The effects of cooperative learning on EFL learner's writing motivation, writing anxiety and writing performance

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

----------------------------------

THE EFFECTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON

EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING MOTIVATION, WRITING

ANXIETY AND WRITING PERFORMANCE

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirement for the degree of Master of

Arts (TESOL)

Submitted by BA. NGUYEN THI TUYET

Supervisor: Dr. LUU TRONG TUAN

Ho Chi Minh, November 2018

i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that this thesis entitled “The effects of cooperative learning on EFL learners’

writing motivation, writing anxiety and writing performance”

is my own work.

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis 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 due acknowledgement in the main text of

the thesis. This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in

any other tertiary institution.

Ho Chi Minh, 2018

Nguyen Thi Tuyet

ii

ACKNOWLEDMENTS

This Master of Art in TESOL thesis is the result of a productive collaboration of all the people

whom have compassionated contributed to my research. Without the help of those, it would

have been unable for me to complete my Master thesis.

First and foremost, I would like to deeply thank to my supervisor, Dr. Luu Trong Tuan. Without

his compassion, encouragement, understanding and guidance in every step throughout the

process, this paper would have never accomplished.

Getting through the dissertation required more than academic support, and I have many people

to thank for; however, these outstanding people wish their personal information to be kept

confidentially. Exceptionally, I sincerely thank my manager who had allowed me to conduct

the current research at the research site, also to my colleagues who had shared their constructive

opinions on my thesis. Moreover, I owe a great debt of gratitude to the anonymous participants

no matter they contributed data to this thesis or not.

Most importantly, none of this could have happened without my family. I would like to express

my particular gratitude to my beloved mother Do Thi Dieu for her unconditional love,

understanding, encouragement over time and distance. Also, I am grateful to my husband

Nguyen Minh Huy for his non-stop support not only in guiding me process obtained data but

also his non-stop encouragement every time I was ready to quit. This dissertation stands as a

testament to both his and my great efforts.

iii

ABSTRACT

Writing in a foreign language is the most difficult skill to learn; consequently, teaching writing

is a true challenging experience to language teachers. Recent studies in the field of language

teaching indicated that pedagogical trends has shifted from teacher-centered to learner￾centered; therefore, the use of Cooperative Learning has become popular worldwide. However,

Cooperative Learning were mainly implicated in Western contexts and there has been little

studies conducted in Asian EFL contexts. As the result, this study tried to fill the gap by

examining effects of Cooperative Learning and traditional learning on EFL learners’ writing

motivation, writing anxiety and writing performance.

The subjects were 32 students in the Spring academic year 2018 at a private school in Vietnam.

The two-group participants were chosen and randomly assigned as a control group (14 subjects)

and an experimental group (18 subjects). The control group studied writing through traditional

learning of whole-class instruction; nevertheless, the Cooperative Learning instruction was

employed in the experimental group. Each group was instructed writing skills for 14 sessions;

each sessions lasted 90 minutes. The participants responded to four different instruments (2

questionnaires and two writing proficiency tests) in order to enable the researcher to prove the

effects of Cooperative Learning on their writing skills.

The findings indicated that both traditional learning and Cooperative Learning had improved

the students’ writing ability. Despite the fact that no significant difference was found in

learners’ writing motivation, Cooperative Learning was proved to decrease the participants’

apprehension level. Moreover, the resulting t-test of the experimental group’s post-test mean

scores indicated a significant improvement in their writing composition including organization

and content component. Ultimately, several useful educational implications of this study for

language associates were also discussed.

Key words: Cooperative Learning, writing

iv

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP.........................................................................................i

ACKNOWLEDMENTS ..........................................................................................................ii

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................ iii

LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................vii

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................... viii

ABBREVIATION ...................................................................................................................ix

Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1

1.1. Background to the study...........................................................................................1

1.2. Rationale for the study..............................................................................................2

1.3. Research Questions...................................................................................................3

1.4. Significance of the study ...........................................................................................4

1.5. Definition of terms.....................................................................................................5

1.6. Organization of the study .........................................................................................6

Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................................................7

LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................7

2.1. Learner-centered instruction vs. Traditional Language Teaching ......................7

2.2. Cooperative Learning ...............................................................................................8

2.2.1. Definitions of Cooperative Learning ...................................................................8

2.2.2. Theoretical framework of Cooperative Learning strategy...................................9

2.2.2.1. The Vygotskian perspective .........................................................................9

2.2.2.2. Bandura’s Social Learning theory ..............................................................10

2.2.2.3. Summary.....................................................................................................10

2.2.3. Elements of Cooperative Learning ....................................................................11

2.2.3.1. Positive dependence ...................................................................................11

2.2.3.2. Individual accountability ............................................................................11

2.2.3.3. Face-to-face interaction ..............................................................................11

2.2.3.4. Social skills.................................................................................................12

2.2.3.5. Group processing........................................................................................12

2.2.5. Techniques.........................................................................................................13

2.2.5.1. Jigsaw .........................................................................................................13

2.2.5.2. Think-pair-share .........................................................................................13

2.2.5.3. Round Robin...............................................................................................13

2.2.5.4. Numbered Heads ........................................................................................13

2.2.5.5. Peer editing .................................................................................................14

v

2.2.6. Benefits of Cooperative Learning for language education ................................14

2.2.6.1. Social benefits.............................................................................................14

2.2.6.2. Academic benefits ......................................................................................14

2.2.6.3. Linguistic benefits ......................................................................................14

2.2.6.4. Affective benefits .......................................................................................14

2.3.1. Definition of writing ..........................................................................................15

2.3.2. Definition of writing performance .....................................................................15

2.3.3. Factors affect writing .........................................................................................17

2.3.3.1. Motivation ..................................................................................................17

2.3.3.2. Anxiety .......................................................................................................18

2.4. Relationships between Cooperative Learning and writing motivation, writing

anxiety and writing performance......................................................................................21

2.4.1. Relationship between Cooperative Learning and writing motivation ...............21

2.4.2. Relationship between Cooperative Learning and writing anxiety.....................22

2.4.3. Relationship between Cooperative Learning and writing performance in

previous studies ................................................................................................................22

Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................27

3.1. Setting.......................................................................................................................27

3.2. Selected subjects......................................................................................................27

3.2.1. Role of the researcher ........................................................................................27

3.2.2. Selection of writing examiners ..........................................................................28

3.2.3. Selection of students..........................................................................................28

3.3. Research design .......................................................................................................30

3.3.1. Experimental group (EG)...................................................................................30

3.3.2. Control group (CG)............................................................................................30

3.4. Data collection .........................................................................................................31

3.4.1. Instruments.........................................................................................................31

3.4.1.1. Motivational questionnaire .........................................................................31

3.4.1.2. Anxiety questionnaire.................................................................................32

3.4.1.3. Pre and post writing test .............................................................................34

3.4.1.4. Scoring rubrics............................................................................................36

3.4.2. Data collection procedure ..................................................................................36

3.5. Data analysis............................................................................................................43

3.6. Conclusion................................................................................................................47

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................48

vi

4.1. Analysis and findings of motivational questionnaires .............................................48

4.2. Analysis and findings of anxiety questionnaires ..................................................50

4.3. Analysis and findings of pre and post writing tests .............................................52

4.3.1. Pre-test ...............................................................................................................53

4.3.2. Post-test..............................................................................................................55

4.3.3. Pre-test and Post-test writing findings...............................................................57

4.4. Conclusion and Interpretation...............................................................................65

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................68

5.1. Conclusion................................................................................................................68

5.1. Pedagogical implications.........................................................................................68

5.1.1. Implications for language instructors.................................................................68

5.1.1.1. Cooperative group work .............................................................................68

5.1.1.2. Necessary skills for Cooperative Learning.................................................70

5.1.1.3. Recommend Cooperative Learning strategies in language teaching..........71

5.1.2. Implications for language leaners......................................................................72

5.1.3. Implications for language institutions................................................................72

5.2. Limitations...............................................................................................................73

5.3. Directions for further research ..............................................................................74

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................76

APPENDIX A.........................................................................................................................85

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Figure 1. Relationships between variables...............................................................................26

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY

Figure 2. Grading procedure (scenario 1)................................................................................35

Figure 3. Grading procedure (scenario 2)................................................................................36

Chapter 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 4. Summary of CG Writing Performance.....................................................................58

Figure 5. Summary of EG Writing Performance .....................................................................58

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY

Table 3.1. Student Subjects......................................................................................................30

Table 3.2. Cheng’s (2004) Second Language Writing Anxiety Questionnaire .......................33

Table 3.3. Data Collection Timeline........................................................................................39

Table 3.4. Research Questions, Data Collection and Data Analysis .......................................43

Table 3.5. Reliability of Each Item of the Writing Motivational Questionnaire .....................45

Table 3.6. Reliability of Each Item of the Writing Anxiety Questionnaire .............................46

Chapter 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics on the Writing Motivation of CG and EG before the

Treatment .................................................................................................................................49

Table 4.2. Writing Motivation between CG and EG before the Treatment.............................49

Table 4.3. Writing Motivation between CG and EG after the Treatment................................49

Table 4.4. Descriptive Statistics on the Writing Anxiety of CG before the Treatment...........50

Table 4.5. Descriptive Statistics on the Writing Anxiety of EG before the Treatment ...........51

Table 4.6. Writing Anxiety between CG and EG before the Treatment..................................51

Table 4.7. Writing Anxiety between CG and EG after the Treatment ....................................51

Table 4.8. CG Writing Performance Reliability Statistics.......................................................53

Table 4.9. EG Writing Performance Reliability Statistics.......................................................53

Table 4.10. The range of gained score on pre writing test of CG............................................53

Table 4.11. The Range of Gain Score on Pre Writing Test of EG ..........................................54

Table 4.12. Independent T-test for the Comparison of Pretest Results...................................55

Table 4.13. The Range of Gain Score on Post writing test of CG...........................................55

Table 4.14. The Range of Gain Score on Post writing test of EG ...........................................56

Table 4.15. Independent T-test for the Comparison of Posttest Results..................................57

Table 4.16. Paired Sample T-test on the Writing components of CG .....................................60

Table 4.17. Independent T-test for the Comparison of Organization Component ..................61

Table 4.18. Paired Sample T-test on the Writing components of EG......................................62

Table 4.19. Independent T-test for the Comparison of Content Component...........................63

Table 4.20. Independent T-test for the Comparison of Grammatical Structure Component...64

ix

ABBREVIATION

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

CEFR: Common European Framework for Reference

ZPD: Zone of Proximal Development

CG: Control Group

EG: Experimental Group

TESOL: Teaching English for Speakers of other Languages

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1.Background to the study

The learning of a foreign language includes four skills in a natural order of acquisition that are

listening, speaking, reading and finally writing. Generally agreed by different researchers,

writing is a difficult skill to teach or learn. Shibani et al (2017) assert writing is a key skill to

learners of a language, but it is often a demanding skill. Likewise, Mandal (2009) states that

writing is one of the most challenging skills to acquire. To compose a meaningful piece of

writing, writers have to employ their active grammar, spelling, mechanic and vocabulary.

Moreover, generating ideas is an essential skill to help learners write interesting and worth￾reading compositions (Forteza Fernández & Gunashekar, 2009). However, the fact is that a

lack of interaction and understanding between the writer and the reader makes writing a

problematic task.

Writing is not only a tool for reflecting language learners’ proficiency level, but it also enables

them another communicative means to express thoughts and feelings besides verbal

communication (Ismail & Maasum, 2009). Therefore, learners are supposed to master this skill

to be an effective communicator in a language. In contrast, they seem to show little interest to

it, and a great deal of them perceive writing as no more than a tool to test spelling and grammar

(Carol, 1990). Silva (1993) insists the case becomes harder and less effective to writers if

writing is conducted in a foreign language. The writers might encounter hardship strategies

lacking as well as affective factors including writing anxiety or motivation (as described in

Lee, 2005; Chan 2009; Negari & Rezaabadi, 2012; Kassim, 2013; Kurniasih, 2017).

According to Li (2012), teachers’ beliefs directly influence their teaching practices including

the roles they act, the activities they design and the interaction they expect in the learning

process. Language teachers are expected to choose appropriate pedagogical strategy upon

certain contexts to help their learners overcome affective barriers and effectively acquire the

target skill (Johnson and Johnson, 1994). A positive relationship between motivation and

academic achievement is consolidated in previous studies. Motivation has great impacts on

learners’ language achievement (Chan, 2009). Likewise, Troia et al (2012) prove that

motivation positively influences the quality of writing performance. On the other hand, several

2

studies conclude that there is a negative relation between anxiety and language achievement

(Pattanapichet & Changpueng, n.d.; Cheng, 2002). If leaners’ apprehension level is decreased,

their language proficiency will be significantly improved (Nakahashi, 2007; Suwantarathip &

Wichadee, 2010). Hence, it is undeniable that there is a necessity for an effective strategy that

could increase language learners’ writing interest, possibly reduce writing apprehension and

enhance their writing performance.

Cooperative Learning is one of the sufficient strategies in education (Zakaria, Chin & Daud,

2010; Ning & Hornby, 2014). This concept refers to instructional methods and techniques in

which learners are engaged in teamwork and supporting each other achieve a common goal.

Cooperative Learning is contradict to individualistic and competitive learning (Brown, 2000).

A competitive learning environment could reduce low-achievers’ motivation; meanwhile the

cooperation between them would enable higher-achievers support the lowers. Hence, their

linguistic, cognitive and social development will be promoted (Johnson & Johnson, 1994).

Numerous researchers have advocated this concept in language teaching particularly teaching

of writing skill. For example, Baleghizadeh and Rahimi (2012) indicate the effects of

Cooperative Learning on writing performance. Not only achievement but also motivation were

reported to be boosted in Hsieh’s study (2010). Besides that Kagan (1994), Wyeld (2013) and

recently Jiang (2016) suggest anxiety is significantly reduced in a cooperative learning

environment.

1.2.Rationale for the study

With an effort of preparing Vietnamese students to become global citizens, Vietnamese

government promotes English learning and teaching by launching Project 2020 (Ministry of

Education and Training, 2005). This project aims to strengthen Vietnamese students’

intercultural communication, but also retain their cultural identity. Common European

Framework for Reference (CEFR) is chosen as the standard of evaluation, which corresponds

Vietnamese EFL learners need to master four skills evenly. Despite the fact of four necessary

language skills, writing is not fully paid attention in schools of Vietnam due to dominance of

form-focused instruction that emphasizes the acquisition of linguistic forms rather than

communicative competence (Le, 2011). EFL writing in Vietnam has been considered a

challenge for language teachers for a long time (Nguyen, 2009; Hoang, 2010). In addition,

Vietnamese EFL writing teaching is described in Trinh and Nguyen’s paper (2014) as a one￾way process, from the teacher to learners. The learners play roles of “knowledge receivers and

3

imitators, without many pair work or group work activities” (p.65). Consequently, this teaching

approach leads to their failure in writing ability unless the topic is similar to the one they had

done previously. The low quality of EFL writing teaching in Vietnam could be seen through

results of the National High School Exam in 2015 (THANHNIEN, 2015). As reported, majority

of the candidates either skipped their writing section or did not have enough time to write.

In addition, the researcher of the current study received lots of feedback of deficient motivation

and anxious feeling encountered in writing process from her learners. The same notions could

be found in other EFL teaching contexts. For instance, Leila (2010) investigated second year

EFL students’ attitude toward Cooperative Learning to shed a light for a more effective

instruction. Alghamdi and Gillies’s study in Saudi Arabia (2013), or Ahangari and Samadian’s

in Iran (2014) investigated the benefits of the Cooperarive Learning teaching approach to

provide a solution to their EFL writing teaching. They proved that Cooperative Learning was

an effective instruction. Moerover, the learners showed positive attitudes toward this

instruction. The review of related literature on impressive effects of Cooperative Learning in

language teaching and learning has led the researcher to the beliefs that this instruction may

not only increase learners’ motivation in general but also for writing in particular, reduce

anxiety in writing, and most importantly enhance writing performance.

Therefore, the researcher made an attempt to conduct the current study with three following

purposes. Firstly, the research aimed to investigate the impacts of Cooperative Learning on

EFL students’ motivation for writing. The second purpose was to examine the influence

aroused by Cooperative Learning on their writing anxiety. The final purpose is to determine

the effects of Cooperative Learning on writing performance by comparing compositions of

EFL students who involved in Cooperative Learning and who received no Cooperative

Learning instruction.

1.3.Research Questions

In order to achieve the above purposes, three research questions were addressed in this study.

R-Q. 1: Are there any significant differences in writing motivation of Cooperative Learning

and traditional learning group?

R-Q. 2: Are there any significant differences in writing anxiety of Cooperative Learning and

traditional learning group?

4

R-Q. 3: Are there any significant differences in writing performance of Cooperative Learning

and traditional learning group?

Sub-question 1: Are there any significant differences in organization between compositions of

Cooperative Learning and traditional learning group?

Sub-question 2: Are there any significant differences in content between compositions of

Cooperative Learning and Traditional Learning writing group?

Sub-question 3: Are there any significant differences in grammatical structure between

compositions of Cooperative Learning and Traditional Learning writing group?

1.4.Significance of the study

As discussed above, teaching writing has been a challenge to Vietnamese EFL teachers. It

results in Vietnamese high school students’ poor writing performance. They could only imitate

and perform on some familiar topics that were already taught by the teacher (Trinh & Nguyen,

2014). With the hope to improve EFL writing and teaching in Vietnam, some significance of

the research were recorded:

1. Although there are numerous effects of Cooperative Learning found in EFL education

of other countries, there are not many studies in the literature of implementing this

method on tertiary level in Vietnam. This paper gave an answer to the question whether

Cooperative Learning could flourish its effectiveness in Vietnamese EFL writing

teaching as in other EFL contexts. Therefore, it could draw attentions of Vietnamese

EFL teachers to the existence of an effective strategy that makes their writing teaching

no longer a challenge.

2. The exploration of this paper into effects of Cooperative Learning on EFL learners’

writing motivation and writing anxiety could benefit the teachers who are struggling to

build interest and motivate their students in one of the most demanding skills – writing.

3. The study is also significant to the Vietnamese EFL learners because they are able to

develop their English writing skills by cooperation with friends rather than struggling

with this process individually. Their awareness of some cooperative skills would be

raised, and their practices are expectly followed.

4. The findings of this study contributed to the existing literature, and provided

Vietnamese EFL teachers as well as the ones who obtain managing roles in an

educational institution sophisticated evidence in making decision whether to apply

5

Cooperative Learning in their teaching context to promote their students’ writing

performance.

1.5.Definition of terms

The following terms have been defined for the purpose of the research:

Learner-centered instruction

This instruction requires learners to actively engage in their learning. The role of teachers in

the classroom is supporting not leading (Woods, 1996).

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative Learning is an instructional method in which students work together work in

groups to achieve a common goal with the existence of these necessary elements namely

positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face interaction, interpersonal &

social skills and group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Cooperative Learning was

implemented in the writing learning of the experiemental group in this research.

Traditional learning

Traditional learning methods relates to direct teaching or teaching techniques for the whole

class. Teachers who utilize whole-group instruction will transmit highly systematical

knowledge content, orient learners’ activities and aim at academic chievement. (Tran, 2012).

In the present research, the whole-class instruction was employed in the control group.

Writing motivation

Writing motivation is all the factors that activate or give learners more effort to the writing

activity (Mayberry, 2008).

Writing anxiety

Learners are so worried about the results of the writing that leads to the inability to write or

focus on the writing activities (Thompson, 1980).

Writing performance