This study aimed at investigating L2 students’ writing expectations and improvements in a student writing club. Twelve students specializing in English Education at a university in Jeonbuk Province were served as participants for this study. Primary data from two surveys, interviews, and three writing tests were analyzed to demonstrate the students’ improvements through the writing club, and supplementary data, such as email exchanges, periodical oral conversations, and all of the documents on their Internet site, were served to understand the context of the writing club. The research findings showed that the writing club helped the students to have numerous learning benefits, such as writing habit, confidence, critical thinking, better awareness of audience, reading ability, extended background knowledge, learning transfer, strategies in peer feedback, and progress in writing, to just name a few. It is also implied that a collaborative writing group, whether it is classroombased or studentinitiated, is so practical that writing practitioners can promote learners’ writing advancement. (Kyungil University)
현대영어영문학 제57권 4호 (2013년 11월) 341-73 College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club* Yu, Ho-Jung (Kyungil University) Yu, Ho-Jung “College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club.” Modern Studies in English Language and Literature 57.4 (2013): 341-73 This study aimed at investigating L2 students’ writing expectations and improvements in a student writing club Twelve students specializing in English Education at a university in Jeonbuk Province were served as participants for this study Primary data from two surveys, interviews, and three writing tests were analyzed to demonstrate the students’ improvements through the writing club, and supplementary data, such as email exchanges, periodical oral conversations, and all of the documents on their Internet site, were served to understand the context of the writing club The research findings showed that the writing club helped the students to have numerous learning benefits, such as writing habit, confidence, critical thinking, better awareness of audience, reading ability, extended background knowledge, learning transfer, strategies in peer feedback, and progress in writing, to just name a few It is also implied that a collaborative writing group, whether it is classroom-based or student-initiated, is so practical that writing practitioners can promote learners’ writing advancement (Kyungil University) Key Words: L2 writing, collaborative learning, peer feedback, writing process, student writing club I Introduction L2 writing instruction has its own history According to Matsuda (2006), L2 writing instruction started from controlled composition * This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2012S1A5A8023937) 342 Yu, Ho-Jung whose focus was to make error-free sentences in the era that the audio-lingual method of language learning was prevailing Writing as sentence-level structure was shifted to discourse-level writing where different rhetorical structures, such as narration, comparison and contrast, or process analysis, were explored and practiced After the trend, L2 writing instruction was shifted toward the process of writing, roughly characterized as pre-writing, writing, and post-writing, but specifically the process can be much more complex according to varying methods in each step Finally, the notion of writing in context, called genre-based writing, appeared in the field of L2 writing This historical notion does not fade away, but it becomes more dynamic since L2 writing practitioners need to apply all of the above instructional notions for their own instruction according to levels and writing goals L2 writing has been constant attention in L2 writing practitioners and researchers, as learning writing is considered as learning the mode of communication Along with the growing interest in L2 writing instruction, research has been exponentially increased in number and in type Since the number of research publications began to ballon around the early 1990s (Leki, Cumming, & Sliva, 2008), the research interest has covered L2 writing instruction, text analysis, writing process, identity, technology, etc It does not differ in Korean contexts Yu (2013) conducted a literature-based study to review peer feedback studies in a Korean EFL writing context He stated that the number of peer feedback studies has been increased especially since 2005 and it was noticeable in the growing interest in L2 writing with technology Although the focus of his analysis was on peer feedback, it is evident that the popular interest in peer feedback is the reflection of overall L2 writing College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club 343 Taking the current tendency in L2 writing into account, this present study attempted to increase breadth and depth of knowledge by delving into students’ writing improvements in an extensive period of a collaborative learning community where they implemented current writing practices The writing practice in this writing club is genre-based, as well as process-based The students of this study majored in English Education, and one of their goals was to become a teacher after successfully passing the English teacher appointment exam The test mostly required test takers to demonstrate their responses in well-structured paragraphs The students exercised the writing genre with the contents of education and education-related issues On top of that, the management of each writing task was based on the process-based writing They read an education-related article, brainstormed their thoughts about a writing topic, produced a first draft, revised feedback, and made a revised draft, although a revised draft was not compulsory at the early stage of the writing club Likewise, the students made their final writing products by completing each process-based activity Also, relating to the specifics of the writing process, they attempted to implement different types of feedback: written feedback, spoken, online and off-line feedback Moving toward the middle stage of this writing club, the students brought the cyber space to facilitate students’ learning Along with the currently discussed writing practices, this writing group, more importantly, was autonomous and collaborative The students who had similar goals and built rapport to make such writing club successful collaborated autonomously, even though the researcher mentored them from the middle of the writing club Despite an extensive body of studies about L2 writing, little research has been done in a context where students themselves formed their own writing 344 Yu, Ho-Jung community and they controlled it by themselves Therefore, the report about the management of this student writing club and the analysis of its outcomes will shed light on L2 writing instruction and students’ learning in collaborative contexts, regardless of in classroom contexts or in autonomous contexts Thus, this study was guided with the research questions are: 1) What are writing-related improvements or needs and other achievements that the students felt throughout the student writing club? and 2) What is evident in the students' progress reflected by timed writing tests? II Literature Review 2.1 Collaborative learning Collaborative learning, as Salvin (1990) points out, means that those who have different levels of learning work together for a common goal, and through collaborative process they experience successful learning In doing so, they constantly assess their learning and its process focuses on such fundamental foundations of collaboration as mutual dependance, individual responsibility, face-to-face interaction, and collaborative strategies (Johnson & Johnson, 1999) For successful collaboration, assigning roles to group members is a popular cooperative strategy, so perhaps the roles that promoted group reasoning demonstrated in Hogan’s study (1999), such as reflector, regulator, generator, questioner, explainer, and elaborator, could enhance or replace managerial and social roles typically assigned to students On the contrary, students’ rigid roles in ill-structured intellectual tasks could be counterproductive (Cohen, 1994) College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club There are several strategies to minimize 345 counterproductive behaviors One strategy is that teachers minimize inequity in groups (Cohen, 1994; Hogan, 1999) Relating to that, Hogan (1999) noted that interpersonal conflicts kept the groups’ focus away from their intellectual task In his study, he stated: The roots of the interpersonal conflicts seemed to be primarily in students’ attitudes toward others of different academic-plus-social status, with lower achieving, but more popular students verbally bullying higher achieving students (p 879) Another strategy could be to allow students to select their own group members (Hogan, 1999) In her study about a collaborative task, severe conflicts always took place among students who had not chosen their own group members, and productive performance occurred with peers that they favored Choe & Yu’s study (2012) also maintains that rapport among group members is an important factor to promote supportive interaction for a group task In a similar vein, one sensible strategy in a forming group is to consider a strength that each group member might possess Choe & Yu (2012) investigated group peer feedback interaction in an L2 writing task The group members that they studied were characterized as their own strengths in grammar, logic, diction, and language intuition It was observed that they best served the group task by demonstrating their own strengths Collaborative writing could be genuine collaboration that can be imagined in the context of L2 learning Collaborative writing can be defined as the joint production of a text by two or more writers, and, as discussed in general collaborative learning, factors, such as task type, L2 competence, and rapport that learners build, affect learning opportunities and outcomes (Kim & Lee, 2013; Storch, 2011) Relating 346 Yu, Ho-Jung to the positive results of collaborative writing, Storch (2005) compared two groups of advanced ESL learners by asking one group to complete a writing task individually and the other group to in pairs The study results indicated that the texts pairs produced were shorter, more accurate, syntactically complex, and clearer in focus In a larger study, Wiggleworth & Storch (2009) compared two groups: 48 students who produced texts individually and 48 pairs who did in pair It was found that, although no statistical difference was evident in fluency and complexity, accuracy of texts produced in pairs was statistically significant The researchers pinpointed that such findings were attributed to scaffolding and mutual feedback that the process of collaborative writing provided Although the number of empirical studies about collaborative writing is relatively small, its outcomes are noteworthy The studies that have proved collaborative writing is constantly positive and varying are few in number However, persuasive enough is Storch’s statement resulting from her literature study (2011): Perhaps one of the greatest advantages of collaborative writing is that it affords learners opportunities to pool their linguistic resources when encouraging problems Languaging about language is one of the ways to gain new knowledge about language or consolidate existing L2 knowledge This collaboration leads to the production of more accurate texts and may lead to language learning gains (p 284) 2.2 Common collaboration in L2 writing Collaborative writing in the previous section was addressed as a type of collaborative learning since it is a not typical, but selected type in L2 writing tasks, as Storch (2011) noted that it has been College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club 347 relatively rare However, peer feedback as a type of collaborative learning has been commonly implemented in the process of writing in which multiple drafts and feedback are practiced Collaboration through peer feedback also represents many varieties like peer feedback conducted online, in a spoken or written mode, in pairs, or in groups Also, even in Korean EFL contexts, the number of studies in the field has constantly expanded year after year (Yu, 2013) Along with a growing body of peer feedback studies, research findings of peer feedback collaboration demonstrated positive outcomes that can be categorized into several aspects To begin with, peer feedback can promote students’ learning in writing, which is the most fundamental aspect For instance, Ku & Park (2011) investigated difference between individual peer feedback and group peer feedback and found that both groups aided students in developing cognitive capability, along with affective benefits Lockhart & Ng (1995) who analyzed the discourse of peer feedback found that analytically questioning and collaboratively meaning-searching discourse contributed to peer writing Many other researchers (Kim, 2007; Park & Choe, 2011; Yi, 2010) examined improvements by comparing drafts and the subsequent drafts of students In the case of Park and Choe (2011), they found that their participants focused more on local areas than global areas when they constructed feedback and peer feedback as a complimentary means of teacher feedback contributed to their revision Peer feedback is conducive to constructing a supportive learning community Choe & Yu (2012) studied collaborative feedback with a group of four students who had different English levels and personality features The group with close rapport provided feedback actively in language and content The students’ rapport and writing 348 Yu, Ho-Jung experiences made direct influence on trust and willingness in peer feedback Suh (2005) examined college students’ perceptions about spoken and written peer feedback They pointed out that the feedback process positively and productively contributed to relation and social skills among group members In her literature, Ferris (2005) notes that peer review activities help students to create a sense of learning community Likewise, collaboration through peer feedback in L2 writing is beneficial to learners in producing the better subsequent writing, while creating supportive atmosphere Most critically, peer feedback activities help student writers to become competent independent writers The ultimate goal of L2 student writers may to become independent writers who can control the writing process and grasp writing contexts, including audience, to produce a satisfying piece of writing To accomplish the goal, students are expected to hone critical thinking, critiquing, and self-reflective skills, taking into account audience and the goal of a writing task Studies about L2 writing peer feedback have demonstrated that such competence can be developed through peer critiquing activities For instance, many studies (Cho 2011; Huh & Lee 2011; Joo & Kim 2010) illustrated that peer feedback activities contributed to students’ developing a critical view of writing and the learning application to the reviewers’ own writing Demonstrating practical benefits of peer response, Ferris (2005) pinpointed that, through peer response activities, “Students gain confidence, perspective, and critical thinking skills from being able to read texts by peers writing on similar tasks” (p 70) Huh & Lee (2011) found that students became aware of a sense of audience through peer critiquing College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club 349 III Research Context 3.1 Participants Twelve students who specialized in English Education at a university in Jeonbuk Province served as participants in this study It is safe to say that all of them were highly motivated to improve their English writing since they volunteered to take a special summer writing seminar and continued to practice writing in an autonomous writing club Despite the strong motivation, the individual levels of writing competence and English proficiency varied, as shown in Table Table Students’ profile about English and English writing English1 Writing Intermediate Intermediate Students English Scores Overseas Study S1 S2 None OPIc(IM2) S3 OPIc(IM1) S4 S5 S7 S8 TOEIC 905 TOEIC 680 TOEIC 905/ OPIc(IM3) None None None None 2.5 months (Philippines) year (Canada) None months (Australia) None None S9 OPIc(IM1) None Beginning S10 TOEFL 92/ TOEIC 855 year (Canada) Advanced S11 S12 TOEIC 800 TOEIC 740 year (USA) None Advanced Intermediate S6 Beginning Advanced Advanced Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate The individual English writing level was holistically evaluated based on each student’s writing product in a summer writing seminar in 2011 350 Yu, Ho-Jung All of the participants had taken English composition courses for at least one year Four students considered their English writing quite fluent in English, six students intermediate, and two students low Even the low students did not have any difficulty in constructing their argument with topics that they knew well, although they were relatively lower compared with the other students and more language-related errors and struggles in uncommon topics were also observed All of the students wanted to become English teachers at public secondary schools with their strength in writing, so their interest was not in high official English scores, but in improving their English and English writing competence 3.2 The context of the student writing club Table The student writing club in two different periods Fall 2011 Writing process Grouping Writing tasks Others Student teaching Class reading ` Peer feedback Voluntary revision One group Argumentative paragraphs about educational issues Mentoring freshmen Spring 2012 Individual reading Peer feedback Occasional teacher feedback Mostly voluntary revision Two groups Summary, argumentative, narrative paragraphs with a variety of issues Internet cafe The students in this study launched their writing club in September, 2011 to July, 2012 They continued their writing club in January and February of 2012 However, the period was not extended enough to present any particular implementations or changes Rather, the 360 Yu, Ho-Jung improved expanded thinking reflected on her own writing during feedback learned different levels of vocabulary sentences became more natural got used to writing the main idea and supporting details became confident in writing tasks became fossilized in writing not motivated in writing without a dictionary no noticeable improvement Table indicates the 18 kinds of effects from the student writing club that the students acknowledged after one-semester-long participation The participants’ comments are divided into three parts: the bold part representing identical points to the expectations; not highlighted part indicating the points the students did not address for their expectations; and the italicized part about the negative attitudes toward the group learning Closely examining each part, it can be said that their learning outcomes are slightly different from their expressed expectations When it comes to the improvements reflecting the participants’ learning expectations, the learning outcomes they perceived covered writing, reading, and a little extent of natural flow in writing In terms of writing, the group members addressed the domain of organization, grammar, and vocabulary However, there was a noticeable indication about content The learning outcomes about reading also covered the improvement of background knowledge so that one participant said that she could construct a piece of writing about education issues comfortably There is also a comment that one could reduced grammatical errors However, different from the learning expectations, there was no comment about content and native-like flow of writing Although the participants could not articulate as much of what they College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club 361 learned as they did for the learning expectations, they pointed out some other points that they newly achieved One is to reflect his or her own writing during peer feedback It can be one of the most encouraging learning outcome that reviewing peers’ writings promotes a reviewer to have an opportunity of projecting his or her own writing (Huh & Lee, 2011) Also, the writing club provided an opportunity of acquiring different levels of vocabulary This vocabulary learning separates it from the section of writing since it simply represents vocabulary acquisition from reading different articles In fact, applying it to his own writing is evident Other than those, the natural flow in the level of sentence and writing confidence are the improvement factors through the first semester of the writing club Unlike the positive factors, one student, S1, responded to the question negatively, stating: Frankly speaking, my writing has been fossilized I felt demotivated when I could not write without dictionary I don’t know what part I have improved in writing club According to the researcher’s analysis on her writing pieces and her peer feedback group before attending this writing club (Choe & Yu, 2012; Yu & Choe, 2011), S1, who had a great knowledge about grammar and vocabulary, kept struggling in putting her knowledge into practice It was her constant concern in her writing that was observed from the writing courses that I had taught before this student writing club She did not resolve her frustration regarding her perceived incompetence of applying her large and advanced repertoire of vocabulary into her writing without the help of dictionary She was still conscious of this frustration 362 Yu, Ho-Jung Table Students’ expectations before the spring of 2012 Participants’ comments have critical background knowledge about any topics (3) write more intelligibly and clearly with understandable vocabulary (2) construct fluent and compelling writing (2) write coherently (2) receive exact evaluations (2) construct more readable writing improve collocation modify a writing form better find out the structure and point of an article learn vocabulary and useful phrases improve brainstorming skills to to to to to to to to to to to to improve writing time to make an overall improvement in practice and theory Table shows that the 13 types of students’ expectations before the spring of 2012 These varieties can be also sorted out into three aspects in relation to writing, reading, and background knowledge As for writing, the students pointed out their expectations in writing style, brainstorming skills, and writing speed, as well as content, coherence, vocabulary, and fluency in writing Also, two leaners referred to accurate assessments, as it implies that they would love to receive feedback from writing experts, rather than on peers In fact, the students’ requests through this survey and other informal talks led the researcher to his participation in the writing group by providing articles that the students would construct a piece of writing about and give occasional feedback In addition, the students’ expectations articulated in Table can be sorted out by comparing them with the previous expectations and writing achievements According to the similarity, the students’ comments can be divided into three strips The first strip is that the College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club 363 students’ learning expectations are identical to the ones mentioned before the student writing club started For instance, the students continue to express their eagerness in writing coherently, constructing readable writing, learning and applying new vocabulary and expressions for their writing, and expediting the speed of writing, although to some extent, they improved those areas It is expected that these areas are likely to be in a category of their expectations since they continue to improve their writing in a general sense and their preparation for the exam to become a secondary teacher in a public school is one of their driving forces to be part of this writing group The second strip of the students’ comments is to imply the advancement or complicatedness of their expectation It means that the students articulated what they wanted to improve while integrating a couple of different areas or using a descriptive word of advancement For instance, three students said that they expected to build critical background knowledge about any topic This comment differs in just building background knowledge about educational issues, which some participants had addressed Also, some students stated that they wanted to construct their writing more intelligibly and clearly with understandable vocabulary and fluent and compelling writing Likewise, the students did not state their expectations by orientating one specific learning outcome relating to writing, but it was observed that they started to evaluate their writing to a higher degree of complexity and they began to articulate what good writing was supposed to be more critically Moreover, new expectations were also addressed after onesemester experience of the student writing club The new expectations were to receive exact evaluations, improve collocation, improve brainstorming skills, and make an overall improvement in practice and theory It was observed that there were some students who wanted to 364 Yu, Ho-Jung have a professional who could check their writing and improvement since they needed a more critical reviewer than the students themselves Although it was not a primary expectation, their needs of a professional reviewer in a student writing group constantly appeared, as research studies about peer feedback One student referred to collocation for her improvement It indicates that she wanted to deepen her knowledge about vocabulary by acquiring how to use it with other neighboring words The students also expected to become knowledgeable about the theory and practice of English writing, which includes how to plan her writing This also implies that the students not simply wanted to hone their writing skills but they also wanted to acquire the theory and practice of writing Table Students’ improvements after the spring of 2012 Participants’ comments enhanced writing with a better organization (4) expressed thoughts more confidence (writing confidence) (3) improved writing speed (2) constructed natural sentences (2) became less nervous of writing itself (2) became good at summary writing (2) improved reading skills (2) concentrated more on global issues (2) constructed more readable writing improved an outlining skill became comfortable with writing styles used various vocabulary developed sense of using an appropriate word in a context became aware of audience found weaknesses in writing could apply the principles of writing extended my thinking College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club 365 Table illustrates that the students pinpointed the 17 kinds of writing improvement, which means that they acquired various aspects of writing Italicized are the ones that students addressed for their expectations during the student writing club; plainly written are the ones that students newly pointed about what they learned throughout the spring of 2012 Bold is addressed as one’s expectation at the very beginning of the writing club As expressing their goals in writing, the students stated that they accomplished their expectations in the areas of organization, writing speed, sentence flow, flow of writing, outlining, and different writing styles, and vocabulary These improvements represent the students advanced to become good writers since their accomplishments cover the elements that he or she was supposed to have At the same time, the student writing club was also geared toward the preparation of the teacher appointment exam It was observed that practices in the writing club served the participants appropriately since ‘writing speed’ reflecting the testing context appears in the participants’ wants, along with their wants in genuine writing improvement In addition to the achievements of their expectations, many students pointed out a variety of learning outcomes whose scope entails affective domain, writing, reading, and sense of audience As for affective domain, students stated that they could express their thoughts more confidently and became less nervous of writing Also, some students could focus more on global matters, while one student could become more reflective on his writing weaknesses Two students pinpointed one particular rhetorical genre of writing a summary It may have resulted from the constant practice of their summarizing articles Finally, one student expressed that he could become better aware of audience According to improvements in table 366 Yu, Ho-Jung 6, what they acquired from the student writing club is comprehensive and critical and the students were able to pinpoint the fundamental factors that involve writing It implies that their survey responses reflect their advanced practice and acknowledgement of writing 4.2 The students’ overall evaluation about the student writing club This section reports the students’ overall evaluation about the student writing club at the end of the fall of 2011 and the spring of 2012 The results will be reported in the way of comparing the two periods and the learning specifics in relation to writing and other outcomes The other outcomes that the students felt in the student writing club Table demonstrates the students’ response about challenges, experiences, and needs, which are other comprehensive evaluations about the student writing club To begin with, Table illustrates many different aspects of positive outcomes throughout the student writing club The positive outcomes reflect the aspects that are directly or indirectly related to writing and other learning outcomes The results surveyed after the fall of 2011 are more geared toward the writing-related outcomes, such as regular reading and writing, confidence in writing, learning from peer writing, good writing habit, and enjoyment in writing Also there are some outcomes that are somewhat indirectly related to writing The students pointed out background knowledge, reading, and speaking One comment of teaching experience reflects the different procedures of managing the writing process between the fall of 2011 and the spring of 2012 In the fall of 2011, the students were supposed to select one article and present it in the class while providing a writing College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club 367 task It provided an opportunity to teach in front of students and thus evaluated this experience positively Table Overall evaluations on the student writing club : Improvements and needs After the fall of 2011 After the spring of 2012 Positive outcomes Needs affective filter lowered (2) spoke and wrote more freely (3) Regular reading and writing (8) teaching experience (2) extended background knowledge learned writing from peers’ writing somewhat enjoyed writing a good habit of writing alone reading ability expert’s feedback (2) authentic input stricter regulations (4) organized feedback structured and varying for leaners’ needs timed writing like a real test (2) active participation mainly grammar feedback communication with someone having a different point of view transferred my writing to different contexts: completing writing tasks effectively and efficiently (5) feedback strategies also involving peers’ characteristics and emotion many study groups (2) regular reading and writing (7) extra writing learned writing from peers’ writing reading ability (3) more responsible tons of assignments from other courses active participation (2) strict regulation confidence gradually lowered because of others’ constant improvement different needs too many people in a group 368 Yu, Ho-Jung Learning outcomes examined after the spring of 2012 were similar to the ones after the fall of 2011 The students appreciated positive outcomes involving English writing They encompassed feedback, regular reading and writing, extra writing, and learning from peers’ texts The areas in writing improvement were enhanced throughout another four months, indicating especially from the comment that even the characteristics and emotion of a peer were one consideration in peer feedback They also pointed out that they learned about their writing not only by their own regular writing practice and evaluations but also by critiquing peers’ writing Learning outcomes were not limited merely to writing Learning transfer occurred throughout the student writing club Many students found their writing practices in the writing community transferred in other writing contexts where they could complete their task effectively and efficiently Also, they ended up creating dozens of study groups that the students initiated and invited other students to Along with the positive outcomes, challenges or needs still exist After the fall of 2011, the students voiced many different types of needs Regarding writing, they expressed requests about feedback, such as expert’s feedback, organized feedback, and different feedback foci, and anticipated timed writing and revision activity Beyond writing, they wanted to have stricter regulations in participating in the writing club and to have active participation The concerns about writing that they had before almost disappeared, as the writing club progressed However, concerns about participation and management appeared According to interviews with some of the students, the challenges were caused by heavy workload, teaching practicum, and growing anxiety as the teacher appointment exam approached It may be evident that every concern did not disappear through the College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club 369 writing club However, more importantly, it was observed that the students’ confidence grew in writing since they addressed specific writing-related outcomes, and the needs about writing disappeared noticeably at the end of the writing club 4.3 The students’ writing improvements reflected in writing tests Table Participants’ test results7 Test Test Test S1 75 71 79 S2 95 96 97 S3 76 82 83 S4 78 90 96 S5 81 82 87 S6 70 82 84 S7 76 80 82 S8 78 89 96 S9 S11 86 90 70 94 86 97 According to Table 8, almost all the participants showed their improvement incrementally, although variation does exist Eight students out of ten students had progressed throughout the three tests Among them, two students showed noticeable improvement, which indicates they improved five points in each following test Three students also received five more points either between test one and test two or between test two and test three Although the improvement range is lowered than five points, three students made The two students who did not take all of the writing tests were not included in table 370 Yu, Ho-Jung their consistent improvements S2 and S11 were already competent writers, so their noticeable advancement was unlikely to be made, compared with other students who had room for advancement There are two students that have lower points in the second writing test Expecially in the case of S9, 16 points dropped, and S1 received the lowest point among the three tests It assumes that many variables that exist in a timed writing test could affect these students to result in a relatively lower scores S1, for example, could not complete the timed writing test causing such a result, and she had been struggling with writing without dictionary Although her content was good, her frequent errors in language blocked the evaluator from following her argument In fact, a couple of students failed to demonstrate their improvement throughout the writing tests, but most of the students succeeded in doing so In addition to their representations of writing improvement through the test scores, many students completed the final writing test faster than they did the two previous tests It also indicates that positive changes in handling a writing task have been made through the student writing club V Conclusion and Implication The research findings showed that those who participated in this study articulated positive learning outcomes and also needs comprehensively To begin with, the positive outcomes included regular writing habit, confidence, critical thinking, better awareness of audience, reading ability, extended background knowledge, learning transfer, strategies in peer feedback, and progress in writing, to just name a few Significant is that these positive outcomes encompass not College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club 371 only the aspects of writing but only learning in general, including affective factors The students still addressed their needs in receiving feedback, maintaining the writing club, and encouraging students' participation These points could be limits that a student-only writing club is difficult to overcome However, such needs should not be the causes of keeping this collaborative learning context of L2 writing away, but be the challenges that students and teachers should handle strategically Moreover, it is for sure that positive outcomes outweigh needs, as this study demonstrated Undoubtedly, the students made such a big progress that they could become independent writers, which is the ultimate goal of learning writing Like independent writers, they could pinpoint all of the crucial aspects for a good craft of writing Although the students might have been struggling in maintaining the student writing club in order to make all of their ends meet, they made noticeable progress in the collaborative context Also, the needs, as well as the improvements, that they pointed out can be practical and meaningful implications for writing instructors who want to help the researcher' writing advancement by organizing a collaborative writing group, whether it is classroom-based or mostly autonomous Along with the instruction of writing, there is one research implication This research entails the very concrete aspects of students' learning and needs in a collective way This study reported its results in such manner since all of the participants, amounting to 12, are overwhelming in analyzing them as individual cases There is a likelihood that another study can be possible by sorting out the legitimate number of participants as individual cases Thus, analyzing other data like students' writing samples, the researcher can delve deeper into distinctive learning experience in a collaborative writing community 372 Yu, Ho-Jung Works Cited Cho, Sookyung “The Effects of Giving Peer Feedback: Case Studies of Korean the Researcher of English.” English Language and Linguistics 17.2 (2011): 101-25 Choe, Hohsung and Yu, Ho-Jung “Interactional Details in Group Peer Feedback in an L2 Writing Class.” Modern English Education 13.1 (2012): 133-47 Cohen, Elizabeth “Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups.” Review of Educational Research 64 (1994): 1-35 Ferris, Dana R and Hedgcock, John S Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005 Hogan, Kathleen “Sociocognitive Roles in Science Group Discourse.” International Journal of Science Education 21.8 (1999): 855-82 Huh, Mung-Hye and Lee, Jang Ho “Feedback on Peer Feedback in EFL Composing: Four Stories.” English Language and Literature 57.6 (2011): 977-98 Joo, Min-jin and Kim, Yang-hee “Teacher and Peer Feedback: Learner Perceptions and the Efficacy for Improvement in L2 Writing.” English Language Teaching 22.3 (2010): 1-21 Jacobs, Holly, Zinkgraf, Stephen, Wormuth, Deanna, Hartfiel, V Faye, and Hughey, Jane Testing ESL Composition: A Practical Approach Rowley, MA: Newbury House 1981 Johnson, David W and Johnson, Roger T "Making Cooperative Learning Work." Theory into Practice 38 (1999): 67-73 Mastuda, Paul K “Second-Language Writing in the Twentieth Century: A Situated Historical Perspective.” In Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook Eds Paul K Mastuda, Michelle Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper Boston: Boston/St Martin’s, 2006 14-30 Kim, Jae-Kyung “An Emic View on Peer Response and the Actual Revisions in Electronic and Traditional Modes.” Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 10.2 (2007): 70-97 Kim, Soo-Wol and Lee, Jeong-Won "Effects of Collaborative Writing on Middle School Students' English Writing Attitude." Modern Studies in English Language & Literature 57.2 (2013): 1-23 Ku, Keong Yeun and Park, Boon-Joo “Effectiveness of Two Formats of Peer College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club 373 Response in College Advanced Academic English Composition: Individuals Versus Groups.” The Journal of Linguistic Science 57 (2011): 1-24 Leki, Ilona, Cumming, Alister, and Silva, Tony A Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing in Education New York: Routledge, 2008 Lockhart, Charies and Ng, Peggy “Analyzing Talk in ESL Peer Response Groups: Stances, Functions, and Content.” Language Learning 45 (1995): 605-55 Park, Hyojung & Choe, Hohsung “Implementation and Perception of Online Peer Feedback by Korean EFL Students.” English21 24.3 (2011): 271-93 Slavin, Robert Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990 Suh, Jaesuk “Peer Feedback Interactions in EFL Compositions: Written Feedback versus Oral Feedback.” English Teaching 60.3 (2005): 91-116 Storch, Neomy “Collaborative Writing: Product, Process and Students’ Reflections.” Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005): 153-73 The Nature of Pair Interaction Germany: VDM Verlag, 2009 “Collaborative Writing in L2 Contexts: Processes, Outcomes, and Future Directions.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31 (2011): 275-88 Wigglesworth, Gillian and Storch, Neomy “Pairs versus Individual Writing: Effects on Fluency, Complexity and Accuracy.” Language Testing 26 (2009): 445-66 Yi, Jyi-yeon “The Characteristics of Korean EFL College Students’ Peer Feedback to English Writing and Their Perception of the Peer Feedback.” Modern English Education 11.3 (2010): 134-61 Yu, Ho-Jung “A Review on Peer Feedback Studies in a Korean EFL Writing Context from the Perspectives of Research and Pedagogy.” The New Studies of English Language & Literature 54 (2013): 209-26 Yu, Ho-Jung and Choe, Hohsung “The Dynamics of a Peer Response Group in a Mixed-Level Korean EFL Writing Class.” English Language and Linguistics 17.1 (2011): 187-212 유호정 주소: (712-701) 경상북도 경산시 하양읍 가마실길 50 경일대학교 외국어학부 영어전공 전화: 053-600-5142 / 이메일: hjyu2007@gmail.com 논문접수일: 2013 09 30 / 심사완료일: 2013 10 29 / 게재확정일: 2013 11 08 ... cafe College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club 353 the learners’ opinions about the Internet cafe and the researcher’s participation The researcher... native-like flow of writing Although the participants could not articulate as much of what they College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing Club 361 learned... freely accessible articles about current educational issues, which pre-service teachers are worth to be aware of College Students’ Expectations and Improvements about Writing via a Student Writing