Using collaborative writing to enhance writing skills for secondary school students

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN THỊ LIÊN USING COLLABORATIVE WRITING TO ENHANCE WRITING SKILLS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS MA MINOR THESIS Major: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01 HANOI– 2021 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN THỊ LIÊN USING COLLABORATIVE WRITING TO ENHANCE WRITING SKILLS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS MA MINOR THESIS Major: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01 Supervisor: Dr Hoàng Thị Hạnh HANOI– 2021 DECLARATION I, Nguyễn Thị Liên, hereby certify that the thesis entitled “Using Collaborative Writing to Enhance Writing Skills for Secondary School Students” is submitted for the partial fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Arts at the Faculty of PostGraduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi I also declare that this thesis is the result of my own research and efforts and it has not been submitted for any other purposes Hanoi, 2021 Nguyễn Thị Liên i ACKNOWLEGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my heart - felt thank and my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr Hoàng Thị Hạnh for her enlightening guidance, precious suggestions and invaluable encouragement during my fulfillment of this minor thesis My sincere thanks go to all of the lecturers and the staff of the Faculty of Post Graduate Studies at University of Languages and International Studies for their valuable lectures on which my minor thesis was laid the foundation I truly wish to thank all the students of class 11A at my English center who have actively participated in the research and my colleague who have supported me in observing the writing lessons I am deeply grateful to my family, especially my husband and my son, for their great support and to many of my friends for their notable assistance ii ABSTRACT The study investigated whether the use of collaborative writing could enhance writing skills of the secondary school students and whether students engaged more actively in writing lessons through this approach In order to achieve the aims, an action research study was conducted over the period of seven weeks in a class with nine intermediate secondary school students Data was collected through students’ essay writings produced individually and collaboratively, followed by students’ survey questionnaires and classroom observations and then analysed quantitatively and qualitatively The findings showed that collaborative writings were slightly shorter than individual writings but observably more accurate and slightly grammatically and lexically more complex Furthermore, collaboratively produced writings had more main ideas and supporting ideas, as well more high-leveled words with clearer and more logical organization In addition, students had both positive and negative attitudes after the first time of implementation but all students positively reacted toward collaborative writing after two writing cycles Some students felt angry and uncomfortable because of bad relationship, different opinions and the length of time of the group activity Changes in students’ grouping were applied Students felt more interested, motivated and engaged in writing lessons when collaborating with group members and they could improve not only English writing skills but also speaking skill and build up teamwork and social skills However, training in group skills and precautions in grouping need to be taken into consideration for the desired outcomes iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION i ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale of the research 1.2 Aims and objectives of the research 1.3 Scope of the research 1.4 Research questions .2 1.5 Significance of the study 1.6 Methodology 1.7 Organisation of the thesis .3 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Collaborative writing in ESL classrooms 2.1.1 Definition of collaborative writing 2.1.2 Implementing collaborative writing in EFL classrooms 2.1.3 Benefits of collaborative writing in teaching writing .6 2.1.4 Drawbacks of collaborative writing in teaching writing 2.1.5 Solutions to improve the effectiveness of collaborative writing 2.1.6 Learners’ attitudes toward collaborative writing 2.1.7 Previous studies on the use of collaborative writing .10 2.2 Teaching writing in ESL classrooms 12 2.2.1 The nature of writing .12 2.2.2 Criteria of a good writing 13 iv 2.2.3 Approaches to teaching writing 14 2.3 Summary 17 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 19 3.1 Research context 19 3.1.1 Materials 19 3.1.2 Participants 19 3.2 Research design 19 3.2.1 Action research model 19 3.2.2 Research procedure 22 3.3 Data collection instruments 23 3.3.1 Students’ essay writings 23 3.3.2 Student survey questionnaires 24 3.3.3 Classroom observation 24 3.4 Data analysis 26 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 29 4.1 Data analysis and findings 29 4.1.1 Effects of collaborative writings .29 4.1.2 Students’ attitudes to collaborative writing 36 4.2 Discussion 42 4.2.1 To what extent does the use of collaborative writing affect secondary school students’ writing skills? 42 4.2.2 To what extent are students motivated and engaged in collaboration with their peers? 44 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .46 5.1 Conclusion 46 5.2 Implications of the study 46 5.3 Limitations of the current research 47 5.4 Recommendations and suggestions for further research 47 REFERENCES 49 v APPENDICES I Appendix 1: Individual writing I Appendix 2: Collaborative writing II Appendix 3: Collaborative writing III Appendix 4: Survey questionnaires IV Appendix 5: Survey questionnaire answer VI Appendix 6: Survey questionnaire answer XII \Appendix 7: Observational form XVI Appendix 8: Observation sheet answer XVIII Appendix 9: Observation sheet answer XX Appendix 10: Quantitative analysis: Writing fluency, accuracy, complexity and ideas XXII Appendix 11: Qualitative analysis: Word levels XXIII Appendix 12: Students’ perceptions toward collaborative writing XXIX Appendix 13: Guidelines for T-units, Clauses, Errors XXXI vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ESL : English as a second language EFL : English as a foreign language % : percent N : Number vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Detailed research procedure 22 Table 2: Fluency of writing .30 Table 3: Accuracy of writing 31 Table 4: Complexity of writing 32 Table 5: Comparison of word levels 34 Table 6: Comparison of formal and informal language use 35 Table 7: Students’ evaluation on effectiveness of collaborative writing 36 viii Appendix 8: Observation sheet answer After the application of collaborative writing in Cycle Writing topic: “Do you prefer life in the countryside to life in the city?” Explain the reasons Date: 22nd Oct, 2019 How did the students divide group work (equally or unequally)? Group Members Work division Huệ, Nam, Lan They divided unequally Lan and Huệ mostly did in the writing process, Nam put little effort on writing Mai, Lâm, Hoa They divided equally in every writing stage Hồng, Minh, Cúc They did not divide the work equally in each stage Hồng seemed to dominate the whole while-writing stage Minh and Cúc worked the post-writing stage What did each member in each group? Group/Stage Pre-writing While-writing stage Post-writing stage stage Group They together Lan brainstormed ideas, They and wrote and the mistakes They Hoa read the writing together expressed the They together found ideas and made ideas When Hoa said, and writing outline found corrected corrected mistakes while writing together Hoa brainstormed They They together read the together expressed the writing, made ideas writing outline Group wrote corrected the Mai forgot her ideas that mistakes she wanted to say => she ignored Group Minh and Cúc Hồng brainstormed ideas arranged dominated this Minh stage She expressed the together and read Cúc and Thuy ideas using her own corrected the mistakes and grammar and vocabulary related to grammar, XVIII made writing but did not discuss with expressions, outline Cúc and Minh vocabulary and spelling How did the students collaborate? - How active did all group members discuss? Group Discussed actively They shared the ideas, discussed the suitable word choice and appropriate grammatical structures and expressions Group Discussed actively They shared ideas, negotiated to find out the most suitable ideas, grammar and words They corrected mistakes for each other They gave feedback about expressions for each other Group Not actively Cúc and Minh did not express ideas maybe because Hồng was the excellent student - To what extent were the members on-task and off-task (gossip, chatting, laughing, quarreling) Group 15 minutes off-task, 30 minutes on-task Sometimes Lan and Huệ quarreled with Nam because he was off-task He slept and got distracted Group minutes off-task, 40 minutes on-task Sometimes they laughed Group 18 minutes off-task, 27 minutes on-task They gossiped and chatted while writing (they chatted about the case of a grab driver who was robbed and killed) Hồng shouted at Cúc sometimes because she did not like Cúc’s ideas How did each member behave during collaboration? (friendly, motivated, comfortable, any social problems arisen?) Group Lan was friendly when working with Huệ Huệ felt angry because of Nam’s distraction Nam felt sleepy and bored He seemingly did not like working with Huệ Group They were friendly and comfortable Group Cúc felt a bit sad because Hồng shouted at her Hồng felt bored She seemed to prefer working individually XIX Appendix 9: Observation sheet answer After the application of collaborative writing in cycle OBSERVATIONAL FORM Writing topic: “Wearing uniform should be compulsory at schools Do you agree or disagree? Explain your reasons” Date: 12th Nov, 2019 Group How did the students divide group work (equally or unequally)? Members Work division Hồng, Lan, Hoa They divided their work equally Nam, Lâm, Minh They divided their work equally Huệ, Cúc, Mai They divided their work equally What did each member in each group? Group/Stage Pre-writing While-writing stage Post-writing stage stage Group They together Lan wrote They together They together read brainstormed expressed the ideas and the writing, found ideas, organized corrected mistakes while and corrected the the ideas and writing made mistakes writing outline Group They together Minh wrote They together They together read brainstormed expressed the ideas and the writing, found ideas, organized corrected mistakes while and corrected the the ideas and writing made mistakes writing outline Group They together Huệ wrote They together They together read brainstormed expressed the ideas and the writing, found XX ideas, organized corrected mistakes while and corrected the the ideas and writing They discussed a mistakes made writing lot while writing outline How did the students collaborate? - How active did all group members discuss? Group Discussed actively Whenever someone expressed her ideas, the others listened and gave comments They corrected for each other Group Discussed actively Whenever someone expressed her ideas, the others listened and gave comments They corrected for each other However, they seemingly found it difficult to find out the shared ideas in the prewriting stage Group Discussed actively - To what extent were the members on-task and off-task (gossip, chatting, laughing, quarreling) All three groups were 100% on-task There were no gossips, chats or quarrels How did each member behave during collaboration? (friendly, motivated, comfortable, any social problems arisen?) All three groups well-collaborated with each other They discussed in a friendly atmosphere They felt motivated and engaged in the writing lesson XXI Appendix 10: Quantitative analysis: Writing fluency, accuracy, complexity and ideas Fluency No Students No of words No of word types No of No of sentences clauses Accuracy No of T- Complexity No W/T W/C units of EFT EFC E/T EFT/T EFC/C C/T WT/√2W errors Ideas Main ideas Supporting ideas Individually produced (N = 9) Hoa 267 13 26 23 11.61 10.27 31 14 10 1.35 0.61 0.38 1.13 4.76 110 Nam 227 17 29 21 10.81 7.83 20 20 16 0.95 0.95 0.55 1.38 4.69 100 Minh 229 18 29 19 12.05 7.90 12 15 20 0.63 0.79 0.69 1.53 4.58 98 Lan 302 23 37 28 10.79 8.16 23 24 23 0.82 0.86 0.62 1.32 6.63 163 Mai 177 10 25 15 11.80 7.08 12 17 0.80 0.60 0.68 1.67 4.52 85 Lâm 243 20 34 23 10.57 7.15 11 19 25 0.48 0.83 0.74 1.48 5.40 119 Hồng 306 16 41 24 12.75 7.46 14 14 29 0.58 0.58 0.71 1.71 5.34 132 Huệ 170 12 22 14 12.14 7.73 11 16 0.50 0.79 0.73 1.57 4.99 92 Cúc 249 21 29 24 10.38 8.59 14 17 0.38 0.38 0.58 1.21 4.48 100 241.11 111.00 16.67 30.22 21.22 11.43 8.02 15.44 15.56 19.22 0.72 0.71 0.63 1.44 5.04 1.78 5.11 Mean Collaboratively produced (N = 6, Group = 3) Group 241 104 17 26 19 12.68 9.27 16 20 0.47 0.84 0.77 1.37 4.74 Group 278 128 20 34 22 12.64 8.18 10 18 30 0.45 0.82 0.88 1.55 5.43 Group 245 124 18 28 22 11.14 8.75 20 22 0.23 0.91 0.79 1.27 5.60 11 Group 197 104 15 23 17 11.59 8.57 15 20 0.29 0.88 0.87 1.35 5.24 Group 207 99 12 25 13 15.92 8.28 11 22 0.38 0.85 0.88 1.92 4.87 Group 276 150 15 30 18 15.33 9.20 14 25 0.33 0.78 0.83 1.67 6.38 240.67 118.17 16.17 27.67 18.50 13.22 8.71 6.67 15.67 23.17 0.36 0.85 0.84 1.52 5.38 2.00 8.67 Mean XXII Appendix 11: Qualitative analysis: Word levels No Students Word levels A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 Unlisted Individually produced (N = 9) Hoa 71.21 10.51 2.33 0 8.95 Nam 79.2 10.62 4.42 0 0.44 5.31 Minh 83.18 7.27 3.64 1.82 0 4.09 Lan 70.07 11.9 9.18 4.08 0.68 4.08 Mai 86.21 7.47 3.45 0.57 0 2.3 Lâm 72.57 13.92 4.22 2.11 0 7.17 Hồng 77.81 12.25 6.29 2.65 0 0.99 Huệ 77.58 7.27 5.45 3.03 0.61 6.06 Cúc 85.71 5.46 2.94 0.42 0 5.46 78.17 9.63 5.18 1.89 0.14 0.05 4.93 Mean Collaboratively produced (N = 6, Group = 3) Group 75.21 15.55 7.14 0.42 0 1.68 Group 77.54 11.96 8.33 1.09 0 1.32 Group 78.93 11.16 5.79 2.89 0.83 0.43 Group 68.91 15.03 8.29 3.11 0.52 0.47 3.76 Group 70.1 15.2 9.8 1.47 0 3.59 Group 69.63 12.59 9.26 3.7 0.74 4.07 73.39 13.58 8.10 2.11 0.35 0.08 2.48 Mean XXIII Data from Text Inspector No Students Data Hoa Nam Minh XXIV Lan Mai Lâm XXV Hồng Huệ Cúc XXVI 10 Group 11 Group 12 Group XXVII 13 Group 14 Group 15 Group XXVIII Appendix 12: Students’ perceptions toward collaborative writing Perceptions toward collaborative writing Positive perceptions Students Cycle 1 Support with brainstorming ideas Hoa, Have more ideas Minh, Produce better writing Lan, Mai, Lâm, Cúc Get more interested and motivated in writing Minh, Have less pressure on writing lessons Lâm Freely discuss with friends/ chat together Improve English knowledge Hoa, Learn from friends (writing skills, ideas, new Minh, words) Self-correct Mai, Lâm grammatical mistakes (singular/plural) Improve teamwork skill Hoa, Minh Improve social relationship with classmates Discuss and negotiate to find out the most interesting supporting ideas Cycle Share knowledge with friends Hoa, Lan, Help friends improve vocabulary Mai, Learn new words and expressions from friends Hồng, Cúc Improve grammar (new grammatical structures and sentences from friends) Improve speaking skill (speak English while discussing) XXIX Correct for themselves Provide chances to communicate and interact Nam with classmates Feel being understood and shared Develop social skills Have more interesting ideas Mai, Lâm Negotiate and discuss to find out the most interesting ideas Feel pleasant and engaged when writing with Minh, Lâm, Huệ friends Freely communicate with friends in a pleasant atmosphere Have more pleasant atmosphere Negative perceptions Do not want to work with friends (because of Nam, Lan, other members’ hatred, distraction, laziness, Huệ, Cúc domination) Feel angry and uncomfortable (have different Hoa opinions) Waste time (quarrelling, figuring out the shared Lan, ideas among group members, being good enough Hồng, Huệ to work individually) XXX Appendix 13: Guidelines for T-units, Clauses, Errors I T-Units A T-unit is defined an independent clause and all its dependent clauses Count run-on sentences and comma splices as two T-units with an error in the first T-unit ex: My school was in Saudi Arabia, it was the best school there T / T error error-free If several comma-splices occur in a row, count only the last as error-free For sentence fragments, if the verb or copula is missing, count the sentence as T-unit with an error If an NP is standing alone, attach it to the preceding or following S and count it as T-unit with an error When there is a grammatical subject deletion in a coordinate clause, count the entire sentence as T-unit Count both “so” and “but” as coordinating conjunctions Count “so that” as a subordinating conjunction unless “so” is obviously meant Do not count tag-questions as separate T-units Count S-nodes with a deleted complementizer as a subordinate clause as in: I believe that A and (that) B = T-unit But, direct quotes should be counted as: John said, “A T-unit and B.” T-unit Assess the following type of structures on a case-by-case basis: If A, then B and C As a result, A or B 10 Count T-units in parentheses as individual T-units (adopted from Polio (1997) II Clauses A clause equals an overt subject and a finite verb The fol- lowing are only one clause each: XXXI He left the house and drove away He wanted John to leave the house Only an imperative does not require a subject to be considered a clause In a sentence that has a subject with only an auxiliary verb, not count that subject and verb as a separate clause (or as a separate T-unit (e.g John likes to ski and Mary does too; John likes to ski, doesn’t he?; John is happy and Mary is too) (adopted from Polio (1997) III Errors Description of error categories used for feedback and analysis Error Description category Verb errors All errors in verb tense or form, including relevant subject-verb agreement errors E.g a A lot of information exist around our lives b In addition, this effective value will the foundation of the nation’s competitive power Noun ending Plural or possessive ending incorrect, omitted, or unnecessary; errors includes relevant subject-verb agreement errors E.g a There are many differences between men and woman b His intend is to show that it is a small problem caused by cell phones Article errors Article or other determiner incorrect, omitted, or unnecessary E.g a This is also unbelieveable fact b Other children will regard him as mean boy even though they don’t know him at all Wrong word All specific lexical errors in word choice or word form, including preposition and pronoun errors Spelling errors only included if the misspelling resulted in an actual English word Sentence Errors in sentence/clause boundaries (run-on, fragments, comma structure splices), word order, omitted words or phrases, unnecessary words or phrases, other unidiomatic sentence construction (adopted from Ferris and Roberts (2001) and Ma (2006) XXXII ... collaborative writing in writing lesson The fact is that there has been little research into implementing collaborative writing to enhance students? ?? writing skills, especially for secondary school. .. suggestions for further research CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW This action research was to explore whether collaborative writing can enhance writing skills for secondary school students It also aimed to. .. of collaborative writing in teaching writing Collaborative writing impacts positively for both students and teachers First and foremost, teaching writing collaboratively motivates students as students