CHAPTER III FINDINGS FINDINGS
3.1 TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES
3.1.2 Theme 2: Managing Collaborative Writing
collaborative writing was seen by teachers as alternative activity to reduce
teachers’ burden which later it was considered as potential and promising activity to improve students’ writing skill.
Another crucial consideration used by T1 to form a group was about students’ relationship. It was expected that students felt enjoy with whom s/he worked with. T1 stated that:
‘And, I concerned much with the relationship among students indicated by students’
statement ‘It’s not okay mom because he prefers to work individually, and I don’t really comfortable working with him’ 4.9 (T1FG.2).
Instead of having level proficiency grouping, T3’s also did another way of grouping system. T3 allowed students to work with different personality. It was important because students would have different point of view from different kind of students. The way T3 formed the group was by allowing students to have self- selected group. T3 also facilitated students to have partners with similar topic of interest. It gave students space to collaborate in more comfortable situation.
‘I swop the group, Ss can learn how to interact with various person with different personality and gender’ 4.25 (T3FG.2). ‘Various topics from them was my effective way to group them’ 4.2 (T3FG.4). ‘In task 1, cause and effect writing, students choose partner by themselves’ 4.10 (T3FGr.3)
3.1.2.2 Checking Member Involvement
When collaborative writing was done, there was conflicting situation faced by teachers. Member involvement was very difficult to check. Ideally, all
members should actively participate during the collaboration, but, it sometime was hard to find. The issue of dominant and non-dominat students, and passive and active students challenged teachers to ensure fair distribution of
responsibility. Based on the narratives, some strategies of checking member involement were employed by T1, T2, and T3.
It was found that T1 met the students to check how they work collaboratively especially when there was a sign from a student to see T1
personally. Then, T1 tried to understand the situation by asking relieving question.
It was the time to speak from heart to heart to find solution whether the student switch the partner or let him/her work alone. Instead of having face-to-face meeting, T1 also used social media, What’s up Application (WA) to check the group work.
‘When it’s time one of them said “Mam, I need to see you personally’. ‘Are you still comfortable work with this person?’ 7.6 (T1Ch.1). ‘Communicating through WA group and with group leader to check any progress and problem was my way’ 7.11 (T1Ch.2).
Still in line with that way, T2 also kept contacting with secret student namely a spy. Even it sounded strange to check through this way, but when the spy can give objective information, it was helpful for teacher. T2 shared that invited one student from each group. Meet with student personally was also in line with T2’s strategy even it was done differently.
‘To monitor the collaboration (responsibility sharing), I invite them (the most responsible from one of each group) secretly to be a spy to tell honestly about the team’ 6.12
(T2Ch1).
Instead of involving ‘invisible spy’, the way to encourage students’ active involvement in group was done through being a motivator. T2 never gave up to motivate them to learn from and help others no matter the position is. T2 illustrated that they were at the same writing journey.
‘As if we are in one boat, we can’t go and arrive at the same place without any good cooperation. High achiever doesn’t mean auttomatically will get A score if they don’t give their hand to other’ 5.10-11 (T2Ch.2).
Comparing to T1 and T2 who told that kept contacting with one of members, T3’s way was similar in term of using face-to-face interaction. However, T3 invited all member to be in ‘one on one session’. The session was used to see each other involvement in every collaborative writing stages. T3 can have
comprehensively look at each member contribution in the collaboration. Until, T3 can infer different types of students from the questions they raised. As stated by T3 that:
‘They have one on one session, time to check whether they have written in accordance to their group outline. From the interaction, I can see one is dominant or passive’. ‘If dominant, s/he will confirm any changes, difficulties, if silent will be different score. It affected the score. High usually dominate the interaction and develop question ‘Is it about the ideas mam?. Is transition ok, mam?. Low student tend to be passive and ask difficulty, general concept, the length’ 6.12-13 (T3Ch).
3.1.2.3 Designing Collaborative Writing
The selected three teaching contexts represented total collaboration which was the targeted area of this study. In total collaboration, teachers assigned the students to write the whole draft together both in pairs or small group starting from planning to writing the final draft. Based on the narratives, it was found that the three teachers narrated that they employed total collaboration at the beginning of the semester, then, the last half semester, students individually write the
composition.
With total collaboration pattern, teachers totally collided to the nature of solitary in writing at first, but, they still valued that writing was based on individual performance by positioning individual as the final highest part of the process. However, to the mainstream writing class, it was risky decision as teachers faced double burdens. They should think about placing the right student
to the right group, think about how to ensure the workload distribution, think about solution for group conflict. The narratives demostrated how T1, T2, and T3 used similar model of collaborative writing. It was found that thoses three
teachers used similar pattern in applying collaborative writing.
‘I divided my students into some groups consisting 3 students. I asked them to write a long academic essay. They worked collaboratively from outlining, drafting, writing, editing process’ 4.3 (T1Ds.1).
‘In Writing III, I did CW before middle test. Total collaboration was to make students feel the process of writing’ 4.2 (T2Ds.1).
‘Outlining, conferencing, drafting, peer assessment, revising and publishing. Students write together in pairs for middle test project, then individual writing for final project’
4.33 (T3Ds.1).
What teachers expected toward the collaboration was different from what students did. Ideally, students write together for all writing processes. But, they took the easiest way to finish the writing by dividing each part. This was just like untold commitment runned by group. It was totally similar to T2’ narrative. T3 faced similar situation. Teachers’ narratives revealed that
‘In fact, most of the students divided the essay into three parts and wrote their part individually...the result of the essay was not as good as I expected’ 4.4 (T1Ds.2).
‘In fact, it did not work as my pan. Some groups were working individually. The member did some part of paragraphs, while the rest of paragraphs were done by other members’
5.3 (T2Ds.2).
‘They feel that they can cut the job by dividing, there is significant different not solid, not compitible in introduction and body paragraphs’ 5.4 (T3Ds.2).
With that pattern, teachers sometimes easily recognized the quality of the part which was written by high and low students. And, ironically, students commonly just put them all together into the full essay format without any effort to harmonize the parts. When the three teachers faced this situation, of course they cannot treat the score differently because they were in a team. This became one of
challenges in applying collaborative writing. Therefore, teachers’ stories in assessing collaborative is fruitful experience to relocate.
T2 and T3 clearly told their way in assessing students’ works. T2 placed teamwork as one of criteria to decide students’ writing final score. T3 also had strict rule about this:
‘I did not hve any special rubric to assess. Because, collaborative writing helped them only in the initial process of the essay. So, I didn’t assess the group work’ 7.12 (T1As).
‘I applied assessment for this by giving 5% for total score, and all members were given the same score’ 6.11 (T2As).
‘To assess, I use individual portfolio, 30% process assessment. They must show me the copy by attaching collaborative outline indicating that they came and involved in group discussion’ 4.6 (T3As).