study are writing test and questionnaire
3.4.1 Writing tests (Pre-test and Post-test)
A study was conducted to assess improvements in writing ability using a pre-test and post-test, with the writing prompt adapted from the Key English Test (KET) by Cambridge University Both the experimental and control groups completed a writing pre-test in the first lesson The experimental group participated in collaborative writing activities on Padlet, while the control group engaged in communicative writing tasks The students' writing was evaluated by two examiners using a writing rubric to determine the impact on performance Summary data was then reported descriptively, detailing the test items and writing topics for each lesson.
Table 3.2 Pre-test and post-test writing topics
Your friend has asked you to go swimming tomorrow evening You can’t go Write a note to your friends
- When and where you can meet your friend on another day
Read this postcard from your friend, Alex
Write a postcard to Alex and answer Alex’s questions
Dürnyei and Taguchi (2010) highlight the advantages of using questionnaires, including efficiency in terms of time, effort, and cost Additionally, questionnaires are effective tools for gauging public opinions and attitudes Consequently, the author chose to adapt the questionnaire developed by Farrah.
In 2011, a study was conducted to analyze student reactions to collaborative writing using Padlet, which included measuring students' attitudes This research provided a suitable framework for adapting the questionnaire to fit the current study's objectives.
Next, the groups of questions, their attitude’s related domains and examples are described below
Table 3.3 Groups of question, attitude’ related domain and example questions
Attitude’s related domain Example questions
Question 4: Collaborative writing via Padlet helped me identify errors in part of speech
Other skills Cognitive Question 10: Collaborative writing via
Padlet stimulated the critical thinking
Question 18: Collaborative writing via Padlet helped me involve actively in learning
After learning with collaborative writing via Padlet, I felt more confident in collaboration with other students
Question 26: After learning with collaborative writing via Padlet, I am keen on more in writing
Question 14: Collaborative writing via Padlet helped me be more responsible for myself and my group
Question 15: Collaborative writing via Padlet helped us to support other weak students in group
After collaborative writing via Padlet,
I felt more cooperative in writing with others
Problem- solving and knowledge exchange
Question 8: Collaborative writing via Padlet increased knowledge, information and experience exchange
Question 17: Collaborative writing via Padlet increased writing performance Question 25: I finished more tasks when cooperating with other
Specifically, the questionnaire has three main parts
The initial section gathers personal information from students, including their gender, age, and prior years of English learning It also prompts them to self-evaluate their skills before engaging in collaborative writing using Padlet, as well as to reflect on their writing habits from previous courses.
The following part is designed in multiple-choice questions with five- point Likert scale from 1-5
The second part has both positive and negative statements about collaborative writing via Padlet and they are categorised into three smaller sections A, B and C
Part A includes 27 statements that outline various attitudes towards collaborative writing using Padlet, focusing on aspects such as writing skills, motivation, and confidence It emphasizes the importance of collective effort and responsibility in the writing process, highlights the role of problem-solving and knowledge exchange, and ultimately points to the potential for academic improvement through this collaborative approach.
Part B has five negative statements related to collaborative writing via Padlet.
Data collection procedures
To begin the data collection process, participants were divided into experimental and control groups and completed a writing pre-test during the first lesson This test aimed to gather initial data on the students' writing performance, utilizing adapted questions from the Reading and Writing section of the A2 KEY 1 Test by Cambridge University (2019) Students were given 15 minutes to respond to a short email writing prompt, requiring a minimum of 25 words.
After completing the writing pre-test, students in the experimental group (EG) engaged in collaborative writing activities using Padlet Initially, small groups of students selected a writing topic and a model together They then brainstormed ideas, vocabulary, and language, receiving feedback from the teacher throughout the process Once they composed their pieces collaboratively, students typed or photographed their writings and posted them on Padlet to receive comments The platform's comment feature allowed groups to provide feedback on each other's work Before concluding the lesson with the teacher's feedback and review, students revised and reposted their writings on Padlet for grading.
In contrast to the control group (CG), the experimental group brainstormed ideas independently before sharing them with the teacher Following this, students in the CG began writing individually and collaborated with peers for error checking, guided by the teacher's monitoring and feedback Additionally, the teacher encouraged some students to present their work on the board, concluding the lesson with the submission of their writings.
To sum up, the activities in two groups are summarised as below
Table 3.4 Teaching activities in two groups
Stage CG EG (collaborative writing)
Pre-writing Brainstorm ideas individually
While-writing Present orally and by only some students
Write in groups and post onto Padlet
Write individually in paper Discuss, write in groups and post onto Padlet
Post-writing Check in pairs only and by few students’ writings on the board
Check on Padlet (the whole class can observe every single writing)
The writing topics of the course are different in each unit and they are described in detail in the table 3.5
Table 3.5 Writing topics in English 1 course
The summary of key teaching plans for both groups are presented below
Table 3.6 Key points of lesson plan in the CG
Objectives: After the lesson, students can compose a short email to a pen pal
Teaching method: Communicative writing tasks
Teaching aids: Textbook, computer, projector, smart devices
Introduce about what a pen pal is Listen to the teacher Ask them to read and underline personal information in the sample writing
Ask students what the grammatical point is in the model writing
Ask students to write a similar email Write
Invite some students go to the board and write their emails
Write the emails on the boards
Ask students exchange their emails with partners for error checking
Work in pairs and check
Ask students to point out the errors of their friends’ emails on the board and check
Check and edit the writing
Table 3.7 Key points of lesson plan in the EG
Objectives: After the lesson, students can compose a short email to a pen pal
Teaching method: Collaborative writing via Padlet
Teaching aids: Textbook, computer, projector, smart devices
Teaching procedure Stage/ timing Teacher’s activities Student’s activities
Introduce about what a pen pal is Listen to the teacher Divide students into groups and ask them to prepare a smart device
Form groups and prepare a smart device
Ask students to read the model writing and underline personal information in the model writing
Discuss, scan through the model writing and underline personal information
Ask students what the grammatical point is in the model writing
Ask students to create a similar email about themselves and type directly onto Padlet
Ask students to comment other groups’ writing Comment onto Padlet
Ask students to revise their writing and repost on Padlet
Revise and repost onto Padlet
The writing question in the post-test was the same format of the writing question in the pre-test It was a postcard writing task and students should write
25 words or more The question was included in the midterm written test of the course English 1 and the students must finish within a suggested time of 15 minutes
After 11 weeks, 32 students from the experimental group completed an online questionnaire on Google Forms to share their thoughts on the implementation of collaborative writing through Padlet in their writing course The questionnaire was meticulously translated into Vietnamese by the author and reviewed for accuracy by two colleagues before being distributed to the students.
Reliability and validity of the instruments
According to Creswell (2012), reliability in a study refers to its stable and consistent status, while validity involves the correct methods of data collection (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009) In essence, reliability signifies consistency and stability, whereas validity pertains to the accuracy of the study's findings These two essential characteristics are further elaborated upon below.
To ensure the reliability of the tests used in the study, the author selected writing questions from the Key English Test (KET) preparation material published by Cambridge University Press After categorizing students into appropriate levels through a placement test at Vien Dong College, the use of standardized writing questions was deemed suitable for assessing student improvement Additionally, the writing tests were evaluated by two examiners, including the author and a colleague, utilizing a scoring rubric to ensure consistency in the evaluation process.
The reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed through the calculation of Cronbach’s Alpha, yielding a score of 0.89 when analyzed using SPSS statistics This result indicates that the study's reliability is deemed acceptable.
Validity is crucial in research, as it determines the appropriateness, meaningfulness, correctness, and usefulness of the inferences drawn by the researcher (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009) Ensuring the validity of the instruments used in a study is essential for obtaining reliable results.
The questionnaire, originally based on one used in Farrah (2011), was adapted and translated into Vietnamese to ensure full comprehension among participants It included both English and Vietnamese versions and was piloted with two Master’s degree English lecturers for error checking in spelling, meaning, and translation Subsequently, it was completed by a group of English majors to identify any issues related to logic, cohesion, or other aspects.
In his 2012 publication, Creswell emphasizes that the accuracy of a study is bolstered by utilizing diverse sources of information, individuals, or processes Consequently, the validity of the present study was strengthened through the incorporation of two data sources: test scores and questionnaire responses.
Summary of chapter 3
This chapter outlines the methodology and processes used for data collection, detailing the research design, site, participants, and the reliability and validity of the instruments employed It also describes the procedures for gathering data The collected data is presented, analyzed, and discussed in Chapter 5.
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Impact of collaborative writing via Padlet on tests’ results
The study assessed writing fluency and accuracy through two tests administered to participants It analyzed the overall scores to identify differences before and after the treatment The subsequent sections of this chapter provide a detailed analysis of these test components.
The overall score’s mean difference was tested by the independent samples t-test and the results are in the table 4.1
Table 4.1 Mean difference of the overall score in the pre-test
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Mean F Sig t df Sig (2- tailed)
Std Error Difference Pre-test
Table 4.1 compares the overall writing scores in the pre-test between the control group (CG) and the experimental group (EG) A t-test was conducted on the mean scores of 29 pre-tests from the CG and 32 from the EG, revealing a mean difference of 0.44 and a p-value of 0.101, which exceeds the alpha level of 0.05 Although the CG had a higher mean score than the EG, the results indicate no significant difference in pre-test scores between the two groups Therefore, it can be concluded that the writing levels of students in both groups were comparable, fulfilling the criteria for the experimental research design.
After the treatment, the overall score in both groups were evaluated again and the data are presented in the table below
Table 4.2 Mean difference of the overall score in the post-test
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Mean F Sig t df Sig (2- tailed)
The mean difference is -.37 and p value (0.188) is more than alpha
The t-test results indicate no significant differences between the mean scores of the two groups, as the p-value of 188 exceeds the alpha level of 05 Therefore, it can be concluded that the overall difference in post-test scores is not substantial.
The following part presents the mean difference between the pre-test and post-test score of the CG
Table 4.3 Mean difference between the pre-test and post-test overall scores of the CG
Pre-test Post-test Paired differences t df
The paired t-test revealed a significant mean difference of 0.99 between the pre-test and post-test scores in the control group (CG), with a p-value of 00, which is below the alpha level of 05 This indicates a notable decrease in the overall scores of the CG from the pre-test to the post-test.
Next, the difference in mean between the pre-test and post-test overall scores in the EG is also described below
Table 4.4 Mean difference between the pre-test and post-test overall scores of the EG
Pre-test Post-test Paired differences t df
The analysis revealed a mean difference of 0.17 in the pre-test and post-test overall scores of the experimental group (EG), with a p-value of 414, which exceeds the alpha level of 05 Consequently, the slight decrease in the mean overall score from 6.38 to 6.21 indicates that participants in the EG did not achieve a significant improvement in their writing performance.
In conclusion, the writing levels of participants in both groups were comparable, with a notable decline in post-test scores However, the control group experienced a significant drop, whereas the experimental group showed only a minor decrease The table below summarizes the overall scores for both groups.
Table 4.5 Results of the overall scores
Pre-test Post-test Sig (2-tailed) of paired- samples t-test
Sig (2-tailed) of independent samples t-test 0.101 0.188
The data about the overall scores have been described The next section presents date of writing accuracy among two groups.
The level of writing accuracy was also examined The following parts are used to present the data about students’ writing accuracy
Table 4.6 Mean difference of writing accuracy in the pre-test
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Mean F Sig t df Sig (2- tailed)
The data presented in Table 4.6 reveal a significant mean difference of 0.94 in writing accuracy between the experimental group (EG) and control group (CG) during the pre-test, with a p-value of 0.002, which is below the alpha level of 0.05 This indicates a statistically significant difference in pre-test accuracy (t(59) = 3.25, p < 0.05) between the two groups Consequently, it can be concluded that the writing accuracy levels differed prior to the treatment, suggesting that the focus of the post-test mean differences should be directed solely towards the experimental group.
Next, the mean difference of writing accuracy was then analysed in the post-test and is illustrated below
Table 4.7 Mean difference of writing accuracy in the post-test
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Mean F Sig t df Sig (2- tailed)
The post-test writing accuracy was assessed using an independent sample t-test to determine any changes following the treatment Table 4.7 illustrates the writing accuracy levels of both groups in the post-test, revealing a mean difference of -1.67 with a p-value of 00, which is significantly lower than the alpha level of 05 It is important to note that, due to the differences in pre-test mean scores, the focus should solely be on the mean difference in the experimental group (EG) in the post-test analysis.
The paired samples t-test was conducted to analyze the mean difference in writing accuracy between the pre-test and post-test in the control group (CG) The results are summarized in the table below.
Table 4.8 Mean difference between the pre-test and post-test’s writing accuracy of the CG
Pre-test Post-test Paired differences t df
The analysis reveals a mean difference of 1.24 in the pre-test and post-test scores of the control group (CG), with a p-value of 000, indicating statistical significance below the alpha level of 05 Notably, the mean writing accuracy score decreased from 7.03 to 5.79, highlighting a significant decline in students' writing accuracy in the post-test compared to the pre-test.
The paired samples t-test is then also used to measure the mean difference between the pre-test and post-test’s writing accuracy in the EG
Table 4.9 Mean difference between the pre-test and post-test’s writing accuracy of the EG
Pre-test Post-test Paired differences t df
EG 6.09 7.46 -1.37 1.34 23 -5.7 31 000 The mean score of writing accuracy in the EG was increased from 6.09 to 7.46 and p value (.000) was less than alpha (.05) It can be concluded that the writing accuracy change in the EG was considerable In other words, writing accuracy level in the EG was improved significantly after the treatment
In summary, the initial writing accuracy between the control group (CG) and the experimental group (EG) was not comparable However, following the treatment, the CG experienced a significant decline in performance, whereas the EG demonstrated a notable improvement, increasing their scores from 6.09 to 7.46 in the post-test.
Table 4.10 Results of writing accuracy
Pre-test Post-test Sig (2-tailed) of paired- samples t-test
Sig (2-tailed) of independent samples t-test 002 000
Statistics relating to writing accuracy are summarised in the previous table The next part demonstrates data about the level of writing fluency.
As similar as writing accuracy, the level of writing fluency was measured by the t-test and the data are described below
Table 4.11 Mean difference of writing fluency in the pre-test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Mean F Sig t df Sig (2- tailed)
The pre-test statistics reveal a mean writing fluency score of 6.62 for the control group (CG) and 6.67 for the experimental group (EG) Furthermore, the difference in writing fluency between the two groups in the pre-test is not statistically significant, as indicated by the p-value.
(0.884) is more than the alpha (0.05) In summary, the level of writing fluency among two groups in the pre-test is not considerably different
Next, the mean difference of writing fluency in the post-test is also presented
Table 4.12 Mean difference of writing fluency in the post-test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
Mean F Sig t df Sig (2- tailed)
After the treatment, writing fluency was assessed to determine any significant changes between the experimental group (EG) and the control group (CG) The EG reported a mean score of M = 4.95, which was lower than the CG's mean score of M = 5.87 The p-value of 029 indicates a significant difference, as it is below the alpha level of 05 Overall, the results show a significant decrease in writing fluency scores for both groups.
Being presented below is the figures of the mean difference between the pre-test and post-test’s writing fluency in the CG
Table 4.13 Mean difference between the pre-test and post-test’s writing fluency of the CG
Pre-test Post-test Paired differences t df
A paired samples t-test was conducted to assess the mean difference in writing fluency between the pre-test and post-test of the control group (CG) The results indicate a mean difference of 0.74, with a p-value of 0.018, which is below the alpha level of 0.05 This suggests a significant difference in writing fluency between the pre-test and post-test for the CG, indicating a notable decline in performance.
The mean difference between the pre-test and post-test’s writing fluency in the EG was also illustrated below
Table 4.14 Mean difference between the pre-test and post-test’s writing fluency of the EG
Pre-test Post-test Paired differences t df
The EG earned the mean difference at 1.71 between the result of pre-test and post-test’s writing fluency The p value is 000 and it is less than alpha
(.05) To sum up, the writing fluency of the EG dropped significantly
In conclusion, both groups saw a considerable decrease in the level of writing fluency after the treatment The data related to writing fluency are summarised below
Table 4.15 Results of writing fluency
Pre-test Post-test Sig (2-tailed) of paired- samples t-test
Sig (2-tailed) of independent samples t-test 884 029
The results of the pre- and post-test have been demonstrated in this section of the chapter The following part presents students’ attitudes towards collaborative writing via Padlet.
Students’ attitudes
This section showcases the data gathered from the questionnaire, highlighting students' attitudes towards collaborative writing using Padlet The statistics provided here are crucial for addressing the second research question: What are students' attitudes towards collaborative writing via Padlet at Vien Dong College?
The questionnaire consists of thirty-eight questions divided into two segments: one focusing on students' attitudes and the other on their suggestions for using collaborative writing through Padlet Students evaluated the statements on a 5-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), with a neutral option (3) in the middle Disagreement levels are indicated by scores of 1 to 2, while agreement levels are represented by scores of 4 to 5.
4.2.1 Students’ attitudes towards writing skill aspects
The first six questions in the questionnaire were employed to find out the students’ attitudes towards the writing skill aspects The data were presented in the table below
Table 4.16: Students’ attitudes towards writing skill
Code Writing skill aspects Mean
WS1 It assisted me in creating a better paragraph 3.68
WS2 It helped me brainstorm better 4.31
WS3 It helped me use sentences and transitions more effectively 3.71 WS4 It helped me identify errors in part of speech 4.03
WS5 It helped me avoid grammatical errors 3.75
WS6 It helped me avoid mistakes in spelling, punctuation and capitalisation 3.59
The table illustrates students’ self-assessment of their writing skills following collaborative learning using the Padlet platform Overall, they reported an improvement in their writing abilities through this method, with all mean scores exceeding 3.5, indicating strong agreement with six key statements.
The highest mean score was recorded for the statement about improved brainstorming, with a score of 4.3 Participants positively assessed their language and writing accuracy, noting that collaborative writing through Padlet enhanced their sentence usage (M = 3.7), recognition of part of speech errors (M = 4), and avoidance of grammatical errors (M = 3.7).
To sum up, students pointed out that their writing accuracy level in terms of part of speech, transition and grammatical correction were improved after learning with collaboration via Padlet
4.2.2 Students’ attitudes towards other skills
The study assessed not only the students' writing skills but also evaluated critical thinking, communication, and other competencies that were not measured in the individual assessment through a questionnaire The relevant data was collected using the questions outlined in the table below.
Table 4.17: Students’ attitudes towards other skills
OS10 It stimulated the critical thinking 4.12
OS16 It developed communication skills 4.18
OS21 It allowed me to use skills that are not in the individual assessment 3.96
Students reported a strong agreement with the benefits of collaborative writing through Padlet, with mean scores of 4.12 for critical thinking and 4.18 for communication skills improvement Additionally, group work enabled them to utilize skills that were lacking in their individual performances, reflected by a mean score of 3.9.
In conclusion, students’ attitudes towards other skills were positive Particularly, they responded that their critical thinking and communication skills were boosted
4.2.3 Students’ attitudes towards motivation and confidence
There are four questions in the questionnaire aimed to measure motivation and confidence among participants The data are presented in the table below
Table 4.18: Students’ attitudes towards motivation and confidence
Code Motivation and confidence Mean
MC11 It helped me study in a more relaxed learning environment 3.81 MC18 It helped me involve actively in learning 3.78
MC20 After learning with collaborative writing via Padlet, I felt more confident in collaboration with other students 3.68
MC 26 After learning with collaborative writing via Padlet, I am keen on more in writing 3.53
Students reported an increase in motivation and confidence following the collaborative writing treatment using Padlet, with a relaxed learning environment contributing to this boost (M = 3.8) The treatment encouraged active participation in the learning process (M = 3.7) and fostered a greater enjoyment of writing (M = 3.53), as well as a willingness to collaborate with peers (M = 3.68) Overall, the collaborative writing experience via Padlet significantly motivated students and enhanced their confidence.
4.2.4 Students’ attitudes towards collective effort and responsibility
Students evaluated their collective effort and responsibility during collaborative writing activities on Padlet, responding to four questions designed to gather their opinions on the experience.
Table 4.19: Students’ attitudes towards collective efforts and responsibility Code Collective efforts and responsibility Mean
CER13 It helped me concentrate on collective efforts rather than individual efforts 3.71
CER14 It helped me be more responsible for myself and my group 4.25 CER15 It helped us to support other weak students in group 3.87
CER19 After collaborative writing via Padlet, I felt more cooperative in writing with others 3.62
CER22 Despite having disagreement, my group reached the consensus 3.34
Table 4.19 highlights that students demonstrated positive responses towards collective efforts and responsibility, with collaborative writing on Padlet significantly enhancing their sense of accountability for both group work and individual tasks (M = 4.25) Additionally, they acknowledged that this activity supports weaker students (M = 3.87) and fosters a focus on collective efforts over individual contributions (M = 3.7).
To sum up, the experimental groups presented positive attitudes towards collective efforts and responsibility after being under the treatment with collaborative writing via Padlet
4.2.5 Students’ attitudes towards problem-solving and knowledge exchange
The way students solved the problems and exchanged knowledge was also asked in the questionnaire Six questions in the following table were employed to gain their opinions
Table 4.20: Students’ attitudes towards Problem-solving and knowledge exchange Code Problem-solving and knowledge exchange Mean
PKE8 It increased knowledge, information and experience exchange 4.43
PKE9 It eased problem-solving 4.12
PKE12 It helped me receive useful feedback 4.09
PKE23 In collaborative writing via Padlet, I had chances to present my ideas 4
PKE24 I learned other ways to support for my opinions 4.09
Students reported a positive attitude towards collaborative writing using Padlet, with mean scores exceeding 4 across various items They noted that this approach significantly enhanced their knowledge exchange, with a mean score of 4.43 Furthermore, they recognized an improvement in their problem-solving skills, reflected in a mean score of 4.1 The collaborative writing experience also provided opportunities for students to articulate their ideas and learn to substantiate their opinions, achieving a mean score of 4.
In conclusion, students positively responded that collaborative writing via Padlet strengthened their problem solving and the way they exchanged knowledge, information and experience
4.2.6 Students’ attitudes towards academic enhancement
Students reported that their academic performance improved through collaborative writing on Padlet, highlighting enhanced comprehension and cooperation among peers, as well as an increase in their writing skills and overall experience.
Table 4.21: Students’ attitudes towards academic enhancement
AE7 It increased comprehension level 4.43
AE17 It increased writing performance 4.12
AE25 I finished more tasks when cooperating with other 4.09
AE27 It was an interesting experience 4
Students reported a highly positive attitude towards their academic improvement following the treatment, with significant impacts noted on their comprehension (M = 4.4) and writing performance (M = 4.1) They found collaborative writing through Padlet to be engaging (M = 4) and felt they could accomplish more tasks after participating in this activity (M = 4).
It can be clearly seen that the collaborative writing via Padlet influenced positively on students’ academic improvement, especially in comprehension level and writing performance
4.2.7 Students’ attitudes towards negative comments about collaborative writing via Padlet
In addition to the positive feedback highlighted earlier, the questionnaire also included some negative comments regarding collaborative writing on Padlet, which are presented in the data below.
Table 4.22: Students’ attitudes towards negative comments
NC28 It was a waste of time due to continual explanations to others 2.34
NC29 It was challenging to force group members to actively involve in tasks in collaborative writing via Padlet 3.21
NC30 It made me spend more time in planning than individual writing 3.34
NC31 It made me spend more time in idea brainstorming than individual writing 3.62
NC32 It made me spend more time in spelling, punctuation and grammar check than individual writing 3.62
Students showed a positive attitude towards implementation, with less than half believing they needed to explain frequently (M = 2.34) They found it easy to keep group members on task (M = 3.2) and noted that their planning time was comparable to solo writing (M = 3.3) Additionally, students recognized that collaboration enhanced their brainstorming efforts (M = 3.6) and improved their focus on checking work (M = 3.6).
In conclusion, while students expressed disagreement with negative feedback regarding collaborative writing on Padlet, they acknowledged that they invested more time in planning and reviewing their work when collaborating through this platform compared to writing individually.
Discussion
The two previously aforementioned sections present in-depth data in terms of scores and questionnaire items This part is used to discuss the findings two research questions
The research addressed the question of how collaborative writing through Padlet affects students' writing performance The findings indicated that while the overall writing scores of students showed a slight decline after implementing Padlet collaboration in lessons, this outcome contrasts with previous studies (Pham, 2021; Hirvela, 2011) that reported improvements in writing performance through collaborative efforts This decline may be attributed to students also having to navigate other test components, such as grammar, vocabulary, reading, and listening, alongside the writing tasks.
The findings align with previous research indicating that collaborative writing enhances language accuracy among students (Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2005) Through cooperation, students learn from one another, positively impacting their performance in writing tests However, the study revealed a decline in writing fluency, contrasting with earlier studies that reported no significant changes in this area (Biria and Jafari, 2013; Zabihi and Rezazadeh, 2013) This unexpected drop in fluency may be attributed to the pressure of limited testing time, causing students to rush and ultimately resulting in a lower word count for their writing responses.
Recent findings on the impact of the Padlet platform in collaborative learning environments align with previous studies Notably, improved student writing accuracy supports the research by Kharris et al (2020), which emphasizes that collaborative settings enhance writing skills Furthermore, Zhi and Su's 2015 study confirms that Padlet is effective for collaborative tasks in language classrooms Additionally, the results corroborate the conclusions of Fuchs (2014) and Kharris et al (2020), highlighting Padlet's efficiency in facilitating language tasks.
In conclusion, using Padlet for collaborative writing enhanced students' writing accuracy, though there was a minor decline in overall scores Furthermore, writing fluency experienced a significant decrease Nonetheless, Padlet effectively fosters a collaborative learning environment for students engaged in writing activities.
Towards the attitudes of the students implied in the second research question – “What are the students’ attitudes towards collaborative writing via
The data from the questionnaire indicated that participants had a positive experience with collaborative writing using Padlet, aligning with previous studies that highlight the benefits of this approach Research by Baker (2013), Talib and Cheung (2017), Vanhanen-Nuutinen (2006), and Storch (2019) demonstrates that collaborative writing significantly enhances students' learning outcomes, and the current study supports these findings.
Participants reported that collaborative writing significantly enhanced their writing skills, motivation, and confidence They became more responsible in group settings and learned to express their opinions more clearly and persuasively, aligning with Hirvela's (2011) findings Additionally, the study found that participants' writing accuracy improved, supporting previous research by Shehadeh (2011), Biria and Jafari (2013), and Zabihi and Rezazadeh (2013), which indicated that collaborative writing instruction positively impacts language accuracy among students.
Students expressed their desire for improved teacher engagement, highlighting the need for better member exchange and mixed-level arrangements They also anticipated more practical topics in the curriculum and a reduction in monitoring time from instructors.
Summary of chapter 4
Chapter 4 analyzes quantitative data from test scores and questionnaire responses to address the two research questions The subsequent chapter will discuss the conclusions, contributions, and implications of the study.