Effects of changing peers during collaborative writing on learners' writing performance

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

--------∞0∞--------

NGUYEN AN KHUONG

EFFECTS OF CHANGING PEERS DURING

COLLABORATIVE WRITING ON LEARNERS’

WRITING PERFORMANCE

MASTER THESIS

MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL

HO CHI MINH CITY, 2021

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

--------∞0∞--------

NGUYEN AN KHUONG

EFFECTS OF CHANGING PEERS DURING

COLLABORATIVE WRITING ON LEARNERS’

WRITING PERFORMANCE

Major: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

Major code: 8 14 01 11

MASTER THESIS

MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL

Supervisor: VU HOA NGAN (Ph.D.)

HO CHI MINH CITY, 2021

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC MỞ CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM

THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH Độc lập – Tự do – Hạnh phúc

KHOA ĐÀO TẠO SAU ĐẠI HỌC

GIẤY XÁC NHẬN

Tôi tên là: NGUYỄN AN KHƯƠNG

Ngày sinh: 04/07/1992 Nơi sinh: TP. Hồ Chí Minh

Chuyên ngành: Lý luận và phương pháp dạy học bộ môn tiếng Anh

Mã học viên: 1781401110009

Tôi đồng ý cung cấp toàn văn thông tin luận án/ luận văn tốt nghiệp hợp lệ về bản

quyền cho Thư viện trường đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. Thư viện trường

đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh sẽ kết nối toàn văn thông tin luận án/ luận văn

tốt nghiệp vào hệ thống thông tin khoa học của Sở Khoa học và Công nghệ Thành

phố Hồ Chí Minh.

Ký tên

(Ghi rõ họ và tên)

Nguyễn An Khương

CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM

Độc lập – Tự do – Hạnh phúc

Ý KIẾN CHO PHÉP BẢO VỆ LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ

CỦA GIẢNG VIÊN HƯỚNG DẪN

Giảng viên hướng dẫn: Tiến sĩ Vũ Hoa Ngân

Học viên thực hiện: Nguyễn An Khương Lớp: MTESOL017A

Ngày sinh: 04/07/1992 Nơi sinh: TP.HCM

Tên đề tài: Effects of changing peers during collaborative writing on learners’ writing

performance

Ý kiến của giáo viên hướng dẫn về việc cho phép học viên Nguyễn An Khương được bảo vệ

luận văn trước Hội đồng: ...........................................................................................................

Đồng ý học viên Nguyễn An Khương được bảo vệ luận văn trước Hội đồng ....................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................

Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, ngày 04 tháng 09 năm 2021

Người nhận xét

TS. Vũ Hoa Ngân

i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that this thesis entitled “Effects of changing peers during collaborative writing

on learners’ writing performance” is my own work.

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis does not contain

material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I

have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma.

No other person’s work has been used without acknowledgement in the main text of the

thesis.

This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or diploma in any other tertiary

institution.

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2021

NGUYEN AN KHUONG

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my special thanks to all the following people for helping me

complete my thesis.

Firstly, I am deeply grateful to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Vu Hoa Ngan, a Deputy Head

of the Department of English at Ho Chi Minh City International University. She spent

much of her precious time giving me guidance, encouragement and comments for my

deeper understanding of the problem.

I would like to acknowledge the staff and my former lecturers of English who work for

and teach at the Foreign Language Faculty of Ho Chi Minh City Open University.

My gratitude is also conveyed to the manager, staff, and students at ALES English

Language Center for their helpful support and contribution to my experiment.

My thanks are sent to my classmates of MA in TESOL017A at Ho Chi Minh City Open

University. They shared with me both joys and sorrows during a course and especially

on the way to complete this thesis.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their offering me the most

important support during my difficult task.

iii

ABSTRACT

Collaborative writing has been widely researched and applied in mainstream

education and second language (L2) classes. Although it seems to be recognized by many

researchers as a more impressive method than individual writing, few studies have

focused on how to optimize the effects of using collaborative writing under certain

conditions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the collaborative writing’s

effectiveness performed by the same and different peers on collaborative and individual

writing performance. Sixty-four students at a foreign language center in Vietnam

participated in the study in which 32 were in the control group and 32 were in the

experimental group. The training activities of the two groups were similar, in which the

product-process approach was used to teach International English Language Testing

System (IELTS) writing. The key difference was that the control group remained the

same peers while the experimental group conducted the same process with different peers

in every new lesson. Essays of the two groups were collected after every lesson to

compare the collaborative writing skills. In the end, a post-test was conducted

individually to investigate if there was any difference in individual writing skills between

the two groups. The attitudes of participants toward changing peers were also examined

through the semi-structured interview in the final phase. Based on the research outcomes,

some implications were offered for the teaching of writing.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1

1.1. Background of the study........................................................................................ 1

1.2. Statement of the problems..................................................................................... 1

1.3. Purpose of the study .............................................................................................. 3

1.4. Significance of the study ....................................................................................... 3

1.5. Definition of key terms.......................................................................................... 4

1.6. Structure of the thesis............................................................................................ 4

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................... 6

2.1. Collaborative writing............................................................................................. 6

2.1.1. Research conceptualization............................................................................. 6

2.1.1.1. Pairwork and groupwork ..........................................................................6

2.1.1.2. Collaborative writing................................................................................8

2.1.2. Collaborative writing as product-process approach...................................... 10

2.1.3. Theories underpinning collaborative writing................................................ 13

2.1.3.1. Sociocultural theory................................................................................14

2.1.3.2. Sociocognitive conflict theory................................................................14

2.1.3.3. Interaction hypothesis.............................................................................15

2.1.4. Benefits of collaborative writing .................................................................. 15

2.1.5. Previous studies about collaborative writing ................................................ 17

2.1.5.1. Effects of changing peers on students’ interaction and writing process 17

2.1.5.2. Effects of proficiency level on students’ writing performance ..............20

2.1.5.3. Effects of pair or group formation on students’ writing performance ...22

2.1.5.4. Effects of computer-mediated collaborative writing on students’ writing

performance.........................................................................................................26

2.2. Attitudes .............................................................................................................. 31

v

2.2.1. Definition of attitudes................................................................................... 32

2.2.2. Tripartite model of attitudes.......................................................................... 32

2.2.3. Previous studies about attitudes toward collaborative writing ..................... 34

2.3. Research gaps...................................................................................................... 35

2.4. Research questions .............................................................................................. 37

2.5. Conceptual framework ........................................................................................ 39

2.6. Chapter summary................................................................................................. 40

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY.............................................................................. 43

3.1. Research design ................................................................................................... 43

3.2. Research site........................................................................................................ 46

3.3. Participants.......................................................................................................... 47

3.4. Research instruments and materials .................................................................... 50

3.4.1. Pre-test and post-test ..................................................................................... 50

3.4.2. Teaching materials........................................................................................ 52

3.4.3. Writing assignments...................................................................................... 53

3.4.4. Scoring rubrics.............................................................................................. 53

3.4.5. Semi-structured interview questions............................................................. 55

3.5. Data collection procedure.................................................................................... 56

3.5.1. Collecting quantitative data for Research Questions 1 and 2 ....................... 57

3.5.1.1. Administering a pre-test and a post-test.................................................58

3.5.1.2. Introducing the course ............................................................................59

3.5.1.3. Assigning peers in control group and experimental group.....................60

3.5.1.4. Teaching new writing units....................................................................62

3.5.2. Collecting qualitative data for Research Question 3..................................... 64

3.6. Data sources......................................................................................................... 66

3.6.1. Quantitative data for Research Questions 1 and 2 ........................................ 67

3.6.2. Qualitative data for Research Question 3 ..................................................... 70

vi

3.7. Data analysis procedure....................................................................................... 70

3.7.1. Analyzing quantitative data for Research Questions 1 and 2 ....................... 70

3.7.2. Analyzing qualitative data for Research Question 3..................................... 72

3.7.2.1. Coding of semi-structured interviews ....................................................74

3.7.2.2. Qualitative data reliability ......................................................................76

3.8. Chapter summary................................................................................................. 76

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS............................................................................................. 79

4.1. Students’ writing proficiency level before the experiment ................................. 79

4.2. Effects of changing peers and keeping similar peers on collaborative writing

performance (Research Question 1)........................................................................... 82

4.3. Effects of changing peers and keeping similar peers on individual writing

performance (Research Question 2)........................................................................... 86

4.4. Students’ attitudes toward changing peers in collaborative writing (Research

Question 3) ................................................................................................................. 90

4.4.1. Affective attitudes......................................................................................... 92

4.4.2. Cognitive attitudes........................................................................................ 94

4.4.3. Behavioral attitudes ...................................................................................... 97

4.5. Chapter summary............................................................................................... 100

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION..................................................................................... 102

5.1. Effects of changing peers and keeping similar peers on collaborative writing

performance (Research Question 1)......................................................................... 102

5.2. Effects of changing peers and keeping similar peers on individual writing

performance (Research Question 2)......................................................................... 103

5.3. Students’ attitudes toward changing peers in collaborative writing (Research

Question 3) ............................................................................................................... 104

5.4. Chapter summary............................................................................................... 109

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION.................................................................................. 111

vii

6.1. Summary of key results..................................................................................... 111

6.2. Implications for instructions.............................................................................. 112

6.3. Limitations of the study..................................................................................... 113

6.4. Suggestions for further research........................................................................ 114

6.5. Concluding remarks........................................................................................... 115

REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 116

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 124

APPENDIX A1. WRITING TASKS FOR PRE-TEST............................................... 124

APPENDIX A2. WRITING TASKS FOR POST-TEST ............................................ 125

APPENDIX B. WRITING OBJECTIVES OF EACH UNIT IN STUDENT’S BOOK

...................................................................................................................... 126

APPENDIX C. SAMPLES OF ASSIGNMENTS IN STUDENT’S BOOK............... 129

APPENDIX D. IELTS WRITING SCORING RUBRICS .......................................... 131

APPENDIX E1. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR

LEARNERS IN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP.............................................. 133

APPENDIX E2. CÂU HỎI PHỎNG VẤN BÁN CẤU TRÚC DÀNH CHO HỌC

VIÊN TRONG NHÓM THỰC NGHIỆM................................................... 135

APPENDIX F1: APPROVAL FOR RESEARCH PROJECT FROM ALES ENGLISH

CENTER ...................................................................................................... 137

APPENDIX F2: CONSENT FORM............................................................................ 138

APPENDIX F3: GIẤY CHẤP THUẬN THAM GIA NGHIÊN CỨU....................... 140

APPENDIX G. SAMPLES OF A STUDENT’ COLLABORATIVE ESSAYS......... 142

APPENDIX H1. SAMPLES OF A STUDENT’ PRE-TEST PAPERS ...................... 144

APPENDIX H2. SAMPLES OF A STUDENT’ POST-TEST PAPERS.................... 147

APPENDIX I. IELTS WRITING CRITERIA CHECKLIST...................................... 150

APPENDIX J1. INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO USE GOOGLE CLASSROOM ..... 153

viii

APPENDIX J2. INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO WRITE AND SUBMIT

COLLABORATIVE WRITING ASSIGNMENTS..................................... 154

APPENDIX K1. A SAMPLE OF WRITING TASK 1’S LESSON PLAN ................ 155

APPENDIX K2. A SAMPLE OF WRITING TASK 2’S LESSON PLAN ................ 163

APPENDIX L1. A SAMPLE OF SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

TRANSCRIPTS ........................................................................................... 170

APPENDIX L2. BẢN GHI MẪU BÀI PHỎNG VẤN BÁN CẤU TRÚC................. 173

APPENDIX M. A CODING SCHEME FOR TEXTUAL REVISION...................... 176

APPENDIX N. CODE AGREEMENT PERCENTAGE OF INTER-CODERS ........ 179

APPENDIX O. A SAMPLE OF CODING SCHEME OF A STUDENT’ SEMI￾STRUCTURED INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS......................................... 185

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Demographical information and scores of the participants for semi-structured

interviews.......................................................................................................49

Table 3.2 Description of instruments and data analysis methods for each research

question ..........................................................................................................50

Table 3.3 Quantitative data collection procedure ..........................................................57

Table 3.4 A sample of rotating peer scheme for one class in the experimental group ..62

Table 3.5 Data types and sources...................................................................................66

Table 3.6 Pearson correlation coefficient and Cronbach’s alpha of inter-raters............69

Table 3.7 Length and duration of six semi-structured interviews .................................74

Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of pre-test scores between control group and

experimental group.........................................................................................81

Table 4.2 Comparison of the individual writing papers’ quality before the experiment

........................................................................................................................82

Table 4.3 Descriptive statistics of the collaborative essays’ scores between control

group and experimental group .......................................................................84

Table 4.4 Comparison of the collaborative essays’ scores during the treatment...........85

Table 4.5 Descriptive statistics of post-test scores between control group and

experimental group.........................................................................................87

Table 4.6 Comparison of effects of keeping same peers in the pre-test versus post-test

of the control group........................................................................................88

Table 4.7 Comparison of effects of changing peers in the pre-test versus post-test of the

experimental group.........................................................................................89

Table 4.8 Comparison of the individual writing papers’ quality after the experiment..89

Table 4.9 Frequency and percentage results for each coded response ..........................91

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Product-process approach to writing ............................................................11

Figure 2.2 Tripartite model of attitudes.........................................................................33

Figure 2.3 Collaborative writing process.......................................................................39

Figure 2.4 Relationship between attitudes and collaborative writing with changing

peers ...............................................................................................................40

Figure 3.1 Visual diagram of explanatory sequential mixed methods design in present

study ...............................................................................................................45

Figure 3.2 Visual diagram of teaching procedure in the control group and the

experimental group for one unit.....................................................................63

Figure 3.3 Visual diagram of quantitative data analysis procedure...............................71

Figure 3.4 Visual diagram of qualitative data analysis procedure.................................73

Figure 4.1 Distribution of the pre-test scores of the control group................................80

Figure 4.2 Distribution of the pre-test scores of the experimental group ......................80

Figure 4.3 Distribution of the collaborative essays’ scores of the control group ..........83

Figure 4.4 Distribution of the collaborative essays’ scores of the experimental group.83

Figure 4.5 Distribution of the post-test scores of the control group ..............................86

Figure 4.6 Distribution of the post-test scores of the experimental group.....................87

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ALES ALES English Center

CG Control group

EAP English for academic purposes

EG Experimental group

EFL English as a foreign language

ESL English as a second language

ESOL English for speakers of other languages

FTF Face-to-face

IELTS International English Language Testing System

LRE Language-related episode

L1 First language

L2 Second language

M Mean

SCMC Synchronous computer-mediated communication

SD Standard deviation

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

TOEFL iBT Test Of English as a Foreign Language (Internet-based test)

ZPD Zone of Proximal Development