CHAPTER II RESEARCH METHOD RESEARCH METHOD
Step 2: Purposefully Select Teachers and Students
The identification process resulted that three teachers, Teacher 1 (T1), Teacher 2 (T2), and Teacher 3 (T3), were the teachers who provide rich infomation about collaborative writing. To have initial description about their collaborative writing activities, the researcher informally communicated with the teachers by addressing some questions related to what rationale they held for applying collaborative writing, what collaborative activities they employed, what challenges they had, and what pair or member selection method they used. The existing collaborative writing activities were described based on each teacher practices.
Experiencing 7 years ELT teaching, T1 spent her 3.5 years teaching EFL writing. She asked students to write 3000-word essay in group of 3. The group were formed into high-high, high-middle, and low-low based on the result of mid- term test. For low-low group, additional consultation was provided. After working in group, students were given a template which allows students to imitate the outline of the collaborative essay for developing individual essay based on their
own topic in the area of literature, linguistics and English education. Students presented the outline for teacher’s and students’ comments.
Teacher T2 applied collaborative writing in Intensive English Course (IEC) and Writing I. In IEC, students worked in group of 5 to write singel topic on ‘how to keep your healthy body’. They were asked to make wall article to build solid team work and to make them knowing each other as they are freshmen. T2 held strong point that the success of the work is the responsibility of all members no matter they are high, middle or low achievers. The activity made the students enjoyed and affected the whole class atmosphere where students did not hesitate to learn from others and teach for others. At the last session of IEC, students wrote individually equipped with peer feedback and self evaluation. In Writing I, students wrote in group of 3 from the beginning of the semester until the mid-term session, then, the rest of the semester was the time for students to write
individually.
T3 has been teaching since 2000, and starting teaching writing in 2006. She used group work of 4 students at first, but she felt that it was not effective, then pair work was regularly used in her writing class. She applied 2 different collaborative activities for different classes. For high achiever class, she used collaborative pre-writing in the form of pair work outlining before students writing their paragraphs or essays. At the beginning, students selected the partner based on their own choice. Then, T3 decided the pair based on the quality of individual writing. The pair formation was high and low achievers work
collaboratively in outlining and peer assessment. Each student kept the portfolios consisting of pair work outline, draf, peer assessment/review, and revision. For
low achiever class, T3 applied full collaborative writing activity where students work together from outlining to writing full draft.
To select students as the research participants, purposeful sampling was also applied. Students participants were selected based on their 3 semesters involvement in collaborative writing. It means that they simultanuosly joined Writing I, II, and III classes that used collaborative writing. The number of
students in each collaborative writing class (T1,T2, and T3 classes) is ranged from 20-25. From 61 students who enrolled Writing III at semester 5, there were 2 students who met the criteria. They enroll continously three semesters to writing courses which have applied collaborative writing. With these three semesters involvement, they are considered as informants who can share the richness of experiencing collaborative writing classes. The two of them were intentionally selected to understand the central phenomenon with the basis of selection is whether they are ‘information rich’ (Patton, 1990 in Creswell, 2012:206).Then, they were contacted to have further interaction.
The pilot study on students’ experiences was conducted based on the following steps. The researcher asked them to share their positive and negative comments about collaborative writing activities they experienced in the present semester (Semester 5), and the researcher also asked their aspirations if
collaborative writing will be used again in the next writing class. It was found from Student 1 (S1) that the positive aspect of collaborative writing was it improved topic familiarity, and made outlining process easier. In terms of
grammar and vocabulary, S1 felt that through writing collaboratively, he learned a lot about which accurate grammar and vocabulary to use in the composition. He
felt that coming to the decision about which ideas to write was the hardest part.
He wanted the partner should be based on students’ choice to encourage member involvement and contribution.
S2 found that his essay writing skill developed, even, at the beginning he felt uncomfortable during the discussion. He positioned himself as passive member who did not give any contribution. Experiencing half semester working
collaboratively, he felt that group work expanded his knowledge and sharpened his understanding on grammar, word choice, and logical order of the essay. He said that he was ready to write individually for the rest half semester.
Table 2.1 Participants’ Profile
Participant Gender Qualification Teaching Period Learning Period
T1 Female M.A/ TESOL 6 years
T2 Female M.A/ TESOL 6 years
T3 Female Dr/ ELT 17 years
S1 Male - - 5th semesters/ 3
semesters with CW
S2 Male - - 5th semesters/ 3
semesters with CW
The gender contrast existing in the participants’ profile was obtained through the set-up criteria to obtain the research participants. As stated at the previous part, the teachers were selected based on their writing pedagogy and intensity to apply collaborative writing. The students were selected based on their continous three semesters enrollment in Writing courses. It could be noted that the gender contrast did not cause any effects to the research.