04051001868 tóm tắt cải thiện việc viết tiểu luận mang tính tranh luận của sinh viên thông qua viết hợp tác một nghiên cứu hành Động cho sinh viên chuyên ngành ngôn ngữ anh tại một trường Đại học tại hà nội
INTRODUCTION
Rationale for the study
Language learning focuses on enhancing communicative abilities through the practice of four essential skills: reading, writing, listening, and speaking Among these, writing is often viewed as the most challenging skill for learners, regardless of whether it is their first, second, or foreign language As noted by Elbow (1981), writing well is a complex and time-consuming process Additionally, Bell and Burnaby (1984) describe writing as a highly complicated activity, highlighting the difficulties faced by language learners in mastering this skill.
Writers must effectively showcase multiple variables at once to convey their ideas clearly This involves organizing thoughts logically, employing appropriate vocabulary, utilizing correct grammatical structures, and ensuring coherence and cohesion throughout their writing.
In Vietnam, the focus of teaching writing skills to English-majored students in tertiary education is primarily on essay writing At the university where the researcher teaches, English Writing Skills is a mandatory course for all English majors While instructing third-year students in English Writing Skills 5, the researcher has identified several challenges, including a lack of background knowledge on writing topics, difficulties in expressing ideas with varied sentence structures, and issues with coherence and cohesion in essays Consequently, the researcher aims to conduct action research to enhance the teaching situation.
In the last semester, the researcher observed that students found writing lessons to be a tedious and isolating task, leading to a lack of motivation during their individual essay compositions.
The researcher aimed to enhance writing instruction by implementing a new technique that fosters student interaction and makes writing enjoyable After evaluating various teaching methods, collaborative learning was chosen to improve the writing experience Vygotsky highlighted the significance of social interaction in learning, stating, “It is through others that we develop into ourselves” (Vygotsky, 1981, p 161) Everson (1991, p 10) noted that young writers thrive in environments where they can engage with teachers and peers before writing independently Additionally, John-Steiner (1985, p 208) emphasized that temporary communities of creative young people enhance self-awareness and benefit from peer feedback The researcher believes that collaboration in writing lessons not only aids students' progress but also fosters support among teammates.
In the compulsory English Writing Skills course for English-majored students, learners engage in writing various essay types, with argumentative essays being a primary focus (Mei & Allison, 2005, p 106) However, argumentative essays present significant challenges for students, as they are considered one of the greatest obstacles faced by many English language learners (ELLs).
Despite prior practice in writing Academic English (AE), participants did not perform well in the previous semester's course To enhance their writing skills, the researcher, who is also the teacher, opted to implement Collaborative Writing (CW) as a teaching method for AE this semester.
Aims and objectives
This research aimed to explore students' perceptions of collaborative writing in Academic English (AE) and to analyze their collaborative efforts during the writing process Additionally, it sought to assess the effectiveness of collaborative writing (CW) in enhancing the writing skills of English major students The study was guided by three key objectives.
To examine students' perceptions of writing AE collaboratively
To study students' collaboration during CW
To investigate the effectiveness of CW in improving students' writing AE from the teacher's assessment.
Research questions
Based on the aims of the research, the research is expected to find out answers to the questions:
How do students perceive writing AE collaboratively?
How do students collaborate during writing AE together?
What is the effectiveness of CW in improving students' writing AE from the teacher's assessment?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Nature of writing
According to White (1981, as cited in Nunan, 1989), writing is not a natural activity and differs from speaking in two significant ways: it requires formal instruction and produces permanent written evidence Additionally, writing is recognized as a cognitive activity (Bell & Burnaby, 1984; Weigle, 2002; Stoch).
Writing is a complex activity intertwined with human cognition, as noted by Bell & Burnaby (1984, cited in Nunan, 1989) It necessitates the simultaneous execution of various skills, including mastering sentence meaning, structure, vocabulary, spelling, and letter forms at the sentence level Additionally, beyond the sentence level, writers must ensure cohesion and coherence when constructing paragraphs or essays.
Writing is recognized as a social process, as highlighted by various scholars (McLane, 1990; Sperling, 1996; Hayes, 1996; Weigle, 2002) According to Sperling (1996), writing is described as "a meaning-making activity that is socially and culturally shaped and individually and socially purposeful." This perspective emphasizes the interconnectedness of writing with social and cultural contexts.
Writing is a method of human intercommunication that utilizes conventional visible marks According to White and Arndt (1991, p 3), writing transcends mere transcription of spoken language into graphic symbols; it serves as a lasting form of evidence that facilitates both communicative interpretation and method.
Writing is inherently social, functioning as a social artifact within a communal context The content, style, and audience of our writing are influenced by social conventions and our past interactions.
Writing is both a cognitive and social process that requires students to utilize various skills to create meaning and effectively communicate.
Collaborative writing
Conventional education views human attention, memory, and cognition as individual mental qualities that develop independently of society (Haenen, Schrijnemakers, & Stufkens, 2003) In contrast, Lev Vygotsky's socio-cultural learning theory highlights the critical role of social interaction and culture in children's mental development Vygotsky argued that cognitive development is intertwined with social interaction, stating, "It is through others that we develop into ourselves" (Vygotsky, 1981) He emphasized that learning cannot be separated from human communication and social contexts, asserting that "Learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his environment and in cooperation with peers" (Vygotsky, 1978).
Vygotsky's view, the learning environment is "a shared problem space, inviting the students to participate in a process of negotiation and co-construction of knowledge"
The center of his learning theory is called ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development) which he defined as:
"[ ] the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as
6 determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers." (Vygotsky, 1978, p.86)
Vygotsky's concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) serves as a crucial framework for organizing children's education, emphasizing the importance of collaboration and support in enhancing their psychological development He argued that with guidance, children can tackle more complex tasks than they could on their own, and the skills they acquire through this support can later be performed independently Vygotsky identified two levels of learning: the intrapersonal process, where children learn through interaction with others, and the interpersonal process, where they internalize knowledge Consequently, from a socio-cultural perspective, educators should design activities that provide students with the necessary guidance and support to deepen their understanding of subjects.
Vygotsky emphasized that learning is a social process, highlighting the importance of dialogue and language as instructional tools for cognitive development (1978, p 131) According to Storch (2016, p 389), dialogue allows a more knowledgeable individual to assist a novice, facilitating the co-construction and internalization of knowledge This educational dialogue is essential for supporting children's cognitive growth, as noted by Haenen, Schrijnemakers, and Stufkens.
In 2003, it was noted that the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is established in classrooms where students engage in discussions and activities Collaborative dialogues, such as open-forum classroom discussions, foster critical thinking that evolves into "inner speech."
Verbal thought emerges when learners are supported by more knowledgeable peers or teachers (Miller, 2003) Additionally, engaging in collaborative discussions is essential for enhancing student understanding and critical thinking (Barnes et al., 1969; Barnes, 1976; Barnes & Todd, 1977).
Britton, 1970; Wells, 1986, as cited in Miller, 2003, p 291).
Based on the reviews, the researcher has chosen Vygotskian socio-cultural theory as the framework for the study, emphasizing key concepts such as social interaction, dialogue, and the Zone of Proximal Development This socio-cultural theory serves as the foundation for analyzing collaborative writing (CW) and the interactions that take place within it.
Allen et al (1987, p.70) stated that "shared-document collaboration involves collaborators producing a shared document, engaging in substantive interaction about that document, and sharing decision-making power and responsibility for it".
Collaborative writing is an iterative and social process where a team works towards a shared goal, engaging in negotiation, coordination, and communication throughout the development of a common document (Lowry et al., 2004).
Collaborative writing involves multiple individuals working together to create a text, sharing the responsibility of co-construction, as highlighted by Haring-Smith (1994) and Storch (2005).
Sharing the same ideas with Haring-Smith, Rice, and Huguley (1994, pp 163-164) considered collaborative writing as a collective performance which involves
"brainstorming or idea generating, gathering research, planning and organizing, drafting, revision, and editing" to create a text.
Collaborative writing is an activity that involves pairs or groups working together, where each member contributes to co-authoring a high-quality final written product.
Storch (2016) identifies three key traits of collaborative writing (CW): process, product, and text ownership Unlike other peer-related activities that only involve collaboration during pre-writing and post-writing stages, CW requires active participation from all members throughout every stage of writing As noted by Stahl (2006), collaborative writing culminates in a unified text that cannot be easily attributed to individual contributions Storch emphasizes that this characteristic is fundamental to understanding the essence of collaborative writing.
Collaborative writing (CW) involves a collective ownership of the text, where all co-authors participate in decision-making and share responsibility for the entire work This contrasts with cooperative writing, where each group member is assigned a distinct section of the writing task, leading to a division of labor rather than a unified effort.
CW, students co-construct to the shared product
According to Allen et al (1987), collaborative work (CW) is defined by three key characteristics: conflict, shared products, and group typology These features highlight the dynamics and structure inherent in collaborative efforts.
Conflict is a necessary factor of CW because it can help the group members to construct new ideas and create better products; however, conflict may have a two-sided
Conflict can enhance the quality of final products when group members engage in discussions to reach agreements, but it can also diminish product quality if disagreements are not addressed (Allen et al., 1987, p 83) Therefore, it is essential for members to tolerate and accept diverse opinions to create optimal documents Collaborative writing (CW) emphasizes the importance of each member's contribution, where all participants engage in real interactions, make collective decisions, and share responsibility for the quality of the output (Allen et al., 1987, p 84) Additionally, the formation of groups is influenced by the task's purpose, complexity, and the time required for completion (Allen et al., 1987, p 85) For example, long-term projects may necessitate larger teams Ultimately, selecting the appropriate group type can motivate learners to maximize their potential and perform at their best.
Writing can be viewed from two main perspectives: the product approach and the process approach The product approach emphasizes the importance of the final outcomes of writing, focusing on the end results rather than the methods used to achieve them.
"the focus in class will be on copying and imitation, […] developing sentences and paragraphs from models of various sorts" On the other hand, Trible (1996, p 160) defined the process approach as:
This writing instruction method emphasizes the unique creativity of each writer, focusing on cultivating effective writing practices instead of merely replicating existing models.
The difference between the two approaches does not only lie in the definition While in a writing class that follows product approach, students' writing will be assessed and
METHOD OF THE STUDY
Participants and contexts of the research
The study involved 20 intermediate-level English students, comprising 18 girls and 2 boys, from a single class taught by the researcher All participants were English majors in their first term of the third year at university and had successfully completed English Writing Skills 1-4, where they learned to write various types of essays.
In English Writing Skills 3 and 4, students practiced various essay types, including Narrative, Argumentative, Comparison & Contrast, Cause & Effect, and Advantage & Disadvantage essays This experience helped them become familiar with the essential structure and components of a basic essay Additionally, students learned to support their arguments with reasons, explanations, and examples, although some supporting ideas occasionally lacked relevance to the topic sentence and strength.
The researcher selected students from the class for the study due to their fair proficiency in grammar and vocabulary, as well as the opportunity to persuade readers effectively This decision was influenced by the researcher's role as the class instructor for the semester.
Method of the study
This study utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the effectiveness of collaborative writing (CW) in enhancing students' writing achievement (AE) The qualitative approach involved collecting data from teacher observations and open-ended questionnaire responses to gain insights into both teacher and student perspectives In contrast, the quantitative method focused on data from the teacher's observation checklist, closed-ended questionnaire responses, and pre- and post-tests to provide evidence of students' perceptions of CW and to assess improvements in their writing AE following the intervention.
Model of action research
This study utilized the action research model proposed by Kemmis et al (2014), which is structured in a spiral format comprising four key steps: planning, observing, acting, and reflecting After each cycle, the researcher reflects on the process and determines necessary adjustments for future planning.
Timeline of the action research
1 Planning Preparing teaching materials and traning students
Session 1 (90 minutes) Students' doing the pre-test and the pre- questionnaire
Session 2 (90 minutes) Collaborative writing: Lesson 1 November 2020
Session 3 (90 minutes) Collaborative writing: Lesson 2 November 2020
Reflection Reflecting teacher's observations November 2020
2 Re-planning Altering the teaching procedures and retraining students
Session 4 (90 minutes) Collaborative writing: Lesson 3 December 2020
Session 5 (90 minutes) Collaborative writing: Lesson 4 December 2020
Session 6 (90 minutes) Students' doing the post-test and the post- questionnaire
Reflection Reflect teacher's observations and analyze the data from the questionnaires and the tests
Table 1: Timeline of the action research
Data-collection techniques
The pre-questionnaire included a mix of close-ended and open-ended questions to gather both qualitative and quantitative data It focused on assessing students' experiences, perceptions, and challenges related to writing AE during the previous semester.
In the initial session of the action research, students completed a pre-test where they individually wrote an Academic Essay (AE) of at least 250 words within 40 minutes Having previously practiced this essay format in a writing course, students were familiar with the requirements The pre-test was evaluated using Jacob et al.'s (1981) scale, focusing on five key areas: content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics Additionally, the pre-test aimed to identify students' challenges in writing AEs, complementing the insights gained from a pre-questionnaire.
In this study, the researcher served as both the teacher and classroom observer, recording all sessions of Active Engagement (AE) through detailed observation checklists, partially adapted from Jacob et al.'s scale (1981) The observations focused on assessing student collaboration and their work during the Collaborative Work (CW) process.
In the final session of the action research, students completed a post-test by writing an AE on a different topic than the pre-test This post-test, like the pre-test, was conducted in 40 minutes and evaluated using the same criteria The outcomes of the post-test were anticipated to assist the researcher in determining whether CW could improve students' writing skills in AE.
The post-questionnaire, like the pre-questionnaire, was used to collect both quantitative and qualitative data The quantitative data from close-ended questions aimed to assess the effectiveness of collaborative writing (CW) in enhancing students' perceptions of writing academic English (AE) Additionally, the researcher sought qualitative insights through open-ended questions to gain a deeper understanding of students' views on collaborative writing in the context of academic English.
Data analysis techniques
Techniques for analyzing qualitative data:
Qualitative data were collected using a teacher's observation checklist and open-ended questions from both pre- and post-questionnaires The analysis of this qualitative data involves six key steps: preparing, sorting, coding, recognizing themes, and interpreting those themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994, pp 10-11; Creswell, 2008, Chapter 9).
Techniques for analyzing quantitative data:
The quantitative data were collected through the checklist of the teacher's observations, the closed-ended questions in the pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire, the pre-test,
The researcher analyzed the quantitative data from the checklist independently, while the data from the questionnaires was processed using descriptive methods in the SPSS26 program To evaluate the effectiveness of CW in improving students' writing performance on AE, a T-test was conducted in SPSS26 to determine if the differences between the pre-test and post-test results were statistically significant.
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Students' perceptions of collaborative writing
Item Collaborative writing helps me to… N Mean Std Deviation
1.1 have better development of ideas with adequate supporting details 20 3.6000 1.04630 1.2 have better development of ideas with relevant supporting details 20 4.3000 86450 1.3 provide more well-organized ideas in logical sequencing 20 4.0000 1.25656
1.4 use more effective cohesive devices 20 3.3500 1.18210
1.5 have better control of grammar with most sentences error-free 20 4.0500 1.14593 1.6 use a wider range of grammatical structures with complex constructions or simple but effective constructions
1.7 choose more appropriate vocabulary for their essays 20 4.2000 1.00525 1.8 use a wider range of vocabulary without too much repetition 20 3.6500 1.03999 1.9 produce fewer errors of spelling, punctuation and capitalization 20 3.1500 1.22582 1.10 improve my overall performance in writing AE 20 4.3000 65695
Table 2: The improvement in writing AE from students' perceptions
The post-questionnaire results indicated that the majority of participants believed that collaborative writing (CW) enhanced their writing abilities in various areas, although they struggled with cohesive devices and correct mechanics Students acknowledged that CW allowed them to generate and explore more ideas, select the best ones, organize their thoughts logically, expand their vocabulary, improve grammatical accuracy, and respond to tasks more effectively However, two students expressed uncertainty about CW's effectiveness, citing conflicts and reliance on other group members as concerns.
Students' favour of writing AE collaboratively
Table 3: Students' favour of writing AE collaboratively
Participants expressed enjoyment in collaboratively writing AE, as it allowed for peer discussions, the exchange of opinions, and mutual support This collaborative approach not only saved time during brainstorming but also fostered an engaging learning environment Additionally, it enhanced their critical thinking, communication skills, imagination, and creativity.
Nine participants shared their positive experiences of collaborative academic writing, highlighting that working with peers allowed them to write more efficiently than when writing alone They benefited from constructive feedback from their peers and gained additional knowledge through the exchange of ideas.
Types of essays that students would like to try through CW in the future
Table 4: Types of essays that students would like to try through CW in the future
Students' feedback revealed that collaborative writing (CW) is effective for various essay types, enhancing their overall writing skills Additionally, it can be specifically applied to address challenges faced in particular essay formats.
Leaners' collaboration during collaborative writing
The table below shows the number of sessions in which students achieved the criteria in the teacher's observation checklist:
1 Students participate actively in the collaborative writing lesson when writing argumentative essays
2 Students maintain their involvement throughout the process of writing (from brainstorming to editing stage)
3 Students involve simultaneously in each stage of writing
4 Students have equal participation in the collaborative writing lesson
5 Students have much discussion with their group members
6 Students are confident to express their ideas when writing collaboratively
7 Students provide support for their peers when their peers do not have ideas when writing
8 Students are open-minded to accept different opinions of their group members
9 Students negotiate conflicts among group members
10 Students point out the mistakes to their group members' writing
11 Students give immediate feedback to their group members' writing
12 Students are positive about their collaborative final products
Table 5: Learner's collaboration from the teacher's observation
After two collaborative writing cycles, students actively engaged in the process, sharing their perspectives during discussions at all stages They provided support, identified peers' mistakes, and offered immediate feedback Additionally, students became more receptive to their classmates' viewpoints, even if they didn't always accept them right away Upon completing their essays, students expressed positivity and a willingness to share their work with other groups However, participation levels varied, with more active students contributing significantly more to the final products than their less engaged peers.
Teacher's assessment of students' writing argumentative essays
In a study involving four sessions of collaborative writing (CW), the researcher evaluated learners' work using a classroom observation checklist adapted from Jacob et al.'s scoring file (1981) This checklist encompasses five key writing components: content, organization, vocabulary, grammatical structures and accuracy, and mechanics The results, detailed in the table below, indicate the number of sessions in which students met the criteria outlined in the teacher's observation checklist.
1 Students have good development of ideas with adequate supporting details
2 Students have good development of ideas with relevant supporting details
3 Students can provide well-organized ideas with logical sequencing
4 Students can use cohesive devices to maintain cohesion
5 Students have good control on grammar with most sentences error-free
6 Students can use a wide range of grammatical structures with complex constructions or simple but effective constructions
7 Students can choose appropriate vocabulary for their essays
8 Students can use a wide range of vocabulary without too much repetition
9 Students produce few errors of spelling, punctuation and capitalization
Table 6: Learner's works from the teacher's observation
After two cycles of action, most groups successfully organized their ideas logically, utilizing effective cohesive devices and a diverse vocabulary They demonstrated significant improvement in grammar control, with the majority of sentences being error-free Additionally, students excelled in applying correct mechanics and employing a variety of grammatical structures, including both complex and simple constructions However, despite advancements in developing ideas with relevant details, there was minimal progress in providing adequate supporting ideas In conclusion, after two cycles of action, collaborative writing in AE showed notable enhancements among most students.
Twenty groups of students excelled in idea development, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics However, they showed limited improvement in offering sufficient details to support their thesis statements.
Table 7: The results of T-test calculation on the the pre-test and post-test
Table 7 indicates that the mean scores for all post-test criteria surpass those of the pre-test, reflecting an overall improvement in students' academic performance The significance values (Sig 2-tailed) for the content, organization, vocabulary, grammatical structures, and mechanics show values of 0.003, 0.008, 0.019, 0.000, and 0.000, respectively, all below the 0.05 threshold This suggests a significant enhancement in students' academic English skills across these areas Additionally, the total scores for the pre-tests and post-tests also demonstrate a significant improvement, with a Sig (2-tailed) value of 0.000, confirming the effectiveness of the treatment in boosting students' overall performance.
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair
DISCUSSION
The finding of this study in which most of the participants agreed that CW improved their writing AE is in line with many previous studies conducted by Abbass & Herdi
Recent studies by Masuara & Widiati (2020), Moonma & Kaweera (2021), and Pham (2021) have shown that collaborative writing (CW) positively impacts students' writing academic English (AE) skills, particularly in content, organization, vocabulary, and grammar Participants reported that CW encouraged idea generation and sharing among peers, enhancing their writing content (Storch, 2005; Shehadeh, 2011; Nguyen, T T., 2014; Nguyen, T L., 2021) Additionally, students noted improved organizational skills, as they focused more on logically structuring their ideas during collaboration CW also facilitated vocabulary acquisition, allowing students to learn new words from each other (Storch, 2005; Chu, T T C., 2019; Pham, 2021) Furthermore, it contributed to greater grammatical accuracy, as peers provided corrections for unnoticed mistakes (Storch, 2005; Nguyen, T T., 2014; Chu, T T C., 2019; Pham, 2021) However, students indicated that CW did not significantly influence their use of cohesive devices and mechanics, as they reported no difficulties in these areas, aligning with findings from Shehadeh's studies.
(2011), Albesher (2012), Dobao (2012), and Masuara & Widiati (2020) Shehadeh
(2011) also explained that CW had little impact on the mechanics because there are not many rules of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, so students can easily control
Dobao (2012) noted that in collaborative writing, students often overlook mechanical rules, as these are typically determined by the final author of the text.
Collaborative writing (CW) significantly improved students' writing across various aspects, including content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics, despite minimal progress in idea development This limited improvement can be attributed to the time-consuming nature of CW, which involves extensive discussion and consensus among group members In a 90-minute class, students struggled to allocate sufficient time for brainstorming, hindering their ability to develop adequate information for their academic essays Additionally, when group members lacked a strong background knowledge of the topic, the ideas exchanged were often insufficient Nevertheless, students benefited from the collaborative process, leading to enhanced writing quality in post-tests, demonstrating that the advantages of CW extend beyond mere language accuracy.
CW also positively affects students' writing content and organization (Shehadeh,
2011) Students' improvement in content and organization was also confirmed in the studies conducted by Albesher (2012), Masuara & Widiati (2020), and Nguyen, T L
In 2021, research indicated that students improved their vocabulary usage and word choices through CW, aligning with findings from Storch (2005), Shehadeh (2011), Dobao (2012), Masuara & Widiati (2020), and Nguyen, T L (2021) These studies highlighted enhancements in both linguistic accuracy and complexity as assessed by teachers Additionally, the current study observed that students produced more error-free sentences and utilized a broader range of grammatical structures, further supporting the conclusions of Storch (2005), Dobao (2012), and Nguyen, T T.
In a study by Nguyen (2021), it was revealed that collaborative writing (CW) significantly enhanced both grammatical accuracy and complexity in students' writing Despite students' perceptions from a post-questionnaire suggesting that CW had no impact on their use of mechanics, the researcher observed improved results in this area Overall, the findings indicate that CW contributed positively to students' writing abilities in academic English, aligning with earlier research by Ghufron (2014), Abbas & Herdi (2018), and Moonma & Kaweera (2021).
CONCLUSION
Taking everything into consideration, from students' perceptions, CW was perceived to give students many benefits and useful experiences which enhanced students' writing
Participants expressed satisfaction with the technique and a willingness to explore other essay types through collaborative writing (CW) in the future Students demonstrated enthusiasm in their collaboration, confidently sharing opinions, offering support, and effectively managing conflicts, despite some unequal participation among group members The teacher noted that CW significantly improved students' writing in areas such as content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics, although there was limited progress in developing adequate ideas.
Abbas, M F F., & Herdi, H (2018) Solving the students’ problems in writing argumentative essay through collaborative writing strategy English Review: Journal of English Education, 7(1), 105-114 https://dx.doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v7i1.1499
Albesher, B K (2012) Developing writing skills of ESL students through the collaborative learning strategy PhD Thesis, Newcastle University
Allen, N., Atkinson, D., Morgan, M., Moore, T., & Snow, C (1987) What Experienced Collaborators Say About Collaborative Writing Iowa State Journal of Business and Technical
Brown, H D (2001) Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2nd ed.) New-York: Longman
Bruffee, K A (1984) Collaborative Learning and the “Conversation of Mankind.” College English, 46(7), 635-652 https://doi.org/10.2307/376924
Chu, T T C (2019) Peer collaboration” in developing writing skills among grade 10 students in an upper-secondary school in Hung Yen Master’s thesis, Vietnam National
Cole, M (1996) Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Creswell, J W (2008) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
Dobao, A F (2012) Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58 doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
Elbow, P (1975) Writing without teachers New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Elbow, P (2000) Everyone can write: Essays toward a hopeful theory of writing and teaching writing New York: Oxford University Press
Everson, B.J (1991) Vygotsky and the Teaching of Writing Quarterly of the National
Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, 13, 8-11
Graham, S., & Perin, D (2007) Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools Alliance for Excellent Education
Ghufron, M Ali (2014) conducted a classroom action research study aimed at enhancing students' skills in writing argumentative essays The research focused on fourth-semester students from the English Education Department at IKIP PGRI Bojonegoro during the 2013/2014 academic year The findings were presented at the 61st TEFLIN International Conference held at Universitas Sebelas Maret in Solo, highlighting the effectiveness of a collaborative writing technique in improving writing skills.
Ghufron, M., & Hawa, M (2015) THE EFFECT OF COLLABORATIVE WRITING TECHNIQUE IN TEACHING ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY WRITING VIEWED FROM THE STUDENTS’ CREATIVITY Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature,
Hadjerrouit, S (2011) A Collaborative Writing Approach to Wikis: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology 8, 431 – 449
Haenen, J., Schrijnemakers, H., & Stufkens, J (2003) Sociocultural Theory and the Practice of Teaching Historical Concepts In A Kozulin, B Gindis, V Ageyev, & S Miller (Eds.),
Vygotsky's Educational Theory in Cultural Context (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and
Computational Perspectives, pp 246-266) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840975.014
Haring-Smith, T (1994) Writing together: Collaborative learning in the writing classroom
New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers
Hayes, J R (1996) A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing In C
M Levy & S Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp 1–27) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
Hedge, T (2005) Writing (2nd ed.) Oxford University Press
Hirvela, A (2013) Preparing English language learners for argumentative writing In L C de Oliveria & T J Silva (Eds.), L2 writing in secondary classrooms: Student experiences, academic issues, and teacher education (pp 67–86) New York: Routledge
Jacob, G M (2006) Issues in implementing cooperative learning In S G McCafferty, G M Jacob, & C.C.Iddings (Eds), Cooperative learning and second language teaching (pp 30-46) New York: Cambridge University Press
Jacobs, H L., S A Zingraf, D R Wormuth, V F Hartfiel, and J B Hughey (1981) Testing
ESL Composition: A Practical Approach Rowley, MA: Newbury House
John-Steiner, V (1985) Notebooks of the mind New York: Harper and Row Publishers Jordan, R R (1992) Academic writing course London: Nelson
Kemmis, S., Mctaggart, R., & Nixon, R (2014) The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical
Participatory Action Research Singapore: Springer http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560- 67-2
Lowry, P B., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M R (2004) Building a Taxonomy and Nomenclature of Collaborative Writing to Improve Interdisciplinary Research and Practice The Journal of
Business Communication (1973), 41(1), 66–99 https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943603259363
Masuara, F & Widiati, U (2020) Exploring the Effects of Collaborative Writing on Students’ Argumentative Essays and Their Perceptions about Its Implementation PROCEEDING of English Language Teaching and Research (ELTAR), 3(1), 41-44
McLane, J (1990) Writing as a social process In L Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology (pp 304-318)
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173674.015
Mei, W S., & Allison, D (2005) Evaluative expressions in analystical arguments: Aspects of appraisal in assigned English language essays Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 105-127 https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.2005.2.1.105
Miles, M B & Huberman, A M (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
Miller, S (2003) How Literature Discussion Shapes Thinking: ZPDs for Teaching/Learning Habits of the Heart and Mind In A Kozulin, B Gindis, V Ageyev, & S Miller (Eds.),
Vygotsky's Educational Theory in Cultural Context (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and
Computational Perspectives, pp 289-316) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840975.016
Montero, A (2005) What a feeling! Motivating EFL students through collaborative writing with poems English Teaching Forum, 43(3), 36-38
Moonma, J., & Kaweera, C (2021) Collaborative Writing in EFL Classroom: Comparison on Group, Pair, and Individual Writing Activities in Argumentative Tasks Asian Journal of Education and Training, 7(3), 179-188
Nguyễn, T L (2021) Using Collaborative Writing to Enhance Writing Skills for Secondary
School Students Master’s thesis, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
Nguyễn, T T (2014) The impact of collaborative writing on 11th students’ writing performance Master’s thesis, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
Nunan, D (1989) Designing tasks for the communicative classroom Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Pimentel, J L (2019) Some Biases in Likert Scaling Usage and its Correction International
Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), 45(1), 183-191
Pham, V P H (2021) The Effects of Collaborative Writing on Students’ Writing Fluency:
An Efficient Framework for Collaborative Writing SAGE Open, 11(1), 1-11 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244021998363
Shehadeh, A (2011) Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2 Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010
Sperling, M (1996) Revisiting the Writing-Speaking Connection: Challenges for Research on Writing and Writing Instruction Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 53–86 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066001053
Storch, N (2005) Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153‐173
Storch, N (2016) Collaborative writing In R Manchón & P Matsuda (Ed.), Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp 387-406) Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335-021
Tribble, C (1996) Writing Oxford: Oxford University Press
Vygotsky, L S (1978) Mind in society Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Vygotsky, L S (1981) The genesis of higher mental functions In J V Wertsch(Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp 144–188) Armonk, NY: M E.Sharpe.