One Hand Washes the Other and Both Wash the Face: Individuality versus Collaboration in L2 Writing

Year 2019, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 131 - 151, 24.03.2019

Merve Savaşçı , Seval Kaygisiz

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.543789

Cited By: 3

Abstract

The aim of this pre-experimental
study is twofold: (1) to investigate the comparative effectiveness of
individual, pair, and group writing conditions in L2 writing classes, and (2)
to explore students’ perceptions about each of these conditions. The
participants were university-level Turkish EFL learners studying in the English
Preparatory Program of a state university. The data for investigating the
effectiveness of these writing conditions came from in-class paragraph writing
tasks whereas students’ perceptions were investigated through an open-ended
questionnaire and semi-structured focus group interviews. The quantitative data
were analyzed by running descriptive statistics analysis, Wilcoxon signed-rank
test, and the Friedman test, and the qualitative data were content analyzed. As
the findings indicated, when the participants wrote in groups they outperformed
those who worked individually or in pairs regarding the (a) fluency, (b)
accuracy, (c) complexity, (d) length, and (e) overall score of the paragraphs.
Besides, perceived advantages and disadvantages of both collaborative writing
(i.e., pair and group writing) and individual writing were pointed out by the
participants. Based on the findings, some pedagogical implications and
suggestions for further research are presented. 

Keywords

Collaborative writing, individual, group, pair, EFL, writing

References

• Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy. (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Pearson.
• Boardman, C. A., & Frydenberg, J. (2010). Writing to communicate 2: Paragraphs and essays (3rd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Longman.
• Bruffee, K. A. (l983). Writing and reading as collaborative or social acts. In J. N. Hayes et al. (Eds.), The writer’s mind: Writing as a mode of thinking (pp. 159-169). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Ede, L. S., & Lunsford, A. A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
• Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
• Fernández Dobao, A., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners' attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.02.002
• Folse, K., Muchmore-Vokoun, A., & Solomon, E. V. (2010). Great writing 2: Great paragraphs. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning.
• Folse, K., Muchmore-Vokoun, A., & Solomon, E. V. (2010). Great Writing 3: From great paragraphs to great essays (4th ed.). Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning.
• Hamp-Lyons, L. (1986). Assessing second language writing in academic settings (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
• Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 241–278). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Hamp-Lyons, L. (2016). Farewell to holistic scoring?. Assessing Writing, 27, A1-A2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.12.002
• Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 7-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1949-3533.1999.tb00169.x
• Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels (NCTE Research Report No. 3). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED113735).
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543834
• McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.003
• Mulligan, C., & Garofalo, R. (2011). A collaborative writing approach: Methodology and student assessment. The Language Teacher, 35(3), 5-10.
• Nguyen, L. T. C. (2015). Written fluency improvement in a foreign language. TESOL Journal, 6(4), 707-730. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.186
• Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 286-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010
• Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
• Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. London, England: Multilingual Matters.
• Storch, N. (2018). Collaborative Writing. In J. I. Liontas, T. International Association & M. DelliCarpini (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0395
• Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In M. P. G. Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157-177). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670
• Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
• Zhang, M. (2018). Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The effects of L1 and L2 use. System, 76, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.04.009