INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the research
As an English teacher, I recognized the critical role of writing skills in learning a foreign language, yet my 6th and 7th grade students at an English center struggled with producing coherent texts Many faced challenges with grammar, spelling, verb tense, word choice, and supporting ideas, while also feeling bored and unmotivated during writing lessons This prompted me to conduct an action research study aimed at addressing these issues I explored literature on effective strategies for improving student writing and motivation, finding valuable insights in studies by Storch (1999, 2013) and Swain (2000), which highlighted the benefits of collaborative writing Consequently, I developed an action plan to implement collaborative writing as a means to enhance the writing skills of my secondary school students.
Aims and objectives of the research
The study investigated the effectiveness of a collaborative writing approach in improving the writing skills of secondary school students at an English center, as well as its impact on student engagement during writing lessons The research focused on two specific objectives related to these aims.
(1) To investigate the impacts of using collaborative writing on the improvement of writing skills of the secondary school students at an English center
(2) To examine whether students are more motivated and actively engaged in collaboration with their peers
Scope of the research
This study only focused on the implementation of collaborative writing approach in writing lessons to 6 th and 7 th grade students
Participation in this study includes the learners who were studying at an English center and had learnt English for three years there.
Research questions
In an attempt to achieve the aims and objectives of the study, the following research questions were addressed:
(1) To what extent does the use of collaborative writing affect secondary school students’ writing skills?
(2) To what extent are students motivated and engaged in collaboration with their peers?
Significance of the study
This study holds considerable significance both theoretically and practically, as it aims to enhance the understanding of how collaborative writing influences writing instruction for secondary school students and fosters their engagement in collaborative efforts with peers.
This study offers valuable insights for both English teachers and students, serving as a reference to enhance writing instruction and boost student motivation By implementing the findings, secondary school students can increase their confidence and enthusiasm, leading to more active participation in writing classes.
Methodology
This study employed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative techniques across two cycles In the first cycle, data was gathered through students' essay writings, survey questionnaires, and classroom observations Two sets of essays were analyzed to assess changes in student performance, while qualitative analysis of the survey responses provided insights into students' experiences following the collaborative writing lesson.
In this study, we explored three attitudes towards the implementation of writing lessons by conducting two observations before and after the intervention to assess changes in students' attitudes During cycle 2, data was collected through students' writings and classroom observations The analysis of students' writings was performed both quantitatively and qualitatively, similar to cycle 1 Additionally, a classroom observation was carried out to document students' collaboration and behaviors during the writing lesson.
Organisation of the thesis
The thesis report consists of five chapters as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction: presents the rationale, the aims and objectives, the scope, the research questions, the significance, the methodology and the structure of the study
Chapter 2: Literature Review: provides the definition of major related concepts and reviews the related works that compose the theoretical background of the study
Chapter 3: Research Methodology: gives a detailed description of action research design, the setting, participants, data collection instruments and procedure of the study
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Findings: describes the analysis of data in detail and giving the summary of the findings as well as a thorough discussion of the findings of the study Some explanations and interpretations of the findings are also presented in this chapter
Chapter 5: Conclusion: summarizes the whole research, gives some teaching implications, and discusses the limitations of the study as well as suggestions for further research
LITERATURE REVIEW
Collaborative writing in ESL classrooms
Collaborative writing is defined as the co-authoring of a text by two or more writers, emphasizing the shared responsibility and contribution of each member throughout the planning, designing, and writing stages (Storch, 2013; Oliu et al., 2007) However, assessing the equality of contributions solely by analyzing the final text can be challenging; therefore, it is essential to observe the writing process or record it to accurately evaluate each writer's input.
Ede and Lunsford (1990) present a unique perspective on collaborative writing, identifying three key characteristics: first, the importance of substantive interaction throughout the entire writing process; second, the collective sharing of decision-making among participants.
Collaborative writing involves the collective effort of group members to create a single, coherent text, emphasizing purposeful interaction throughout the writing process Each participant shares the responsibility for planning, generating, and discussing ideas, making it both a cooperative endeavor and a distinctive final product.
Collaborative writing is a complex concept that varies in definition among researchers and practitioners based on their individual experiences and interests In this thesis, collaborative writing is defined as a teaching and learning process where students work in pairs or groups to create a single written text Throughout this process, they engage in brainstorming, discussing, generating, and deliberating ideas collectively The final written product reflects the shared responsibility of the entire group at every stage of writing.
2.1.2 Implementing collaborative writing in EFL classrooms
Effective collaboration in teaching and learning writing can be achieved through various methods tailored to specific teaching objectives and writing tasks In my thesis, I emphasize the importance of student collaboration throughout all stages of the writing process, from pre-writing to post-writing Widodo (2013) offers valuable activities for educators to incorporate at each stage, which I have found to be particularly relevant for my research.
Teachers often facilitate group formation by either organizing students into groups themselves or allowing students to choose their own Once the writing topic is introduced, students collaborate to brainstorm ideas, engage in discussions, and organize their thoughts to create a structured outline.
In this collaborative stage, students work together to create a handwritten draft, ultimately producing a single cohesive writing piece They have the freedom to express their thoughts in various ways, including sharing ideas in their native language.
Through collaboration, students share their ideas and language, including vocabulary and grammar, either by translating them into English or expressing them directly in English (Widodo, 2013).
When the draft is completed, students are expected to give peer feedback They together read out the writing text and give comments for their writing’s improvements
Students refine their drafts by editing and revising to create a polished final product They focus on correcting grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics while preserving the original ideas before submitting their completed writings to teachers (Widodo, 2013).
After students submit their writings, teachers must evaluate their work using either holistic scoring or analytic marking Holistic scoring provides an overall rating without detailing specific criteria, while analytic marking assesses individual elements of writing, including content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics.
In summary, collaboration plays a crucial role throughout the writing process, as students work together to brainstorm ideas, draft their compositions, provide peer feedback, and engage in editing and revision Finally, their writings are evaluated either holistically or analytically, based on the teacher's preference.
2.1.3 Benefits of collaborative writing in teaching writing
Collaborative writing impacts positively for both students and teachers First and foremost, teaching writing collaboratively motivates students as students may authentically experience and appreciate its communicative purposes (Hidi & Boscolo,
In 2006, it was highlighted that well-structured collaborative writing activities can significantly enhance students' writing quality by fostering peer learning (Graham & Perrin, 2007a, 2007b) Additionally, these activities promote cooperation and inclusiveness among students as they engage in a diverse collaborative writing community.
Understanding the needs and cultural backgrounds of individuals is essential for fostering creativity in group settings (Ball, 2006; Pressley et al., 2007) Engaging in group brainstorming sessions, as proposed by Osborn (1963), can significantly enhance collective creativity This exchange of ideas not only stimulates students' prior knowledge but also encourages the generation of more innovative and engaging concepts.
Collaborative writing benefits both teachers and students by reducing teachers' workloads, as group writing results in fewer individual submissions, allowing for more detailed feedback (Boughey, 1997) Students also receive immediate peer feedback from their group members (Hedge, 1998; Seong, 2006), fostering a collaborative learning environment This method aligns well with both process and genre-based approaches (Harmer, 2007), where multiple individuals enhance idea generation and evaluation, and work together to analyze and create genre-specific texts more effectively than individuals alone Therefore, teachers can effectively integrate collaborative writing into their instructional strategies.
In conclusion, collaborative writing is beneficial to both learners and teachers
Collaborative writing motivates students, fosters interaction, and enriches the quality of their joint writing efforts By implementing this approach, teachers can reduce their workload while providing more detailed feedback on student writings This method can be effectively integrated into writing lessons that utilize both process-oriented and genre-based strategies.
2.1.4 Drawbacks of collaborative writing in teaching writing
Teaching writing in ESL classrooms
Writing is defined by various researchers in language teaching and learning, with Byrne (1988, p 1) describing it as "the act of forming graphic symbols," which includes letters and their combinations Essentially, any action that leads to the creation of letters, regardless of whether they convey meaning, qualifies as writing.
Lannon (1989) presents a contrasting perspective on writing, defining it as a process of transforming research findings, inspiration, and experiences into a coherent message He emphasizes that writing involves "deliberate decision" making, where writers aim to convey material meaningfully.
According to Tribble (1996), writing is defined as a language skill that encompasses more than merely representing speech graphically; it involves the structured development and presentation of thoughts This means that writing requires writers to not only articulate their ideas but also to organize and refine them effectively.
13 organize and present their thoughts
Writing is defined as both a physical and mental act, requiring writers to commit ideas while simultaneously inventing and organizing their expressions (Sokolik, 2003, as cited in Nunan, 2015) Its primary aim is to express thoughts and emotions effectively, while also impressing readers Additionally, writing encompasses both a process and a product, involving stages such as idea generation, organization, drafting, editing, and rewriting to produce various written forms like paragraphs, essays, or reports.
According to Sokolik (2003), writing encompasses more than just word formation; it involves the presentation of meaningful messages and the structured development of thoughts This definition, supported by Byrne (1988), Lannon (1989), and Tribble (1996), highlights writing as a comprehensive process that includes generating ideas, organizing content, and revising I find Sokolik's definition to be the most complete and relevant for my research, as it clarifies the nature of writing and outlines the essential components of the writing process that I can effectively apply in my work.
Effective writing must adhere to specific criteria, as outlined by Heaton (1974), who categorized these into four essential groups: grammatical skills, stylistic skills, mechanical skills, and judgment skills Grammatical skills involve crafting correct sentences, while stylistic skills focus on the effective manipulation of language Mechanical skills pertain to the accurate use of punctuation and spelling, and judgment skills encompass the ability to purposefully select and organize relevant information to engage the target audience.
According to Hyland (2003), effective writing is characterized by three essential criteria: accuracy and clarity of exposition, meaningful communicative content, and a balance of syntactic complexity with grammatical correctness Good writing should provide precise explanations, convey relevant information, and demonstrate a command of complex sentence structures while maintaining grammatical accuracy.
Different researchers hold varying opinions on what constitutes good writing In my view, effective writing includes relevant content, strong organization, complex and accurate grammar, suitable vocabulary, and is free of mechanical errors.
The study examines three distinct writing approaches: product-based, process-based, and genre-based Each approach is analyzed for its advantages and disadvantages, followed by my personal insights on the effectiveness of these writing methodologies.
The product-based approach to writing, also known as the controlled-to-free approach, emphasizes grammar and syntax in second language writing, focusing on the final outcome (Raimes, 1983; Silva, 1990) This method prioritizes form, requiring corrections of errors rather than acceptance (Tribble, 1996) Key activities include sentence combining, model paragraphs, and rhetorical pattern practices, catering to learners at various levels The approach consists of four stages (Steele, 2002): Stage 1 involves reading and analyzing model texts for structure and language; Stage 2 focuses on controlled practice of these features; Stage 3 encourages organizing ideas with less mechanical precision; and Stage 4 allows students to select writing tasks and appropriate structures to produce their own work, demonstrating fluency and competency in language use.
The guided composition approach offers significant benefits, including time and labor efficiency It enables learners to systematically and carefully produce English compositions, while also helping them to properly and accurately utilize vocabulary and grammatical structures.
15 each writing genre Consequently, learners raise their writing competence with fewer grammatical mistakes in their writing
While product-based writing has its advantages, it also presents several disadvantages Writers often focus excessively on vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics, neglecting the audience and the purpose of their writing This approach can lead to student disengagement and stress, as teachers prioritize language accuracy over fluency Additionally, it fails to provide students with opportunities to learn from their mistakes and enhance their writing skills.
The process-based writing approach emphasizes exploration of meaning and ideas over grammatical accuracy, contrasting with product-based methods (O’Brien, 2004) This approach focuses on the writing process itself to develop a complete product rather than solely on the final result According to Nunan (1991), effective writing involves drafting, reflecting, correcting, and rewriting to enhance the quality of the work Teachers can implement a four-step writing process—prewriting, composing/drafting, revising, and editing—as outlined by Badge and Write (2000) to guide learners in articulating their thoughts In the prewriting stage, students engage in activities like brainstorming and clustering to gather relevant vocabulary and grammar, without emphasizing error correction During composing, they create their initial draft using this vocabulary After receiving feedback, students revise their drafts by making necessary changes, and in the final editing stage, they focus on correcting mechanical errors in their second version.
This writing approach brings about both benefits and limitations Regarding the benefits, process-based approaches may improve learners’ writing skills thanks
Step-by-step instructions allow students more time to explore ideas, enhancing their ability to convey meaning effectively This method not only motivates students in their writing but also encourages them to communicate their thoughts, emotions, and experiences (Stanley, 2007).
While the process writing approach offers numerous benefits, it also has notable limitations Primarily, it can be time-consuming, as students often dedicate excessive time to refining a single piece of writing Additionally, the focus on ideas and organization may lead to confusion, as it sometimes overlooks essential aspects such as language and register Furthermore, the process approach tends to undervalue the importance of various writing text types and the specific purposes behind composing different texts, which can hinder students' overall writing development.
“insufficient input”, especially about “linguistic knowledge” (Badger & Write,
Summary
This chapter has established the theoretical and conceptual framework for the study by reviewing relevant literature on collaborative writing in ESL classrooms It defines collaborative writing as the sharing of writers or co-writers and explores its implementation in educational settings Additionally, the chapter discusses the advantages and disadvantages of collaborative writing in teaching writing, while also examining learners' perspectives and insights from numerous previous studies.
18 about collaborative writing in and out of Vietnam
This section delves into the definition of writing as the expression of words and ideas, highlighting the unique characteristics of written language Additionally, it examines four key principles of teaching writing, which encompass various approaches such as product, process, genre-based, and integrated writing methodologies.
This action research explores the use of collaborative writing as a method to improve writing skills among secondary school students, with findings presented in the subsequent chapter.
METHODOLOGY
Research context
The 6th and 7th grade students in class 11A utilize the textbook Unlock Level 3, published by Cambridge University Press, which includes the Unlock Level 3 Reading and Writing Skills material specifically chosen for its appropriateness for B1 level learners Additionally, the academic team recommends the Preliminary English Test books from Cambridge ESOL Examinations as valuable resources for teachers, providing relevant writing tasks tailored for B1 level students.
The participants involved in this thesis study were my colleague, me-the teacher and nine students
The first participant was my colleague at an English center She observed the two lessons in which I implemented collaborative writing in two cycles
As a teacher and researcher at an English center, I focused on enhancing writing skills among secondary school students This study aimed to improve my writing lessons through an action plan that emphasized collaborative writing I was responsible for collecting and analyzing data, observing classroom dynamics, and evaluating students' written work.
The study involved nine students from a single class at the English center, comprising three boys and six girls While their speaking and listening skills were proficient at the B1 level, their writing skills required enhancement, particularly in constructing grammatically correct sentences, addressing spelling errors, improving verb tense usage, refining word choice, and developing supporting ideas.
Research design
The study was conducted as individual action research because this research
In my classroom, I have identified 20 effective methods aimed at enhancing students' understanding and writing skills This research design aligns perfectly with my goal of exploring the unique characteristics of my classroom environment and addressing specific educational challenges related to writing Consequently, individual action research emerges as the ideal methodology to fulfill my research objectives and improve student outcomes.
Various action research models have been proposed by scholars such as Lewin (1952), Wells (1994), Calhoun (1994) as cited in Mills (2003), Sagor (2011), and Stringer (2014) Among these, I have selected the four-step action research model developed by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) for my study.
Figure 1: Action research cycles by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988)
The initial phase of the research process involves careful planning, where the researcher identifies specific classroom challenges and devises strategies to address them As actions are implemented, the researcher simultaneously observes the teaching and learning dynamics to evaluate the impact of these interventions This stage also includes the collection of relevant information regarding the effectiveness of the actions taken Ultimately, the process concludes with reflection, allowing the researcher to assess and contemplate the outcomes of her efforts.
To make the model more appropriate for my research, I adapted it concluding in four steps in each cycle, including planning, acting, observing and reflection
During the planning phase, I performed classroom observations and analyzed individual writing samples to pinpoint issues I then researched various professional articles and journals online and consulted with a colleague to discuss writing skill challenges and identify effective solutions To enhance secondary school students' writing skills and boost their motivation during writing lessons, I decided to implement collaborative writing in my classroom.
To address the challenges faced by students in their English writing lessons, I opted for a collaborative writing approach aimed at enhancing their participation in class activities This intervention was executed over two cycles, each consisting of one lesson, leading to increased student engagement and improved writing skills The goal of this initiative is to not only elevate my students' writing abilities but also to motivate them to embrace the writing process more enthusiastically.
During my classroom observation, I aimed to identify students' challenges in developing writing skills and to analyze their attitudes and behaviors during writing lessons I meticulously took notes on these aspects while observing the students Additionally, I focused on two cycles of collaborative writing to assess any changes in students' attitudes and behaviors towards writing over time.
In the reflection phase, I gave detailed description of the application of the
In this study, I examined 22 actions to assess the effectiveness of collaborative writing in the teaching-learning process I compared individual and collaborative writings through quantitative and qualitative analyses, focusing on differences in accuracy, fluency, complexity, and lexical use Additionally, I transcribed and analyzed students' responses from survey questionnaires and observational data to gain deeper insights into their experiences.
The research was conducted over seven weeks in October and November 2019, utilizing the action research cycles proposed by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) Two cycles were implemented to address initial problems and additional issues that emerged after the first lesson, specifically concerning students' social relations and collaborative skills Data collection spanned the entire duration of the study, and detailed procedures are outlined in Table 1.
Cycle 1 Week 1 Students were administered the individual writings The writing topic was: Write individually (at least 150 words) in 40 minutes about the following topic “Families are not so close as they used to be in the past Do you agree or disagree?”
Week 2 Students and the observer were trained about collaborative writing and how to implement collaborative writing in writing class
Week 3 Students were required to apply collaborative writing in their writing process in one lesson The writing task was:
“Write collaboratively (at least 150 words) in 40 minutes about the following topic “Do you prefer life in the
23 countryside to life in the city? Explain the reasons”
During the lesson, the observer took observational notes Students were required to fill in survey questionnaires after intervention
In Week 4, I analyzed the data and prepared for Cycle 2 During Week 5, students and the observer received training on social collaborative skills and the brainstorming process for group work In Week 6, students engaged in collaborative writing, tasked with composing at least 150 words within 40 minutes on the topic, "Should wearing uniforms be compulsory in schools? Do you agree or disagree? Explain your reasons."
During their writing process, I used mobile phones to record students’ discussions and talks and analyzed
The observer took observational notes
Week 7 I transcribed and analyzed the data then reflected.
Data collection instruments
This study utilized an action research methodology, employing diverse data collection tools such as students' writings, survey questionnaires, and classroom observations across two cycles By integrating these instruments, the research aimed to deliver a thorough analysis of students' writing proficiency and their motivation and engagement levels before and after the intervention The subsequent section will elaborate on each data collection tool utilized in this study.
The study analyzed two types of student writings: individual essays and collaborative essay texts Individual writings, detailed in Appendix 1, were created at the study's outset to assess initial writing skills.
The study focused on 24 students' writing skills, specifically analyzing their individual essay writings During the collaborative writing lessons, students engaged in two cycles of group writing activities, resulting in two sets of collaborative texts This approach allowed for a comprehensive evaluation of their writing abilities through practical try-outs.
The analysis of essay writings will be conducted through both quantitative and qualitative methods to address the research question regarding the impacts of collaborative writing Quantitatively, descriptive statistics, including means, will be utilized to examine differences in writing fluency, accuracy, complexity, and the number of ideas generated Qualitatively, the comparison will focus on the quality of ideas, task achievement, coherence, and cohesion in both collaborative and individual writing samples.
I chose survey questionnaires for my study due to their ability to provide both quantitative and qualitative data Additionally, this method allows all nine informants to express their attitudes effectively.
The study utilized a questionnaire (see Appendix 4) featuring six questions aimed at addressing the second research question The initial question assessed students' self-evaluation of the impact of collaborative writing on their writing lessons, while questions two through six focused on students' attitudes and behaviors during and after the implementation of writing lessons Administered post-try-out lessons, the questionnaire aimed to capture changes observed after each cycle It was provided in both Vietnamese and English, allowing students to respond in either language, with encouragement to elaborate on their answers The researcher was present to assist with any questions or requests for clarification, and students typically took 10-15 minutes to complete the survey.
Observation provided me direct data of writing lessons There were different
I chose classroom observation for my study due to its systematic approach to capturing language use and classroom events This method effectively gathers data through specific observational tasks within the classroom environment Additionally, the data collected reflects the genuine activities occurring in the observed classrooms Seeking feedback from a colleague further enhanced the objectivity of my research findings.
In my research, I conducted three classroom observations, starting with my own to pinpoint issues in my writing lesson During this observation, I focused on students' behaviors and attitudes, evaluating key criteria such as attention, cooperation, participation, and emotional responses.
(1) Did the students fully attend in the lesson?
(2) Did the students follow the instructions and rules?
(3) Did students actively engage in the lesson or passively wait and sit?
During the lesson, students exhibited unexcited facial expressions and actions, such as yawning, tired faces, confusion, and sadness Additionally, my colleague conducted two observations to assess group work division, collaboration among students, and their behaviors, addressing four specific questions related to these aspects.
(1) How did the students divide group work (equally or unequally)?
(2) What did each member do in each group?
(3) How did the students collaborate?
- How active did all group members discuss?
- To what extent were the members on-task and off-task (gossip, chatting, laughing, quarreling)
(4) How did each member behave during collaboration? (friendly,
26 motivated, comfortable, any social problems arisen?)
The observation results aimed to answer the second research question about students’ engagement in writing lessons All the questions were written in English
My colleague might answer in either English or Vietnamese.
Data analysis
For the first question, students’ pretest writings and group writings were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively
In this study, I employed quantitative measures proposed by Wolfe-Quintero (1998) to analyze individual and collaborative writings across two cycles, focusing on fluency, accuracy, and complexity The analysis involved a thorough examination of students’ essays, where I assessed errors, T-units, clauses, error-free T-units, and error-free clauses, alongside the total word count and word types using VocabProfilers (http://www/lextutor.ca/) To identify T-units and clauses, I followed the guidelines from Polio’s (1997) research My evaluation included counting sentences, clauses, T-units, errors, error-free T-units, and error-free clauses to measure the changes effectively.
Fluency in writing was assessed by calculating the mean length of T-units and clauses, while accuracy was determined by the percentage of error-free T-units and the number of errors per T-unit Additionally, complexity was evaluated through the percentage of clauses per T-unit for grammatical complexity and the type-token ratio for lexical complexity A T-unit, defined as one main clause along with any subordinate clauses, has been utilized in prior research on writing, establishing its effectiveness in tracking changes in fluency, accuracy, and complexity across various writing samples.
Errors were marked using the error categories suggested by Ferris and Roberts
(2001) and Ma (2006) Ferris and Roberts (2001) categorized errors into five components including verb errors, noun ending errors, article errors, wrong words
In a study analyzing sentence structure errors, I identified 27 distinct errors based on the classifications provided by Ma (2006), who focused on three specific error types To enhance this analysis, I adapted five error categories from Ferris and Roberts (2001) and incorporated examples from Ma's research The process involved initially identifying the errors and subsequently counting their occurrences.
In short, the following quantitative measures were applied in this study to analyze students’ writings
• average number of words per text
• average number of word types per text
• average number of sentences per text
• average number of clauses per text
• average number of T-units per text
• number of words per T-units (W/T)
• number of words per clauses (W/C)
• average number of error-free T-units (EFT)
• error-free T-units per T-units (EFT/T)
• error-free clauses per clauses (EFC/C)
To analyze linguistic complexity, descriptive statistics were employed to calculate various metrics, including the average number of words, word types, sentences, clauses, T-units, and ratios such as W/T, W/C, errors, EFT, EFT/T, EFC/C, C/T, and WT/√2W, utilizing Microsoft Excel software.
In this study, I analyzed the number of ideas, including both main and supporting concepts, in collaborative versus individual writings I quantified the distinct ideas present in each type of writing and computed their averages Additionally, I utilized Text Inspectors to assist in my analysis.
28 percentage of word level in each writing
For qualitative measures, I compared the changes in task achievement, coherence and cohesion using IELTS writing marking scheme for task 2
To address students' engagement and behaviors, I conducted a thorough analysis of survey questionnaires and classroom observations The survey included six questions, with the first question quantitatively assessing students' views on the effectiveness of collaborative writing in enhancing their writing skills The subsequent questions were analyzed qualitatively to explore students' attitudes and behaviors towards collaborative writing I organized the findings into three main sections: the effectiveness of collaborative writing in writing lessons, the impacts on writing skills, and suggestions for improvement The results were presented in tables, categorizing students' perceptions into positive and negative responses, ultimately providing insights into their experiences with collaborative writing.
About classroom observations, I transcribed and translated into English The results of all three instruments were compared to answer question two
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Data analysis and findings
A study comparing individual and collaborative writing revealed that collaborative texts, while shorter in length, demonstrated distinct advantages in writing fluency Both quantitative and qualitative analyses highlighted the effectiveness of collaborative writing, suggesting it may enhance the overall writing process.
A comparison of writing fluency between collaborative and individual efforts reveals that groups produced a higher average number of word types per text, with 118.17 compared to 111.00 for individuals However, collaborative writings showed a slightly lower average in the total number of words, sentences, clauses, and T-units.
The study found that texts created collaboratively averaged fewer words, sentences, and clauses per text, with groups producing 240.67 words, 16.17 sentences, and 27.67 clauses, compared to individual learners who produced 241.11 words, 16.67 sentences, and 30.22 clauses Additionally, collaborative texts contained an average of 18.50 T-units per text, while individual texts had an average of 21.22 T-units Overall, the differences between collaborative and individual writing were minimal.
Research by Wolfe-Qintero et al (1998) indicates that T-unit length (W/T) and clause length (W/C) increase linearly with proficiency level, with T-unit lengths ranging from 6.0 to 23.0 words and clause lengths from 5.20 to 10.83 words across different writing levels In comparison, both collaborative and individual writings produced longer average T-unit lengths, with collaborative writings averaging 13.22 words per T-unit versus 11.43 for individual writings Additionally, the clause lengths were also longer in collaborative writings, averaging 8.71 words per clause compared to 8.02 words per clause in individual writings While collaborative essays exhibited longer T-units and clauses than individual writings, the differences between the two were minimal.
Collaborative writings demonstrated greater accuracy compared to individual writings, as evidenced by the results summarized in Table 3 The analysis revealed that collaboratively produced texts had fewer errors, averaging 6.67 errors per text, in contrast to 15.44 errors in individual writings Additionally, collaborative essays featured more error-free T-units (average 15.67 per text) and error-free clauses (average 23.17 per text) than their individual counterparts, which averaged 15.56 EFT and 19.22 EFC, respectively These findings indicate that collaborative writing not only reduces errors but also enhances the overall quality of the text.
Mean numbers Errors EFT EFC E/T EFT/T EFC/C
Research by Wolfe-Quintero et al (1998) indicates that error rates per T-unit (E/T) can vary significantly, ranging from 0.035 for advanced learners to 1.51 for students who did not pass a writing test In this context, both collaborative and individual writing displayed lower error rates, with collaborative writing averaging 0.36 E/T, which is notably less than the 0.72 E/T found in individual writing This suggests that collaboratively produced texts exhibit greater accuracy Additionally, the error rates for EFT/T and EFC/C in collaborative writings were slightly elevated, averaging 0.85 EFT/T and 0.84 EFC/C per text, respectively.
Collaboratively produced writing demonstrated greater accuracy than individual writings, with an average of 0.71 error-free T-units per T-unit (EFT/T) and 0.63 error-free clauses per clause (EFC/C) While there were noticeable differences in the error ratios per T-unit and the proportion of error-free clauses, the overall ratio of error-free T-units remained minimal.
The analysis of writing complexity reveals a notable increase in both grammatical and lexical complexity in collaborative writings compared to individual writings Collaborative writings averaged 1.52 clauses per T-unit, surpassing the 1.44 average of individual writings, indicating slightly greater grammatical complexity Additionally, the type-token ratio for collaborative writings was 5.38, compared to 5.04 for individual writings, suggesting higher lexical complexity in collaborative efforts However, it is important to note that the differences in both grammatical and lexical complexity were minimal.
Mean numbers Clauses T- units C/T Word types Words WT/√2W Collaborative writings
Collaborative writings demonstrate a higher quantity of main and supporting ideas compared to individual writings Specifically, collaborative writings average 2.0 main ideas and 8.67 supporting ideas, while individual writings average 1.78 main ideas and 5.11 supporting ideas Although the difference in main ideas is slight, the disparity in supporting ideas is significant, highlighting the advantages of collaborative writing in generating more comprehensive content.
Figure 2: Comparison of quantity of ideas
Collaborative writings not only featured a greater number of main and supporting ideas but also articulated these main ideas more clearly than individual writings Readers reported that identifying the main ideas was easier in collaborative pieces, whereas, in individual writings, only eight out of nine effectively presented their main ideas, with one falling short For instance, the first set of opinion essays comparing life in the countryside and the city showcased clear main ideas, a contrast to the difficulty in locating them within individual writings.
Living in the countryside and the city both offer unique advantages and disadvantages City life provides benefits such as access to amenities and job opportunities, but it also comes with challenges like noise and pollution Conversely, rural living boasts tranquility and natural beauty, yet it can lack essential services and social activities Understanding these pros and cons is essential for making informed lifestyle choices.
First, living in the city has some the advantages […] Second is the disadvantages of living in the city (Group 3)
They always do something strangely or some common activities like staying at home and surf the Facebook… They always make themselves in the technology life (Mai)
In the group writings, topic sentences were strategically positioned at the beginning of each paragraph, utilizing various sequence connectors like "first" and "second," as well as contrast connectors such as "however" to effectively convey their main ideas Conversely, in the individual writings, readers struggled to pinpoint the main idea of the paragraphs, relying on key words to infer that technology has contributed to a decline in familial closeness compared to the past.
Collaborative writings demonstrated a richer vocabulary, featuring a higher proportion of advanced words compared to individual writings A summary of the average percentage of word levels indicates that both types of writing encompassed a diverse vocabulary range from A1 to C2 levels Specifically, two out of nine individual writings included five levels of vocabulary, while seven contained four levels In contrast, among the six collaborative writings, one showcased five levels, two had five levels, and three included four different word levels.
Table 5: Comparison of word levels
Collaborative writings demonstrated a higher proportion of advanced vocabulary compared to individual writings, with an average of 73.39% high-level words versus 78.17% low-level words in individual texts Notably, collaborative writings featured a greater percentage of words at A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2 levels, with significant differences observed at A2 and B1 levels, while variations at B2, C1, and C2 levels were minimal.
Collaborative writings exhibited a greater use of high-level vocabulary and formal language compared to individual writings, which frequently incorporated spoken language and contractions A comparison of formal and informal expressions from both writing styles is illustrated in Table 7.
Table 6: Comparison of formal and informal language use
Collaborative writings Individual writings had fewer contractions
Discussion
4.2.1 To what extent does the use of collaborative writing affect secondary school students’ writing skills?
A comparison of collaboratively and individually produced student essays revealed that collaborative writings, while shorter, demonstrated greater accuracy and were more grammatically and lexically complex Additionally, collaborative essays contained more ideas and exhibited better logical organization compared to those written individually.
The analysis of students' essay writings revealed that collaboratively produced texts were slightly shorter than those written individually, yet they featured a higher number of words per clause and per T-unit, indicating greater complexity at the clausal and T-unit levels This finding aligns with previous studies by Storch (2005) and Gil-Sarratea (2020), which also noted that pair-written essays were shorter than individual ones However, the differences in writing fluency were minimal, suggesting that collaborative writing has a limited impact on the writing fluency of intermediate secondary school students.
Collaborative writing produces shorter and more accurate texts compared to individual writing efforts The noticeable differences in writing accuracy suggest that collaboration enhances precision, potentially influenced by the number of participants involved Group members provide immediate feedback, allowing students to correct each other's mistakes and improve the overall quality of their collective work In contrast, individual writing lacks this collaborative support, which can lead to less accurate outcomes.
A study found that 43 students either forgot to check their writings or did so only after completion Collaborative writing led to more frequent corrections during both the writing process and afterward, likely due to the presence of peers encouraging attention to grammatical accuracy This resulted in fewer errors in collaborative writings compared to individual efforts Students reported that working together enhanced their grammar and writing skills, aligning with previous research by Storch (2007) and McDonough and Fuentes (2015), which indicated that pair-produced writings were notably more accurate than those created individually.
Collaborative writings, while shorter in length, exhibited slightly greater grammatical and lexical complexity compared to individual writings; however, the differences in complexity were minimal Previous studies, such as those by Storch (2005) and Wigglesworth & Storch (2007), also found no significant differences in complexity between collaborative and individual writings This lack of observable variation may be attributed to the limited scale of the study and the brevity of the texts produced by the students.
Collaborative writing significantly enhances the quantity and quality of ideas compared to individual writing While the difference in main ideas is minimal, the increase in supporting ideas is notable In group settings, students engage in idea exchange and group brainstorming, which stimulates their prior knowledge and leads to the generation of more interesting concepts Furthermore, collaborative writing results in clearer presentation and better organization of ideas, making them more cohesive and coherent Students benefit from each other's strengths, providing support and corrections that improve the overall quality of their work Survey responses confirm that collaborative writing fosters greater idea generation than individual efforts.
In conclusion, my study demonstrated that collaborative writing significantly enhances secondary school students' writing skills, particularly in terms of fluency, accuracy, complexity, and the generation of ideas.
4.2.2 To what extent are students motivated and engaged in collaboration with their peers?
The findings from the students' survey questionnaires and classroom observations revealed that initially, one-third of the students were not in favor of collaborative writing However, after completing two cycles, there was a notable positive shift in students' attitudes towards collaborative writing.
After the initial implementation of collaborative writing, three out of nine students expressed negative attitudes due to issues related to social relationships, differing opinions, and the time required for group activities Many students reported feelings of anger, sadness, and boredom when collaborating, citing distractions, laziness, or dominance from peers as significant frustrations Disagreements over ideas led to conflicts and dissatisfaction among group members, and the collaborative process was perceived as more time-consuming than individual writing Students spent valuable time discussing, arguing, and socializing, prompting them to suggest that future collaborative writing lessons should allow for more time to facilitate discussion and negotiation Previous research supports the notion that pair writing requires more time than individual writing, highlighting the need for extended time in collaborative settings In this study, all students worked under identical classroom conditions with equal time allocated for both individual and collaborative tasks, which explains their request for increased time in future collaborative writing lessons.
Despite some students’ negative attitudes, six out of nine students reacted positively towards collaborative writing after the first cycle and all nine students
After the second cycle, 45 students reported positive attitudes towards collaborative writing due to its multifaceted benefits Firstly, group brainstorming enhanced their idea generation, making writing lessons more engaging and motivating compared to individual tasks This collaborative approach not only improved their English skills—encompassing writing, vocabulary, grammar, and speaking—but also fostered interaction among peers, thereby encouraging English conversation during discussions Additionally, students developed teamwork and social skills, although some challenges arose, such as production blocking, where one student’s input hindered another’s ability to contribute Overall, collaborative writing proved to be an effective method for enhancing both academic and social competencies among students.
In addressing the challenges of evaluation apprehension, particularly when Cúc and Minh hesitated to share their ideas due to Hồng's superior English skills, I implemented changes to the group dynamics and provided training on social skills and brainstorming techniques The training emphasized the importance of being friendly, supportive, and responsible in collaborative efforts Additionally, I encouraged students to brainstorm individually before sharing their ideas with the group, a strategy aimed at reducing production blocking and evaluation apprehension These interventions proved effective, leading to improved social skills and enhanced relationships among students in my class.