CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION
4.1 TEACHERS’ REFLECTION
4.1.4 Viewing Now and Future Direction
At the end of teachers’ narratives, some aspirations were shared. The aspirations came up after teachers made dynamic changes in their EFL
collaborative writing class. The changes proved that no magic formula for having effective collaborative writing activities. As narrated by T1, having total
collaboration for her class did not really work well. The decision to keep continuing collaboration in drafting and editing stages was to let students have more space for working alone. It connects to the idea from Nuemann and
McDonough (2015) that collaborative writing can be placed in one writing stages to improve content and organization.
When T2 started to involve Google.doc in her collaborative writing class, it was one evidence to her engagement with online collaborative writing. In the past 20 years, computer-mediated interaction hugely increased (Storch, 2011).
Google.doc basically functions as a web-based word processor where all participants and student tutors can easily access and collaborate with others by
sharing the same document online. It allowed students to easily create, edit, and delete writing content. The use of Google.doc benefited students for meaningful peer interactions, motivation, and vocabulary gain (Lin & Yang, 2013; Liu & Lan, 2016). This way will be continued to T2’s collaborative writing class.
For future practice of collaborative writing, T3 prefers to have pairwork than groupwork. Research conducted by Dobao (2012) reveals that pairwork and groupwork basically have similar effect to the text accuracy. In term of
participation, groupwork had small chance for every individual to participate (p.
55). It became the main reason for not having groupwork. Moroever, Brown (2000:182) highlights that pairwok is more appropriate as it is short, inguistically simple, and quite controlled.
Applying collaborative writing for some years with its changes over time reflected how teachers perceive it. Teachers saw collaborative writing as
promising activity which served both instructional and nurturing effects. As found in the narratives, the instructional effects can be seen from improvements on students’ grammatical and lexical accuracy, idea generation, content, and organization (Dobao, 2012; Neumann & McDonough, 2015). It was stated that teachers viewed collaborative writing as the tool to get and to develop the idea and provide chances for discussion about language which was much easier compare to individual writing (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2012).
Teachers also valued collaborative writing as a contributor for students’ non- writing aspects referring to nurturing effects. Some behaviors such as being confident, open, more sensitive raising once students were engaged with writing
in group . It was clearly stated in the narrative that collaborative writing could be the place to learn from others by negotiation and discussion. It also sharpened students’ sense of self-improvement in writing (Mulligan & Garafalo, 2011:8).
During the groupwork, students set the same goal to finish the project. Setting the same goal trained each student to do similarly when they have to write
individually.
The challenges faced by teachers also influenced their perception. Applying non mainstream activity like collaborative writing made teachers were into trouble in monitoring the students’ involvement and grading the group essay. Having not sufficient guideline to make sure the group that works and no fixed grading system, sometimes, made teachers treated collaborative writing just ordinary supplemantary activity ignoring its potency. Therefore, teachers’ better understanding on aspects of collaborative activity in EFL writing context was urgent and a must to optimalize its benefits.
The point that could be made from the findings is that applying collaborative writing supports the prominent principles on language learning and teaching.
Teachers values group work as the way to create sustainable interaction among students. The findings imply that collaborative writing becomes teachers’ way to build both students sense of collaboration. The second point is reflecting the experiences in teaching using collaborative writing allows teachers to be reflective teachers. Astika (2014) states that by reflecting the teaching practice, teachers is close to the meaningful activity for improving their teaching quality. The
reflection becomes the medium for teacher to see the ups and downs of
experiences. Reflecting the experiences becomes a powerful tool that will greatly
influence the teachers’ beliefs and practices in collaborative writing. The
reflection would be used as the basis for teachers themselves and other teachers to working hand in hand to design effective collaborative writing activity.
Allowing the teachers to reflect their teaching practice gives them awareness on lifelong learning. Jarvis (2007) defines lifelong learning as the combination of processes throughout a lifetime whereby a whole person experiences social
situations which is then transformed cognitively, emotively or practically resulting in a continually changing. It is essential the element for teachers’ professional development. Pepka and Kristina (2005) reveal that individuals can involve successfully in such an environment only if they permanently educate themselves, if they perceptive to the changes, if they are capable of self-enhancement, if they can demonstrate active independent behaviour. Lifelong learning always links to teachers continuing professional development and should be their lifelong commitment to learning. Teachers cannot close themselves from constant changes. The lifelong learning facilitates teachers to enter social inclusion, economic competitiveness, and technological innovation (Klein & Osborne, 2007).