People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research Badji Mokhtar Annaba University Faculty of Letters, Social and Human Sciences Department of English Domain: Foreign Languages Branch: English Language Major: Language Sciences A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Master in Language Sciences Submitted by Supervised by MIZAB Manel Dr. HAMLAOUI Naima Mrs. BOULEDROUA Karima Board of Examiners: Chairperson: Pr. Hocine Nacira, Badji Mokhtar University-Annaba Supervisor: Dr. Hamlaoui Naima, Badji Mokhtar University-Annaba Co-supervisor: Mrs. Bouledroua Karima, Badji Mokhtar University-Annaba Examiner: Mrs. Lahiouel Azza, Badji Mokhtar University-Annaba June 2015 Smoothing the Path to Togetherness: Collaborative Writing in L2 Classes
Transcript
People’s Democratic Republic of AlgeriaMinistry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
Badji Mokhtar Annaba UniversityFaculty of Letters, Social and Human Sciences
Department of English
Domain: Foreign LanguagesBranch: English LanguageMajor: Language Sciences
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Master inLanguage Sciences
Submitted by Supervised by
MIZAB Manel Dr. HAMLAOUI Naima
Mrs. BOULEDROUA Karima
Board of Examiners:
Chairperson: Pr. Hocine Nacira, Badji Mokhtar University-Annaba
Supervisor: Dr. Hamlaoui Naima, Badji Mokhtar University-Annaba
It is constative that writing is antique since the archeologists found symbols that
belong to the Indus civilization, and that date back to 100000 years ago (Harmer, 2001).
Writing is eligible to be probed in, for in the Algerian institutions, it is always thought of to be
an individual act through which learners are taught as solo writers. However, many
researchers indicated the enhancing role of CW in bettering the learners’ individual
performances though it is a two-sided coin. Ergo, this chapter displays a review of the
literature on CW, communicative teaching methods, and socio-cognitive constructivist views
scaffolding CL. Besides, a general view about the writing skill, approaches to teaching it, and
its communicative nature is to be introduced. Then, a plain view about collaboration, CW, its
use, patterns, teaching approaches, strategies, benefits, and drawbacks is carried out to inquire
CW as a pedagogical tool that improves the writing skill.
1. Review of the Literature
The paradigm shifts to reside in collaboration implemented on writing in which writers
jointly construct a product which they all own (Brufee, 1992; Wolfe, 2010 as cited in Storch,
2013; Henderson and De Silva, n.d; Swain, 2000 as cited in Elola, & Oskoz, 2010; Storch,
2011, 2013; Hamlaoui, 2009; Ede and Lunsford, 1991). Ergo, CW is a single jointly written
document which is established through interaction between group members at every single
stage of the writing process; it is achieved with sense of shared responsibility and individual
accountability.
Amidst the advocacy of prompting teaching and learning processes through the
amalgam of teaching methods, many researchers contended that the roaring success of
pedagogy is attained and bettered by means of CLT and TBLT. The former was claimed to
fame since the 1960s; it was grounded on the assumption of language communicativeness
(Richards & Rodgers, 1986). However, it was implemented on the oral mode only since it
5
was believed to be the real form of Language (De Saussure, 1959 as cited in Ingold and
Crawford, n.d) as opposed to writing which, according to Plato (1990, as cited in Hirano, n.d),
does not reflect the truth, and it depicts discourse that leaves room for manoeuvre where
readers’ inferences diverge. The latter is the offspring of CLT that manifests the design of
communicative tasks that promote authentic learning.
From a social constructivist standpoint, learning in collaborative situations and
communicative milieu dates from the 1800s when Triplett (1898) ascertained that both
children and adults outdo when being indulged in activities with others. Then, Allport
(1920/2007) came up with the theory of “social facilitation” in which individual performances
are impacted by social contexts. Moreover, the idea of CL stems from the beliefs of Dewey
(1938/1974), H. Mead, and Freire (1970) (as cited in Dale, 1997), that learning prevails when
learners are involved in a kind of community inside the classroom, and that knowledge is
constructed when it is socially oriented.
From a cognitive developmental perspective, Vygotsky (1979) proclaimed that
children’s (novices) cognition evolves in social settings where More Knowledgeable Others
(MKOs) (adults) yield scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, and Ross, 1976/2009), i.e. knowledge that
sustains novices within their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Therefore, this applies
to the learning process as well where learners are collectively scaffolding each other,
observing the cognitive processes that the writing process undergoes (Daiute, 1986; Dale,
1992; O'Donnell et al, 1985 as cited in Dale, 1997), and developing their cognitive skills
(Elola and Oskoz, 2010).
The dissertation tackles the way in which CW fosters students’ written performances.
This can be accomplished through collaboration by means of incorporating the individuals’
socio-cognitive dimensions within a communicative milieu. Therefore, Fung’s study (2006)
shows CW features and perceptions that are the attribution of solo writing enhancement.
6
2. The Writing Skill
2.1. Definition
Writing is a productive language skill in the written mode which is considered the
hardest skill to be acquired for both natives and non-natives since it is the last skill that
children learn in the institution. Writing is a highly cognitive skill as it undergoes mental
processes that are involved while producing a written text. Teaching the writing skill is very
demanding; thus, it also requires a set of sub-skills that ease the process among which we
mention spelling, punctuation, orthography, linguistic competence, making a text coherent
and cohesive, focusing on relevant messages (Bencze, Poór, Sárosdy, Vadnay, 2006).
2.2.Approaches to Teaching Writing
2.2.1.Product-based approach. It is an approach through which focus was mainly on
structure to sustain grammar classes during the audiolingual era (Norhisham & Shahrina, n.d).
Silva (1990, as cited in ibid) added that rhetorical drills were the focal point in teaching form
and syntax. Therefore, Badger and White (2000, as cited in ibid) claimed that writing within
the product-oriented approach is pondered over as related to teaching the knowledge about the
structure of language via imitating a text provided by the teacher. They also proclaimed that
this approach to teaching writing fosters the writing proficiency through learning the
linguistic knowledge of the model text which, according to Myles (2002, as cited in ibid),
provides a native-like sample that serve as a tool of diminishing errors. However, Prodromou
(1995, as cited in ibid) argued that it reduces the value of the learners’ both personal and
linguistic potentials. Thus, instigating change upon the way writing is thought of was
necessary, and it gave birth to the process-oriented approach.
2.2.2.Process-based approach. The process-based approach downplayed going right
away to the end-product, and it valued the process that writers undergo while writing.
7
Proponents of this approach stated that writing is not a linear act, but a recursive one that
entails going back to previous stages of the writing process whenever needed.
Speck (2002) put forward a model that summarizes the detailed recursive nature of the
writing process, and that makes it clear that whenever encountering difficulties or whenever
feeling that the previous stage (s) of the writing process (brainstorming, drafting, revision,
peer-review (optional), proofreading, final draft) is (are) not satisfyingly accomplished,
writers should go back to consult what is missing; however, if there is no hesitation in writers’
reflections, they move forward to the next stages until finishing the whole writing.
Flower and Hayes’ cognitive process of writing (1981) is another model that better
illustrates the cognitive process of writing (Figure 1), and that encompasses three major
processes of (a) planning by setting an information map that dictates to the brain how to
proceed, (b) transcribing by crafting what is generated at the level of the brain onto the written
form, and (c) reviewing through revising and evaluating what writers produced so far.
Mingled together, these stages function through a monitor function that permits to coordinate
them and to access writers’ long-term memory from which they retrieve the necessary pre-
existing knowledge that assists them in their writing.
Figure 1. Flower and Hayes’ cognitive model of writing (1981).Note. Adopted from A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing (Flower and Hayes, 1981, p. 370).
THE WRITER’SLONG- TERMMEMORY
Knowledge of topic,audience, and writingplans
TASK ENVIRONMENT
WRITING PROCESS
TEXT PRODUCED SO FARTHE RHETORICAL PROBLEMtopic/ audiance/ exigency
REVIEWINGTRANSLATINGPLANNING
EVALUATING
REVISING
ORGANIZING
GOALSETTING
GE
NE
RA
TIN
G
MONITOR
8
2.3. Writing as a Communicative Act
Writing individually depicts the act that one is writing from his/her own thoughts.
That is true to a certain extent, but one cannot deny the fact that crafting originates from
reading about the topic, discussing it with others, getting influenced by the teacher and peers’
views, and reflecting on experiences that writers have gone through. All these factors helped
shaping writers’ thoughts and writing; thus, in addition to writers’ prodigy, they got
inspirations from others who also contributed in the production of such a written composition.
Not to mention when two writers or more collaborate, all these resources blend to
produce a communicative product that comprises variegated exchanges of ideas and thoughts,
and that authenticates the context of writing by bringing into the ground awareness about the
audience and the messages to be conveyed.
3. Collaborative Writing
The idea of jointly writing a shared piece of writing is not novel. It existed since quite
a long time in many forms of collaboration between writers. In 1908, twelve authors co-
authored a novel The Whole Family1 which is a meritorious work in collaborative literature,
but it is not mentioned in the Oxford Companion to English Literature (Sharple, 1993).
The following is an introduction to the book: Seem So! A Working-Class View of Politics
(1911) that depicts jointly writing a written work is not untried:
Every page, however, has been debated and passed by the three of us. Our usualmethod has been, first to pick up a subject that interested us, […], then to discuss itand argue over it, ashore and afloat, in company and by ourselves, till we came to ourjoint conclusion. [...]. From the notes I would make a rough draft, which, after morediscussion, would be re written, and again, after revision, typewritten. We would gothrough the printer's proofs together and finally, after reading the matter in print, wehave once more revised it for book publication. Collaboration could not be morethorough. (Reynolds, et al. 1911, as cited in Sharples, 1993, p. 1)
1 A collaborative novel consisting of twelve chapters, and each chapter is written by an author. They are: WilliamDean Howells, Mary E. Wilkins Freeman, Mary Heaton Vorse, Mary Stewart Cutting, Elizabeth Jordan, JohnKendrick Bangs, Henry James, Elizabeth Stuart Phelps Ward, Edith Wyatt, Mary Raymond Shipman Andrews, AliceBrown, Henry van Dyke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Whole_Family
9
3.1. Definition of Collaboration
Researchers showed that the linguistic meaning of collaboration “implies more or less
equal partners who work together” (Collaboration, para. 3). Nonetheless, during the Second
World War, there was collaboration between some people of the European countries and the
Nazi German occupiers; this gave the impression that collaboration is derogatory. That is
why the term collaborationism was coined to refer to helping the occupying army, whereas
collaboration stands for the process involving “more than the intersection of common goals
seen in co-operative ventures, but a deep, collective determination to reach an identical
objective” (Collaboration, para. 1).
Collaboration is opted for as a pedagogical tool that is implemented in many
educational contexts and so in writing, for it became an integral element that promotes
interactive learner-centered classrooms, and that fosters the implementation of writing in
social milieu.
3.2. Definition of Collaborative Writing
CW is viewed as a pedagogical tool that is based on collaborative learning which does
not change the content, but rather the context in which the task takes place. Thus, according
to Bruffee (1984, as cited in Inglehart, Narko, & Zimmerman, 2003), constructing knowledge
via conversation calls for tasks that “must involve engaging students in conversation among
themselves” (p. 191), for “the way they talk with each other determines the way they will
think and the way they will write” (ibid).
CW is, then, a pedagogy used in teaching the writing skills or to jointly discuss a topic
(Bruffee, 1983, 1984 as cited in Sharple, 1993; Ede & Lunsford, 1991). It is, thus, coined to
refer to tasks or learning activities where learners jointly compose a written product which
they all own, and in which they all display a sense of responsibility and interdependence upon
others in order to complete the task or the learning activity (Hamlaoui, 2009; Snow, 1987 as
10
cited in Fung, 2006; and Storch, 2005, 2011). Many other definitions were drawn in order to
clarify the notion of CW among which we mention Ens, Boyd, Nickerson, and Matezuc
(2011), who stated that CW is a process by which two or more authors contribute to and own
the production of a text where they all “… negotiate topics, explore ideas, challenge support,
and point out omissions” (p. 67). However, Ede & Lunsford (1991) put forward an all-
inclusive definition:
Collaborative writing is a process that involves two or more people committed to ajointly composed text. Negotiation begins early in the process and includes exploringtopics; challenging; supporting; and pointing out omission; while addressing content,structure, style or form. Collaborators do not assume co-authorship but acknowledgethe impact, insights, and voice of others. (pp. 67-68)
They also categorized CW into dialogic CW and hierarchical CW which stand for
establishing dialogues in every step of the CW process in the former, and dividing the work
by assigning each member a role in the latter.
In educational milieu, Damon and Phelps (1989), and Dale (1994) showed that
involvement among learners is a critical factor for the betterment of the writing skill in
general, and for the success of the outcome in particular (Fung, 2006); this is the evidence that
supports the longstanding belief of Reynolds et a1 (1911, as cited in Sharples, 1993) that “the
three of us have done together, as well as we could, what neither of us separately could have
done at all - which, surely, is the essence of collaboration” (p. 1).
3.3. The Use of Collaborative Writing
Fung (2006) conducted a teachers’ questionnaire to gain insight upon the use of CW in
the classroom. He found that 14 teachers, among 16, who responded made use of CW in their
classes, for they believed that it is advantageous in terms of encouraging generation of ideas,
maximizing self-confidence within learners, exposing them to different writing styles, making
them learn from each other, and minimizing marking.
11
3.3.1. Reasons for using CW. CW is highly recommended because of its social,
cognitive, and practical benefits (Fung, 2006).
3.3.1.1. Social aspect. When writing collaboratively, learners are likely to develop
interpersonal skills; this eases their social intercourses with their group members once they
are indulged in group interaction where speaking and listening take place alongside writing.
Doing so, there would be an exchange of ideas and an increasingly generation of thoughts
which lead to “Multiple Input” that augments the richness and the accuracy of the written
outcome (Ede & Lunsford, 1991). Moreover, group members would provide support for each
other by grappling together to fight weaknesses, and by instilling strengths in order to
reinforce relations between them.
Nevertheless, there might be conflict between group members which may engender
hindrance in the completion of the task or the learning activity, and worse, the success of the
whole group. Yet, it may be useful, for the more conflict goes on, the more checking of ideas
occurs, and the more possibilities arise. Consequently, this develops in learners a cluster of
skills such as problem-solving, team spirit, tolerance, cooperation, leadership, and self-
reliance (Fung, 2006).
3.3.1.2. Cognitive aspect. Meanwhile involving learners in CW tasks or learning
activities, their cognition advances in the presence of others. As they collaborate, they
construct together new knowledge and ideas from others’ input; and while doing so, they put
themselves in the shoes of the audience (reader) who needs to be accounted for through
adopting higher order thinking skills such as analysis and critical thinking. Hence, CW
bolsters “learners’ cognitive ability and expands their language growth” (Fung, 2006, p. 6).
3.3.1.3. Practical aspect. According to Fung (2006), learners’ individual writing
performances are prompted by CW. It yields a natural milieu where the writing process is
“more recursive, more sophisticated” (Dale, 1994a as cited in Dale, 1997, p. x). Besides, CW
12
makes autonomous and interdependent learners who are responsible to learn on their own
without reference to the teacher (Morgan et al, 1987; as cited in Fung, 2006), and who might
be better at knowledge transmission to their peers (Dauite & Dalton, 1993; as cited in Fung,
2006). Essentially, this kind of writing readies learners for real-life situations (Ede &
Lunsford, 1991) especially developing teamwork skills through practical experiences for
future workplace.
3.4.Patterns of Collaboration in Writing
3.4.1. Reither & Vipond. In a study they conducted, Reither & Vipond (1989, as
cited in Mutwarasibo, 2013) sketched three forms of collaboration in writing that they have
concluded from their discussion on the collaborative nature of EFL writing:
Co-authoring stands for the pattern through which writers co-write together a piece
of writing and go through all the stages together; It indicates the presence of an excessive
interaction while writing, for learners have an incentive to contribute in the task since
they converse about all its bits and bobs in order to achieve the desired shared goal. Dale
(1997) stated that it is beneficial in terms of externalizing implicit thinking and prompting
higher order thinking and positive cognitive conflict, fostering an awareness of audience,
exchanging styles and strategies about recursion and planning with peers, and esteeming
the self and the other.
Workshopping. According to Mutwarasibo (2013), it is a form of “extended
collaboration” that denotes seeking feedback from peers in the form of
Peer-Review which is a means of asking for feedback that allows learners to
improve their writings when revising them; it aids them to get advice, critique, and
information that might be helpful.
Peer-Response permits learners to negotiate their individual writings while
reviewing them.
13
Peer-Tutoring refers to the situation where one writes and acts like a tutee
who needs help from the tutor. It is based on the “principle that the tutors learn by
teaching; as in the old cliché, ‘to teach is to learn twice’ and that the tutees learn by
learning from the more knowledgeable tutor” (Jong, 2009, p. 199).
Knowledge-Making. It is the process by which writers construct and reconstruct
knowledge on the basis of their pre-existing knowledge or that of others who had a hand
in the same field. Reither & Vipond (1989, as cited in Oaks, 1995) proclaimed that
knowledge making is “reading and analyzing the works of others who have written about
a particular field. That is, discourse can be an interior dialogue created as a result of
critically interacting with and articulating one's thoughts about the written text” (p. 3).
3.4.2. Saunder. CW tasks are diversified, and they impact peer feedback as well as
the written outcomes (Saunders, 1989; as cited in Mutwarasibo, 2013). He stated five CW
tasks: (a) co-writing requires an extensive interaction since it is the process through which
learners share the whole produced document, and they go together through all the stages of
the CW task (planning, composing, reviewing, and proofreading); (b) co-publishing through
which Group members collaborate through the stages of planning, reviewing, and
proofreading, but they divide the work so that every member composes his/her part, and then,
re-collect all parts to establish the end-product in one piece; (c) co-responding where each
member of the group plans and writes his/her part individually, then all members discuss and
negotiate each one’s writing and assist each other in reviewing each one’s text; (d) co-editing
which tends to lack interaction as group members help each other only in proofreading each
member’s text; they do all the work alone (planning, composing, and reviewing); and (e)
Writer-helping whereby the learner writes his/her own whole part alone by going through all
the stages and may ask for assistance if needed. However, there is no place for collaboration
in this CW task.
14
3.4.3. Storch. In her study on pair interaction, Storch (2002, as cited in
Mutwarasibo, 2013) identified four patterns: (a) collaborative pattern where pairs work
together throughout all the steps of the writing task; (b) dominant/dominant pattern which
depicts the existence of conflict between both participants who equally contribute to the
completion of the task, but do not agree upon the other’s contribution; (c) dominant/passive
pattern in which the pair consists of one dominant participant while the other remains passive.
The former monopolizes the whole work, and the latter is amenable and willing to be
influenced by others’ views; and (d) expert/novice pattern where one participant possesses
expertise to complete the task and to boost the other participant, who is little experienced, to
have a hand in the task.
3.5. Approaches to Teaching Collaborative Writing
The paradigm shifts from product-based approach to process-based and genre-based
approaches. The former is the scholastic way of approaching teaching individual writing;
however, the latter approaches revolutionized the teaching of writing by not focusing mainly
on the product per se, but rather on the process. Process-based and genre-based approaches
are adhered for in teaching CW, and they are even blended into process-genre-based
approach.
3.5.1. The process-based approach. The role of writing was overlooked during the
audiolingual era compared with speaking that was the focal point and the sole medium of
communication. Thus, learners were assigned to write and were assessed on compositions
without revising and correcting first drafts (Norhisham & Shahrina, n.d). This led to
pondering over the process that writing undergoes rather than emphasizing form and structure
(Hyland, 2003; as cited in ibid).
This assertion reflects the fact that writing is not a linear process, but a recursive one
(Shahrina & Norhisham, n.d; Dale, 1997) in the sense that learners go through the stages of
15
CW linearly, but by going back to the previous stages if necessary. Accordingly, Badger and
White (2000; based on Tribble, 1996 as cited in Shahrina & Norhisham, n.d, p. 77)
formulated a model of the writing dynamics and unpredictability as shown in Figure 2:
Figure 2. Dynamic and unpredictable model of process writingNote. Adapted from The best of two approaches: process/ genre-based approach to teachingwriting (Shahrina, & Norhisham, n.d).
The key element in the process-based model is revising the group’s drafts -after
having planned, composed and drafted the work- which serves as a phase where writers are
aware of their audience (readers) since group members act like ones. Therefore, according to
Keh (1990, as cited in Shahrina & Norhisham, n.d), providing feedback prevents jumping
directly to the eventual product, and allows reviewing the drafts whenever necessary.
However, the process-oriented approach focuses only on the processes that are
applicable to all writing assignments via the use of learners’ cognitive abilities, without taking
into account the social aspects of writing. This dictated resorting to the use of genre-based
approach to teaching writing.
3.5.1.1. Some issues of collaboration in process-based approach. Applying
collaboration through the process-oriented approach may engender problems among which
we mention (a) group formation and (b) when to apply it (Widodo, 2013). Within the former
issue, there has to be an agreement -between the teacher and learners- upon how to form
groups: either it is up to the teacher to choose group members so that s/he would be able to
form groups that consist of a variety of levels, and in order to assure participation and
PREWRITIG
COMPOSING/ DRAFTING
REVISINGEDITING
PUBLISHIG
16
scaffolding between group members. The other option is that the teacher allows learners to
self-select so that they feel comfortable with whom they are working (Widodo, 2006 as cited
in ibid).
The latter issue concerns whether collaboration is to be implemented throughout all
the stages, or to rotate the group members; i.e. the group holds together and collaborates into
every single stage (from group formation to editing), or the teacher might mingle members of
different groups, and asks them to write with them in order to gain experiences. This is done
on the basis of “the initial preferences of students, a mixture of genders (males and females), a
mixture of student proficiency level in language and writing, and a shared or similar writing
topic” (Widodo, 2013, p.199).
3.5.1.2. Steps of collaborative process-based writing.
The writing process encompasses three main steps within each a set of sub-skills is
required for its achievement
3.5.1.2.1. Pre-writing activity. The first step is group formation; as it is
aforementioned, the teacher chooses group members or learners select themselves accounting
for the whim to have diversity of groups, in order to ensure collaboration, mutual
responsibility, negotiation for meanings, and achievement of the outcome.
The second step is teacher scaffolding that is the process under which the teacher
provides support for the learners whenever needed. According to Vygotsky (1979), the
teacher acts as an expert who sustains learners who are viewed as novices to help them attain
their potential understandings by improving their actual ones. This applies to learners as well
who can assist others as they are more knowledgeable.
The third step is collaborative idea generation. According to Rao (2007, as cited in
Widodo, 2013), learners have to be given the opportunity to activate their schemata for the
adequate information retrieval that suit the completion of the assignment. Therefore, learners
17
collect as many ideas as they can, organize them, and develop them collaboratively after they
have stimulated their thinking.
3.5.1.2.2. While-writing activity. As a first step while writing, learners start drafting
collaboratively after they have outlined the ideas constituting the topic at hand through
handwriting or word processing. The collaborative drafting stage requires learners to write
anything that comes to mind coherently without paying much attention to accuracy; i.e.
learners have to focus on the gradual task completion through fluency of ideas.
The second phase is to give feedback collaboratively. According to Widodo (2013),
peer feedback is advantageous in terms of the following aspects:
It augments text comprehensibility since peers are potential audience (readers).
It makes the learners reflect on their learning and develop text ownership.
It promotes correction among peers as far as language and form are concerned.
It helps the learners achieve a degree of intelligibility while expressing ideas and
clarifying intentions.
It prompts the learners’ authoritative abilities.
It enhances autonomy and interdependence within the learners.
Nevertheless, as cited in ibid, Carson & Nelson (1996); Rollinson (2005); and Tsui
and Ng (2000) believe that albeit its advantages, peer feedback is challenging in the sense that
it causes mistrust among peers; makes learners think that the teacher is the only
knowledgeable authority; engenders hesitation to critique others in order not to hurt them, and
makes them spot only surface mistakes, for they do not know how to provide feedback.
After that, learners revise and edit their drafts. Revision is a crucial phase where
group members review their writing for language errors, content, organization of ideas, and
style. Besides, on the basis of Lee & Schallert (2008) and Shin’s (2007) views, Widodo
(2013) acknowledges that revision goes through “reading the text, detecting problems,
18
selecting a strategy, and revising the text” (p. 204), and that emphasis should be on the role of
editing in the process of joint text production since it is during this stage that slight mistakes
of grammar, vocabulary, and so on are corrected before final submission of the final draft.
3.5.1.2.3. Post-writing activity. It is time now for teacher assessment of either the
final product through holistic assessment where he/she goes through the final text and gauges
it on the basis of a rubric; or the process as a whole through analytical assessment where
he/she rates the details of learners’ written performances such as content, organization,
coherence, and so on (Weigle, 2002 as cited in Widodo, 2013). Moreover, the teacher may
ask the learners to write about their reflections on the task either collaboratively or
individually as a tool to “self-evaluate” their strengths and weaknesses of their writing and
think further of how they will improve in their own writing skill” (Widodo, 2013, p. 204).
3.5.2. The genre-based approach. This approach was founded as a refutation of
previously held views about the process-based one which was based on learners’ cognitive
abilities to go through the aforementioned stages without addressing “the forces outside the
individual which help guide purposes, establish relationships, and ultimately shape writing”
(Hyland, 2003 as cited in Hanjani & Li, 2014, p. 150).
In opposition, genre-oriented approach highlights the significance of the social context
in writing; thus, it “presents students with the social and cultural context of various kinds of
writing and helps them understand how to write appropriately for different contexts” (Lee,
2012, p. 2). In other words, learners are taught different genres of texts so that they would be
familiar with them, with their purpose, and with the context to be used in.
Under such an approach applied to CW, learners are given a model or a text type that
they analyze for linguistic and structural features, so that they would be able to develop their
own models via proceeding through the steps of CW.
19
3.5.3. The process/genre-based approach. This is an eclectic approach to teaching
CW that encompasses the process-based and the genre-based approaches. It is a kind of a
synthesis that highlights the importance of both the model to be provided and to be analyzed
by learners, and the process they undergo to write their own texts.
Badger and White (2000, as cited in Shahrina & Norhisham, n.d, p. 80) put forward a
model of a process-genre-oriented approach to teaching learners how to write a
recommendation report in an engineer writing context (Figure 3).
Figure 3. A process genre-approach to teaching writing.Note. Adapted from Badger and White, 2000 as cited in Shahrina & Norhisham, n.d)
Learners were assigned to write a report of recommendation for purchasing new
elevators for the company, so they need to make an association between the social situation
that the model displays and the purpose to be established (recommending to buy the material).
This is achieved through the teacher’s scaffolding who provides instructions and feedback
throughout the writing process, and via the model to be analyzed by learners. After doing so
for linguistic and structural features, they make a kind of synthesis by, first, planning the ideas
Situation(New Elevators for the company)
Purpose(To inform/to recommend)
Consideration of mode/field/tenor(internal report, data needed, audience)
Throughout this chapter, we try to shed light upon the central pillars that ground
writing into interaction through collaboration; it is divided into three sections. The first is
devoted to CLT and TBLT as the contemporary methods adopted in creating a culture of
communication and collaboration within learners. The second is about giving an overall idea
about the learning patterns: competitive, individualistic, and interactive which consists of
cooperative and collaborative patterns. The final section is dedicated to the theory scaffolding
CL in general and CW in particular.
1. Contemporary Approaches to English Language Teaching
Every step in the classroom is “underpinned by beliefs about the nature of language,
the nature of the learning process and the nature of the teaching act” (Nunan, 2004, p. 6), and
CLT and TBLT are fundamentally agreed upon to be based on collaboration between the
teacher and learners and among learners in order to obtain learner-centered classrooms.
1.1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
Due to the works of Richards and Rodgers (1986), the notion of CLT has been plainly
examined, among many other teaching methods and approaches.
The theory of language –structuralism– that was governing Audiolingualism was
subjected to critiques by Chomsky (1965, as cited in Richards and Rodgers, 1986), who
argued that it does not account for humans’ abilities to generate an infinite number of unique
sentences.
In 1971, a group of experts tried to design a system in which tasks are split into
interrelated portions or units (van Ek and Alexander, 1980, as cited in Richards and Rodgers,
1986). Thus, Wilkins (1972, 1976 as cited in Richards and Rodgers, 1986) devised the
Notional-Functional Syllabus which entails notions and communicative functions that lay
behind language, and that learners need to be acquainted with in order to be familiar with the
26
different language usage, instead of merely describing the hub of language using grammar
and vocabulary.
As a theory of language, CLT is based on the belief that views language as
communication. Thus, the most prominent applied linguists such as Hymes (1972), Halliday
(1975), and Widdowson (1978) were against Chomsky’s view, and they proclaimed that
language should not be decontextualized, and that its functional and communicative aspects
should be accounted for in curricula design (Richards and Rodgers, 1986).
First, Hymes (1972) claimed that language use should be in its communicative and
cultural context so that the speaker/listener encounter would be governed by the acquisition of
communicative competence, that enables them to know when to remain silent, when to speak
to whom about what, and what for. He said that communicative competence requires four
competencies: (a) linguistic competence,1 (b) sociolinguistic competence,2 (c) discourse
competence,3 and (d) strategic competence.4 Therefore, acquiring such competencies permits
individuals to be communicatively competent in a speech community.
Second, Halliday (1975) came up with different functions of language as a
communicative tool. According to Brumfit and Johnson (1979); Savignon (1983) (as cited in
Richards and Rodgers, 1986), this theory is a continuation of Hymes theory; it encapsulates
seven key functions: (a) instrumental to obtain what one wants; (b) regulatory to control
others’ behaviors; (c) interactional to interact with others; (d) personal to express personal
feelings and meanings; (e) heuristic to discover; (f) imaginative to create an imaginative
world; and (g) representational to communicate information.
Third, another theorist is Widdowson (1978) who expressed his views about the
communicative nature of language, and who established the relationship between the use of
1 stands for grammatical structures of the language2 refers to individuals’ knowledge of appropriateness in various social settings3 refers to the ability to mingle grammatical structures and meanings coherently and cohesively to produce discourse4 that refers to strategies of communication.
27
linguistic features and their communicative functions to fulfill certain communicative
purposes.
All in all, these theories contributed in the foundation of a communicative approach to
language teaching, and in the establishment of CLT that promotes collaboration.
1.1.1.Principles of Communicative Language Teaching.
1.1.1.1. Communication principle. It is believed that communication enhances
learning via devising learning activities that denote authentic communicative tasks, and that
focus upon learners’ interaction.
1.1.1.2. Meaningfulness principle. It stands for language that is meaningful; this
brings to mind the comprehensible hypotheses at the three levels: input, interaction, and
output in Second Language Acquisition (SLA).
Comprehensible input hypothesis5. It was coined by the linguist Krashen (1977, as
cited in Nunan, 2004) along with other four hypotheses in SLA. Krashen argued that for
learning to take place, the input, that is the written or spoken “linguistic content of a
course” (Richard, 2013, p. 5), has to be comprehensible and understood by learners.
Interaction hypothesis. Long (1983, as cited in Nunan, 2004) stated that the input
hypothesis is not sufficient in SLA, for interaction plays a crucial role in learning, in
differentiating between learners’ knowledge and that of the Target Language (TL), and in
making them aware of its different components. Long claimed that if learners opt for
negotiation of meaning in order to complete their tasks, they have to choose face-to-face
interaction and communication that are integral in consummating the input.
Comprehensible output hypothesis. It was developed by Swain (1985, as cited in
Nunan, 2004) who proclaimed that learning a second language (L2) gets accomplished
when learners perform outputs which show what they are “able to do as the result of a
5 It is called “i+1” hypothesis in which “i” is the input and “+1” is the potential level that learners can go beyond.
28
period of instruction” (Richard, 2013, p. 7). According to her, learners notice a gap in
their knowledge that boosts them to improve it via modifying their pre-existing
knowledge to produce meaningful comprehensible outputs.
1.1.1.3. Task Principle. According to Johnson (1982, as cited in Richards and
Rodgers, 1986), learners should be oriented with significant activities that promote learning.
1.2. Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT)
TBLT is the offspring of CLT; it stems from the idea that learning occurs if learners
are doing something while communicating through language. Its main organizational
principle is the completion of a communicative task that is transformed from real-world
situations to the classroom; that is what Nunan (2004) labeled as a pedagogical task. In
TBLT, the focus is on directing learners’ attention to negotiate meaning; nonetheless, ibid
emphasized meaning without overlooking grammatical forms of language, so that learners
acquire the linguistic system and its different meanings to establish task completion in a
lifelike communicative milieu.
1.2.1. Principles of TBLT. According to Nunan (2005a, as cited in Jong, 2009),
TBLT is underpinned by a set of principles that emphasize learners’ centeredness as a
pedagogical tool, social construction of knowledge via the use of real-life materials, active
learning and language ownership, learners participation in well managed tasks according to
their variation,6 task completion, and assessment of both teacher and learners.
1.3. Communicative Task
Communicative task is pivotal in CLT and TBLT; it is defined by Nunan (2004) as:
a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating,producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused onmobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning and in which theintention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate form. (p. 4)
6 “learning styles, learning and communicative strategies, personalities, multiple intelligencesand the overall local contexts.” (Jong, 2009, p. 25)
29
Ellis (2003, as cited in task-based language learning) describes it as involving
pragmatic meaning, being a kind of ‘gap’,7 and providing freedom to participants to choose
the linguistic resources in task completion. Nunan stated, furthermore, that it is not easy to
make a distinction between a communicative and a non-communicative task; thus, he set six
components which form the communicative task.
1.3.1. Components of a communicative task. A communicative task consists of six
components as shown in Figure 4 (Nunan, 2005a as cited in Jong, 2009, p. 26).
The hereafter described components interactively affect each other in the sense that the
particular goals, input, and activities that are displayed in a particular setting dictate to the
teacher to act accordingly by selecting, modifying, adapting, changing, or omitting elements
of the course; besides, learners have a crucial role in assimilating and producing outcomes.
Figure 4. Six components of a communicative task (Nunan, 1989).Note.:Adapted from Task-Based Language Teaching (Nunan, 2004)and (Jong, 2009).
Goals: the purpose of the communicative task is to develop and to maintain
interaction, and to foster the exchange of information and thoughts between learners in
order to complete the task.
Input: the content of a communicative task should be authentic and from real-life
situations.
7 Categorized by Prahbu (1987, cited in task-based language learning) into information gap (provision of partial informationby all members discussing a topic), reasoning gap (deriving new information from pre-existing knowledge by inferringfor instance), and opinion gap (Identifying one’s preferences in a particular situation).
30
Activities: after being provided with the task, learners are supposed to perform an
activity that is meant to reflect the real world, to boost learners to acquire linguistic
knowledge that serves them in communicative settings, and to enhance their accuracy and
fluency of the TL.
Settings: in a communicative task, the learning pattern -that is a task for the whole
class, group work, pair work; and the learning environment -that is inside the classroom,
the yard, the airport, and so on; constitute the setting, and they should highlight learners’
centeredness.
Learner’s role: in communicative tasks, learners play active roles, for they are
viewed as members of a community who have independent contribution.
Teacher’s role: in communicative tasks, the teacher acts as a facilitator who eases
the flow of the learning process, as a participant who participates in the tasks along with
the learners to motivate them, and as an observer who observes the progress and regress
of the learners.
2. Learning Patterns
In any teaching/learning situation, the teacher plays a pivotal role in its
accomplishment, and his/her absence impedes the ongoing process. However, one hand does
not clap, the other moiety (learners) is necessary. Learners are not the same; they constitute a
melting pot that amalgamates a cluster of variables determining their way of learning.
Therefore, taking the example of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences,8 learners have
more than one intelligence through which they learn easily. Another paradigm is the Neuro-
Linguistic Programming9 abbreviated in VAGOK which entails different modes of learning.
8 Gardner (1983, cited in Bencze et al, 2006) states that humans have more than one intelligence (interpersonal,intrapersonal, visual, bodily kinesthetic, mathematical, musical, and verbal)9 Revell and Norman (1997, cited in Bencze et al, 2006) claimed that humans’ brains function differently, andindividuals respond dissimilarly to the same stimuli (visual, auditory, gustatory, olfactory, and kinesthetic).
31
In addition to many other differences such as style, cultural background, educational
background, age, motivation, attitudes, aptitude, affective factors, disorders, and so on; we are
concerned in the present research with collaborative leaning as a theory in CW. Thus, we need
to have a brief conception about the learning patterns since some learners prefer to learn
individualistically, others competitively, and others through interaction.
2.1. Competitive Learning
Before moving to competitive learning, we need to define the term competition per se.
Competition is defined as “a contest in which two or more people are engaged where typically
one or a few participants will win and others will not” [Shindler (from Webster, 2007), 2009,
defining competition, para. 1].
It is wrongly believed that the world is intrinsically competitive (ibid); whereas in our
day-to-day life, we find some weak-kneed who are assisted by the strongest, and poverty-
stricken who are given alms; therefore, to generalize the idea of “the real world is inherently
competitive is a myth” (ibid, defining competition, para. 2).
Competitive learning, indeed, is a situation where learners are indulged in tasks and
learning activities that push them to compete for winning. According to Johnson and Johnson
(2006, as cited in ibid), pretending that engaging learners in purely competitive settings
readies them for the real world is mistakenly thought of, for it executes on them “a
specifically biased world-view” (Shindler, 2009, defining competition, para. 2). Nor can we
deny the fact that this pattern of learning may heighten “fun or/and drama” (ibid, benefits,
para. 1) during task or learning activity performance, may yield aspects that bolster social
skills, and may intensify the magnitude of anxiety, which is often required for learners to
outperform (ibid, consequences).
32
2.2. Individualistic Learning
Individualistic learning occurs when learners do not interact; they work independently
in order to achieve task requirements solely with neither aid nor interruption. This learning
pattern is believed to be a teacher-centered one, for teachers’ instructions are centralized to be
brimmed over learners’ brains.
According to McFeeters (2003, from the views of Hofstede, 2001; and Komba, 1998),
learning individualistically is dedicated to teach learners how to learn in order to prepare them
for higher degrees, for the workplace, and more importantly, for life. Piaget (1962) put
forward: “In some cases, what is transmitted by instruction is well assimilated by the child
because it represents in fact an extension of some spontaneous constructions of his own. In
such cases, his development is accelerated” (Spontaneous concepts, para. 6). Hence, it is
imperative that learners acquire knowledge individualistically because their “perceptual
observations and mental integrations” (Biddle, 2012) have an integral role in knowledge
construction. That is what individualism claims; the individual recognizes reality (e.g., dogs,
cats, and birds, and death); integrates it into concepts (e.g., “dog,” “animal,” “mortal”); then
into generalizations (e.g., “dogs can bite” and “animals are mortal”); and forms principles
(e.g., “animals, including man, must take certain actions in order to remain alive,” and “man
requires freedom in order to live and prosper”) (Epistemology, para. 1).
However, individuals have the capacity to learn with others and to teach others; this is
apparent in the belief that knowledge is well constructed in “an interactive dialogic
community” (ibid, para. 4), and that interactive learning is a central premise in learning.
2.3. Interactive Learning
The Holy Grail of interactive learning encompasses two distinct patterns of learning.
Bruffee (1992); Johnson and Johnson (1992); Leigh and McGregor (1992); Myers (1991),
Rockwood (1993) (as cited in Pantiz, 1996); and Pantiz (1996) conducted considerable
33
researches on these two patterns which seem to be brand new while they are intangible as
stated by Leigh and McGregor (1992): “We are simply developing new forms and adapting
them to new contexts” (p. 10).
2.3.1. Cooperative learning. In introducing the notion of cooperative learning, the
most precise and concise definition is epitomized in Pantiz’s (1996) that it is the “processes
which help people interact together in order to accomplish a specific goal or develop an end
product which is usually content specific. It is more directive than a collaborative system of
governance and closely controlled by the teacher” (p. 1).
This clearly brings to light that cooperative learning is structured aiming at making
learners accomplish a task via working together in small groups bearing in mind that
everyone’s individual accountability ensures their learning and the success of the group as
well. Ergo, every group member is assigned a part of the task or the learning activity to make
sure he/she is participating and contributing in task or the learning activity completion by
means of learning from each other.
However, according to Myers (1991, as cited in Pantiz, 1996), the root word of
‘cooperation’ focuses on the end-product rather than the processes that learners go through
while cooperating; he added further that it has American roots based on Dewey’s views of the
communal nature of learning in which “social interdependence influences individual
interaction within a given situation which, in turn, affects the outcomes of that interaction”
(Leigh and McGregor, 1992 paraphrazing Johnson and Johnson, 1989, p. 15).
Moreover, within this pattern, the teacher holds power and remains authoritative
(Rockwood, 1993 as cited in Pantiz, 1996) throughout task performance, which may engender
discouragement within learners who have zeal to learn and to author their own learning.
2.3.2. Collaborative learning. The pendulum swung from teacher-centered to
learner-centered learning pattern. It is believed that CL ponders over learners as the focal
34
point of the teaching/learning process (Rockwood, 1993 as cited in Pantiz, 1996). Thus CL is
a “classroom technique. […] people come together in groups, it suggests a way of dealing
with people which respects and highlights individual group members' abilities and
contributions. There is a sharing of authority and acceptance of responsibility […]” (Pantiz,
1996, p. 1).
Albeit unstructured by the teacher, collaboration between learners dictates some
prerequisites that assure the success of the collaborative work. Group members should
operate as a team, should share authority, should accept personal responsibility, and should
hold each other accountable (Crowell, n.d).
Myers (1991, as cited in Pantiz, 1996) takes the view that collaboration emphasizes
group processing rather than the product, and that it goes back to British origins when some
English teachers probed over ways that sustain learners’ active learning, and that motivate
them to learn with interpersonal skills. Therefore, they are no longer spoon-fed; they partake
in their knowledge acquisition. Besides, which is vitally important is that teachers no longer
consider themselves expert knowledge transmitters; they are more likely to be “expert
designers of intellectual experiences for students” (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule,
1985; Schön,1983, 1987; Whipple, 1987; as cited in Leigh and MaGregor, 1992, p. 11). To
elicit what has been said, teachers play the role of coaches who observe, from distance,
learners who not only perceive new information, but assimilate it and accommodate it so that
they create their own.
Ergo, since learners diverge, teachers cannot adhere to “one-size-fits-all approach”
(Leigh and MaGregor, 1992, p. 12); they would better opt for a variety of learning patterns
that fit the particular educational goal and the particular community of learners. Nevertheless,
as we are concerned with CW, the subsequent section revolves around CL in order to expound
the rationale behind adopting such a learning pattern which, according to Johnson and his
35
colleagues, as cited in Gillies and Ashman (2003), enhances higher achievement and
productivity than the other learning patterns.
3. Collaborative Learning in the Classroom
As aforementioned in the previous section, each interactive learning pattern –
cooperative and collaborative– has its own principles and basics; however, they are referred to
interchangeably since, according to MacGregor (1992, as cited in Inglehart et al., 2003), they
are “more like an arbor of vines growing in parallel, crossing, or intertwined.” (p. 189).
Therefore, cooperative and CL are “two versions of the same thing” (Bruffee, 1995 as cited in
Jong, 2009, p. 11), and one’s principles applies to the other one.
3.1. The Nature of Collaborative Learning
CL has long been pondered over as a prolific philosophy of interaction and as a set of
techniques that bolster better learning or performance when one is indulged in group work.
This consensus found age to the 1800s, and it is grounded on CL Theory which is attributed to
the achievements of Triplett (1898) and Allport (1920/2007).
Triplett (1989) noticed that members undertaking the same task simultaneously outdo
in comparison to their sole performances, for according to Aiello and Douthitt (2001), this
catalyses the individuals’ “idea or thought to move faster” (p. 164). Nonetheless, this is
inevitable, for Triplett’s observations were held in a competitive milieu. Ergo, later studies by
Allport (1920/2007) divorced competition from learning settings by engaging learners in
group work where they collaborate to produce a shared end-product. This trial depicted that
“individuals’ behaviours in groups … changed when they were exposed to the influence of
others” (Gillies and Ashman, 2003, p. 1).
Furthermore, according to Gillies and Ashman (2003), subsequent researches such as
Watson (1928) who demonstrated that the group’s thinking is powerful than that of the best
member of the group, Shaw (1932) who noticed that group work is more productive than
36
singlehanded one, Mead (1937) who observed that group members work in commitment when
realizing their need to achieve a shared goal, and May and Doob (1937) who concluded that
cooperation to reach a common goal takes place when group members are in close contact.
All these works laid stress on the efficiency and the efficacy of collaborative work since
“collaborative learning has as its main feature a structure that allows for student talk: students
are supposed to talk with each other....and it is in this talking that much of the learning
occurs” (Golub, 1988 as cited in Leigh and McGregor, 1992, p. 12).
Recently, Jong (2009) reported what McInnerney and Roberts (2004) stated on the
bases of Millis’s views (1996); he shaped features of the nature of CL whereby learners work
in small groups and on common tasks, via deploying their interpersonal behaviours, positive
interdependence, and accountability.
3.2. Conditions for Collaborative Learning
It is commonly mooted that cooperative learning is the most adequate pattern for
elementary children while CL is ideally suited for adult learners. Nevertheless, as cooperative
learning and CL are in general the same, conditions underlying the former can be utilized
under the umbrella of the latter.
3.2.1. Positive interdependence. Tom Morton (as cited in Chisholm, 1990) said that
“Group members sink or swim together” (p. 90). This displays the fact that all members of the
group should throw heart and soul into understanding the task, and should yield sui generis
contributions in order to accomplish it, for everyone’s success in doing so assures the group’s
success as well. Positive interdependence can be established by means of (a) positive goal
interdependence,10, (b) positive resource interdependence,11; and (c) positive role
interdependence.12. Thus, members share mutual accountability to reach the headed goal.
10 learners believe in the reality of achieving a joint goal through setting up individual goals11 each group member represents a resource that is mutually consolidated with others’ in order to attain their joint goal12 members of the group have different complementary roles
37
3.2.2. Face-to-face interaction. One way to guarantee the achievement of the task
goal is to promote interaction between group members. Each individual should encourage
and should facilitate others’ efforts, resources, and roles while performing a shared task. In
this respect, Gillies and Ashman (2003) based on Webb (1985) showed that “it was the
explanations which children received in response to requests for help that were related
positively to achievement, whereas giving non-elaborated help did not facilitate higher than
expected outcomes” (p. 9).
3.2.3. Individual accountability/ Personal responsibility. Rodger and Johnson
(1994) stated that: “Among the early settlers of Massachusetts there was a saying, ‘If you do
not work, you do not eat.’ Everyone had to do their fair share of the work” (Individual
Accountability, para. 1). Ergo, group members are supposed to be committed and
individually accountable for the success of the whole group, and to do their fair shares in the
group work instead of succeeding or getting the same grade as others by relying on them to do
the whole work.
3.2.4. Interpersonal and small-group skills. It is beyond all disputes that any group
work requires building relationships between its members. However, not every individual
possesses the needed social skills; they need to be taught the interpersonal skills that allow
them to interact with others effectively and to reach high quality collaboration. Therefore,
holding such skills is necessary as Rodger and Johnson (1994) quoted John D. Rockefeller: “I
will pay more for the ability to deal with people than any other ability under the sun” That is
why these skills make members of the group golden and achievement higher.
3.2.5. Group processing. A process is a set of events that occur over time. It takes
place in group work as well where members of the same group need to manage their group
processing through reflecting on the events they went through from A to Z. According to
Rodger and Johnson (1994), “the purpose of group processing is to clarify and improve the
38
effectiveness of the members in contributing to the collaborative efforts to achieve the group’s
goals” (group processing, para. 1) by means of describing helpful and unhelpful actions, and
making decisions about actions to be kept.
3.3. Dimensions of Collaborative Learning
Learning is believed to be a social act; according to Inglehart et al. (2003), it is an
“interpretive act that occurs in the context of relationships” (p. 190). Hence, knowledge is
socially constructed through interactional and conversational processes which are
indispensible to better and to increase learning. Bruffee (1992) put forward that:
To the extent that thought is internalized conversation, then, any effort to understandhow we think requires us to understand the nature of conversation; and any effort tounderstand conversation requires us to understand the nature of community life thatgenerates and maintains conversation. (p. 190)
This underlying theory essentially encapsulates a dyad matrix of theories that ground
learning into collaboration, and that stand as a scaffolding to the tenet of CL: they are social
constructivism and cognition.
3.3.1.Constructivism as a philosophy of education. Constructivism is a
philosophical component that deals with epistemology, and whose very first pioneer,
according to Yager (1991, as cited in Marashi and Baygzadeh, 2010), is the constructivist
philosopher, Giambatista Vico (1710) who commented in a treatise that “one only would
know something if one could explain it” (p.76). Moreover, ibid pinpointed Immanual Kant’s
elaboration of idea through which one does not merely receive information; rather, one
assimilates or accommodates them (Brooks and Brooks, 1999; Cheek, 1992, as cited in ibid).
Constructivism ponders over the fact that knowledge is constructed and meaning is
built by human beings through their contact and interaction with others, since they are by
nature social beings who need to communicate in order to manifest the role of “building and
transforming knowledge” (Applefield, Huber, and Moallem, n.d, p. 6) in order to effectuate
knowledge acquisition.
39
The theory is mainly ascribed to Jean Piaget who held the belief that playing between
children is very crucial to their development of cognition and social skills. This applies to
learners as well; he suggested that there is knowledge internalization mechanism that is
consummated through the processes of assimilation13and accommodation14
Moshman (1982, as cited in ibid) discerned three types of constructivism that
designate the nature of knowledge and its construction:
Exogenous constructivism: it is generally likened to the philosophy of realism15in
the sense that knowledge is reckoned to be constructed in relation to the external real
outlook where individuals accommodate new experiences to their pre-existing
knowledge;
Endogenous constructivism: it is also called cognitive constructivism (Cobb, 1994;
Moshman, 1982, as cited in ibid). It considers the internal cognitive aspects that are
subject to knowledge construction. Applefield et al. (n.d) stated that it is attributed to
Piaget who affirmed that “individual knowledge construction stimulated by internal
cognitive conflict as learners strive to resolve mental disequilibrium” (p. 7). Thus, they
try to discover and to assimilate new experiences; then, they associate them with the
existing ones; and
Dialectical constructivism: or social constructivism (Brown, Collins, and Duguid,
1989; Rogoff, 1990, as cited in ibid). It views knowledge construction as the ramification
of social interactions between individuals in which they discover and negotiate meaning
together to attain shared understanding and mutual knowledge building. It is noticeable in
13 It stands for assimilating new ideas and experiences, and pouring them to schemata -without fluctuating it- for lateruse14 that refers to instigating change in one’s mental representations so that they would be compatible with the new ideasor experiences.15 authors of that era started connecting literature to reality as an opposition of those who were madly dealing withpassion and love
40
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning where learners collaborate and help each
other to establish an adequate understanding of knowledge.
3.3.1.1. Sociocultural Theory (Social Constructivism). There are two eminent
figures whose achievements in developmental psychology, constructivist views of learning,
and socio-cognitive psychology paved the way to the interpretation of humans’ cognitive
development and knowledge construction within social milieu; they are Piaget and Vygotsky
who held the floor by their considerable distinguishable and confronting works. In an article
in the Fountain Magazine, Ozre (2004) brought to light this tenet.
On the one hand, Ozre (2004) stated that the Piagetian perspective considers schematic
knowledge, assimilation, and accommodation as primal processes that children undergo in
order to establish equilibrium between their pre-existing knowledge and their surroundings;
and hence, to create learning. In other words, Piaget highlights the fact that knowledge is
constructed and cognition is developed as solitary acts aside from social settings. He
considers social interaction as the “imposition of adult functions on biologically determined
stages of cognitive development” (Russell, 1993 as cited in Nyikos and Hashimoto, 1997, p.
507), for children’s cognition develops through discovery, and through the phases of:
On the other hand, Vygotsky (1979) asserted that knowledge is constructed in a
culturally and socially oriented milieu. Vygotsky was the first who suggested “the
mechanisms by which culture becomes a part of each person's nature” (Vygotsky, 1979, p. 6);
he claimed that children transform external operations they confront in social contexts into
internalized thoughts. This process goes through (a) reconstructing the external operation
16 (before the age of 2) sensory and motor activities prevail17 (from age 2 to 7) intuitive intelligence occurs, and mental representations serve at acquiring knowledge.18 (from age 7 to 11) “intelligence is logical, conserved, and dependent on concrete references” (Ozer, 2004, para. 5)19 (after 11 years of age) children start developing abstract thinking, probabilities, associations, and analogies; butadults’ assistance is needed only to guide them.
41
(activity) internally by making use of “practical intelligence, voluntary attention, and
memory” (p. 57), and (b) transforming what occurred ‘interpsychologically’; i.e. between
people on the social level, into an ‘intrapsychological’ process that takes place within children
where they develop “voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of
concepts” (p. 57) as a result of social encounters. Therefore, Vygotsky (1979) and later
Bruffee (1986) and Wertsch (1991) (as cited in Nyikos and Hashimoto, 1997) emphasized
the importance of social interaction as the precondition to the development of children
cognition.
3.3.1.1.1. Language dialogicality. Since knowledge is socially constructed,
collaboration between learners while performing a task is likened to members of the same
community who share culture, context, and language. Thus, being a part of a community
requires knowing its language in order to converse with others; besides, writing jointly is
pondered over as “a technologically displaced form of [such] conversation” (Bruffee, 1984 as
cited in Evans and Bunting, 2012, p110).
Bakhtin (1981) called to consider language as being entirely interactional; thus, he
coined the term dialogism which takes part of CW as learners provoke multiple voices
conversing on a particular topic, and which “exposes students to ideas beyond those a student
might generate independently or that the teacher might incorporate in the assignment”
(Bruffee, 1984 as cited in Evans and Bunting, 2012, p110). Besides, Vygotsky (1979) said
that language is the mediating tool, and that “signs and words serve children first and
foremost as a means of social contact with other people. The cognitive and communicative
functions of language then become the basis of a new and superior form of activity in
children, […]” (p. 28). From this description, we can see that language has two forms: a
cognitive form which is represented in the ‘inner speech’; i.e. the “instrument of thought ... as
it aids the individual in seeking and planning a solution to a problem” (Vygotsky, 1986 as
42
cited in Nyikos and Hashimoto, 1997, p. 509), and a communicative form that is apparent in
the externalization of thoughts.
Moreover, Phelps (1989, as cited in Dale, 1997) stated that dialogism refers to the
existence of an utterance within a context in relation to another, and Bakhtin (1981) put
forward that humans’ thoughts are dialogic too since they speak or write after being exposed
to others’ speech or writings; that is what he labeled ‘heteroglossia’ that is blending “another's
2.2.1.2.6. Applications in Solo Writing…………………...…………….67
2.2.1.3.Reflections……………………………………………………………...68
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………68
47
Introduction
In this chapter, we try to probe into the implementation of CW in ESL/EFL contexts;
thus, through reviewing the literature, we attempt to shed light upon CW features and
students’ reflections which are the imputation of the communicativeness and the socio-
cognitive aspects in collaborative knowledge construction, and which are the motive for solo
writing improvement. Ergo, the aim behind opting for Fung’s study on CW (2006) is to
answer our research question and to validate our hypotheses via employing the theoretical
framework dealt with in the first two chapters. Eventually, in order to achieve this, we try to
be selective to sketch only what fulfils our aim from the current chosen study in terms of
setting, participants, research design and procedures, and framework of analysis; after that, we
try to discuss the results from our humble viewpoint in terms of factors and students’
perceptions that bolster collaboration, and that serve in ameliorating students’ solo writing
competencies.
1. Description of Fung’s Study (2006)
1.1. Participants
The target participants were among students who registered in level 1 writing course at
Malaysia University.1 In the semester during which the study took place, the researcher was
one of the instructors; thus, he conducted the study on his group. The participants’ ages were
from 20 to 22, and were almost from the same faculty. They made use of “middle register of
Malaysian English”2 (p. 66) among themselves, but they used “Standard Malaysian English”3
when addressing him; their level in the MUET test is low to intermediate because the scores
confined between Band 2 and Band 3 with few exceptions.
1 It enrolls Malaysian students at the bachelor and diploma level in addition to foreign ones applying for Master andDoctorate degree after accomplishing their IELTS, or the university’s equivalent test MUET (see Appendix 1) (Fung,2006)2 It is utilized by the majority of the population, and it encapsulates elements of local dialect such as sentence particles(Fung, 2006)3 It is the highest register in Malaysia, and it is spoken by the elite and the educated population (Fung, 2006)
48
Fung asked for 9 volunteers to form three groups of three; they were notified that CW
would be included in the course in order to investigate its nature, groups’ dynamics, and
students’ reflections. The corpus was predominantly undergraduate males whose ethnicity
was Chinese. Orderly, he orchestrated and summarized the students’ background information
from the biodata (see Appendix 2) they replenished in the following tables.
Members of Case Study 1 were classmates during secondary school; Chee Kin was
selected a leader, and Li Yan was the scribe. (Table 1)
Table 1
Background Information of Case Study 1
Chee Kin [CK] Sui Lin [SL] Li Yan [LY]
Gender Male Female Female
ethnicity Chinese Chinese Chinese
Age 21 years old 21 years old 22 years old
DegreeB.A. (Economics andManagement)
B.A. (Economics andManagement)
B.A. (Economics andManagement)
MUET score Band 4 Band 2 Band 4
Experience incollaborative writing
No No Yes
Learning goalsImproving writing skill,grammar, and publicspeaking
Improve speaking,writing, and grammar,and understand moreEnglish words.
Improve writing skill,writing more vocabulary,speak fluent English, andobtain an A for thecourse.
Note. Adapted from The Nature and Dynamics of Collaborative Writing in Malaysian Tertiary ESL Setting byFung (2006)
Members of case study 2 were only mates in Fung’s course; Joe was chosen as a
leader, and Yin Wai as a scribe for her better handwriting. (Table 2)
49
Table 2
Background Information of Case Study 2
Joe [J] Tim [T] Yin Wai [YW]
Gender Male Male Female
ethnicity Chinese Chinese Chinese
Age 22 years old 22 years old 22 years old
DegreeB.A. (Economics andManagement)
B.A. (Economics andManagement)
B.A. (Economics andManagement)
MUET score Band 5 Band 3 Band 3
Experience incollaborative writing
Yes No No
Learning goalsCommunicate in English,improve writing skill andgrammar.
Score an A in the courseImprove English for thejob market, and learnmore vocabulary.
Learn more vocabulary,speak fluently, andimprove writing skills
Adopted from The Nature and Dynamics of Collaborative Writing in Malaysian Tertiary ESL Setting by Fung(2006)
Members of group 3 were close; “they worked as equals since they had been working
together for some time” (p. 70). Besides, Ali was chosen as a scribe for his better
handwriting, Daud gives ideas, and Sham structures sentences. (Table 3)
Table 3
Background Information of Case Study 3
Sham [S] Daud [D] Ali [A]
Gender Male Male Male
ethnicity Malay Malay Malay
Age 20 years old 20 years old 20 years old
DegreeDiploma in Economicsand Management
Diploma in Economicsand Management
Diploma in Economicsand Management
MUET score Band 5 Band 3 Band 3
Experience incollaborative writing
Yes No No
Learning goals
Produce a quality essay,master time managementduring writing, andimprove handwriting.
Be an expert in writing,improve sentencestructure, and speak inEnglish with fullconfidence.
Speak in Englishcorrectly and withconfidence, write goodparagraphs, and improvesentence structure
Adapted from The Nature and Dynamics of Collaborative Writing in Malaysian Tertiary ESL Setting by Fung(2006)
aims at teaching the students the basics of writing: Types of sentences, steps of writing,
paragraph writing, essay writing and its types, unity, coherence, and so forth. According to
Fung, students in his course were “taught how to write descriptive, classification, and cause-
effect essays” (p. 71) which are the most frequently needed academic writings in students’
course of studies, either individually or collaboratively.
1.3.Research Design and Procedures
Fung opted for a qualitative research method4; he employed the case study approach5
which has been fruitful in many studies of CW (Cordon, 2001; DiCamilla and Antòn, 1997;
Faulkner, 1989; Storch, 2001, 2002, 2004; Tocalli-Beller, 2003; Yong, 1998; as cited in Fung,
2006) through applying ‘participant observation’ allowing him to collect data on behaviours
that are likely to occur naturally in social contexts, and ‘in-depth interviews’ permitting him
to obtain students’ reflections on CW. Furthermore, he selected the Grounded Theory (GT).6
Baring in mind that Fung stuck to the course schedule (Figure 6), his study encompassed two
steps: (a) research explanation where he provided the students with general information about
the course, and during which he administered a students’ questionnaire to gauge their
competencies, and asked them to specify their learning goals (see Appendix 3) summed up in
Tables 1, 2, 3; and (b) research proper where he expounded to the class his intention to
conduct a research on CW for his PhD degree; he guaranteed to the nine self-selected
volunteers that the study would take place in the classroom, and that they would be assigned
the same activities as their classmates; however, they had to do them collaboratively and to be
4 Qualitative research allows the researcher to answer raised questions, to gather evidence, to generate findings thatwere not determined in advance, and that are applicable beyond the current study boundaries (Qualitative researchmethod overview)5 It is a research approach adopted when the researcher wants to generate an in-depth study about phenomenonoccurring in real-life contexts (Crowe, Cresswell, Robertson, Huby, Avery, and Sheikh, 2011)6 Its proponents are Glaser and Strauss (1967); it stands for generating evidence from the current conducted studywithout being obliged to report those in the literature or grounded by other hypotheses (Grounded theory)
51
audio-taped and video-recorded. He, then, introduced CW activities, since his class was ready
to write the three types of essays who wrote the whole essays and went through all the steps
of writing together; drafted and redrafted their compositions in order to submit the final draft.
He assigned three topics to be developed throughout the semester break:
Task 1: How to be a good leader.
Task 2: The types of lecturers.
Task 3: Cause-effect essay on the increased crime rates in the country.
Figure 6. Instructional procedures of level 1 academic writing course.Note: Adapted from The Nature and Dynamics of Collaborative Writing in Malaysian Tertiary ESLSetting by Fung (2006)
Therefore, we can see that Fung utilized a variegated cluster of data collection tools
which he believed were essential in amassing as many information as possible about the
groups since they were used previously, and among which we mention audio-tapes through
Week 1: Introduction to course
Week 2 & 3: Teaching points on sentence structures
Week 4: Teaching points on process of academic writing
Week 5 & 6: Teaching points on paragraph writing
Week 7: Unity and coherence
Week 8: Semester break
Week 9: Teaching points on descriptive essay
Week 10: Peer response activity
Week 11: Teaching points on classification essay
Week 12: Peer response activity
Week 13: Teaching points on cause-effect essay
Week 14: Peer response activity Individual essay
Week 15: Writing test (20%)
52
which “the audible spoken discourse” (p. 86) was taped for later transcription of the students’
whole actual talk and repetitive interaction, video-recordings through which the non-verbal
behaviours (Cohen et al., 2000; Johnson, 1992; as cited in Fung, 2006) made observation
possible over and over again (Yong, 1998; as cited in Fung, 2006), interviews, reflections on
group discussions, questionnaires (see Appendices 4-5), journals (see Appendix 6), stimulated
recall where participants were exposed to their recordings to elicit what was happening in
each step.
However, in order to fulfill our aim and the requirements of our humble research, we
try to focus on the first three primary tools in which audio and video tapes had a compatible
role in transcribing conversations; and interviews that depicted students’ reflections.
1.4.Framework of Analysis
Fung used a cluster of principles underlying the GT in which data is analyzed
through (a) Coding through which he identified a coding scheme that consisted of excerpts
dealing with related junctures during discussions (Table 4), (b) critical incidents which stand
for features that took place during task performance and that characterized collaborative work
as a whole and every case group in particular, and (c) triangulation that refers to the use of
multiple data collection tools in order to study CW features.
Table 4
Key to Transcription Conventions
Adapted from The Nature and Dynamics of Collaborative Writing inMalaysian Tertiary ESL Setting by Fung (2006)
1 -number of turn in dialogue sequence
[ -overlapped talk
=line -latched utterances
Line=
… -brief pause
W-O-R-D -word spelling
(word) -translation of L1
((laughter)) -comments about actions
Lah ((persuading)) -sentence particle and its function
TERDESAK -local language (L1)
[writing] -jotting down text
[pause for 40 seconds] -silence
53
2. Results and Discussion
2.1.Collaborative Writing Features
The critical incidents that emerged among case study groups during tasks performance
are CW features, among which some are dealt with before in the literature such as mutual
interaction, sharing of expertise, negotiation, conflict, language usage, and affective factors;
whereas others are attributed to Fung’s study among which we mention use of local language,
humour, metatalk, and creative use of language. Therefore, these features are going to be
discussed in terms of their being typical (usual), distinctive (unique), or atypical (unusual).
2.1.1. Typical features.
2.1.1.1. Mutual interaction and sharing of expertise. They are pivotal features that
typify collaboration (Dale 1997). Through mutual interaction, group members highly get
involved in the group work by initiating and pooling ideas, contesting them, and allowing
themselves to generate and to think reflectively (Daiute and Dalton, 1993; as cited in Fung,
2006). Thus, they have access to ample prospects to respond to others, to ask for
clarifications, and to clarify their own and others’ understandings. Wenger (1998, as cited in
Fung, 2006) reported that this is essential in “forming a coherent community of practice” (p.
56) in which members shape their identities through interaction with one another.
Moreover, group members are not as peas in a pod, each participant is different in
terms of many factors, and he/she possesses an area of expertise that permits him/her to be the
expert in what he/she is doing, and that is contributed to the group work (Dale, 1997; Ohta,
1995, 2001; as cited in Fung, 2006). Getting all the expertise together ameliorates every
member’s ZPD and the Group ZPD as well (Hashimoto and Nyikos, 1997; Ohta, 1995, 2001;
as cited in Fung, 2006) which prompts the members’ interdependence to co-construct
knowledge, and to improve their solo writing skills.
54
Fung’s case groups were interactive and shared expertise; this is apparent in the
excerpts extracted from the data collected and transcribed verbatim by Fung from the audio-
tapes and video-recordings. Group 1 was comfortably “open to suggestions, valued others’
contributions, and substantiated their arguments with reasons” (p. 106), and they displayed
their expertise in which Chee Kin was the leader who monitored the discussion, and they all
brainstormed ideas (Excerpt 1 from task 1).
Excerpt 1
1 CK: […] Today, we’re going to write an essay […] So at first, we would like tohave a brainstorming section […] From my point of view… that in order tobecome a good leader, at first we need […] For example, good leader must beable to […] Apart from that, good leader must also […]
2 SL: Actually I found that … besides your point […], actually I think fair also mustbe very important […], because actually […]
3 CK: I totally agree with … Apart from that a good leader also must has […]4 LY: But this is a characteristic while being a good leader, right?
But we are discussing about BEFORE5 CK: Yeah, before, how to become a good leader. But before become…6 LY: What preparation… what characteristics a good leader should have before […]7 CK: Okay. In order to […] But apart from that, when we build […] For example,
honesty, fair […] These are strong positive characteristics […]8 LY: How? Like what? (Fung, 2006, pp. 105- 106)
Members of group 2 were highly indulged in discussions where Tim, who lacked
proficiency, contributed in jotting down ideas while Joe and Yin Wai scaffolded him in
making his intended meanings clearer, and were busy forming sentence. Yin Wai acted as a
monitor of both the group and ideas (Excerpt 2 from task 1).
Excerpt 2
180 T: I think confidence is a motivation for you to…181 J: For leaders or what?182 T: For leaders.183 J: Okay.184 YW: to lead.185 T: I mean for you aa to be a good leader.186 YW: you mean confidence is a motivation for a leader to lead their members.187 T: Um… how to elaborate ah? ((seeking reply)) (Fung, 2006, p. 118)
55
Similarly, group 3 was mutually interactive and shared expertise; they all had hand in
exploring knowledge, jotting down thoughts, and eliciting their understandings. Besides, they
actively participated in discussion through raising questions, providing answers, and arguing
in a non-threatening manner; they contributed in monitoring word choice and adequacy
(excerpt 3 from task 2)
Excerpt 3
210 A: In educational process, lecturer or teacher is…211 S: is a crucial C-R-U-C-I-A-L [spelling], the most important thing212 D: I think in educational process the most important is […] because […], but I
don’t think ((laughter))213 S: Never mind, if you want to throw away the words, never mind.214 D: Never mind, never mind, I think the word crucial is we…215 S: crucial medium (Fung, 2006, p. 133)
Therefore, being an interactive expert member is one step before achieving
intersubjectivity among the whole group.
2.1.1.2. Negotiation. According to Pica (1994, as cited in Fung, 2006), negotiation is
redirecting and restructuring interaction towards understanding when members of the
discussion face some problems in comprehension by asking for “clarification […],
confirmation checks, and comprehension checks” (p. 56) which are responded to by repeating,
elaborating, or simplifying meaning. Negotiation can be (a) personal,7 (b) interactive,8 or (c)
procedural.9 (Breen and Littlejohn, 2000; as cited in Fung, 2006, p. 57)
The chosen study revealed that all case groups resorted to negotiation. Members of
group 1 sought clarifications and confirmations from each other, and they replied by
repeating, elaborating, or simplifying the former meaning. Besides, Chee Kin underwent
personal negotiation (excerpt 4 from task 1)
7 individuals mentally negotiate meanings8 members of the discussion utilize language to make things understood or to elicit understanding9 group members aim to reach agreement among themselves
56
Excerpt 4
266 CK: Is it communication skill, is it how to socialise? The answer to how tosocialise? A good communication skill? Okay, how to socialise? The answer is[…]. Is it appropriate or… is it inappropriate? Is it a good […] … how to say…is the ingredient of how to socialise? I mean=
267 LY: = I think got a little bit connection.268 CK A little bit connection […], so we move on. (Fung, 2006, p. 107)
Group 2, on the other hand, was busy questioning one another that is why they did not
supply much reasonable explanation. Group 3 experienced procedural negotiation where they
tried to see eye to eye on ideas organization (excerpt 5 from task 1)
Excerpt 5
317 A: First of all, to become a good leader318 S: to become a leader theoretically, we have to attend seminar319 A: What first point?320 S: This, this… but it lies in theoretical category.321 A: This theoretical, but this practical.322 S: No, this is theoretical, we are learning from leadership training course323 A: Okay, to become a good leader324 S: To become a good leader theoretically325 A: We write first then, then sentence structure.326 D: This one first.327 S: Okay […]328 D: But I think […] (Fung, 2006, p. 135)
2.1.1.3. Conflict. It is tough to avoid conflicts among group members as they need to
negotiate points to achieve consent; it is beneficial, for it enhances creativity and generation
of alternatives, and diversifies perspectives though the fact that it inhibits group work (Allen
et al., 1987; Dale, 1994; Ede and Lunsford, 1990; Storch, 2002; Tocalli-Beller, 2003; Yong,
1998).
In the data gathered by Fung, groups 1 and 3 were a little bit delayed because of the
disagreement that was raised between Chee Kin and Sui Lin and between Daud and Ali
correspondingly, who stuck to their viewpoints until the intervention of Li Yan and Sham in
that order; however, this incident can be regarded as a strength that allowed group members to
57
learn how to justify their opinions and how to build arguments without being humiliated
(excerpts 6 and 7 from task 1 respectively)
Excerpt 6
277 CK: =Ah! We left out the “listen to your employee”… so, maybe we should write[…], then we write […]. Does this make sense?=
278 SL: =Actually “listen to your employee”, I don’t think is very important.279 CK: Is a good communication skills? It’s not a very important?280 SL: Yeah, because I think, […]281 CK: That’s why we need to socialise.282 LY: that point already included.283 CK: Oh, the listen [to…284 LY: [You see, they will voice up the point, already included
(Fung, 2006, p. 108)
Excerpt 7
329 A: No, if we […]. No we must […]330 D: No, attend the seminar first, then […]((Sham took paper from Ali and started writing))331 S: Hmm, attend leadership seminar. End of the story. (Fung, 2006, p. 135)
Members of group 2 queried each others’ opinions and stuck to their viewpoints which
led them to fall in the trap of variance and inconsistency; this was also due to the “male
domineering behaviour” (p. 123) through which Joe and Tim kept speaking more than they
listened while Yin Wai was submissive to their talk and listened only (excerpt 8 from task 3)
Excerpt 8
98 YW: Recession and unemployment rate.99 J: No, unemployment rate increase because recession causes. Recession, what
aa…100 T: No job. Cannot find a new job.101 J: What not, no job?102 T: Cannot find a new job.103 J: Um. Why cannot find a new job? Then?104 T: Then? No money, no salary. (Fung, 2006, p. 121)
2.1.1.4. Affective factors. Members of the same group have some reciprocal affective
factors such as trust, respect, accountability, commitment and so on, that assures success to
the collaborative group (Dale, 1994; Tocalli-Beller, 2003; Yong, 1998; as cited in Fung,
58
2006). Thus, group members characterized by these factors are likely to proceed in their
group work with less encountered difficulties. It is also believed that individuals who are
familiar with each other or who are friends are liable to work comfortably and wholeheartedly
without apprehension, reluctance, and fear of committing mistakes. Besides, when group
members feel at ease toward each others, they generate a motivating atmosphere that is full of
readiness and zeal to activate productive thinking that results in better writings.
As aforementioned, Groups 1 was semi-knit and group 3 was closely-knit. Therefore,
they felt at ease with each other, and created positive affective factors through which they
depended on one another to throw themselves heart and soul into the accomplishment of the
tasks by both co-constructing knowledge and constructing text. Nonetheless, as stated earlier,
members of group 2 were only mates in Fung’s class, and they were driven by the two males’
impulses for power and leadership. This engendered negative affective factors such as
affective conflict (Tocalli-Beller, 2003; as cited in Fung, 2006) when Yin Wai and Tim felt
uncomfortable toward Joe’s dominance, and power struggle (Thornborrow, 2002; as cited in
Fung, 2006) when males insisted to keep their viewpoints without baring in mind others’
contributions. These factors caused a threatening climate where males kept struggling about
their ideas, and where Yin Wai –the female- was assigned to construct sentences as she is the
scribe (excerpts 9 from task 3)
Excerpt 9
410 YW: This problem happen in our country because due to the poor economy intheir… country.
411 J: Not poor economy, what you call that? Bad economy? Weak economy.Unemployment rate… Um?
412 T: Unemployment rate is very high in their country.413 J: During recession. That’s why they can’t find a job. They hardly find jobs in
their countries. I don’t know… you construct the sentence ((chuckles))414 YW: Some of them come to our country not because of the unemployment.415 J: Yeah, no…416 YW: Because they want to secure a better job in our country.
(Fung, 2006, pp. 123-124)
59
2.1.1.5. Sense of audience. Co-constructing written texts makes members of the
group good writers, but being a good writer requires writing with the reader in mind; in other
words, members of the group act like writers and readers at the same time, so they become
aware of the reader to whom they are writing by putting themselves in his/her shoes whenever
forwarding.
Fung reported that all groups showed a sense of attentiveness to the audience because
in group 1, Li Yan played the role of an immediate reader who suggested that the expression
in lines 281 to 284 might be ambiguous and confusing to the reader which aided them in
reconsidering structures and word choice that convey the exact intended meaning to readers
(excerpt 10 from task 3)
Excerpt 10
285 SL: Family background will…286 LY: Influence?287 SL: Will give…288 CK: Or bad family background. B-A-D.289 SL: Bad family background […]290 CK: Because I’m trying to say the… the background is not good for the…291 SL: I know292 CK: growth for children (Fung, 2006, p. 111)
However, Group 2 did not pay much attention to the reader, but it was implicit in Joe’s
“monitoring of the content as an internal audience” (p. 129) by asking Yin Wai several times
to correct sentence structure (excerpt 11 from task 2)
Excerpt 11
408 YW: Then how about punctual?409 J: What you say prepare what? They draft their outline and try to be… How, how
outline? They draft the outline and follow the time table… so that they won’tlag behind schedule. Anything? Later you correct they, they, they. I don’t knowhow to… give sentence. They draft the outline and…
410 YW: outline for…411 J: and follow the time table. (Fung, 2006, p. 129)
60
Group 3, on the other hand, whose members Daud and Sham played the role of
external audience when they negotiated the adequate word choice that conveys the
appropriate intended gist (excerpt 12 from task 1)
Excerpt 12
332 D: They can cover this two.333 S: We just do attend334 A: Seminar, seminar, but training?335 S: Training is training336 A: Learn from seminar337 S: No, but [seminar338 A: [I know339 S: First, you write attend seminar like motivation is basically general. No one
knows what seminar you attend, but if you include leadership seminar that isspecific
340 A: Ah, this is what I meant341 S: Theoretically, we have to attend342 D: We, not you343 S: No, no, we.344 D: Okay, we have to attend [leadership345 A: [seminar like motivation346 D: No, no I think not like motivation because when they talk about leadership
seminar they know (Fung, 2006, p. 136)
2.1.1.6. Use of L1. Since the L2 case study groups were not native speakers, they
sometimes resorted to the use of their L1 when they could not express themselves in English
during CW tasks (Antòn and Camilla, 1998; Guerrero and Villamil, 1994; Swain and Lapkin,
1998, Villamil and Guerrero, 1996; as cited in Fung, 2006). Wang and Wen (2002, as cited in
Fung, 2006) maintained that L2 learners have access to two linguistic resources which they
utilize cognitively during composing.
In group 1, when got confused about the meaning of ‘poor family background’, Chee
Kin used his L1 (Cantonese) to distinguish between “pitiful (CÂM)” and “financially poor
(KUÓNG)” in order to clarify what he wanted to convey according to the contextual meaning
(excerpt 13 from task 3)
61
Excerpt 13
280 CK: Do you understand? The poor is CÂM (pitiful) not the KUÓNG (financiallypoor). A poor family background contributes to the increasing crime rate, full-stop. Can say that? (Fung, 2006, p. 110)
In group 2, Tim used a Malay word (POTENSI) in order to elucidate his intended
meaning, and Joe translated it to English (Potential) so that Tim keeps generating the idea
(excerpt 14 from task 2)
Excerpt 14
140 T: They just set a success route […], but they don’t care about the… what is the=141 J: =the student feeling.142 T: Not feeling.143 YW: They just144 T: POTENISI145 J: Potential146 T: Ah. Potential. They don’t care about the student potential. (Fung, 2006, p. 128)
Likewise in group 3, there was use of Malay such as (TERDESAK) for (desperate),
(NAFSU) for (desire), and (MEMUNUHI) for (ambition) because members wanted to clarify
meaning and to keep the flow of thoughts, so L1 interference played a role in upholding
cognitive processing (excerpt 15 from task 3)
Excerpt 15
380 A: TERDESAK (desperate) ((laughter))384 S: Desperate for NAFSU (desire)385 D: for MEMENUHI what we call? To fulfill […] (Fung, 2006, p. 138)
2.1.1.7. Humour. Fung (2006), according to Berger (1976), said that humour is “a
specific type of communication that establishes incongruent meaning and is presented in a
way that causes laughter” (p. 61). He added further that it creates rapport (Hay, 1994),
solidarity and powerful relationships (Holmes, 2000), sense of community and cohesion
(Terrion and Ashforth, 2002). However, humour can be negative as well especially when
trying to have fun at the expense of others by means of “insult, demeaning joke, teasing,
sarcasm, or self-deprecating remark” (Terrion and Ashforth, 2002; as cited in Fung, 2006, p.
62
62); however, sometimes it is worthwhile when members are familiar, for it establishes a
sense of community.
On the one hand, members of groups 1 and 3 seemed to be in rapport and solidarity
through the light-hearted climate that kept the groups dynamics cohesive, and that spawned
from their discussion when, in the former, Sui Lin used an expression that is too serious for
the context at hand; she even laughed at herself resulting in sustaining empathy and face;
whereas in the latter, Daud included Sham in his teasing to create laughter without any
humiliation or shame (excerpt 16 from task 1)
Excerpt 16
210 CK: If we have an unhealthy body, this means that we cannot=211 SL: =lead the team well… […], so the whole team may be destroyed212 CK: destroyed, I think ((laughter)) [not that serious213 LY: [not that serious, ((laughter from everyone))
(Fung, 2006, p. 116)
Excerpt 17
375 D: This disgusting crime always happen when one, when Sham ((laughter)) whena raper
376 S: rapist ((laughter)) yeah, what rapist what377 D: okay when rapist378 A: Sham, when Sham desperate (Fung, 2006, p. 137)
On the other hand, members of group 2 whose aim was to accomplish the task,
laughed because they could not find the appropriate words, and this denotes almost the
absence of humorous atmosphere among them (excerpt 18 from task 2)
Excerpt 18
148 T: They just care about the results of the exam and something aa…149 J: What, what do you call that? Communist? ((laughter)) What type of lecturer is
this?150 T: Communist? ((laughter))151 J: Don’t know152 T: The classical.153 J: Classical? ((laughter)) (Fung, 2006, p. 128)
63
2.1.2. Distinctive features.
2.1.2.1. Strategies and reflection on language usage. Group 1 was unique through
the use of some strategies such as: “Self-directed questions and affirmation” (Fung, 2006, p.
107) and through reflecting on language usage. Chee Kin questioned himself throughout the
writing tasks and underwent the process of private speech, which helped him to redirect his
thinking, to make himself clear, and to self-repair; besides, all members assisted each other by
affirming ideas when either agreeing or when the other raised queries (excerpt 4)
Throughout these discussions, they sometimes encountered ill-structured sentences
requiring revision, so they reflected by giving structure or word choice alternatives that took
32 turns (Fung, 2006) until they reached consensus about the adequate accurate sentence.
(excerpt 19 from task 3)
Excerpt 19
725 LY: I think the sentences got a little bit…726 CK: Okay, they will imitate the way of dressing… or we can say, the way of their
dressing.727 LY: Or the way of who?728 CK: The way of how they behave.729 LY: They, they is the…730 CK: Western.731 LY: Western. (Fung, 2006, p. 128)
2.1.2.2. Use of sentence particles and individualistic stance. These incidents are
exclusive to group 2. Sentence particles such as ‘lah’, ‘ah’, ‘lor’, ‘ma’, and ‘wut’ instigated as
a result of Malay and Chinese dialects getting in touch with English; they assist the hearer to
understand the different interpretations of the Malay or Chinese speaker. Group 2 was
characterized by the use of these patterns for variegated functions; for instance, Joe used ‘lah’
“to position himself above others” (Fung, 2006, p. 121) and to convince, ‘wut’ to show
obviousness, ‘ah’ to seek reply, and ‘lor’ to resign a course of actions; Tim also used ‘ma’ to
persuade. According to Fung, these particles were pronounced in a low level unstressed tone
because Joe and Tim wanted to cushion the serious atmosphere (Bell and Ser, 1983; as cited
64
in Fung, 2006) and to create a mood of familiarity, solidarity, and rapport (Goddard, 1994;
Platt and Webber, 1980; Richard and Tay, 1977; as cited in Fung, 2006)
Furthermore, another feature that is peculiar to Group 2 is Joe’s individualistic
attitude; he relies on the member who generated a particular idea to develop it by pointing at
him/her and say that that was your point, while Tim kept insisting that that was a group work
in which all members have to have their shares (excerpt 20 from task 3)
Excerpt 20
486 J: Without what? Illegal… this is your point.487 T: I don’t think your point, your point… it is a group work. ((Joe chuckling))488 J: Ah. Effect, effect, effect.489 T: It is a group work. It is a group work. It’s our points= ((serious tone))490 J: =Effect, effect, okay. ((chuckles)) already done this.491 T: If you do individual, this is your point. ((Tim tossed paper at Joe. He was still
chuckling))492 J: Okay, I do individual now. ((Joe jokingly taking the paper)) Effect, effect.
(Fung, 2006, p. 127)
2.1.2.3. Creative use of language. Group 3 experienced an exceptional feature that is
playing with word choice to produce simile that added a sense of creativity and variation to
their work (excerpt 21 from task 2)
Excerpt 21
338 D: I don’t think this type of lecturer is ah…339 S: How about they? They are fierce like tiger (Fung, 2006, pp. 141)…351 A: their voice like a thunder. (Fung, 2006, pp. 142)
2.1.3. Atypical features.
2.1.3.1. Off-task and Metatlk. Members of group 3 tended to go off-task by
deviating to talking about things that are not part of the task discussion which did not in fact
impinge on performance of the task but appended a lightened up climate; however, they
immediately monitor their swerve and go back to the task at hand (excerpt 22 from task 3)
65
Excerpt 22
183 S: involving… this critical stage of crime involving teenagers mostly184 D: Eh, they what mid-stage185 S: puberty186 D: yeah, [middle age187 S: [puberty, mid-age ((chuckle))188 D: Mordor, middle earth.189 S: teenage aa190 D: teenage no, teenage… within the age of twenty to twenty-eight191 S: Ah, teenager mostly in age (Fung, 2006, p. 142)
They also underwent metatalk which stands for commenting their own speech (Brooks
and Donato, 1994; Brooks, Donato, and McGlone, 1997; as cited in Fung, 2006) especially
when Ali got confused between either using boring or bored to describe the lecturer, and
when Daud likened lecturers to things since they have no emotions. In that order, Daud and
Ali corrected each other about grammatical items, and this allowed them to be verbally
interactive and in control of their language (excerpt 23 from task 2)
Excerpt 23
441 S: Lecturer who has a lenient characteristic [is442 D: [is basically=443 S: =boring444 D: Yeah, yeah, yeah, ((laughter)) because yeah, yeah, yeah, 100%445 A: Boring or bored?446 D: Boring aa447 A: I am boring.448 D: No, I am bored, you are boring, the lecture is boring, right?449 A: Yeah, boring. (Fung, 2006, p. 142)
2.2. Students’ Reflections
Fung interviewed the participants individually after having finished each task (see
Appendix 7). The first reflection was about group work in general to deduce students’ likes
and dislikes and contributions to group work (see Appendix 8); the second one was about
eliciting students’ perceptions a propos factors that either bolstered or impeded their
collaboration (see Appendix 9). The third reflection, that is our concern, treats students’
perceptions on CW that aided them to develop their writing skills. (see Appendix 10).
66
2.2.1. Reflection on CW as a means of improving the writing skills.
2.2.1.1. Goals achieved. The majority of groups’ members expressed, when
interviewed, that they attained to a certain extent their learning goals –writing and speaking
elicited at the beginning of the semester by Fung (2006). After the collaborative experience,
they became fearless of apprehension, aware of the writing skills and grammar mistakes, and
felt more confident. However, our focus in the following aspects will reside on writing only.
2.2.1.2. Helpful aspects.
2.2.1.2.1. Useful input. The participants stated that there were fruitful facets that
emerged during CW tasks, and that shored up their writing skills:
Ideas and language use. The greater part of participants expressed that they learnt
from each other new ideas, how to support them, and different styles of expression. They
also admitted that group work prompted their critical thinking and cognitive processes in
checking and double checking the adequacy of the input; this engendered building
knowledge and learning which, they acknowledged, helped them in solo writing.
Besides, they found that collaboration triggered multiple inputs resulting in getting all
members contribute and have their touch in the task performance.
Planning. The case groups found that collaboration teaches organization of work.
Ways of thinking. Ali, in particular, expressed that the way his peers thought was
better than his; thus, working collaboratively helped him activate and improve his
thinking.
2.2.1.2.2. Awareness of composing process. During CW tasks, the participants
became aware of how to structure sentences, how to outline text, and how to construct it
through poring over their works, incorporating academic principles, and corroborating
cohesive ideas. Moreover, they recognized that writing collaboratively bolsters their abilities
by making them autonomous interdependent reflective learners.
67
2.2.1.2.3. Sense of audience. As aforementioned, when writers collaborate, they act
like writers and potential readers. The groups witnessed (a) internal audience where some of
the members bore in mind the audience, and were checking their comprehension considering
what is unintelligible, pertinent and meaningful being themselves audience, and (b) external
audience where some others consciously accounted for readers for adequacy, relevance, and
consistency of their work.
2.2.1.2.4. Stimulation of thinking. CW inspired the participants to go beyond their
ZPD and to stimulate their critical thinking, in which they learnt how not to accept matters as
they are, but to question, receive and analyze them from diverse angles. At the beginning, not
everyone has this faculty, but with practice through the three tasks, they realized and got
acquainted with the requirements by observing their peers.
2.2.1.2.5. Confidence enhancement. All participants affirmed that CW heightened
their confidence to write either collaboratively due to the collaborative experience they have
been through for fifteen weeks, or individually.
2.2.1.2.6. Applications in solo writing. We have been listing the pros of CW, and it is
sensible to mull over how it did help the participants enhance their individual writing abilities.
Actually, the members transferred what they learnt during group work to their solo writing by
applying the following:
Sentence structure. Many members replied during the interview that they would
verify sentences for grammar, vocabulary, structure, redundancy, and register baring in
mind the audience.
Task convention. Other participants showed their interest in respecting conventions
of writing a text; they said they would use cohesive devices, focus on writing thesis
statements and topic sentences
68
Planning. Tim stated that he would rather prepare a systematic outline to be followed
during the process of writing.
2.2.1.3. Reflections.
The students’ reflections revealed their will to change their behaviours towards writing
because of what they learnt through CW:
Sui Lin, Chee Kin, Ali, Tim, and Li Yan felt ‘less and reduced apprehension about
writing’ (p. 181). Previously, they used to fear it because they could not elaborate their
writings due to lack of input, and they were less confident, but CW enriched their
schemata, and reinforced their self-esteem
Revision of work was also part of students’ reflections that they transferred to their
solo writing. Yin Wai and Ali stated that they used to submit their work once finished
without revising it, but after having the CW experience, they affirmed that they would
revise, check, and correct their works thoroughly.
Conclusion
Through the discussion of the results elicited through Fung’s study (2006), we came to
the conclusion that CW prompts the learners’ individual writing competencies. It yields a
communicative milieu through which social relationships (interaction, sense of audience, and
humour) are built, and cognitive processes (negociation, stimulation of thinking) are
triggered; this amalgam of features permitted learners to bolster their competencies in
collaborative work and in individual performances through transferring what they learnt in the
former to the latter.
CW inspired learners who acknowledged the crucial role that it played in widening
their socio-cognitive skills, and it exhbited a variety of features that need not necessarily to
appear in every collaborative act, but the majority of them revealed the communicative aspect
of the writing skill either it is carried out collaboratively or individually.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
69
GENERAL CONCLUSION
1. Concluding Remarks
L2 writing is a crucial skill to be taught in academic settings, for it is the means that
allows the transmission of implicit thoughts via the deployment of highly cognitive and motor
skills. The present study, however, narrows down the field to focus on CW and its benefits in
prompting L2 learners’ individual writings. We approached this tenet by going back a fortiori
to the significance of communication and CL as key elements in grounding teaching/learning
into interaction. Purposefully, part of our study casts light upon the writing skill,
collaboration, and CW; why this latter is used, how it is taught in terms of patterns of joint
writing (Reither and Vipond, Saunders, and Storch’s patterns of interaction) and teaching
approaches (process-based, genre-based, and process-genre-based); in addition to its
strategies, pros and cons. The subsequent part deals with CLT and TBLT as teaching
methods promoting interaction, learning patterns in general (competitive, individualistic,
cooperative, and collaborative), and the theory scaffolding CL as a beneficial learning pattern
when implemented to writing. The last part discusses Fung’s study (2006) on CW that
contributed in validating our hypotheses since we came up to the conclusion that CW
enhances solo writing by transferring the former’s aspects and features to the latter.
2. Pedagogical Implementation
Reviewing the literature aided us in building a solid and a sound ground about CW,
which provided us with the scaffold to enrich our research work. However, only few studies
shifted their attention to the facilitative role of CW in promoting individual writing, and its
assertion of learner-centeredness which seems to be rare in our institutions. L2 Learners in
our institutions are taught to write individualistically; thus, they are passive and ‘disciples’ of
the teacher’s instructions.
70
Through the study we reviewed about the implementation of CW on L2 learners, we
elicited its advantages that promote group work, learning, and solo writing in particular.
Nonetheless, because nothing is perfect, learners may encounter difficulties in its application,
and here are some of them which can be further inquired.
Learners may face some negative incidents such as lack of ideas, provision of
irrelevant ideas, lack of proficiency in structuring sentences and in finding appropriate words
in the TL, communication issues; formation of sub-groups within the original group;
management of roles; and poor time management; besides, there may arise negative affective
factors; for instance, the difficulty to argue and to reach agreement; unwillingness to
cooperate and depend entirely on others; dominant members; cultural issues concerning group
harmony, face and politeness which are reserved by learners belonging to collectivist cultures
(Carson and Nelson, 1994, 1996; Watanabe, 1993; as cited in Fung, 2006); beliefs and
preferences about the nature of writing (individual or collaborative); cognitive and affective
conflict, and diversity of goals of how to achieve goals (focusing either on process, or
performance)
CW proved to be fruitful in enhancing an amalgam of skills; it is based on approaches,
methods and learning pattern that proffer a reasonable way to learn, and more specifically, to
write in social milieu. As Benjamin Franklin (as cited in Richards & Rodgers, 1986) put
forward “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn.” (p. 100).
Appendices
87
References
Aiello, J. R., & Douthitt, E. A. (2001). Social facilitation from Triplett to electronic
Performance monitoring. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(3),
