Features of Collaborative Writing in EFL Context
The samples in the following section come from audiotape recordings of pair collaborative study sessions that were recorded.
All of the examples were taken from a collaborative writing project in which students were paired and asked to produce an essay on the topic of how to be a good parent.
Discussion
Cooperative writing is characterized by four central features: mutuality, equality, scaffolding episodes, and the utilization of collaborative tools. These characteristics distinguish any effective collaborative writing activity, whether it is conducted face-to-face or synchronously.
Mutuality
The primary characteristic that distinguishes collaborative writing from other writing styles is the interpersonal connection between the participants. A higher level of member participation is essential for the success of a joint mutual effort [7]. While participating in the interaction, students will have multiple opportunities to generate and contest ideas, encouraging introspective and creative thinking [12]. Also included is the opportunity for students to engage in conversation with one another on the writing process and the topic [9]; this aids students refine their grasp of the task assigned to them.
Mutual engagement is essential for forming cohesive communities of practice [13]. Members of the activity community feel more connected to one another due to their interactions with one another. Furthermore, the involvement stimulates each individual to provide 'complementary' contributions, which is a valuable asset [14]. Nonetheless, situations that necessitate constant human contact are likely filled with stress and conflict. Before beginning a collaborative writing assignment, teachers may emphasize the necessity of students preparing, coming up with ideas, proposing alternatives, and responding to the points of view of other participants. Additionally, students should develop the ability to listen so that they can be exposed to a range of points of view and thought patterns, in addition to providing their thoughts.
Example 1. Mutual Interaction
A: oh right, parents, has... eh parents means have. Their own way- their... own way to... educate children,
B: Educated? Using -ed?
A: No, just educate.
B: Educate.
Final Text: ….and every parent have their way to educate children.
A = Siska, B = Cinta
Example 2. Mutual Interaction
B: look at the framework. We will mention A: do not use mention; use explain
B: Oh, just use this talking about. We want to talk about
A: Here, we want to talk about explaining and talking the same?
B: Yes talking about A: how about discuss
B: Here, we want to discuss the kind of A: Good parents and step to be a good parent Final Text :
Here we want to discuss the kind of parents and step to be a good parent.
A = Wati, B = Jamil
Example 1 shows mutual interaction between Siska and Cinta, who were discussing the use of 'has' or 'have' after the word 'parents.' Then they realized that 'parents' should be followed by 'have.' After that, Cinta doubted if they should put '-ed' after the word 'educate' or not. Siska briefly answered that they should not use '–ed.' Then, the final sentence became '….and every parent have their way to educate children.'. While in example 2, Wati and Jamil were talking about word choices. They were discussing if they should use the word 'mention' or 'explain.' Then Jamil argued about using 'talking,' but Wati thought that using ‘discuss’ was better. Finally, they came up with the sentence 'Here we want to discuss kind of parents and step to be a good parent.'.
Equality
Another characteristic of collaborative writing that distinguishes it from other forms of writing is the exchange of knowledge [15], [16]. Students differ from one another in various ways, including their level of language competence, skill, and prior experiences. When students collaborate, they bring their own unique set of skills to the group's table. A person could have a wide range of knowledge and competence in various disciplines. Those who are unable to write effectively, for example, can submit good thoughts or examples of what they have learned. Some people excel at sentence construction, arrangement, grammar, and writing techniques, while others struggle with these skills. Others may have been more
concerned with the objective and perception of the audience, with evaluation, or even with time management.
Combining each team member's strengths raises the likelihood that the learner's Zone Proximal Development (ZPD) will be raised, resulting in a higher-quality essay for the learner to submit [17]. The involvement of writers with a variety of writing styles and tactics and a mutual exchange of ideas and experience could result in a significantly more accurate and more decadent piece of writing. The pooling of diverse abilities enables students to collaborate on knowledge production and enhance their writing abilities to a greater extent than they would be able to do individually.
The students should be reminded that, while sharing knowledge is beneficial to all, they should be willing to share information and talents to make the learning processes more worthwhile and fruitful for themselves and others.
Example 3. Equal Contribution A: it means the title will not be related
B: yes, cause how to be, means it is more similar to procedure text. If not, make it the second paragraph. The introduction is about a good parent. Then the steps are in the second paragraph.
A: if not like this, the intro, then the second paragraph, the steps B: all right, the second is the kinds, the third is the step, then the
conclusion.
Back here. The first is parents introduction, yes A = Sheila, B = Lila
Example 4. Equal Contribution A: how to combine love and discipline. It is
through the way, for example, by giving the reward. Giving a reward is a must. Must it be a gift? No right?
B: praise can be too
A: once in a while you have to give the gift B: ok, but do not overdo it. They will be spoiled
A: but besides... ooh what if the rewards being like this, what’s that what’s the name, like something have to do later, in the end, they'll give
a reward. It means the conclusion done, the outline done, And now the essay. Just write the essay.
A = Zarin, B = Icha
In Example 3, Sheila and Lila were discussing the part of paragraphs. They talked about what should be in the introduction part and in which paragraph they should put 'kind,' 'step' and 'conclusion'
of the topic. Sheila and Lila both shared their understanding of how to organize an essay in a logical manner, which was really appreciated.
In Example 4, Zarin and Icha were talking about the topic. They were discussing if parents should give their children awards or not. They finally made the conclusion and outlined then began to write the essay. Zarin and Icha shared their knowledge about being good parents and complement one another.
Scaffolding Episodes
A collaborative group's capacity to function smoothly depends on the presence of certain advantageous emotional traits, such as trust, dependability, commitment, and respect for the group members [18]. Learners are more willing to collaborate and communicate actively when they are not afraid of being ridiculed. The ability to debate opposing perspectives without fear is enhanced when students feel comfortable communicating in a friendly learning environment [19]. In developing pleasant feelings for one another, it becomes easier for collaborators to establish an intersubjectivity agreement on the subject matter at hand and agree calmly to continue working on different issues together.
In addition, the emotions and motives of learners might impact their learning. Reduced productivity, a dislike or fear of writing, and other manifestations of anxiety brought on by language learning demands are all possible outcomes. The need for an environment of preparedness and willingness to serve, in which students may rely on one another's strengths to make up for their failings, is vital to the school's success. Aside from fostering conducive and productive environments for cooperation, teachers must be on the lookout for any potential fissures in-group cohesion. In order to support learners throughout the partnership, neither didactic attitudes nor judgemental actions must be taken. When a group becomes dysfunctional due to unresolved affective conflict, teachers must intervene by interacting with refractory group members or, if required, by changing the composition of the group members. It is critical to emphasize the value of mutual respect, tolerance, and engagement among group members in every cooperative project and the importance of individual respect and tolerance [8]. Examples 1 to 6 demonstrate how the instance pair demonstrated commitment, teamwork, and mutuality in their interactions. In terms of collectivism, they demonstrated a high level of willingness to participate in knowledge construction and the growth of their writing abilities.
Example 5. Scaffolding through Elicitation A: The reason?
B: Give them the reason why they are Just like that. What else <5>
A: The excellent parent should help. The earlier one B: which one
A: To help their children solve their bad behavior without yelling at them or punishment. [Pusnishment is kind of make traumatic] Without making a traumatic. Impact or feeling for them A = Della, B Nisa
Example 6. Scaffolding through Repetition
A: how about (in your opinion) which better, strict parents or relaxed parents,
B: which, A: whether,
B: whether? Eh, wait, wait, which is better, whether the strict or...
A: Relaxed parents,...
B: between, right?
A: is it between?
B: is it whether or between yeah between A = Nada, B = Hedi
In Example 5, Della-Nisa was developing the paragraphs.
They were making a sentence step by step by eliciting a response with a question from each other. In Example 6, Nada and Hedi kept repeating the exact words. They often mentioned 'which,' 'whether,' and 'between.' A significant sense of group responsibility is seen in the pairs' elicitation and repetition during the task completion process.
Tools for Collaboration
In face-to-face collaborative writing, students can use paper and a pen to handwrite together, or they can use a computer or a laptop to write in turns, or they can use more complex tools such as a word processor or synchronous collaborative writing platform. With the advent of technology, society 5.0 has begun to take shape, helping people deal with their daily lives more successfully, including collaborative writing projects. Blog [11], Wiki [20], Google Doc [21], [22], Viber [23], Etherpad [24] and Blackboard [25] are just a few of the collaborative writing tools that have been developed and have proven to be beneficial in the classroom. With the help of these technologies, users can collaborate in real-time.
Conclusion
By collaborating on writing assignments, students can increase their sense of freedom while also creating a learning society, encouraging reliance, and establishing an environment for learning in a social setting. Students learn how to write from their peers, exchange knowledge, and make decisions as a collective. According to the research findings, as a result of their cooperation and collaboration, they learn how to resolve disagreements and conflicts, employ strategies, and ensure that collaboration is a positive experience for all participants. A group's ability to work together effectively is determined not just by the individuals' language abilities but also by their motivation and attitudes for seeing the group through to completion. The article suggests that students should be prepared for collaboration by developing basic guidelines for collaboration or even designing the collaborative effort to demonstrate how they can meaningfully co-construct knowledge in a group setting while also gaining experience in collaboration.
References
[1] R. Donato, “Collective Scaffolding in Second Language Learning,”
in Vygotskian approaches to second language research, J. P.
Lantolf and G. Appel, Eds. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Pub, 1994, pp. 33–56.
[2] L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. London, England: Harvard University Press, 1978.
[3] N. Storch, “Collaborative writing : Product , process , and students ’ reflections,” J. Second Lang. Writ., vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
153–173, 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002.
[4] N. Storch, “Collaborative Writing,” in The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1st ed., John I. Liontas, Ed. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 2018.
[5] M. Khatib and H. Meihami, “Languaging and Writing Skill: The Effect of Collaborative Writing on EFL Students’ Writing Performance,” Adv. Lang. Lit. Stud., 2015, doi:
10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.1p.203.
[6] A. Shehadeh, “Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2,” J. Second Lang. Writ., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 286–305, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.010.
[7] N. Storch, “Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions,” Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist., vol.
31, pp. 275–288, 2011, doi: 10.1017/S0267190511000079.
[8] Y. Watanabe, “Collaborative and Independent Writing: Japanese
University English Learners’ Processes, Texts and Opinions,”
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto, 2014.
[9] M. R. Lassiter, “Collaborative and Genre-Based Writing in the L2 Writing Classroom,” 2014.
[10] M. Swain and Y. Watanabe, “Languaging: Collaborative Dialogue as a Source of Second Language Learning,” The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2012, doi:
10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0664.
[11] Z. Amir, K. Ismail, and S. Hussin, “Blogs in language learning:
Maximizing students’ collaborative writing,” vol. 18, pp. 537–
543, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.05.079.
[12] A. F. Dabao, “Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom : Comparing group , pair , and individual work,” J. Second Lang.
Writ., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 40–58, 2012, doi:
10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002.
[13] M. Li and W. Zhu, “Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing,” Lang. Learn. Technol., 2017.
[14] M. Li and D. Kim, “One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks,” J. Second Lang. Writ., vol.
31, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.002.
[15] C. Lai, C. Lei, and Y. Liu, “The nature of collaboration and perceived learning in wiki-based collaborative writing,”
Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 80–95, 2016, doi:
10.14742/ajet.2586.
[16] Y. M. Fung, “Collaborative writing features,” RELC J., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 18–30, 2010, doi: 10.1177/0033688210362610.
[17] A. Mirzaei and Z. R. Eslami, “ZPD-activated languaging and collaborative L2 writing,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 35, no. 1, 2015, doi:
10.1080/01443410.2013.814198.
[18] A. Susanti, U. Widiati, and B. Y. Cahyono, “The effect of proficiency pairings on EFL students’ writing ability in genre-based approach context,” Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 245–
251, 2020, doi: 10.11591/ijere.v9i1.20439.
[19] M. Zhang, “Collaborative writing in the EFL classroom: The effects of L1 and L2 use,” System, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.system.2018.04.009.
[20] Z. Aydın and S. Yildiz, “Use of wikis to promote collaborative EFL writing,” Lang. Learn. Technol., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 160–180, 2014, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10125/44359.
[21] D. Bikowski and R. Vithange, “Effects of web-based collaborative writing on individual L2 writing development,” Lang. Learn.
Technol., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 79–99, 2016, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10125/44447.
[22] Z. I. Abrams, “Collaborative writing and text quality in Google Docs,” Lang. Learn. Technol., vol. 23, no. 2, 2019.
[23] I. Challob, N. A. Bakar, and H. Latif, “Collaborative Blended Learning Writing Environment : Effects on EFL Students ’ Writing Apprehension and Writing Performance,” vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 229–
241, 2016, doi: 10.5539/elt.v9n6p229.
[24] C. Brodahl and N. K. Hansen, “Education Students’ Use of Collaborative Writing Tools in Collectively Reflective Essay Papers.,” J. Inf. Technol. Educ., vol. 13, pp. 91–120, 2014, [Online].
Available:
http://ezproxy.georgetowncollege.edu:2048/login?URL=http:/
/search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=1 12355395.
[25] J. Choi, “Online Peer Discourse in a Writing Classroom,” vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 217–231, 2014.